Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 November 14

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
< 13 November 15 November >

Purge server cache

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

The result was redirect to

(non-admin closure) jp×g 03:24, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

List of Trans-Neptunian Objects

List of Trans-Neptunian Objects (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article I created turns out to be a duplication, so AfD for reason A10. The existing article is List of trans-Neptunian objects and is much more established than my little stub. - Denimadept (talk) 11:40, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the idea. Done. - Denimadept (talk) 19:45, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to

non-admin closure) –Davey2010Talk 00:51, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

D Company, 223rd Military Intelligence Battalion

D Company, 223rd Military Intelligence Battalion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats
)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A7 Article does not meet notability guidelines.

WP:MILMOS indicates integral components of units rarely independently meet notability guidelines. Usually if notability is established, it will be included in an article on the parent unit unless the reason for notability is independent of that unit. This is particularly true when the parent, as in this case, is a support unit, not a combat unit. Lineagegeek (talk) 22:48, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 01:30, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 17:14, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. (

non-admin closure) JMHamo (talk) 00:45, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Zhao Zengyi

Zhao Zengyi (edit | 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 no available historical information available on this figure (web). The article also lists no sources as to verify the existence of this person. // Posted by larsona (Talk) // 23:04, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 08:02, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 08:02, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. KTC (talk) 01:54, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Abhilash Kumar

AfDs for this article:
Abhilash Kumar (edit | 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 page does meet most of the criteria for speedy deletion under

Ghayal Once Again. This of course requires references in in reliable sources for both this movie and this person. Shirt58 (talk) 09:00, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | Talk 22:33, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 08:01, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 08:01, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@
u}} does not always echo well, I'm here by coincidence. Sam Sailor Talk! 15:22, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep; borderline, but rough consensus to keep. Mojo Hand (talk) 01:36, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agnesa Vuthaj

Agnesa Vuthaj (edit | 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:RS The Banner talk 08:35, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Addition: created by a now blocked sockpuppeteer. The Banner talk 18:14, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as subject is the focus of ongoing coverage of her career both as a model and a fashion designer. There is extensive coverage, albeit in Albanian, with a high volume of short pieces as is also typical of English-language fashion/celebrity coverage, as well as longer pieces, like this one from a major Albanian newspaper: Gjergji, Albina (17 April 2015). "Agnesa Vuthaj, "Rrofshin armiqtë, pa ata s'do isha kjo që jam…"!". Koha Jonë (in Albanian). Retrieved 7 November 2015.. I've added this one to the article and more is clearly available to be mined. - Dravecky (talk) 10:13, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep kohajone.com looks like RS, and additional foreign language sources seems very credible. Alsee (talk) 15:33, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the article needs a lot of improvement but no deletion. She has an ongoing career. Nothing mentioned in the article is untrue or exaggerated.Klan - Issues 471-479 - Page xiv Mondiad (talk) 19:17, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:30, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:30, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | Talk 22:31, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I am thinking of removing the missolgy source if I can find a better one to add in its place. I will try to find some more good sources as well. She has notability and passes GNG.Zpeopleheart (talk) 15:35, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Not sure my !vote will make any difference but the subject at this stage fails ONEEVENT and GNG, The sources provided are pretty weak and IMHO not enough to establish notability, I'm wondering if it's a TOOSOON case aswell. –Davey2010Talk 00:54, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. KTC (talk) 01:54, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tafseer-e-Siddiqui

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

An unremarkable book, one of a myriad

WP:NBOOKS. kashmiri TALK 21:33, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 05:22, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 05:22, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | Talk 22:28, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Per

non-admin closure) —UY Scuti Talk 19:42, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Reinado Internacional del Café 2009

Reinado Internacional del Café 2009 (edit | 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 event SageGreenRider (talk) 23:30, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America1000 05:42, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America1000 05:42, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. North America1000 05:42, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 05:21, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | Talk 22:28, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep.

non-admin closure) –Davey2010Talk 00:56, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

The Jist

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

The article Natalie Sandtorv is currently in an AfD process. Even if the article manages to pass the AfD, there is definitely no need for two articles on this topic. The info contained here is largely already present in the article about Sandtorv. rayukk | talk 15:10, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Musicians or ensembles may be notable if they meet at least one of the following criteria: 1. Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself. -This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, magazine articles, online versions of print media, and television documentaries. The Jist duo meets this by far. Knuand (talk) 17:25, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 18:53, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 18:53, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 TT me 14:46, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. KTC (talk) 01:55, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Unzicker

Alexander Unzicker (edit | 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:PROF. The claim that his book makes him famous is somewhat dubious. The book was panned by a single reviewer and that seems to be the sum total of its notoriety. Not really good enough for a standalone article. jps (talk) 17:45, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 TT me 14:11, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. KTC (talk) 01:55, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Aeraco

Aeraco (edit | 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 obvious notability. All refs are trivial or peripheral. Fails

WP:GNG  Velella  Velella Talk   21:50, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America1000 17:15, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. North America1000 17:15, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep, per

WP:SNOW. It would make sense to try again in a year and see what can be left in the article and whether it should be merged in the main one.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:53, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

International reactions to the November 2015 Paris attacks

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

nor should they by Wikipedia. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:14, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

It's wrong to think that Cuba has or has had poor relations with the West. Cuba has had normal diplomatic relations with the UK, France and the rest of Europe for decades and decades. US does not = "the West". Reason for poor US relations was illegal, anti-democratic blockade condemned by every single country in world except US and Israel. Also, many of the reactions are actually from heads of govt eg Australia. PM Turnbull is not head of state. Queen is. Just some point to note AusLondonder (talk) 22:12, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I fail to understand why knowing that the prime minister of Malaysia was shocked by the attacks and condemns them helps me understand them better. If it's noteworthy that non-Western countries also express condolences, this can be summarized without mentioning exactly what every leader said.
  • Snow Keep - I'm going to be absolutely honest - I don't see any point to this article and to be honest I'd be happy to see it deleted but.... to be fair we have loads of "International reactions to X" articles and the article is adequately sourced anyway so I'll have to say Keep. –Davey2010Talk 22:18, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Then don't vote to keep just because others are! Just because something has sources doesn't mean it needs its own article.
  • Keep - I can see this being expanded with reactions of nations towards ISIS using this attack as motivation. We have also been down this road before, as others have said. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:23, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Simple listings of what people have to say serve no purpose to the reader. They are obligatory expressions of condolences that as insubstantial quotes are repetitive and unconstructive. Paragraphs summarizing general sentiments and elaborating on actual actions taken is a good way to convey messages as a whole, but it is unencylopedic to just copy and paste whatever unconnected presidents' spokespeople put out for them whenever something bad happens in the world. Reywas92Talk 22:30, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    When it comes to articles you should think of potential growth. Right now there is a move discussion on the talk-page that would change this article's name to just "Reactions to the November 2015 Paris attacks". - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:39, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • That would be nice, though it's rarely happened for previous events. If it happens with meaningful content expanded on that's great, but I want the useless listings of what every government/president says - the bulk of the page and the reason it was removed from the main article - gone. Reywas92Talk 23:40, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Okay, breaking the quotes down into prose is a cleanup issue though. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:43, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • It's the entire article; the prose at the top is also on the main. We don't want to break them down, but summarize that people shared condolences. Might as well delete and start over.
  • Keep: There doesn't seem to be any real reason to delete the article. Ceannlann gorm (talk) 22:31, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but trim. This is notable. I was going to !vote merge, but the article is too long now. epic genius (talk) 22:49, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Epicgenius: I wonder if there is a way to make the article more than just a collection of quotes, I believe there is but it would require will and discussion. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:52, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Knowledgekid87: There is a way. First, summarize the gist of all the quotes. Then, cut some quotes that you don't need, because most of them are saying the same thing. epic genius (talk) 22:57, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would be nice if we could remove quotes that are simply "condolecenses" and "we're close to the victims", but ironically, what is currently being deleted are the quotations from government members which give indication about policy, while the ones kept are the ones devoid of any real content. LjL (talk) 23:01, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That sucks. However, if it's possible, the government policy comments should be re-added. epic genius (talk) 00:21, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Now, they will hopefully stay, since the only editor adamant with their removal went over
WP:3RR on the main article. LjL (talk) 00:23, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. epic genius (talk) 22:58, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. epic genius (talk) 22:59, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, since it expresses no particular
WP:SPINOUT per policy. LjL (talk) 23:29, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
It looked to me like consensus was based on the fact that people didn't want every unrelated condolence listed - on the main article or a separate one. Reywas92Talk 23:40, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
How can they possibly be "unrelated"? They're directly about the event. And from heads of state. If anything, they can be trite and devoid of substance, but I'm not sure that's grounds to keep international reactions completely out of Wikipedia...? LjL (talk) 23:50, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The source is unrelated. The leader of Taiwan has nothing to do with the event, why do we care about his condolences? Heads of state say things every day, just because they're heads of state does not mean their words must be copied on WP. Reywas92Talk 01:46, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What POV are you referring to? If you want celebrations can be added as it was sadly, and disgustingly a response. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:32, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The view that a listing or some other lengthy treatment of condolences and other peripheral reactions is a noteworthy addition. Granted, this is probably a purely content rather than POV issue (see my modified comment above). Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 23:50, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete - In my experience this reaction page is quickly getting out-of-hand compared to the earlier tragedies. This is the longest list of little flags I have ever seen. It is already even longer than the
    WP:SPINOUT article. Ceosad (talk) 00:18, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
I would suggest that whether the flags are used or not is really not germane to the question of what to do with the article. Greenshed (talk) 05:48, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - Just simply bring it into the other article... after the fact, if there are legitimate reasons to make it it's own article again down the road, so be it. // Posted by larsona (Talk) // 00:46, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This article basically exists because people didn't want it in the main article in the first place. There's clear consensus on that. LjL (talk) 01:06, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
User:John Your comments are disgusting, cruel and embarrassing. To suggest condolences belong in a septic tank is vile. Also, if you are planning on destroying this article in defiance of the community in a few weeks please note strong resistance will occur. AusLondonder (talk) 14:49, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Cut out the drama and the near-personal attacks please. LjL (talk) 14:51, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
User:LjL - who are you referring to? AusLondonder (talk) 14:56, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
But but but those topics are about things that happened in the USA! How can you compare them?
YO 😜 15:48, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Exactly,
User:Wikimandia. That's the problem, here. This didn't happen in the Grand Ole U S of A. In happened in the Old World. It's not notable. AusLondonder (talk) 15:50, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to

non-admin closure) –Davey2010Talk 00:58, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

A4032 road

A4032 road (edit | 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 road. I can't find any

GNG — Rod talk 20:04, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. North America1000 17:16, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America1000 17:16, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not having sources isn't a reason to delete an article, but not being able to find or believe any could be cited is. A better search term is probably "newfoundland circus bristol", though even that brings up little more than traffic reports and property acquisitions,
routine coverage, basically. Dr. Blofeld has been known to work miracles in this area, but if he can pull this one off I'll buy him a beer. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:18, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
@
iridescent 17:26, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
I would certainly expect a local traffic report to be the most likely context where a typical reader would hear about this (eg: "Really heavy congestion coming into Bristol because of a breakdown closing one lane of the A4032, that's Newfoundland Circus towards the House of Fraser, avoid the area if you possibly can"), in which case would it not make more sense to redirect to Transport_in_Bristol#Local_road_network. A reader in that instance is probably going to be crestfallen if they are taken to a page of numbers, wouldn't you say? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:39, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As the road is only really used for entry and exit to and from the M32 motorway, of which it is really a continuation but without motorway regulations, it might be best to redirect to the motorway article.— Rod talk 18:04, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, better to redirect to M32, which has more information than in the list. Transport in Bristol doesn't mention this road. Peter James (talk) 18:41, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to M32 motorway works for me. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:32, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The arguments for deletion are better founded in guidelines and policy. With a few exceptions, the "keep" opinions are mere votes or appeals to notability (which isn't in question), but do not even address the policy-based arguments against retention, i.e., the concerns of original research by synthesis, and the duplication of content in Terrorism in France and List of terrorist incidents in France.  Sandstein  17:31, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Islamic terrorism crisis in France

Islamic terrorism crisis in France (edit | 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 definitely appears to be original research: the sources used do not talk about an "Islamic terrorism crisis in France". They verify the facts of the attacks but do not talk about them collectively, so this article is

WP:SYNTH. Basically: notability as one event/phenomenon is not established. Best to have two separate articles (January 2015 Île-de-France attacks and November 2015 Paris attacks) that reference each other. Loeba (talk) 19:54, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 20:27, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 20:27, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 20:27, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
— 73.247.68.210 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. WWGB (talk) 06:08, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
On the issue of sources for "crisis" - The Guardian. There are however multiple more on "terror campaign" like CNN.GreyShark (dibra) 19:31, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ITSNOTABLE is not a good standalone argument to make in a deletion discussion. IgnorantArmies (talk) 15:35, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
So why didn't you !vote "keep and rename/move" before? I see an alarming number of articles where people ask for deletion on the grounds that they could be
deletion is supposed to be about... LjL (talk) 21:56, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Change of title away from crisis changed evaluation. Crisis was WP:SYNTH: there were not sources to support notability of a "crisis". There are sources/notability in plenty about Islamic terrorists attacking France.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:10, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, the title may have changed but the content is still the same. It still states that there is a conflict between the French state and Jihadists which started in December 2014 as a spillover Syrian Civil War and all the the incidents it lists, including the Charlie Hebdo attack, are part of this conflict. It's still
WP:SYNTH.--obi2canibetalk contr 14:23, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
(edit conflict) The new name changes things a bit, but I disagree that it makes all the objections above invalid. The content remains exactly the same, and I still think it's an article that decides to link together events without much precedence or justification to do so. And it makes it even more redundant to Terrorism in France. Perhaps that could have a subsection on "Islamic terrorism" where this article could be merged. --Loeba (talk) 14:31, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Terrorism in France is a list of truly motley attacks (radical left, nationalist, Islamist) . This is an article about specifically Islamic terrorism in France, a coherent and separate topic.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:08, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If it's worth merging, though, then it shouldn't be deleted, per
WP:SYNTH, I'm wondering, what makes it more SYNTH than the Terrorism in France article itself (assuming SYNTH applies)? LjL (talk) 15:10, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Oh I'd still preference a flat-out deletion, I'm just trying to show some flexibility...I wouldn't object to the option of merging it. --Loeba (talk) 16:42, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing game-changing about this, and certainly nothing "highly irregular". Articles for deletion are (or, should be) judged based on what they could become, not on what they were at the time deletion was proposed. LjL (talk) 15:10, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well that's definitely the best source presented so far. --Loeba (talk) 16:42, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. KTC (talk) 01:57, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of Rachael Ray guests

List of Rachael Ray guests (edit | 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 list is trivial. Koala15 (talk) 19:53, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. North America1000 17:17, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. North America1000 17:17, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 17:17, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, and suggest that List of Rachael Ray episodes not be created. Useless list of talk show guests on long-running show that cannot hope to be well-sourced in any sensible manner; if you're in America, a mass media entertainer/cook or have a blue link, you've most likely been on this show. 01:09, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete as per the specific guidelines for politicians Errant (chat!) 18:27, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

John Bickley (UKIP)

John Bickley (UKIP) (edit | 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 enough as yet. A twice-defeated parliamentary candidate with no other notability. If he wins the by-election we can create a page for him then, but not yet. Frinton100 (talk) 21:28, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Having created this article, the intention as always is to enhance Wiki, so slightly surprised such swift attempted suppression of info in relation to
Oldham West and Royton by-election, 2015. Many more less relevant articles in Wiki, I should suggest. M Mabelina (talk) 21:58, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Cllr Jim McMahon

[COPIED FROM User talk:Frinton100] (view no answer as to poss Labour POV):

Hi Frinton - from an outsider's point of view, perceivably lots of overprotection of Labour candidate & attempts to suppress others? Also if Jim McMahon is notable enough, which I have no doubt in believing, why then try to dumb down his entry by persistent deletion of the OBE image? Please advise - many thanks. M Mabelina (talk) 02:24, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Other candidates at Oldham by-election

RSVP


I'm not sure what the meaning of the "Attention" section above is - however, with regards to the OBE - I did remove it earlier, but I saw you put it back and I wasn't too bothered. I think it looks a bit silly, but fine. I hadn't realised I had removed it a second time; I have now moved it to a more sensible location. I am dubious to be honest about McMahon's notability under WP:POLITICIAN - municipal politicians are borderline cases. But please, for the third time in a few hours - can we discuss article content in the appropriate place, and not on my talk page. Please stick to the MOS. And please do not post unsolicited images to my talk page. Frinton100 (talk) 02:41, 6 November 2015 (UTC)


Sure - I think you & I (& of course others) have a reasonable grasp of Wiki eligibility, politics, current affairs as well as the English language. Thank you & let's get back to helpful collaborative edits like before (intro of muchos Talk pages - like committees - never get anything sorted!). Best M Mabelina (talk) 02:45, 6 November 2015 (UTC) Jim McMahon (politician) Talk Page - please direct It's on the "talk" tab, top left, on his article Frinton100 (talk) 02:59, 6 November 2015 (UTC) Your link above doesn't work - so let's leave excessive discussion (unless you really would prefer otherwise) in favour of enhancing the content of Wiki's articles. "Attention", I amended to "Other" since it seems to me quite lopsided to focus on Jim McMahon without any attention at all on the others, although I have made a small attempt to redress the balance by creating an article about John Bickley, the principal contender in this former Labour seat (unless I am thoroughly mistaken)! I note you decided to flag up the John Bickley article for deletion almost immediately upon its creation - so unless you can assure me (and, moreover, other Wikipedians) that you ARE NOT a

OBEs look a "bit silly" thereby reducing much Wiki factual info to be joke status unless you were in your eyes disdaining Cllr McMahon himself, OR alternatively dumbing down Cllr Jim McMahon
's entry so as to try make him appear less privileged - despite achievement being a good thing - for some presumed electoral advantage? A simple explanation to this mystery will suffice - many thanks in advance.... M Mabelina (talk) 04:56, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Could we please stick to the matter in hand - i.e. whether Bickley meets the criteria for notability on wikipedia - rather than resorting to personal attacks. I will deal briefly with these on my talk page. Details about McMahon's article should be discussed on his talk page. As mentioned above, if you think he fails the notability criteria then you can deal with it in the appropriate manner. I'm not sure - I think he's borderline.
Back to Bickley, wikipedia is not the BBC. We do not have to give equal "airtime" (or perhaps "article inches") to all of the candidates in a by-election, or even to the ones we think are going to finish in the top two. The criteria for notability of politicians is described at
WP:POLITICIAN and these make clear that simply being a candidate in a parliamentary election is not noteworthy enough. There is nothing in any other area of his life either that would confer notability at this stage. If he wins on 3rd Dec, of course this will change. Frinton100 (talk) 13:57, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
I'm sorry but that is a load of absolute bullshit. It seems to me you aren't aware of our policies which states that unelected candidates for office are not notable. Simply being a perennial, unelected candidate or carpetbagger does not equate to notability. Regarding "bias against UKIP" nonsense you allege, in conspiratorial tones, that if Bickley was a "Lib-Lab-Con" candidate (no such party exists, by the way) he would be granted an article. Let us test your theory. Lets see whether unelected candidate for major parties in recent by-elections have articles:
  • Christine Emmett, Conservative, Corby 2012:  No
  • Jill Hope, Liberal Democrat, Corby 2012:  No
  • Craig Williams, Conservative, Cardiff South and Penarth 2012:  No (Not until election as MP for Cardiff North)
  • Bablin Molik, Liberal Democrats, Cardiff South and Penarth 2012:  No
  • Luke Nicholas, Plaid Cymru (finished ahead of UKIP), Cardiff South and Penarth 2012:  No
  • Andrew Stranack, Conservative, Croydon North 2012:  No
  • Winston McKenzie, UKIP, Croydon North 2012: Ironically  Yes (There go your accusations of an anti-UKIP bias)
  • Michael Payne, Labour, Newark 2014:  No
  • David Watts, Liberal Democrats, Newark 2014:  No
  • Roger Helmer, UKIP, Newark 2014:  Yes (Because he is an MEP)
  • Naushabah Khan, Labour, Rochester and Strood 2014:  No
  • Geoff Juby, Liberal Democrats, Rochester and Strood 2014:  No
  • Kelly Tolhurst, Conservative, Rochester and Stood 2014:  No (Not until she gained the seat at the general election)

Hopefully you will now admit that UKIP suffers from no "bias" AusLondonder (talk) 23:15, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Another thing, it certainly reads like a promotional piece in its current form. AusLondonder (talk) 23:25, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Has never been elected into any position of power, nor is he a major idealogue internally in UKIP. Perennial candidates can become notable in cases like Mackenzie, who stood for decades for practically every party. A few candidatures in the last couple of years means nothing '''tAD''' (talk) 18:20, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. We do have articles on politicians who have not been elected, but this is usually because they have achieved some notability (or notoriety) outside of politics or have been significant players within their parties or organisations. This does not apply here - he is just a failed candidate. Emeraude (talk) 10:57, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. To add to my last point - Why is Jim Mcmahon worthy of a page and John isn't? Jim has no special relevance more than John other than being the leader of Oldham Council, and as far as I'm aware Council leaders shouldn't automatically get a page on here, if they do, why doesn't Rochdale council leader Richard Farnell have a page? If this page goes, I can't see any reason warranting Jim McMahon, who is simply just a councillor to have a page too. (Z2a (talk) 13:01, 8 November 2015 (UTC))[reply]

— Duplicate vote: Z2a (talk • contribs) has already cast a vote above.

Just to point out that you have "voted" twice. Emeraude (talk) 13:46, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My view is that Jim McMahon is a borderline case.
WP:POLITICIAN states that a municipal politician is not automatically notable but is not not-notable because they are only a municipal politician. McMahon is leader of the Labour group on the LGA and is also an NEC member. In addition to his council leadership, I think that just qualifies him for an article, but only just. Frinton100 (talk) 13:59, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
If anyone thinks Jim McMahon (politician) should be deleted, then the appropriate thing is to go start an AfD for that page. We shouldn't keep this article because that article exists: if that article shouldn't exist, then two wrongs do not make a right. Bondegezou (talk) 16:23, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is a false argument. Every single candidate for every major election receives media coverage. We cannot, nor should we, have a page about them all in a credible encyclopaedia. AusLondonder (talk) 03:33, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I agree that if the Labour candidate considered to be sufficiently notable then so is John Bickley, especially as the next MP for the constituency will be either one of them. It is not for a very small number of Wikipedia insiders to decide who is "important enough" in the eyes of the general public, Wikipedia is supposed to serve the needs of everybody, not the needs of a minority. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.31.214.26 (talk) 10:57, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment If you think the Labour candidate is not notable, you can suggest that article be deleted. Whether we have an article for the Labour candidate (and there was an article for this person before he was ever the candidate) is a separate matter to whether this article should exist. No-one is saying that Bickley's candidacy is not important: it is, and information about him and his candidacy is on the by-election article page. The question is whether the best way to organise Wikipedia is to have a separate page about him as well. We don't usually do that, as explained at
      WP:NPOL. If you think that approach is wrong, you could go to the Talk page there and put forward your position. Bondegezou (talk) 11:35, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
      ]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter123 (prattle) 19:45, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The Economist says in an article this week the western world needs to really worry if he is elected because it will start a new era of right wing populist anti immigrant sentiment. I hope he loses but I have a feeling he won't. Irrespective this afd is redundant in my opinion, refs such as this and those in the article mean he passes GNG. Szzuk (talk) 22:01, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mean this article [14]? If so I think it's arguable that is not significant coverage, given the article is about much broader topics. And still, it only relates to his candidacy for one election and candidacy alone is not enough.Frinton100 (talk) 22:32, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There are 2 full paragraphs about him directly in the full article. This isn't arguable - it is in depth coverage in a cast iron reliable and verifiable source. Szzuk (talk) 22:47, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think two paras is exactly in depth, and the fact remains it is entirely related to his candidacy. Many other candidates have had similar things written about them in the heat of a by-election campaign, but it doesn't confer notability.
WP:POLOUTCOMES states "Losing candidates for office below the national level are generally deleted unless previous notability can be demonstrated." Bickley does not have such previous notability from anything I can see. Frinton100 (talk) 23:35, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
The
WP:1E, which is the idea that if a person is notable because of a particular event, then we should have an article on the event, not the person. Bondegezou (talk) 13:06, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 22:04, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Scott (Louisiana politician)

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

DA of a single county. This does not imply notability. Refs are either routine notices or funeral tributes, which aren otoriously unreliable sources. DGG ( talk ) 05:05, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:17, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:17, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
the actual judgeships are "Caddo District Court judgeship, ... a relief juvenile court judge in Caddo Parish and an ad-hoc appellate judge. In other words, a county judge, a temporary juvenile court judge, and a temporary apointee to a higher court, not a regular member. Those are not notable positions. DGG ( talk ) 02:40, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's Louisiana 1st Judicial District Court, based in Caddo Parish; He was defeated for circuit court but served under appointment to fill in for missing judges.Billy Hathorn (talk) 13:33, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the clarification. A/c NPEOPLE, judges who hold statewide office are generally notable. I do not think a district court is a state-wide office. DGG ( talk ) 20:12, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor Talk! 04:09, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | Talk 18:46, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Minor local politician doesn't come close to meeting
WP:BIO, much like scores of other articles created by this article's creator. OhNoitsJamie Talk 17:56, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
"Jamie" used virtually the same line four minutes earlier in his proposal to delete James Garvey (Louisiana politician): "Delete Doesn't come close to meeting WP:BIO notability, much like hundreds of other articles created by this user. OhNoitsJamie Talk 17:52, 15 November 2015 (UTC)" Can the article be analyzed in four minutes? Or even found that quickly? Billy Hathorn (talk) 04:18, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment.
WP:BIO says: People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. Subject meets all of these criteria. Could also qualify as Major local politician with considerable press coverage. DA's are major local figures; many have statewide recognition. Billy Hathorn (talk) 04:09, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Comment It doesn't take much time given that you've been creating articles about non-notable Louisiana people for years with no sources beyond obits and other hyperlocal coverage. OhNoitsJamie Talk 14:43, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

Trustly

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

Uncertain notability, in its current state. Oscarthecat (talk) 13:08, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Some third party sources exist--Conan The Barbarian (talk) 13:23, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Human3015TALK  13:27, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Human3015TALK  13:27, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Human3015TALK  13:27, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Human3015TALK  13:28, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I also noticed this immediate deletion now and, MelanieN, are you aware of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Metaskapes as well? SwisterTwister talk 20:00, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and I was going to restore it too, but then I realized it had been tagged for speedy - A7 and G11. The system tagged it as "per AfD" but it was actually a speedy deletion. I have closed that discussion. --MelanieN (talk) 20:14, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
MelanieN That's what I thought and saw and was also thinking of closing it but because I wasn't sure of its history. SwisterTwister talk 20:33, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not sure myself what happened here. I can't see my deletion in the history, although it's in my logs. It looks as if I simply forgot to put a rationale, since the AFD comment would have been pre-entered by the AFD nomination. Incidentally, it's not necessarily the case that AFDs have to run their course, since a discussion (usually) about notability sometimes misses, eg, copyright violation or obvious COI spamming. Apologies anyway Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:41, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Since the sources added were two routine directory listings (Bloomberg, Crunchbase) and a press release, I see no reason to do so.
talk) 13:37, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Spartaz Humbug! 22:37, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | Talk 18:44, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - run of the mill
    what Wikipedia is not. The tone of the article reflects its intended role as an advertisement. Although I would not inherently object if an independent, non-SPA were to recreate it with a stronger array of reliable references. Citobun (talk) 10:54, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. KTC (talk) 01:59, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Al Cole and the People of Distinction Broadcasting Network

Al Cole and the People of Distinction Broadcasting Network (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

reliable source coverage is a blurb on the Huffington Post — but that's not enough to get a person into Wikipedia if it's the best you can do for sourcing. There's certainly enough of a potential claim of notability here that he would probably qualify for a properly written and properly sourced article, but nobody, regardless of their notability claim, ever gets to keep an article that's sourced this badly or that's written as a public relations profile rather than an encyclopedia article. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 18:35, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. clpo13(talk) 21:12, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. clpo13(talk) 21:12, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. North America1000 17:18, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America1000 17:18, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America1000 17:18, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. So highly promotional that I closing this as speedy G11. DGG ( talk ) 21:01, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yogini Anantanitya

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

The article more sounds like a autobiography/"low-key" advertisment then an article WikiEditCrunch (talk) 18:27, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 23:10, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Stonewall Democrats. MBisanz talk 22:03, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stonewall Democrats of Arizona

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

State-level chapter of a national organization, featuring neither enough substance nor enough

National Stonewall Democrats. Bearcat (talk) 05:40, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

See
talk) 16:44, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 02:12, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 02:12, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 02:12, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 02:17, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

*Redirect and Merge into

National Stonewall Democrats page (which is in need of updating), which is a very short page.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:37, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | Talk 18:16, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. KTC (talk) 02:00, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Dangle Glynn

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

reliable source content written by other people, but no coverage of that type has been shown here. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 17:17, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk  18:18, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk  18:19, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk  18:19, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. KTC (talk) 02:00, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Srey Danny

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails

WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by an IP without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:05, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:06, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk  18:20, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk  18:20, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk  18:20, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk  18:20, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 22:02, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of MSX compatible computers

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

Unreferenced list of commercial products built around antiquated standard. Ends up being a catalog of old products. The large majority of items on this list don't have their own Wikipedia articles. Mikeblas (talk) 16:27, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk  18:22, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America1000 17:22, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Lists where entries fail the notability criteria "are almost always better placed within the context of an article on their "parent" topic." Here, the items given aren't verifiably mebers of the proposed group because there are no references. And because their notability was temporary, such references generally aren't available. -- Mikeblas (talk) 15:17, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Their notability couldn't have been temporary, because
WP:OFFLINE sources are perfectly fine, you know. LjL (talk) 15:34, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
The problem is that you've presumed that this subject was notable in the first place and this piece doesn't present any evidence that it was. NTEMP says this: "In particular, if reliable sources cover a person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having a biographical article on that individual." MSX-compatibility was interesting in the 80s, but is now completely irrelevant; it might have been notable at one time, but now is completely irrelevant. Standards from the same era that were truly notable still have references readily available because their notability was not temporal. -- Mikeblas (talk) 14:27, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I don't understand the meaning of what you just said at all. MSX is a well-known standard among those who have any knowledge of home computers at all. It was definitely notable in its time, and as such, it can't stop being. LjL (talk) 15:36, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti Talk 19:39, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 02:00, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. KTC (talk) 02:00, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Chandu Yelga (CSY)

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

Partial promotional, partial hoax. Non-notable person with a claimed net worth of US$10 billion. All references are non-

WP:RS. ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 16:06, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk  18:23, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk  18:23, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. KTC (talk) 02:00, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Young Stunna

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

Another Nigerian upcoming artist, struggling to be notable. Subject of the article fails

t@lk to M£ 16:04, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
t@lk to M£ 16:07, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
t@lk to M£ 16:07, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
t@lk to M£ 16:07, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
t@lk to M£ 16:07, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. KTC (talk) 02:07, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mass killings by an individual

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

"Mass killing"? Whats the point of this and the table is incomplete by the thousands or millions. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 15:20, 14 November 2015 (UTC) And so are innumerable other tables on Wikipedia. None of these claim to be exhaustive, so there is no point of discussion. Why should it be different here? Tavernsenses (talk) 15:37, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 15:44, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 16:31, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 16:31, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Delete This is a bizarre article which presents a ridiculously simplistic view of events. Nick-D (talk) 00:07, 15 November 2015 (UTC). In the light of article impartialty, is a 'view' that is as simple as possible not to be aspired? Should not, ideally, a Wiki article have no view at all? Tavernsenses (talk) 12:38, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snow Delete this collection of disparate events.
    User:Shawn in Montreal makes a cogent argument; cogent is preccisely what this article topic is not.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:00, 15 November 2015 (UTC) What disparity? They're all mass killings, carried out by identifiable individuals. It's not like a list of people with blue eyes. Tavernsenses (talk) 15:42, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete per Shawn in Montreal. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 17:29, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retain Tavernsenses (talk) 15:26, 16 November 2015 (UTC) This article is mainly intended to list the killing (of other individuals) power that technological evolution has bestowed on single individuals, culminating in the destructive power of nuclear weapon technology. Torpedo technology seems to do rather well as well. There is to my knowledge no other article that focuses on this issue. All of the information contained is well referenced to Wikipedia sources, quantitatively (thus impartially) re-assorted. In true keeping with Wikipedia ethics, the article does not (unlike some of its reviewers) express any moral judgement, such as whether the killings were legally justified, acts of barbarism, carried out by a psychopath, or were effected by unwitting conscripts in the mist of a just war against a tyrant ideology of some description. It merely lists, in numerical order, the events in which multiple human lives were terminated as the result of the action of a single human. The article to that purpose explicitly requires that between the moment of action and the actual killings there is no other human intervention required or possible; the bombardier presses a button (action), an electric signal is sent to the A-bomb release system, the bomb auto-detonates, and people are killed, in a rather irrevocable manner. The bombardier literally does the killing, because the killing happens if he presses the button and the killing does not happen if he does not press the button, and there is no human intervention down the road that can alter or prevent the subsequent unleashing of deadly violence. He is the last human element in a long range of necessary processes and procedures aimed at destruction. It is not relevant that, had the bombardier refused to press the button, someone else would have, because then that second individual would have merely replaced the bombardier in the list. Neither is it relevant whether the bombardier was just following orders, was faced with court-martial if he didn't, or was on the contrary happy to give the Japs a thorough thrashing. Any speculation on his motivation does not befit a Wikipedia article. On the other hand, the responsibility for the killings may quite possibly be discussed in other Wikipedia articles, but not in present one. I am mindful of the feelings of anxiety certain readers may entertain upon seeing a beloved war hero listed in the same table as some murderous psychopath, but again, when composing impartial proper wikipedia articles, we should try to ignore feelings and confine our considerations to facts. Facts that have been well documented. No doubt, a nazi camp guard dropping off zyklon-B pellets into a gas chamber may potentially kill more people than torpedoing a troop ship would, but is he the only one doing the dropping? If not, it’s no longer a single individual, and you will have to conduct the rather macabre business of dividing the number people gassed in one go with the number of camp guard dropping pellets. And did that particular guard participate in other gassings? If not documented, he has no business appearing in the ranking. If documented, he has all the right in the world to prominently feature in it. In another example, we have no assertion whether someone who participated in multiple firing squads was issued the blank bullet or not (human ingenuity is apparently equally proficient at designing absconding technology). However, we do know for a fact that a single bombardier released a WWII A-bomb. Indeed, modern A-bombs may feature abort mechanisms, in which case a higher echelon person is able to neutralize the actions of the bombardier before they do any harm. In such case, that person (if he/she did not use that ability) has earned a place on the list, supplanting the bombardier. This is all entirely consistent with the outline at the beginning of the argument. As stated, the list is by no means exhaustive, nor does it purports to be so. And in that it does not differ from innumerable other listings on Wikipedia. It is exactly up to contributing readers to make it more exhaustive. And if anyone should feel an entry is poorly documented or referenced, this could be taken up by a hanging committee such as presently seated. But I do beg no to proceed too hastily with any other, more drastic action. Hopefully I have made a cogent argument for retaining this article in Wikipedia. And on a somewhat cynical note, I would like to end with the old NRA adagio; “it’s not guns that kill, it’s people that use them”. Tavernsenses[reply]
  • Alternatively, single individual could be changed to single action. That would exclude the serial killers, the henchman, the snipers etc. Tavernsenses (talk) 07:01, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You only get to vote once :-) -- Notecardforfree (talk) 07:13, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material for which no reliable, published sources exist" Where does the article fail to refer to reliable, published sources? Granted, it only refers to other Wikipedia pages, but the latter are externally referenced. Tavernsenses (talk) 19:53, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please quote the two sentences in WP:OR directly after that one. -
Location (talk) 00:19, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. MBisanz talk 22:02, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kabbage

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

Looking at the history tab I see a large number of edits by what appear to be connected and

WP:BOMBARD Fiddle Faddle 16:55, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 20:48, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. North America1000 20:49, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe delete for now at least as so a better article can be made as the current version is not exactly entirely acceptable. Pinging past users Orangemike, WilyD and Diannaa and also DGG who may be interested to comment. SwisterTwister talk 06:13, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. andstart over. Lack of notability is not the only reason for deletion. Borderline notability combined with clear promotionalism is an equally good reason. Small variations to the notability standard either way do not fundamentally harm the encycopedia, but accepting articles that are part of a promotional campaign causes great damage. Once we become a vehicle for promotion, we're useless as an encycopedia DGG ( talk ) 06:22, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • SwisterTwister DGG We already have a base for the article. What's the point of deleting it and starting over if we can just improve the existing article? I'd argue it's not at all borderline notability. I identified the promotional issues the same as you. and attempted to clean up the page a couple months back. I think it has improved and become more factual, but if it needs work why don't we collaborate to improve it, rather than just outright deleting it? It's worth noting it is a company page - and with most company pages, it's essentially an "About" page (this is an encyclopedia) which is going to be inherently promotional in some respects as its obviously going to describe the company and what it does. Nobody in here has identified which elements of the page are promotional, what shouldn't exist, or what could be improved. Deleting and starting over puts use nowhere - as most of the same content would likely be included a second time around. Let's identify what information is too promotional, and improve/remove it. Walton2413 (talk) 14:30, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The reason for doing this is that it is the only way we can try to prevent promotional coi editing. Removing the article is the only effective sanction. (I used to feel just as you on such maters, but the deluge of promotionalism has convinced me of the need to do something about it. I would not oppose moving to draft space, and restoring after a considerable time--I will now sometimes do that. DGG ( talk ) 17:57, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
DGG What would stop promotional COI editing from happening on a new page? Editors like that would have the same abilities on a new article as on the existing page. But again, the bulk of the problem appeared to happen from the "KabbageKate" account which hasn't been active in quite some time. Deleting the page wipes out contributions from editors who have been working to improve the page in good faith. Walton2413 (talk) 21:52, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 05:06, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor Talk! 15:13, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Per

non-admin closure) —UY Scuti Talk 19:21, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

National Hot Dog and Sausage Council

National Hot Dog and Sausage Council (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

insignificant organization; the proposed merge was rejected. Ref 1 barely mentions it; the others are not adequate for notability. DGG ( talk ) 03:38, 31 October 2015 (UTC) � DGG ( talk ) 03:38, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America1000 05:03, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America1000 05:03, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 05:03, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what is so problematic about this food-related stub that it must be deleted. The National Hot Dog and Sausage Council is frequently quoted in the press about matters pertaining to hot dogs and sausages. Mostly hot dogs. I don't think that merging it with American Meat Institute is the right way to go, but other editors might feel differently. Protopone primigena (talk) 17:40, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor Talk! 01:55, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor Talk! 14:56, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Coverage of this specific conflict is insufficient to meet

the inclusion criteria for events. I, JethroBT drop me a line 08:45, 29 November 2015 (UTC) I, JethroBT drop me a line 08:45, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Battle of Batapur

Battle of Batapur (edit | 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 information available about this battle at all there is no mention in enough amount of sources that there should be a separate page or even a paragraph dedicated to this unknown battle if it matters. D4iNa4 (talk) 12:01, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @Kautilya3, Wikibaba1977, and AmritasyaPutra:([20]) for opinion. D4iNa4 (talk) 07:42, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Human3015TALK  13:19, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Human3015TALK  13:19, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Human3015TALK  13:19, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America1000 14:15, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Kautilya3: I think that we are confusing two things here. First we have to know what was Dograi.
"Dograi was a township that stood on the East bank of the Ichhogil Canal."[21]
"Dograi, a small township located on the east bank of the Ichhogil canal, was the scene of bitter fighting."[22]
"The battle of Dograi was the last and also one of the grimmest battles before the cease-fire. Situated on the Ichogil Canal on the main Grand Trunk Road Axis."[23]
"After capturing the township of Dograi, we neutralised the strongly-held pre-Ichhogil canal line of defence."[24]
"Situated on the eastern bank of Ichhogil canal, Dograi is about eight miles from Lahore."[25]
Your source also mentions Icchogil Canal on same page.[26] Since Icchogil Canal was related which is related to battle of Lahore,[27][28] that means we already got an article on this battle, which is known as Lahore Front, and there is also a Battle of Ichogil Bund where the battle went from 22-23 September, but the article is not well written. "Battle of Batapur", name and the article still remains dubious with mostly false information and unknown, that's why nominated for deletion. D4iNa4 (talk) 15:23, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep One can find mention of Battle of Batapur in following books

Wikibaba1977 (talk) 05:07, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor Talk! 14:41, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Umm, you mean these sources perhaps? this, this, this, this, this, and of course this book which has been written in its entirety about this single battle. Regards FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 16:21, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The actual battle is recorded to have occurred. There are sufficient sources to prove this. Xtremedood (talk) 10:38, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. (

non-admin closure) ansh666 12:26, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Battle of Saunshi

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

There is no information available about this battle at all there is no mention in enough amount of sources that there should be a separate page or even a paragraph dedicated to a small incident of hardly two sentence.[29] Total google results are not even three-hundred, and they have copied wikipedia. D4iNa4 (talk) 12:06, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @Kautilya3, Wikibaba1977, Mar4d, and AmritasyaPutra:([30]) for opinion. D4iNa4 (talk) 07:39, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Human3015TALK  13:17, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Human3015TALK  13:17, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A search through Google for <"battle of saunshi" -wikipedia> finds thirteen results. While the Google test is often not authoritative, a late-eighteenth-century battle between major Indian powers (one being Hyder Ali, who received a good deal of British attention) can be expected to get far more than thirteen hits. Moreover, the citation is a fabrication; it claims that the information is derived from page 916 of a printed book, but the book ends at page 745. Nyttend (talk) 15:01, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Incorrect. It is indeed on page 916 of the source, as indicated in this link: [31]. Direct quote: "Haidar Ali of Mysore recovered from loss at Chinkurli (1771) to regain Coorg and Malabar, previously lost to the Marathas, then sent a force under Mohamed Ali across the Tungabhadra in southern India. Near Dharwawr at Saunshi, Patwardhan Chief Konher Rao was defeated and killed and Padurang Rao was captured. As a result, many local Chiefs soon submitted to Haidar". Xtremedood (talk) 00:15, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's a different source. Since you insist that I'm wrong, please quote for me even the first word that appears on page 916 of https://books.google.ca/books?id=Dh6jydKXikoC, which is the cited URL. Nyttend (talk) 04:01, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Xtremedood, what you want to prove by mentioning religion? Your comment can be explained by
WP:GNG. Does effect of this incident was log lasting? Sources do not cover any more aspect of this event other than just "mention". --Human3015TALK  00:47, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Small typo it seems, here is the third source: [35]. The user who requested for the deletion of the article, user:D4iNa4 has a history of blanking entire sections of articles related to Hinduism, see [36]. Therefore I do not think religious motivations should censor articles. The battle of Saunshi is well recorded and should stay. Xtremedood (talk) 01:05, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that is a troubling edit and have responded to your comment on the talk page. You didn't like a few recent edits in the section about Hinduism, so blanked the entire Hinduism section? huh?
YO 😜 15:51, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
A passing mention from a source of 1884 is best you could get? D4iNa4 (talk) 07:39, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Gazetteer of the Bombay Presidency - Volume 22, quote: "Before the joint Maratha and Nizam armies could march, a small force under Konherrao Patvardhan and Pandurang, was (1776) sent to drive Haidar's troops out of Savanur. Muhammad Ali, the Maisur general and Raghoba's agent in command of a body of auxiliary Marathas, came up with the troops under the Patvardhan at Sansi about twenty-five miles south-east of Dharwar. Finding the Poona force drawn up in order of battle, Muhammad Ali began the action with his cavalry. He feigned a check, and, retiring in apparent disorder, was thoughtlessly followed by the Marathas, who, confident of victory, pursued in headlong haste till the fugitive Musalmans suddenly disappeared through openings in a powerful reserve. At the same time a body of men in ambush poured into the flanks of the Marathas a tremendous fire of graph and musketry. The slaughter was serious and the confusion hopeless. Muhammad Ali made a determined charge at the head of his cavalry, and, completing the rout, continued the pursuit for nine miles, and captured many of the Marathas, among them their leader Pandurang. After this defeat, in 1777...", Government Central Press, 1884, p. 413 {{citation}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help)CS1 maint: others (link)
  2. ^ C. A. Kincaid (1925), A History of the Maratha People (PDF), note: "Sansi" as quoted in this text on page 119 refers to Saunshi, Oxford University Press, p. 119
  • Keep - this source [37] has made me reconsider. It is a neutral source (Dictionary of Battles and Sieges by Tony Jaques, and has first-rate academic editors/contributors) and while it is not extensive, it not only confirms the battle happened, but states that a chief was killed, another dude who I presume is notable was captured, and "as a result, many local chiefs soon submitted to Haidar." This would indicate the battle was indeed notable and had consequences. This plus the other info above from the Gazetteer etc is sufficient to write a decent article. Thank you
    YO 😜 04:13, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
@
WP:GNG. D4iNa4 (talk) 07:39, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Sorry I didn't notice that. An issue is that we were looking for "Battle of Saunshi" when it doesn't actually appear to have such a formal Western name. Thus I could not find anything. That it was included in a respected Western encyclopedia of battles not only confirms it took place but indicates that it is of significance. Your claim that the source from 1884 is irrelevant because it was the "golden age of fringe theories" is silly. There is no reason to believe the
YO 😜 08:56, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Only two sources in over two hundred years, one of them being dubious while other one is over hundred year old? That's not reliable sourcing. 12:37, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
How many reliable sources we have? That actually mention this battle? Or any that have detailed it? None. D4iNa4 (talk) 12:37, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor Talk! 14:39, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 12:29, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of Continental Indoor Football League records

List of Continental Indoor Football League records (edit | 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 records for a very minor football league, fails

WP:UNDUE issues, so a deletion is proper Marlinsfan1988 (talk) 20:19, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. North America1000 15:02, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 15:02, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America1000 15:03, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. North America1000 15:03, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 12:02, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete While I would scratch the "very" in the minor league football comment in the nomination, it doesn't really matter. This page is essentially a reprint of a page that already exists on the internet. List articles are okay, even listing of records--but this one doesn't seem to me to meet any notability measure for list articles.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:04, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor Talk! 14:37, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. MBisanz talk 22:02, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alaskan Thunderfuck

AfDs for this article:
Alaskan Thunderfuck (edit | 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 last AfD was closed as "keep" about a year ago, though I think it could have just as reasonably yielded a deletion. The article cites no reliable sources, and editors at AfD #1 only managed to find one additional citation: a passing mention in a single HuffPo article. Sourcing and notability issues aside, the content itself is badly written and not in any way encyclopedic. Since no merge or redirect has been enacted over the past year, I think outright deletion is the best course of action. – Juliancolton | Talk 15:17, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
discuss 17:25, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
discuss 17:25, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. North America1000 20:32, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. North America1000 14:17, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 11:33, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – This strain is much more well known as "Matanuska Thunderfuck" and "Matanuska Tundra".
(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
– North America1000 11:37, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "The Big Book of Buds". pp. 233–235.
  2. ^ "Danny Danko's Marijuana Strain of the Week". High Times.
  3. ^ "The Cannabible 3". p. 370.
    • Thank you Northamerica1000 for your comments. What is your assessment of the sources you have suggested, in terms of reliability and usability in an encyclopedic sense? Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 22:51, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • The Cannabible mentions the strain once in passing, hardly significant coverage. As for the others, eh... I'm not convinced a brief profile of the strain in a huge almanac of strains is terribly persuasive either. That High Times editor calls the strain "legendary", but doesn't even try to explain why. I don't doubt that this strain is well-renowned in smoking circles, but I still don't see any general notability. – Juliancolton | Talk 23:13, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor Talk! 14:36, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep as I am not informed enough to make a difference between an unimportant cannabis strain and a notable one. I seriously doubt not all of them are inherently notable. Lack of reliable sources make me lean towards deletion, but there are a lot of book sources under the alternative names... I would support the proposed Merge. Ceosad (talk) 18:28, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - Not sure why but I thought this was a pornography model ... Proves how much I know , Anyway Weak Keep per above - Lack of sources isn't ideal but the book sources are IMHO enough notability wise. –Davey2010Talk 01:04, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. No consensus over whether this

(discuss) 09:11, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Fender Musical Instruments Corporation product list

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

Product catalog (Wikipedia is not a catalog). Unreferenced entirely. Most links redirect to the corporate page; the rest are broken because the product is not notable. Indiscriminate list problems, as well. The best place for a list of Fender products is Fender's commercial website. Mikeblas (talk) 13:42, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Human3015TALK  13:56, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Human3015TALK  13:56, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Human3015TALK  13:56, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 20:32, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America1000 20:33, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 11:32, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge to a Wikipedia:Books article, leaving a redirect. Another option might be to merge with the NAVBOX. This is a useful article and is accessed 1300 times per month. I disagree with the nominator's contention that the manufacturer is motivated in any way to maintain this information, they are interested in selling new instruments and generally do not maintain information on legacy models. This type of information is otherwise only available in very expensive specialty books. This is a fantastic compilation directory of legacy models/articles where a non Wikipedia geek can easily improve the topic. I believe the perceived problem here is the form, not the content. -- 009o9 (talk) 00:15, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor Talk! 14:34, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, in my opinion the worst issue is that it is entirely unreferenced. Ceosad (talk) 18:21, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing in the article that requires a reference
WP:SOAPBOX. Sadly, a lot of model-specific articles have already been AfD'd and redirected to a parent article. Specific model component information and the place to keep it has been lost, the information was helpful when restoring an instrument to factory specs, or inspecting specific models for authenticity. The number of guitar players in the US was estimated at 10 million in 2004 and Fender is well respected brand, this is not an obscure topic. Sad to see so much nice work destroyed. -- Paid Editor -- User:009o9Talk 19:11, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
You might want to revisit your observations. There are lots of red-links in this list. Many of the active links from specialty models (celebrity endorsements or sub-models) are piped or redirected links to generic models. I completely agree about another venue for this list. How about the Fender Musical Instruments Corporation corporate website, at fender.com? -- Mikeblas (talk) 12:03, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (

non-admin closure) ansh666 15:40, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Vadym Troyan

Vadym Troyan (edit | 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

wp:AN/I by 220, see here. Crystallized C (talk) 09:46, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:01, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:01, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:01, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The article has been deleted 7 times for notability concerns under the three different titles, two of which are salted. The citation here does not support the assertion that Vadim Troyan has been appointed "the Head of the Main Department of the Ministry of Interior of Ukraine in the Kyiv region". What it says is that he was appointed as deputy commander of the "Azov" battalion. That's the only source in the article; most of the article is unsourced. I don't think we have the in-depth coverage required to establish notability at this time. -- Diannaa (talk) 18:02, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There is no "obsession" by anybody to delete the article, just a commitment to follow and help others follow our policies. If that fails then we each try to help the project enforce them. In the case of this article some important policies that we have choose to follow in Wikipedia have been violated repeatedly and sistematically and always reaping the same result. That behaviour woud seem to be a better fit for the term that you used.
As far as the article is concerned, as you say, it clearly promotional not only because its text does not comply with
BLP. If, as you claim, he has received sufficient coverage from reliable sources, please add those references to the article or at least list the links in this discussion. Thank you.--Crystallized C (talk) 08:56, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Two independent references from
verifiability issues. If the issues are not solved today I will probably attempt to improve it myself.--Crystallized C (talk) 09:55, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Please try to Assume good faith. You continue to use an offensive and inaccurate term. Are you seriously implying that the six administrators that previously deleted it along with all the regular editors that nominated it or tagged it as well as myself are obsessed with the deletion of this article? If that is not the case, then the word "obsession" was probably not a good choice.
The only repetitive behavior in clear violation of our policies was the systematic recreation of the article without even trying to address or seek help about any of the serious concerns pointed out by multiple users and administrators, and using instead
sock puppets
and four different permutations for the name to try to circumvent our policies.
How would you describe that behavior?
Notability has been addressed, but there are still serious issues to resolve. If you or any other editors neutralize or commit to fix the article within a reasonable period of time to ensure it also meets
WP:V I would, of course, change my vote.--Crystallized C (talk) 08:32, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Are you joking?
YO 😜 22:16, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 11:00, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No I am not joking. The article was practically unsourced with just external links not independent of the subject. but most importantly it was clearly biased and promotional recreated multiple times and deleted under
WP:COI I did not participate in any of those speedy deletions. I started this discussion to either save of prevent any further recreation of the article. But I think that those deletions were perfectly justified under our policies. I have also worked to try to neutralize the article, but it still needs significant work. It is still promotional, poorly written and barely passed notability. I feel that it should either be neutralized or deleted. We should not allow such a flagrant use of Wikipedia as a propaganda tool. Since still you seem to think that the author of the article acted correctly in recreating the article in its previous state using puppets. And you chose instead to classify my comments with an offensive word, you will probably be happy to know that I do not want have any further debate with you on this topic, as I am convinced it would be pointless. --Crystallized C (talk) 23:17, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor Talk! 14:33, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: This article may still have some
    WP:V issues, but it satisfies notability for inclusion, as it now has reliable sources. The previous deletions were for unproven notability, so I cannot justify deleting it again. It just needs to be rewritten. Ceosad (talk) 17:34, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. KTC (talk) 02:01, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ADA Millennium Consulting

ADA Millennium Consulting (edit | 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

talk to me) 14:23, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk to me) 14:24, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 14:37, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Well, apparently User:Finnusertop nominated the offending logo for speedy deletion, and it is now gone, after I pointed it out for him. Ceosad (talk) 19:29, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

JCurtis1990 http://www.arabianaerospace.aero/ada-millennium-seals-major-canadian-mro-deal.html I found this recent article, it appears to be similar to Lufthansa Consulting but part of Abu Dhabi Aviation JCurtis1990 (talk) 04:10, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

JCurtis1990 http://helicopterinvestor.com/articles/abu-dhabi-aviation-and-jcba-form-jv-in-uae/ http://gulfnews.com/business/aviation/abu-dhabi-aviation-eyes-venturing-into-real-estate-sector-1.1608955 http://www.thenational.ae/abu-dhabi-aviation-to-launch-consultancy-unit and these in the UAE news and industry press? JCurtis1990 (talk) 09:43, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. (

non-admin closure) Sam Sailor Talk! 00:08, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Annie Crawley

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

Subject of the article fails

t@lk to M£ 06:28, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
t@lk to M£ 08:50, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
t@lk to M£ 08:50, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
t@lk to M£ 08:50, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
t@lk to M£ 09:32, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor Talk! 14:12, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that this passes GNG, it's the inane deadline that occurs once it hits AfD that messes with a lot of articles that gets them deleted when they should not be deleted at all. And then it becomes even more difficult getting them back! Some individuals just don't have 24 hours every single day to work on fixing every worthwhile article that comes up on AfD. Also, I agree with you, that this checking for notability only through the internet is just plain silly, but then I've always find libraries to be the most brilliant of places! --MurderByDeadcopy"bang!" 20:02, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. joe deckertalk 18:24, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Hogestyn

Ben Hogestyn (edit | 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:BIO Fiddle Faddle 23:13, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 14:07, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:47, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disaster Risk Management in East Asia

Disaster Risk Management in East Asia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This work was previously nominated for deletion in 2008; later on in that year, the original decision was to keep the article. Since the decision, no substantial work has been done on the page.

Issues:

  • The creator of the article has only created this article, which was seen as original research, advertisement, and a COI.
  • In six years, almost nothing has changed. Thus, the above issue pretty much remains.
  • If the article hasn't changed, it means that no one is looking at this page. Indeed, in the last 90 days, it has only received 329 views. By nominating this to be deleted, I had caused it to received one of the most views in the last 3 months - 16.
  • The article is still pretty much unsourced, with no inline citations, and the one sourced link appears dead.
  • None of the organizations and institutions listed in the article have their own Wikipedia page.
  • The article is void of any standard, and is completely unorganized.
  • The article is an orphan, and the only article Wikipedia has concerning 'disaster risk management.' The otherwise closest is Disaster risk reduction, which is hardly a gem itself. Indeed, East Asia is the only region that has its own article, even if we consider Wikipedia:WikiProject Disaster management. Unless we are to spearhead creating an article like this for every region, this article should be deleted.

Alternatively, the only non-deleting option that comes to mind is to merge this article with Disaster risk reduction and that article to be merged with Emergency management. I am willing to discuss additional alternatives.

Thank you,

Tradereddy (talk) 13:36, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete This isn't an article on disaster risk management in East Asia. It's one organization's status report or press briefing from seven years ago on its then-recent activities in the area of disaster risk management in East Asia. It's like creating an article titled "Mathematics" consisting of nothing but the minutes from the Year's Update section of the General Session of the 2003 convention of the European Mathematics Association: whether the title refers to a notable topic is beside the point. It amounted to using Wikipedia as a web host for that organization's dissemination. —Largo Plazo (talk) 21:18, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. This topic has already been deleted via AfD – see log entries for Aleksej Pechkurov. This new version of the article was posted with an unnecessary disambiguator to circumvent the create-protection imposed on the original title. SuperMarioMan ( Talk ) 14:03, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Aleksej Pechkurov ( blogger )

Aleksej Pechkurov ( blogger ) (edit | 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 nominated for Speedy Deletion three times I believe, and the author Usa.channel keeps removing the tags. So let's formalize it with an AfD. There is nothing here to indicate any reasonable expectation the subject is significant. For instance, the "Reliable Source" link to the The New York Times is actually just a link to the Wikipedia article about NYT; nothing to do with this subject. Gronk Oz (talk) 13:22, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Move to draftspace as this is obvious and no more time is needed (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 01:18, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nia Sanchez & Feminism

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

Topic within itself is not notable. Should be deleted, and if consensus, merged into article on Nia Sanchez CNMall41 (talk) 23:01, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - No objection to consensus if there is one (move, delete, etc.). I am just not sure that we should allow the creation of a content fork because the person is a student. If moved to userspace (which I will gladly support), I would advise to let the instructor know that the topic could be, in my opinion, one that is not suitable for a standalone article. Feel free to consider my nomination withdrawn if you feel it best to move back to userspace. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:49, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, that was my intention -- that the article be moved into draft space until it is ready for merging into the Nia Sanchex article. My apologies for not stating that more clearly. NewYorkActuary (talk) 19:42, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have contacted the instructor, Transunicorn so they can discuss the issue with the student user. Moving the content back to the student's sandbox/user space will allow for the student to correct any issue, while still contributing content. They also can address and incorporate feedback, making this the learning opportunity we celebrate. Thank you all for not deleting the content. We sincerely appreciate the learning opportunity this affords. BCarmichael (talk) 17:13, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • BCarmichael - thanks for contacting me - and thanks everyone else for your input and feedback. I'll be in touch with my student to see how we can move forward. I appreciate all of your support (I am also newer to this so learning as I go.). Thanks! Transunicorn (talk) 21:37, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  12:23, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Perhaps the time to rework and consolidate the articles about the conflict would be after the conflict has ended and there are better global appraisals of it by reliable sources?  Sandstein  17:32, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Russia–Syria–Iran–Iraq Coalition

AfDs for this article:
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:OR.Axxxion (talk) 16:54, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

I cannot see so much as a mere use of this term ("Russia–Syria–Iran–Iraq Coalition"). It is an invention of the editor who created the article, pure and simple! I do not say this coalition does not exist, but I would like to see some reliable sources saying that it does, as per
Northwestern Syria offensive (October 2015).Axxxion (talk) 14:08, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
The term is used as a descriptor instead of a proper title. This is obvious by the fact "coalition" is used in lowercase in the body of the article. LavaBaron (talk) 20:36, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@
WP:OR has nothing to do with the article titles. There are plenty of articles whose title can't be found in sources rather they are describing something! Mhhossein (talk) 07:00, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Ok, the problem is not just the title; the whole notion (subject) is an invention, as I cannot see anything in any cited sources that would indicate the opposite.Axxxion (talk) 12:33, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I see that every cited source indicates this is an accurate description of an existent thing. LavaBaron (talk) 22:20, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep - we have CNN, Al Jazeera and The NY Times stating the "coalition" or alliance or whatever exists. These are the first, second and third references in the article. How do these fail
    YO 😜 21:24, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Pls give me a single source citing "Russia–Syria–Iran–Iraq Coalition".Axxxion (talk) 15:23, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Moreover, speaking of Iraq (as a presumed member of the Russia-led coalition), it appears to be a key member in Combined Joint Task Force – Operation Inherent Resolve, i.e. the U.S.-led coalition. Yes, a few countries are cooperating with Russia in its activities in Syria such as Israel e.g., but never do we find any mention of a formal "coalition".Axxxion (talk) 15:36, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Delete - I'm not sure a non-admin closure was the correct course of action for the last discussion. Personally I would suggest that the article is premised entirely on one news story on 27/28 September 2015, about the four countries agreeing to share intelligence to fight ISIS. Unless there is coverage of the same topic over a wider period, I would say the Wikipedia article was
    WP:TOOSOON. The other sources appear to provide only a background picture for the fight against ISIS and aren't about this alliance. The situation in this area is constantly changing and we shouldn't write Wikipedia articles on every news announcement, howver widely reported. Sionk (talk) 22:38, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete for now; reading through the sources it's stretching the material thinly to get this article off the ground. The material is covered in other articles, and mostly better. There simply isn't a lot here except a lot of tangentially related material (some of it poorly supported by the sources) hung off of a statement from Assad about the new coalition. I think that things have happened too recently to be clear on the validity of this article. There doesn't appear to be any source material since late september/early october which is concerning. Also, there is a lot of synth and POV concerns. For example The United States, along with its Western and Arab allies, have criticized this coalition; most airstrikes during the first week of the campaign, they allege, struck areas held by rebel groups opposed to both the Syrian government and ISIS. Several months of air strikes conducted by the US-led coalition, ostensibly against ISIL targets, however, failed to prevent the expansion of ISIS.; pretty clear good hand/bad hand content, with the latter sentence sourced to an article in early 2015! --Errant (chat!) 09:57, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep - this article failed an AfD less than one week ago on the exact same grounds. This is AfD shopping. As per comments from Mhhossein, Guru Noel, Hollth and others in the original AfD, which I cited as reasons for my original "keep" !vote, I continue to support inclusion. LavaBaron (talk) 20:33, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • It looks like all the 'keep' votes in the last AfD were based on there being lots of sources in the article. However, sources also need to be about the subject, whicb unfortunately almost all of them weren't. It's hardly going to be 'speedy keep' with two policy-based 'delete' votes anyway. Sionk (talk) 21:14, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I affirmatively state all of the sources in this article are entirely about the subject and reject you assertion they are not. There are not two sound policy-based delete "votes" (also, we don't "Vote" on Wikipedia - we discuss and arrive at consensus). Simply referencing a policy, but connecting it to the subject through a contorted and tortured manner that has been entirely disabused by myself and others does not constitute a "policy-based" delete argument. This AfD was run one week ago and failed. This is an abusive use of the AfD process. LavaBaron (talk) 21:48, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
To be quite frank it's delusional and/or misleading to say that all (or for that matter any of) the sources in the article are about a Russia–Syria–Iran–Iraq Coalition. I can see four (all published on 26/27/28 Sept) which say the four countries are setting up a joint intelligence centre. I can see several more that are about cooperation between Iran and Russia. I can see several more that are about Russia's bombing of Syria. Which source is about a four-country coalition? Sionk (talk) 22:37, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Since you've decided to move into making personal attacks by calling me delusional, I'm going to terminate my participation in this AfD. LavaBaron (talk) 07:07, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Very convenient. Sionk (talk) 13:03, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Although we are not here to discuss the policies and we should discuss the AFD based on the policies instead, I have to remind some of the participants here (@
    WP:TITLE, "The title may simply be the name (or a name) of the subject of the article, or it may be a description of the topic." Anyway, I had pointed to the direct mention of this title in reliable sources before. and explained in details why the article has to be kept. Mhhossein (talk) 07:21, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Axxxion: Thanks for your civil and comprehensive response. However, I think you missed some facts, although you tried to clarify the points; In the previous Afd I pointed to the article by The New York Times[48] which says: "It was another sign that President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia was moving ahead with a sharply different tack from that of the Obama administration in battling the Islamic State, also known as ISIS or ISIL, by assembling a rival coalition that includes Iran and the Syrian government," showing that there's something beyond the usual former co-operations. Also, sources such as this and this directly mention the formation of the coalition. Mhhossein (talk) 17:00, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Mhhossein, you make a very good point which I agree with. However, I'm not too worried about the title. What concerns me is that there is relatively slim pickings on this chosen title (effectively: engagements in Syria involving all four of these protagonists. I guess I am saying thay by choosing this title you've created a topic that simply has no real material to cover. We're I to take the editorial view on this article I'd probably look to cut the vast majority of it, which then begs the question: why not simply merge it. I am concerned that some of the content drifts toward a
WP:POVFORK and so it's better to keep things located in other articles till further down the road at least. --Errant (chat!) 18:24, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
I would pay more attention the sources regarding this subject. Having these sources, I don't think there will remain anymore doubts over the notability of it:
Please note that I presented other sources in former notes and you can add them to above list. Mhhossein (talk) 05:30, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What's somewhat telling about this is that all of those sources are from early October. Is there anything in the last month that adds to the article? --Errant (chat!) 10:02, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't aware there was a 30-day cut-off window. LavaBaron (talk) 22:19, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The article reads like the start of something. Not an event or thing that is over and finished. As such I'd expect sources to continue to treat the subject. In my experience, over the years, that's a definite AFD warning sign. That there are none presented suggests to me the topic doesn't yet stand up. In fact, more recent sources (example) suggest the coalition is less firm that this article implies. --Errant (chat!) 23:05, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I would discuss based on the policies not on my own analysis! Mhhossein (talk) 05:07, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That seems evasive, I'd prefer to see you back up your article with sources. To be clear the specific policies I am basing my view on (certainly not my own, thank you) are
WP:GNG which requires significant coverage --Errant (chat!) 09:23, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Okay, if you don't plan to then I will. @
Hadi.anani: LavaBaron (talk) 22:17, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete this title is a pure invention about something the Russians hope to put together. Russia is late to the party in Syria, and is not really leading the Syrian Govt or Iran who has been there for over a year. The type does not tell where or for what purpose this alleged group exists. The Russian and Iranian interventions against ISIL are already well covered in articles. Further Iraq is not intervening in Syria and Syria is not intervening in Iraq. Legacypac (talk) 04:36, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Legacypac: How can you call that "pure invention" given the sources above? Whether Iraq or Syria are intervening in each other's country or whether Russia hopes for some thing does not affect the notability of this article, does it? Iraq has promised to share intelligence services. Mhhossein (talk) 06:33, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Countries share intelligence all the time. Here US worries Iraq will pass intel to Russia[49] Here Israel is sharing intel [50] but we don't include them in the US led anti-ISIL coalition. Pakistan and Russia agreed to share intel, but where is Russia-Pakistan Coalition? How about a US-China Coalition page based on this [51]. Look Intel is cheap to share, easy to be selective about, and might even include intentional false info. Sharing intel does not a military alliance make. its just a nice way of saying "hey we want to look good in the press". Legacypac (talk) 06:48, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Again ignoring the sources? I never said that all intel sharings can be called coalition, in fact I say that a party can be a member of a coalition by presenting intelligence services. Mhhossein (talk) 12:49, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  12:22, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, but these articles are not similar: US-led coalition is a thoroughly sourced thing, whereas this article is not titled "Russia-led coalition", to start off. And I would like to see any suggestion that it be named that first, with sources attached! Axxxion (talk) 16:36, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. North America1000 17:25, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And look at this: [54]. The concept is not merely an invention, as has been noted by a number of the editors, but obviously an intended projection of a certain political agenda and thus can viewed as an attempt to use the Wikipedia as a propaganda platform.Axxxion (talk) 11:24, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The coalition is not "an invention"; it has been reported on by multiple reliable sources. Please refrain from basing your arguments on falsehoods. —
talk 13:44, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
In point of fact, there are only two sources in the article referring to this as a coalition, and both of those mentions are trivial. By comparison (and most of the sources do make a comparison) more than half refer to a US-led coalition (or some variation). This situation is evolving very rapidly; and the content in this particular article is synthesised from a couple of weeks of sources and some much older material. There's definitely need to cover this material, but the major player (by far) here is Russia and we have an adequate article covering their involvement. This is just a content fork focusing on a minor item that happened a few months ago. --Errant (chat!) 14:20, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
hear, hear. Look here François Hollande in bid to form ‘grand coalition’ against IS, [55], [56]. It is a fluid sit, as pointed up above: As we have a collection of highly-placed ego-driven pricks, each shouting mine′s bigger than yours, after each round of "terror attcks", obviously organised by their "security services". The whole thing is a filthy joke. One article on each major country′s involvement in this mess is more than enough.Axxxion (talk) 15:02, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep Notable subject with RS to back it up. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 15:41, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please, specify WHAT subject do you mean exactly? Grand Coalition proposed by Putin (at the UN in September) and Hollande lately: Hollande calls for grand coalition to wipe out Islamic State in Syria. Or you mean the title of the article being discussed. I still would like to see even an unreliable source that would actually assert that such coalition does exist.Axxxion (talk) 17:40, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Axxxion: You can simply refer to the sources I presented above. I don't think repeating them will be necessary here. Mhhossein (talk) 17:53, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Martians, e.g.; but does that mean their existence is proven?Axxxion (talk) 10:48, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Don't twist things! We should act based on the sources. Nothing more, nothing less. Mhhossein (talk) 12:48, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or re-direct to

Iranian involvement in the Syrian Civil War Orser67 (talk) 08:18, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was move to draft namespace. Note that in a later comment, User:DGG stated that they support a move to Draft namespace, and the "weak keep" by 75.108.94.227 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) also suggested this move as a part of their !vote. As such, to a reasonable degree, overall consensus is to draftify. The article is now located at Draft:NTA (company). North America1000 07:40, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

NTA (company)

NTA (company) (edit | 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

CORP. Only reliable third party sourcing appears to be the region's main newspaper. No indication of the widespread covstage required under Corp. John from Idegon (talk) 04:12, 29 October 2015 (UTC) John from Idegon (talk) 04:12, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

I work for NTA, so I am COI encumbered. Several refs were found over the last day or so, and I will be proposing them for addition to the article. The newspaper articles, however, I am still not convinced they are 'press releases' as they are news articles, not "paid" advertisements in well established local newspapers. Wscribner (talk) 12:35, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We are a Third Party Certification agency. We are registered to do business in all 50 states. We are the largest of 5 private companies approved by the federal government to inspect manufactured housing which is about 10% of the building industry. We currently inspection 40% of all MH homes being produced in the United States. There are over a 1.5 million homes currently in the US with our name on them. We also inspection almost all homes produced in the US and exported to Canada. We have also written an engineering design guide for the SIP panel association and certify a majority of their panels which build about 2% of the building industry. We are involved with HUD and FEMA every time there is a national disaster. If a company that is involved with 10% of all homes in North America is not noteworthy because they haven't screwed up enough to get in the newspaper then I agree, you should delete our page. Dtompos (talk) 13:09, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
newspaper ~20 sentences
IRC&ICC
  • Structural Insulated Panels (roughly: two sheets of plywood sandwiched around a foam-insulation core at the factory and used to create highly-energy-efficient semi-manufactured homes). Official ASTM news-release from Oct'12.[61]
  • Eric J. Tompos, Professor
    WP:ABOUTSELF, despite one of the co-authors being Tompos of NTA. That said, I don't see this piece as counting significantly towards wiki-notability of NTA, since it has little depth specifically about NTA-the-company ("...ACI member Eric J. Tompos is an engineer with NTA, Inc., Nappanee, Ind. He received his BSCE and MSCE from Purdue..."), but it does count towards the wiki-notability of the Tompos family, showing their impact on the field of construction, and it is pretty common wiki-traditionally to count coverage of the founders as being related to coverage of their corporation, and vice versa, when wikipedia only has an article about *either* the corporation *or* the BLP (by contrast see Larry Ellison and Oracle Corporation which are independently wiki-notable). In cases where the founder is more wiki-notable than the company, AfD bangvotes will often recommend a merge of the corporation-cites into a section of the BLP-article, and in cases where the corporation is more wiki-notable than the founder, the reverse up-merge is typical. In this case, we have an article about the corporation already, and a subsection about the employees at NTA_(company)#Organization, which is where this academia-cite about the concrete beams will fit. Besides the 59 cite-count in academia, e.g. [64][65], the 2002 journal-paper in question was also used by professors in graduate-level Civil Engineering coursework.[66] The precursor, the fellowship which led to the master's thesis of 2000 also got some intra-university press-coverage: "Goldberg Fellowships Fund Promising Students, Research" (PDF). Transitions: Civil Engineering Newsletter from Purdue. Purdue University. Fall–Winter 2000. ...thanks to two John E. Goldberg Fellowships in Civil Engineering established by the late professor's wife, Dorothy Goldberg. ...two structural engineering graduate students are continuing their studies and research in the area Dr. Goldberg devoted his life to. Eric Tompos' research is bringing new knowledge on the shear strength of reinforced concrete beams. "The fellowship made the research I am doing possible," he [Tompos] says. ... E.Tompos is now a professor at Trine University (Warsaw, Indiana).[67]
  • The brother of VP-and-part-time-professor E.Tompos, is the CEO D.Tompos (wikipedian
    WP:NOTEWORTHY
    mentions because they lack depth, but in aggregate they will suggest wiki-notability to some wikipedians.
Note that most of the sources listed here have not been integrated into the article-prose yet, since I'm trying to train Wscribner to use {{
WP:TLA
problem (it helps to specify -nanoparticle -nitrilotriacetate -nitrilotriacetic in searches).
  If this AfD ends in bangkeep, or equivalently as 'no consensus' which is probably closer to the truth in that wiki-notability is unclear at the moment since digging for && evaluation of sources is only partially completed, I intend to continue helping the COI-encumbered folks Wscribner and Dtompos seek additional refs, at which point a second AfD would likely give us a better idea of whether the firm is truly wiki-notable, or if it is
Listing_and_approval_use_and_compliance whatever the most appropriate leaf-node article is . 75.108.94.227 (talk) 14:29, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
I would support a move to draft space; I would absolutely not support a redirect of a specific company to the page for the industry, which in my opinion is even worse than having an article--it gives them a wildly undue importance, as if they were the only significant company in the entire general field on an international basis, which they are not-- Compare them with the truly famous organizations which are listed as external links on that page. It makes as much sense as redirecting a not quite notable restaurant to Food. DGG ( talk ) 17:42, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
chitchat about what target-article is proper ,
iff
bangRedirect is the outcome
I'm pretty sure
WP:PRESERVE
enWiki ought to have a sentence/paragraph/subsection of some extant leaf-node article, and a helpful-navigational-redirect thereto.
  Question being, whether I've selected a good redirect-target. Your analogy of mexican-restaurant-in-
Listing_and_approval_use_and_compliance
to be a top-level "industry" article either; it is a subsidiary-field that attaches to a proper parent-industry (construction for NTA). I would categorize NTA in the following hierarchy, starting at something I actually do consider a top-level encyclopedia-article:
In other words, I don't consider NTA to be in the "cert industry" but rather in a special niche of the construction industry. (By contrast,
multidisciplinary field of inquiry
:
But in any case, my own eccentric hierarchy-system is (obviously) not set in stone for all of enWiki. I certainly don't insist that
Listing_and_approval_use_and_compliance is the only possible leaf-node redirect-target, should the result be bangDraftify&bangRedirect rather than bangWeakKeep. User:DGG, what leaf-node article do you suggest, as optimal? 75.108.94.227 (talk) 16:00, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:21, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:21, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:21, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus.  Sandstein  17:33, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Intercommunal conflict in Mandatory Palestine

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

Hello to all Wikipedia users. Im copying the reasons for deleting this article from it's talk page: "A second deletion proposal

This article is "copied from 'Zionist attitudes toward the Palestinian Arabs'" and has already caused confusion among Wikiusers. It's editing history hard to access, it doesn't link to any other Wikipedia and it's also unclear to what conflict does it cover. We already have a B-class Mandatory Palestine article with a wide politics section in it. For understanding the wide scope of relations between the zionist movement and arab region We have the Arab–Israeli conflict and the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. It's clear this article doesn't add anything but messing with Wikipedia. It was already up for a delete and i suggest either to do so or merge its relevant content with the above mentioned articles.Mateo (talk) 18:33, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Additionally, The previous deletion proposal was voted 5-2 in favor of delete, and even the keep voters stated this article needs heavy editing. This article remained incoherent with Wikipedias content, style of writing or editing, and has no sense keeping it as it is.Mateo (talk) 18:41, 31 October 2015 (UTC)" 19:04, 31 October 2015 (UTC) Mateo (talk) 03:59, 2 November 2015 (UTC)"[reply]
A link to the
Nashashibi, nor the conflict between Jewish militias or the relations between them and the Druze or the Negev Bedouin. It's clear this article wish to fix a feeling of bias, but i think Wikipedia isn't the place to do it. So with no improvement in it's content, let's not settle with changing the name again.Mateo (talk) 04:46, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
The deletion proposal your are referring to was originally made on this article under its previous name - "Zionist attitudes toward the Palestinian Arabs". This article wasn't copied from there, but it in fact the same article renamed.GreyShark (dibra) 15:57, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 10:29, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 10:29, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Your wrong. I actually quoted the user who copied it. He wrote it black on white: "copied from 'Zionist attitudes toward the Palestinian Arabs'; see talk) (thank)" It is now hard to trace edits the previous article because of the way the the name was changed. This article is problematical in so many ways, and actually ads almost nothing of importance to the subject it should cover. Best thing to do with it is delete it, but heavy editing is also of consideration.Mateo (talk) 08:26, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I have not read this article, so I have no idea which side is trying to fix which bias. AFter looking it over the outline of this article, I do think that this article fulfills a purpose that is not fulfilled by any of the other related articles (which are listed in the "See also" section) by detailing the Mandatory roots of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict in more detail than would have been appropriate in the Mandatory Palestine article. Debresser (talk) 10:58, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Half the article deals with the years prior to the mandate era. As i said, the name have changed twice but it's content is still "Zionist attitudes toward the Palestinian Arabs", which imply heavy POV and original research. The article is trying to fix a bias by the statement of it's own author, that said he wrote it because "the article on Zionism had no space". So this is actually not an article about mandatory palestine but a critical POV on Zionism that is written in pseudonym. The fact you also got mislead by it clearly points that it's a harmful article. Of course i think we should fix that.Mateo (talk) 15:23, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The articles you speak of were written by you after this one, in false relation to this one, and while they also refer to a conflict that was never separated then the Arab israeli conflict, they do add something of importance. That's why they should stay (but be renamed) while this one should just go.Mateo (talk) 08:22, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
1. The fighting between "communities" in the region did not start 30 years before the
First Arab-Israeli War
.
2. There were fights inside those communities as well.
3. There were a lot more then just "zionist" and "arabs" in that region
4. You did states some important things, BUT ALL OF THE IMPORTANT THINGS ALREADY EXIST IN OTHER WIKIPEDIA ARTICLS
5. It appears not a lot of voters actually read the article before voting, and thats very disappointing. Just a glance at the article will make it clear for you that it does not focuses on 1919-1948 and tries to detail the communities of mandatory Palestine, but it is actually a straight forward POV trying to show that the Israelis seek to transfer the Arabs from the land. Now this is a legitimate argument but it is highly controversial and definitely not right for an article named "Intercommunal conflict in Mandatory Palestine".
6. Furthermore, this term "Intercommunal conflict in Mandatory Palestine" is a complete made up term that is not explained in the article itself nor anywhere else. It is an original research that does not suit an encyclopedia and can confuse readers with lack of knowledge in the subject.
7. As someone how studied this matter, i urge you to read the article and reconsider your vote. I recommend to everybody to do the same.Mateo (talk) 08:26, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Mateo,
The intercommunal conflict (which doesn't mean armed conflict) started in 1917 at the anniversary of the Balfour declaration and each year after. The Arab population manifested against Zionism and Jewish immigration. In 1920 this evolved in riots which made a tenth of deads and again in 1921. The years after the were huge political conflict with Mandatory authorities. In 1929, new riots all around the country made more than hundred deaths. The years after Arab gangs organised step by step and this evolved in a 3 years civil war (some historians refer to this has the lost Arab Palestinian War of Independence). That war where Arabs fought Jews and the British authorities made more than 5000 deads among Arabs and hundreds among the others. The IZL and the LHI answered to this Arab revolt in using terrorism and Zionists claimed for their own independence. WWII was a truce period but as soon as 1944, the Zionists movements started their independence war (military and politically). This lead to the 1947 partition vote and a civil war (intercommunal war) in Mandatory Palestine between Jews and Arabs and that made around 9000 deaths in 6 months (ie more than 50 per day on a population of 2,000,000 people). All this occured before the 14 May 1948. Pluto2012 (talk) 07:05, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I wont argue with the things you wrote, tough i reccomend you to take a second look at your numbers. What is important for me to clarify once more is that THE ARTICE WE DISCUSS HERE do not deal with the relations between communities in the mandate era! It's a self-described copy of a controversial article named "zionist attitues towards palestinian arabs". This alone should be a cause for deletion. Please read the article. From top to bottom It's a push for a once-sided legitimate but non-encyclopedian POV while using a pseudonym. it causes confusion among users just by using a fringe term to describe the politics in British mandate (that no one would argue were a lot more complex than just Jews VS Arabs), not to mention it's tendentiousness content that focuses solely on the a idea of transfer. But above all the article is edited in a way it's hard if not impossible to see its origins. This bundle of distortions leads to an article that does not explain it's own title, while it's content deals with a totally different subject. There were a lot more then just Zionist and Arabs in Mandatory Palestine, and these two groups were hardly monolithic.
But as i said the discussion here is not about what happened, rater if this article contribute to Wikipedia or causes confusion and mistakes. Unfortunetley until now every user had put forth his own opinion on the relations in the region but NO ONE ADDRESSES THE ACTUAL CONTENT OF THE ARTICE! While this is strange, it got to show you this article can't be defended and is of no positive use. Most of the things you wrote, for example, are already written clearly in the Politics section of the british mandate artice. While it's importnat to expand that section, this article that's up for deletion does not add much to it and it's history and effect demonstrate the need to edit it heavily or delete it alltogether. Mateo (talk) 19:33, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you that the current content doesn't fit the title of the article. Anyway, contents issues are not solved by AfD. They are solved in modifying the content.
Pluto2012 (talk) 05:59, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
When it's a regular case you are right, but in front of us is an article that already got renamed twice. Do you suggest on renaming it again? Plus this article already causes serious mix up at the subject it should cover, and all of it's important content (which is very little) you can merge with the Politics section of the british mandate article. If you suggest keeping this article and EDIT it so it will explain it's title, you need to start from scratch. You can either vote to DELETE it or you can just set this article it's original name back and edit it's controversial content. In both of this alternatives you would be better using the Politics section of the british mandate article as a basis for an article about the communities of the mandate. But it's either Naming it back so it's title would fit it's content or Deleting it due to it's history and serious problems. What do you think is better?02:31, 8 November 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mateo (talk • contribs)
  • Comment - Can be nice to actually find one argument to keep this article that involves the content of the article. Yes, it has a pretty name, but it's an invented pseudonym to cover up a POV. Just read it, please.Mateo (talk) 08:26, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:06, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  12:14, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh really, you think a clean up would be enough? can you mention in specifics what parts need to be cleaned up??Mateo (talk) 07:32, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what "fork" means in this context, but have you read the content? Have you read any books or articles on the British mandate of Palestine before reading the article? Seriously what do you know on the issue, to vote Keep?
There was no conflict involving Zionists prior to 1921, except maybe the spillover of the Franco-Syrian War in 1920 (but that is another topic).GreyShark (dibra) 06:39, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
To say that the inter-communal politics in mandatory palestine were focused on the relations between a groups of "Zionist" and a group of "Arabs" is bigoted towards both sides and a simplistic POV at best. But to have an encyclopedic article that says that is a damn shame. Can you please address the facts of the matter, rather than the inner politics? As i said, the term "Intercommunial conflict" related to mandatory Palestine is a fringe term, hardly used be historians. Perhaps that's why there is no resource for the articles name, and it actually doesn't appear again in the article itself. How can you defend that? In addition, there were many types of Arab identities in the the region, having major differences along geographical lines and many different families that had complex relations with one another, many types of Zionist, other Jews that were not Zionists, some Jews that were part of the old population and more than a few co-operations between religions even by the time of the British occupation. So there is almost no connection between the name of the article and it's content. This is the reason it should be deleted, way before we say one word about the obviously biased approach of the articles author, that clearly said that this is an expansion of the "Zionism" article. I would like you to reconsider your vote, or at least share a comment on that, as I am quite surprised to find out how many voters here didnt read the article.07:32, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi Mateo,
As far as I am concerned, I would agree with an important "cleaning" of this article. I agree that too much undue:weight is given to the mutual "attitudes" (and even in the attitude of Zionist towards Arabs) when this is just a (small) part of the context.
Pluto2012 (talk) 10:37, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. And that's because this article is still "Zionist attitudes..." as it was from the get go, just under pseudonym. It was a mistake to think that changing it's name over and over again would urge users to edit it accordingly. This led to a very confusing article that can't stay as it is. Cleaning it, as you suggested, would mean start from scratch. From start to finish, the article doesn't detail events that happoned under the british rule, rather focuses on zionist actions and the responses others. In mass, more than one third of it doesn't even deal with the years of the mandate! That's why there is zero coverage of the 40's, as the article wrongly claims "From the beginning of the forties the Zionist movement stopped paying attention to the 'Arab question'." This claim, like many others, is an unsourced claim, which is still better than the many misquotes and sometimes utter distortions you can find of historians like Yosef Gorny. The more you will go through this salad you will find it's impossible to clean it without deleting it first. But we do have two other alternatives:
1.We can go back to it's original name and edit it's biased approach towards Zionism. When referring to "Zionist attitudes" in plural one must look at the full context of Zionism and should consider the attitudes of important Zionist leaders like
Hagana's general Sneh and Tel Aviv founder Chelouche
. This would still leave a one sided article in wikipedia but at least would be in proportion with reality.
2. We can heavily edit it and merge it's useful content with the "politics" and "demography" sections of the main "mandate article". Maybe this is the best idea, if we aim this article to detail the social atmosphere under colonial rule.
3. We can recognize that this article has so many flaws, regarding it's controversial history and POV content, that it would be very hard to work on it as it is. We can recognize this was and still is a one person's work. We all know how hard it is to edit an original research. Because it is doing damage to Wikipedia and confusing users, i still think we should Delete it, turn a new page and open a modest and accurate article that would discuss the important issue.
Tell me what you think is the best option, as i would be happy to go either way. 07:36, 18 November 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mateo (talk • contribs)
Actually i would have been agreeing with you, if the article still was in its original form (Zionist attitudes). However, with some significant changes, like adding the Arab perspective and the conflict timeline, this certainly warrants for a standalone article. Improvement still needed of course.GreyShark (dibra) 22:15, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My friend, i know you yourself have put a lot of effort to make this article reasonable and more balanced, and i even know that ironically some of your edits got deleted for pushing a POV that would damage the articles narrative. Trust me, I did my research before proposing this deletion. Alas, your hard work, as respected it may be, is like cleaning a wrecked car. It may look nicer but it is not in any more safer to drive. In fact it is now used as a cover up for a very harmful article. Indeed you and other editors added some Arab responses to those "Zionist attitudes", but it didn't made the article any more to deal with the communities in the British mandate, and their relation to one another. This article is still miles apart from it's title, and therefore it should be changed in according to one of the options mentioned above. This doesn't mean we should delete the timeline, by the way. In fact the timeline just shows again that this title is not appropriate, as it also starts from the end of the 19th century. It also deals with many events outside mandatory Palestine, so why don't we change it's name to "timeline of the Arab-Israeli conflict", so we can delete this article without tampering timeline? 06:28, 20 November 2015 (UTC) 06:29, 20 November 2015 (UTC)~
  • I still say, keep -- The original complaint was that the article was duplicating another. That is a legitimate complaint, but we ought to have an article with this title. If the content is not matching the title, it requires editing, not deletion. There was certainly much conflict during the mandate: at some periods, the British (who were, I think, merely trying to maintain order) found it necessary to support Arabs against Zionists; at other times the other way around. Arguments over the proper content should be resolved on the talk pages, not through an AFD. This is a topic on which views are polarised. Unless we can find an academic who is capable of standing back sufficiently to take a balanced view, it is almost inevitable that we will get a lot of POV statements in it - POV from both sides. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:57, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So you are saying we basically delete all of the content and leave the title? Fine, but what about the fact that this is an invented title, Wikipedia original, that has no resource in academic literature and therefore no translation in any other Wikipedia? Face it, this article is dent. It's completely dent. I agree that a separate article on Israelis and Palestinians is needed, but a good Wikipedia article on the inner politics under the British mandate should start from the politics section of the main article. So would you agree and reconsider your vote? 02:28, 22 November 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mateo (talk • contribs)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Deleted (G12) by Deor. (

non-admin closure) –Davey2010Talk 01:06, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Rōblox/Tutorials

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

Wikipedia is not a guidebook or instruction manual. —Largo Plazo (talk) 11:57, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was keep. (

non-admin closure) –Davey2010Talk 01:05, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Muffin Top: A Love Story

Muffin Top: A Love Story (edit | 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 listing for a non-notable film. Calton | Talk 11:36, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Ascii002 (talk · contribs · guestbook) 12:07, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. -- Ascii002 (talk · contribs · guestbook) 12:07, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It took some digging since not all of the search hits came up easily in a Google search, but I managed to find enough sourcing to show notability. I can see where Calton's concern came from, since some of these wouldn't have easily surfaced if I didn't use the official website as a guide to finding coverage.
    (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:46, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • The reviews aren't considered to be minor and there's quite a few of them - four, if you don't count the movie's listing on the Chicagoist's "worst of" article, which many likely would. Other than that there are seven sources and while some of these are brief, I'm not really relying on those for notability given that so many major publications reviewed the work. This is more than enough to assert notabiltiy per
    (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:17, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. KTC (talk) 02:02, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OsmoEngine

OsmoEngine (edit | 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. Non-notable video game engine. The1337gamer (talk) 11:26, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. The1337gamer (talk) 11:26, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Dialectric (talk) 15:43, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the content cloesly, you're right, it's a hoax. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 22:48, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weighing everything (including my searches which found nothing solid at all), I've tagged it as G3. SwisterTwister talk 23:22, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. KTC (talk) 02:02, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alliance Against Modern Slavery

Alliance Against Modern Slavery (edit | 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 NGO. The sources cited either a) refer to their launch night four years ago, b) are self-published, or c) are highly tangential - that they hosted a training course and were one of many organisations consulted on a government plan. This needs to go. The Drover's Wife (talk) 10:31, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as Promotional, but I'm sure they work hard for their cause. Neelix is the creator and major contributor, which given his publicly stated in the media advocacy on the topic raises concerns. The other major contributor is User:AAMS2011 = the group's initials with this [84] a series of edits. Basically no unbiased editor has ever touched this article. Legacypac (talk) 10:42, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 14:10, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 14:10, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. KTC (talk) 02:02, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Women's Support Network of York Region

Women's Support Network of York Region (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Minor municipal-level NGO, purely local sources: that the only information about them is press releases about grants and a panel with a politician points to non-notability. The Drover's Wife (talk) 10:24, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 14:19, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America1000 17:27, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus.  Sandstein  17:00, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Waconzy

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

Another Nigerian upcoming artist, struggling to be notable. Subject of the article fails

t@lk to M£ 09:42, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
t@lk to M£ 09:44, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
t@lk to M£ 09:44, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
t@lk to M£ 09:44, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
t@lk to M£ 09:44, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
The low profile musician is not in anyway close to passing either criteria 8 or 11. By the way, which notable award do you think he won to pass criteria 8? I'd like to mention that I'm also considering
t@lk to M£ 16:20, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
This awards are notable in
DSTV that why they make waves outside their zone which is Lagos State.... That does not mean they are no other awards in the country which are notable to.... Check out Nosa Wikipedia that does not mean you should nominate it for deletion all because you have no ideal about an award, all you have to do as and Article writer is to do your research first.... that what makes a good Wikipedia writer..... An quote me right not wrong He is not a low profile Musician--Bello96 (talk) 16:58, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Which of the criteria of
t@lk to M£ 20:16, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
I struck your !vote, as you are only allowed to !vote once at AFD. Natg 19 (talk) 06:15, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please, where are the load of sources that establish his notability?. Are you talking about those sources with no editorial control or oversight? Only independent
t@lk to M£ 22:54, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 21:57, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy Deleted (G12) by

non-admin closure) –Davey2010Talk 22:20, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Sindhica Reforms Society

Sindhica Reforms Society (edit | 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 page was copied and pasted to this site from a LInkedIn page (CorenSearchBot made note of this and I checked the wepsite). 

WikiEditCrunch (talk) 08:59, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (

non-admin closure) –Davey2010Talk 01:08, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Dr. judy ho

Dr. judy ho (edit | 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 references for this article consist either of directory listings, of articles the subject wrote herself, of sources which lack independence (http://www.drjudyho.com/AboutMe.en.html), or ones which are not independent or reliable (IMDB). The interview with her about living in L.A. is not "about" her, it's "about" L.A.. While having appeared on the Dr. Drew show suggests nascent notability, there is no evidence given of the subject having been the non-trivial focus of any reliable, independent publications. KDS4444Talk 08:36, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The creator's only other significant contribution is the writing of Maria_Ho an article on this subject's younger sister. Unsourced bio details like where they lived as children until what ages in both articles suggests the creator knows these two intimately. Legacypac (talk) 08:45, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. -- Ascii002 (talk · contribs · guestbook) 11:59, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. -- Ascii002 (talk · contribs · guestbook) 11:59, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- Ascii002 (talk · contribs · guestbook) 12:00, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment With improved sources and seeing she is on TV a fair bit, this may be a keep. I moved it to Judy Ho Legacypac (talk) 08:08, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Additional sources have been added. Ho has a significant television resume and presence, well over 150 episodes of network and cable television (as noted on IMDb) and currently appears on a major/national cable TV news show Dr. Drew On Call, with as much exposure and notoriety as any other media, television personality or TV host to warrant a wikipedia page. In addition to being the sibling of a sports figure/celebrity Maria Ho. User:Sunface1313 (talk) 17:30, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Notability made out in abundance on the cited sources. The Drover's Wife (talk) 05:04, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Clear evidence of notability. Though celebrity status may have been focus of the original article, it has been expanded and could easily be expanded even more with sourcing on her scientific contributions including research on mental health among immigrant populations here and here, as well as her published works here. A quick google search results in numerous hits from RS [86], [87], [88], [89] and a gold-mine of potential sources in her resume [90] and her dissertation [91] which could lead to article expansion. SusunW (talk) 18:29, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Meets notability - article just needs expansion and improvement. Needs to be renamed per naming conventions. 15:51, 18 November 2015 (UTC)Minor4th
  • Keep Clearly meets sourcing requirements, and has been renamed to fit conventions (thanks, @Legacypac). petrarchan47คุก 04:43, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 21:56, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sumith Edirisinghe

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

The subject of the article is merely a senior police officer. There is nothing contained in the article that establishes the subject's notability - fails

WP:ANYBIO. The references only provide a mention of the subject - merely establishing that he exists. The article has been tagged for improvement since August 2015, without any change. Dan arndt (talk) 01:41, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 01:44, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 01:44, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:02, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 01:18, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. He holds the rank of Deputy Inspector-General of Police. In Sri Lanka, which has a national police force, a DIGP is in charge of all the police in a province and is therefore responsible for the policing of a population of a couple of million or more. I think that makes officers of this rank sufficiently notable for articles, given that we consider British chief constables and police chiefs of largish American cities, who usually have a lot less policing responsibility, to be notable enough for articles. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:08, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:32, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | Talk 04:22, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (

non-admin closure) –Davey2010Talk 01:08, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Pavel Grechishko

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

Failure to show original research Thank you! larsona 08:01, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 08:41, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belarus-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 08:41, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 08:49, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. joe deckertalk 15:53, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nino Karalashvili

Nino Karalashvili (edit | 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:RS The Banner talk 08:00, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 08:07, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 08:07, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (

non-admin closure) Sam Sailor Talk! 01:32, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Earthworm Jim 4

Earthworm Jim 4 (edit | 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:NOT-Crystal Ball Entire article a record speculation the most useful blurb is the referenced comment from Oct 2015 indicating tat this game product never existed BrandeX (talk) 06:30, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk  07:46, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Reliable sources that dedicated entire articles to the subject:
  1. http://www.ign.com/articles/2008/04/23/earthworm-jim-returns
  2. http://www.gamesradar.com/earthworm-jim-4-still-coming-when-the-original-team-can-get-round-it-currently-has-awful-character-design/
  3. http://www.engadget.com/2008/04/23/earthworm-jim-4-announced-by-an-overenthusiastic-interplay-no-p/
  4. http://www.gamezone.com/news/new-earthworm-jim-game-will-probably-happen
  5. http://www.1up.com/news/interplay-announces-earthworm-jim-4
  6. http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2012-07-17-david-perry-sure-a-new-earthworm-jim-will-be-made
  7. http://www.gamezone.com/news/creator-doug-tennapel-teases-earthworm-jim-4
  • Weak keep Neutral. Strictly speaking, fails
    WP:TOOSOON should apply until there is an actual announcement (the 2008 one was later denied) by the IP owners or the contracted developer backed up by an in-development product. Most sourcing boils down to people wanting to make it and talking about it, but nothing real yet existing, just tons of rumors that are all denied. Current article (without directly using the quotes) could serve as a paragraph on development history if the game was ever made. I definitely consider content worth keeping, just unsure if it should be a stand-alone article or part of people's and developer's article. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 15:24, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Fair enough. I guess they are seriously talking about it. They just have produced no results. I doubt that's a topic deserving a separate article rather than a section in developer's article. But it has plentiful sources, so if consensus is to place content as a stand-alone article, I'm okay either way. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 16:39, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that
    WP:GNG says nothing about requiring a product to exist, only that a topic be covered in detail by suitable sources. As a topic, Earthworm Jim 4 clearly meets this... Even if the product that the topic discusses doesn't exist yet. -- ferret (talk) 17:16, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy Deleted (A7) by

non-admin closure) –Davey2010Talk 22:21, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Bell 宇田

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

No references were shown in this article. It is also very short and needs to be translated from Chinese to English. (Also does not show why this person is important) (Posted using

 of Heaven!  06:08, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk  07:48, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment A lack of references in an article is a maintenance issue, not grounds for deletion. The article is not so short that it doesn't qualify as a legitimate
    PRODded
    ). 10:59, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Ah, sorry, I missed the last point. If the article uncontestably doesn't show why the person is important and the person isn't notable, then the article qualifies for speedy deletion under
    WP:A7 and there was no need to initiate a discussion. —Largo Plazo (talk) 11:02, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Despite the nomination this is all related to Neelix - The user is obviously not the articles subject and the user isn't the creator of this article so I'm wrapping this up as Speedy Keep, No objections to renomination at any given time. (

non-admin closure) –Davey2010Talk 18:51, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Neelix

Neelix (edit | 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 entire article is directly sourced to primary sources, with no claim of significant notability as needs to established from outside RS. The article is written "in universe" and is therefore not encyclopedic. Legacypac (talk) 06:00, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk  07:49, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk  07:49, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedied as G10 (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 07:44, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Our Lord's Chapel - Evansville, Indiana

Our Lord's Chapel - Evansville, Indiana (edit | 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 sources, not properly styled for Wikipedia, questionable notability at best JamesG5 (talk) 05:53, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
(talk) 05:59, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to

Flower of Life (geometry). MBisanz talk 21:58, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Metatron's Cube

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

Pure

independent notice that we would require for a stand-alone fringe article. jps (talk) 13:13, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. North America1000 15:10, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. North America1000 15:10, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | Talk 04:47, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. KTC (talk) 02:03, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mickopedia

Mickopedia (edit | 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 website lacks notability.

talk) 03:16, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America1000 12:18, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:45, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk  07:50, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk  07:51, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to

non-admin closure) Esquivalience t 01:26, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Cambridge Tolkien Society

Cambridge Tolkien Society (edit | 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 Tolkien society. Prod tag removed by VMS Mosaic with an edit summary suggesting that there may be good coverage in two or more books, left a note on user's talk page requesting what they are over two weeks but got no response. Two best I found: [100] (inclusion in a publication of another society) and [101] (mention) Rainbow unicorn (talk) 02:14, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:45, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 21:08, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 21:08, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. KTC (talk) 02:03, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cowboy Songs, Volume 1 (Bing Crosby album)

Cowboy Songs, Volume 1 (Bing Crosby album) (edit | 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 compilation. Koala15 (talk) 02:11, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 18:53, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:44, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - No convincingly better sources. SwisterTwister talk 07:38, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retain this fits in to the listing of 78 albums by Crosby and has historical significance showing the gradual updating to vinyl. Will add more info to it in next few days. MACWILMSLO
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Lafarge (company). More specifically: Consensus that Ductal is not, by itself, notable, there's some support for a redirect, any merging that is attempted can be considered as an editorial question at the page on Lafarge. joe deckertalk 15:51, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ductal

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

Questionably notable and improvable commercial product? as the best I found was this, this, this, this and this. At best, if this product is notable but simply best known through the brand name, it may be salvageable but I'm not entirely sure about that. Pinging the only still active interested user Mean as custard. SwisterTwister talk 06:10, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:12, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America1000 14:36, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. North America1000 14:36, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor Talk! 05:42, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge - Does not appear to meet stand-alone notability requirements. Not sure the merge would be successful but happy to let someone take a crack at it. ~Kvng (talk) 14:39, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor Talk! 04:40, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Per

non-admin closure) —UY Scuti Talk 18:51, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Syed Mahmood Quadri

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

Self-sourced biography, notability unclear. Is just being a judge or a college principal enough to be notable for Wikipedia? kashmiri TALK 00:33, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Human3015TALK  14:11, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Human3015TALK  14:11, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Human3015TALK  14:13, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor Talk! 01:22, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:40, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Per

non-admin closure) —UY Scuti Talk 18:51, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Garth Maxwell

Garth Maxwell (edit | 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 producer. None of the references is both independent and in depth. Contested deletion.

Stuartyeates (talk) 00:20, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Human3015TALK  14:13, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Human3015TALK  14:13, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor Talk! 01:22, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:39, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 21:54, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Skunk Studios, Inc.

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

Questionably notable and improvable company article as the best I found was this, this, this and this. Pinging interested users

Czar, SuperHamster, The1337gamer, VQuakr and Eeekster. SwisterTwister talk 06:10, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:12, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:12, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:12, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:12, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor Talk! 05:41, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete At this point there's nothing in the article to demonstrate notability, and cursory searches of Google didn't turn up anything like a feature on the studio or the like. I looked at the games that have Wikipedia articles, and none of them sport a real review from a reputable third party that would suggest their games are notable either. Towards Ninja's comment above, notability isn't inherited. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 13:16, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor Talk! 04:38, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 11:35, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

World of Guns: Gun Disassembly

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

Little or no evidence of notability WP:GNG (fails

WP:NGAMES essay). Guess this should be deleted. —UY Scuti Talk 16:34, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. —UY Scuti Talk 16:53, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 07:00, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 04:20, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:37, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 11:31, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Xacore

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

Another questionably notable and improvable company article as the best I found was this and this and the history simply shows how much attention this article has gotten since starting in March 2010. Pinging tagger Eeekster. SwisterTwister talk 06:08, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:13, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:13, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:13, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:13, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor Talk! 05:27, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor Talk! 04:36, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[Revert as per
WP:BLOCKEVASION
using strikethrough font.  22:29, 13 November 2016 (UTC)]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Per

non-admin closure) —UY Scuti Talk 18:24, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Greg Howard (musician)

Greg Howard (musician) (edit | 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 has been tagged as possibly non-notable since September 2011. Only reference provided is to a non-reliable site. My own searches have not turned up any significant coverage (although admittedly this might be challenging with his common name). FuriouslySerene (talk) 13:27, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Human3015TALK  14:14, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Human3015TALK  14:15, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 07:02, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:36, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Despite apparent sockpuppetry in some of the !votes, there is a consensus for at least a weak keep. Agree with some contributors that it is borderline - this article would benefit from some thorough research into additional reliable sources, if it's to survive here in the long term. -- Euryalus (talk) 08:44, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

PlagScan

PlagScan (edit | 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 notabilty. Only one source appears to be independent and that hardly demonstrates notability. Fails

WP:GNG  Velella  Velella Talk   12:57, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Human3015TALK  14:19, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Human3015TALK  14:19, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Human3015TALK  14:19, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 07:02, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:32, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

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

The result was delete. without prejudice to a redirect if the fellow is mentioned at the target article. joe deckertalk 15:42, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ala al-Maliki

Ala al-Maliki (edit | 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 unfortunate Iraqi does not satisfy

WP:VICTIM. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:01, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:46, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:46, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:46, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 07:30, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:31, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus.  Sandstein  17:34, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Homs offensive (October 2015)

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

Only one source in the article discusses this in detail, fails

WP:GNG. Also near clone of Daraa offensive (October 2015) Mdann52 (talk) 09:31, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. Human3015TALK  10:55, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Human3015TALK  10:55, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't a valid argument against deletion to just say "Nom no longer valid", you need to provide an actual reason. -
talk) 21:31, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
The nom is no longer valid as there are 2 sources discussing it in detail, I added another one, 2 comments up. I'll repeat in case it was overlooked for some reason - Keep Added another Yahoo News source. Syria regime in new offensive as Putin blasts US, Yahoo News, 16-10-15 There are plenty more. I'll go add a BBC one too [109] Guru Noel (talk) 01:27, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The sources you added contradict the unsourced (most likely OR) start date of the offensive you inserted (6 October). Instead they give a totally different start date (15 October). And a lack of subsequent sources on an offensive in Homs province (for more than three weeks since than) suggests it was only a one-day operation and making it highly non-notable to warrant its own article. EkoGraf (talk) 04:49, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti Talk 18:56, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:05, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:05, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | Talk 04:31, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 11:23, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Southgate Symphony Orchestra

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

Seems to have been developed by

WP:SPA/s. Amateur orchestra, no evidence of notability. Dweller (talk) 16:44, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America1000 16:05, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America1000 16:05, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America1000 16:05, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | Talk 04:30, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. KTC (talk) 02:04, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kashmir Main Tu Kanyakumari

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

After compilation of trivia from all gossip columns, the article writes about reviews of the song. The critical reception section writes reviews of the songs from mostly

WP:RS but NSONGS says "... Coverage of a song in the context of an album review does not establish notability. If the only coverage of a song occurs in the context of reviews of the album on which it appears, that material should be contained in the album article and an independent article about the song should not be created..."; which is what is happening here. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 10:06, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 10:06, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 10:06, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 11:01, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:29, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. KTC (talk) 02:05, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

South West Healthcare

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

Reason Enj23ui3u1 (talk) 10:12, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

cat=O Page not needed

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:49, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:49, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:49, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 11:01, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:29, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  Sandstein  17:01, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

BrightHR

BrightHR (edit | 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

Peninsula Business Services, to which it is linked Edwardx (talk) 11:27, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Human3015TALK  14:15, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Human3015TALK  14:16, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Human3015TALK  14:16, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Human3015TALK  14:16, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I created this Wikipedia page and have continued to work on it to add credibility and make it more noteworthy. Thank you for recognising the work that has so far been put in to make this article more noteworthy, I can assure you that I will continue to work on the page to make it as relevant and reliable as possible.

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to discuss the proposed deletion and I'm confident I can help clear up any confusion.

I believe the reasons being given for proposed deletion are based on there being limited non-trivial coverage, no independent coverage and content forking. I'll address them below:

Ther is link, however BrightHR is not part of Peninsula Business Services. BrightHR is a separate company, co-founded by the former Managing Director and Head of Marketing of accountancy firm Sage. The company is backed by Peter Done who is the main investor. Peter Done is the owner and managing director of Peninsula Business Services. During its founding period, BrightHR been fortunate to be able to rely on Peninsula Business Services for various resources. BrightHR is based in The Peninsula Building in Manchester. Peninsula Business Services operates from the first 6 floors of the building, whereas BrightHR is based on floor 9. The Peninsula is a commercial office skyscraper with a number of businesses occupying it, these include BrightHR, Laterooms as well as being the home of the British Transport Police in Manchester. As BrightHR develops it will become clearer that the two businesses are separate. Done is an investor in and owner of a number of businesses outside Peninsula Business Services many of which have their own Wikipedia entry, BetFred being just one example. I understand the original redirect was put in place to Peninsula Business Services, however I hope this demonstrates why this redirect was inappropriate.

In terms of notability and the quality of the sources go, BrightHR has been featured in a number of news sites and publications following the release of the academic research the company commissioned which was lead by the UK's leading behaviuoral psychologist Manchester University's Professor Sir Cary Cooper. This has seen Professor Sir Cary Cooper, BrightHR and the results of this report featured in a wide range of publications including The Daily Mail, The Sun, The Scotsman and has seen the story being featured on around 50 different radio stations across the UK. This academic research should be seen as non-trivial and the publications which have covered it are independent. This volume of coverage in itself adds a level of notability and credibility to the company.

In addition to the two founders being interviewed for the BDaily article referenced in this article, the company's Co-Founder & Chief Marketing Officer has been featured in Marketing Week, which is the UK's leading marketing publication and he is to present at the UK's most prestigious marketing conference The Festival of Marketing. This should give some indication for the level of esteem in which BrightHR's marketing and PR activities are held with the marketing community and how they have made the company, its output and its professionals relevant to a broader audience. Again this is independent coverage and non-trivial coverage.

This is only the beginning of this article. I have every intention of creating a really relevant and and useful resource. I will continue to add independent references and include non-trivial content.

I've not created loads of business pages, however I have created some that have taken on a life of their own (which is how I believe it should be) and I'd like to think that if it's allowed to develop this article will go on to become one of those articles.

Thank you for your consideration and i hope you will agree to let me continue to develop this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cosmicsqueaker (talk • contribs) 10:57, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 11:25, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:28, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The best ref is indeed the Marketing Week articles: unfortunately, it is about neither the company nor the founder; it gives him a paragraph to discusses his company as one example one of about a dozen companies included, giving it less space than most of the others. I do not consider it significant coverage. As for the other articles, most of them show that we need an article on Sir Cary Cooper. The firm merely funded the work; Sir Cooper did it. Other refs contain links to the sort of incidental mentions that do not show notability, such as their cofounder sharing a platform with a more notable person. I have learned in article about companies to actually read the references, not judge them by their titles or what people may say here in supporting them. Seeing referencing of this sort, I would delete for promotionalism, not move to draft space, and not make a redirect. DGG ( talk ) 00:23, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the significant coverage in
    reliable sources
    .
    1. Begum, Shelina (2015-11-05). "Tech firm is off to a bright start". Manchester Evening News. Archived from the original on 2015-11-22. Retrieved 2015-11-22.

      The article notes:

      Manchester people management software company, BrightHR, is ‘set to revolutionise the industry’ with the launch of a new cloud based HR software specifically for SMEs.

      It is being headed by the former MD of Sage Accountants’ Division, Paul Tooth and its ex-head of marketing Paul Harris with support from Peninsula’s Peter Done.

      The people management software, which was launched at the CIPD conference in Manchester this week, has been developed to help SMEs ‘effortlessly’ implement HR admin processes, and get specialist knowledge on topics ranging from employment law to happiness.

      With a multi-million pound investment, BrightHR offers a cloud based HR solution for SMEs says Tooth.

    2. Begum, Shelina (2015-11-04). "BrightHR lights up Manchester with #CIPD15 Campaign". Manchester Evening News. Archived from the original on 2015-11-22. Retrieved 2015-11-22.

      The article notes:

      Bright HR, the newly-launched cloud-based HR software, is showcasing its recent rebrand with a stand-out taxi advertising campaign in Manchester, allowing attendees at this week’s CIPD Annual Conference and Exhibition to travel in style.

      Co-ordinated by Media Agency Group as part of its continued work with Bright HR, a full wrap taxi campaign will see the brand make a 'strong impact' in the city.

      Those visiting the event will be able to travel by taxi from Bright HR’s Manchester office in Victoria Place to the event at Manchester Central.

    3. Bacon, Jonathan (2015-10-21). "How to find creative marketing talent". Marketing Week. Archived from the original on 2015-11-22. Retrieved 2015-11-22.

      The article notes:

      For small businesses, meanwhile, starting out with a strong creative culture is vital for future growth. Bright HR, a provider of HR management software, has placed great importance on its recruitment processes and internal management structure as it seeks to become a dominant player in its B2B market.

      This translates to the layout of the company’s Manchester office, which is primarily open-plan with a large artificial garden in the centre of the room. Bright HR’s 70-strong staff are encouraged to sit and share ideas across different departments. The office also incorporates a range of games including an Xbox console, spacehoppers and Nerf guns to make the working environment more enjoyable.

      Paul Harris, CMO at Bright HR, says that talented, creative developers are in short supply in the technology sector, meaning that companies need to create an internal culture that stands out in order to attract them. Given its ambition to become a disruptive force in the HR software market, the company wants its staff to think for themselves and take risks.

    4. Draycott, Richard (2015-08-20). "BrightHR prepares for new brand launch with Media Agency Group support". The Drum. Archived from the original on 2015-11-22. Retrieved 2015-11-22.

      The article notes:

      Online staff management platform BrightHR has appointed Manchester’s Media Agency Group as its sole media partner as the company prepares to rebrand from OnlineHR from November onwards.

      The Media Agency Group has been tasked with increasing brand awareness, generating revenue and raising the profile of the company as it rebrands as BrightHR, which will see MAG assume the responsibility of all media planning and buying for BrightHR, in order to target its ideal audience, which is comprised of members of the HR professionals, referral partners, small business owners and employees.

      Bright HR is a cloud-based Human Resources service that provides small to medium sized businesses with an easy way to manage their day-to-day HR needs. It takes the hassle out of managing absenteeism, giving the busy HR professional or business owner the chance to concentrate on other aspects of management, like employee engagement and growing their business in the most effective way possible.

    5. Malia, Simon (2015-08-19). "BrightHR appoints Media Agency Group to promote rebrand". Bdaily. Archived from the original on 2015-11-22. Retrieved 2015-11-22.

      The article notes:

      Salford-based Media Agency Group has been appointed by BrightHR, and will be responsible for all advertising spend for the soon-to-be rebranded business.

      Bright HR is a cloud-based Human Resources service that assists small to medium sized businesses to manage their day-to-day HR needs. The firm has its headquarters in Manchester.

      Specialising in managing absenteeism, BrightHR works with in-house HR professionals and business owners, freeing them to concentrate on other aspects of management.

      The business is currently known as HR Online. Media Agency Group has been commissioned to increase brand awareness, generate revenue and raise the profile of the company as it rebrands as BrightHR.

    6. Chapman, Stephen (2015-09-25). "Doodledo Motion wins BrightHR pitch". Prolific North. Archived from the original on 2015-11-22. Retrieved 2015-11-22.

      The article notes:

      HR Online, which will re-emerge following a rebrand as BrightHR, has appointed DoodleDo Motion as its video agency, following a competitive pitch.

      ...

      BrightHR was formed by former Sage duo, Paul Tooth and Paul Harris. It’s part of the Manchester-based Peninsula Group.

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

    Cunard (talk) 19:58, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply

    ]

I would rather term these as minor notices and press releases. Look at their wording: they repeat the company's own description of themselves in the same words. DGG ( talk ) 20:05, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Depth of coverage says:

Deep coverage provides an organization with a level of attention that extends well beyond routine announcements and makes it possible to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub about an organization.

The articles provide "deep coverage" of the subject.

Cunard (talk) 20:52, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - I don't consider a profile in a local newspaper as considerable and notable coverage, it's pushed by their PR team and likely to get some column inches in the niche paper because it's a local interest piece. The entire article is a giant advert for a non-notable company that has done nothing of any significance. The page is just a PR dump of anything that can paint the company in a positive light, every mention in press and every time the co-founder shared a stage with someone half-famous at festivals of marketings - once you take the fluff and non-encyclopaedic content, and address the COI and neutrality issues, nothing will remain of the article anyway. Rayman60 (talk) 14:00, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. KTC (talk) 02:05, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Monbo Time

Monbo Time (edit | 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 song by non-notable composers. Does not meet

WP:GNG. If references can be produced, could be added to article on Bill Monbouquette. ubiquity (talk) 12:50, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Human3015TALK  14:01, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 11:32, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:27, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. KTC (talk) 02:05, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Adventurer's Kit

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

Spam article on an unreleased game for which the Kickstarter hasn't even gone live. Article written by the designer. This should be an easy A7/G11 speedy deletion, but taking to AfD for procedural reasons--after the author himself removed the speedy (quickly reverted) and offered a

WP:OTHERSTUFF defense on the talk page, an "independent" editor with no other edits removed the speedy tag without explanation or improvement. --Finngall talk 13:32, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Human3015TALK  14:00, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 11:32, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:27, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. While there are plans to create this game, the game does not exist at this point in time and there's really no actual coverage of this proposed game in places Wikipedia would consider reliable or in-depth. The company itself may be notable - a Parent's Choice Award can be an indication of notability - but notability is
    (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:30, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus.  Sandstein  17:01, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shinobi Ninja

Shinobi Ninja (edit | 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 band, fails

WP:NMUSIC, no significant covereage BMK (talk) 19:57, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 12:00, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:26, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sarah-Jane (talk) 15:54, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hosein Soleymani

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

Subject of the article fails

t@lk to M£ 21:48, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
t@lk to M£ 21:51, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
t@lk to M£ 21:51, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Thanks for pointing this out,
t@lk to M£ 02:34, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Capitalization redirect seemed appropriate.
t@lk to M£ 02:51, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Human3015TALK  10:31, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 12:01, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:26, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The ip's comment is well noted, but like them, I am not qualified to evaluate the Persian Wiki's references. I waited through two relists to see if there was an interested person who could comment on the veracity of the Arabic sources, but alas, no takers. So I am left with the humble tools afforded those of us on English Wikipedia. Using those, like the nom and the above editor, I could find nothing to show this person meets either
    WP:NACTOR. Onel5969 TT me 13:19, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 11:19, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Knee High Media Japan

Knee High Media Japan (edit | 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)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Seemingly non-notable and questionably improvable as the best I found was this and this. Pinging taggers Epeefleche and RP459. SwisterTwister talk 21:00, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 21:02, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 21:02, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:37, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 12:01, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:25, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. joe deckertalk 15:40, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ty Brenneman

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

Per

WP:GNG. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:27, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:06, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:06, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 12:01, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:25, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Per

non-admin closure) —UY Scuti Talk 18:09, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Betty Mendez Livioco

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

Questionably notable and improvable as the best I found was this and this. Pinging the only still active user Kguirnela. SwisterTwister talk 20:59, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 21:05, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 21:05, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 21:05, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 12:02, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:24, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 21:53, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kadhalo Rajakumari

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

Unremarkable film that fails

t@lk to M£ 22:08, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America1000 14:58, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America1000 14:58, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
director:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
producer:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
actor:(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)
actor alt spelling:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
And through
WP:INDAFD: "Kadhalo Rajakumari" "Mahesh Suparaneni" "Namitha Pramod" "Nara Rohit" "BV Srinivas" "Nara Rohith"
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 12:02, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:24, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to

non-admin closure) –Davey2010Talk 01:10, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Walker and the Shade of Allanon

Walker and the Shade of Allanon (edit | 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 see no reason to suppose this individual story is notable, especially since the collection from which it comes is at present not the subject of an article...if it was, I wouls make this a redirect. TheLongTone (talk) 15:11, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 19:46, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:22, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | Talk 18:17, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Stathis

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

Sources in the article are almost all either run by him or fringe and not acceptable for a BLP. The CNN source has a one sentence mention. His books are self-published. I couldn't find anything convincing when I searched. I don't think his appearance on the Thom Hartmann show etc is enough. Doug Weller (talk) 14:59, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Human3015TALK  15:39, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Human3015TALK  15:39, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:07, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
discuss 05:17, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor Talk! 04:21, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. The argument is about whether or not the article passes

WP:GNG, and the lengthy discussion did not discover arguments why one of the sides is clearly wrong. In this situation, I close the discussion as no consensus. Given that the event happened 20 years ago, it would probably not reasonable to try to AfD it again before several years have passed.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:29, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

United Airlines Flight 826

United Airlines Flight 826 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Seems to be a case of

WP:EVENT. While one passenger died, the plane suffered no damage and landed safety and the incident did not lead to any long term changes or impacts on the airline industry. There was not even an investigation, or if there was one, it was not extensively covered. Planes encountering air turbulence is not that uncommon and unless it led to a major crash like American Airlines Flight 587, there is no reason to have articles on every single incident that occurs on a flight. Searching "United Airlines Flight 826" on any search engine mostly comes up results for the 1960 mid-air collision over New York, where one of the planes involved had the same flight number. A single death does not automatically merit notability, especially since the family did not file a lawsuit or anything The Legendary Ranger (talk) 22:10, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:06, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:06, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:06, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:06, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This one did involve a fatality. There's far too much sourced topic-specific content to be merged to the Clear-air turbulence article. --Oakshade (talk) 01:22, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There's no need to merge everything. Sources like the NTSB's interim press release or the ASN entry are redundant, in this case, and trivia like the flight attendant hanging upside-down can be safely omitted. --Deeday-UK (talk) 11:03, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The sourced flight details (altitude, flight path, weather predictions, etc.), timeline, amount of force, injuries, actions by the crew and the subsequent investigation are all out-of-place in the turbulence article. With this source from 2011, there's even more than can be included. Two similar sources in this article has nothing to do with the inappropriateness of content in another article (that issue was corrected anyway). --Oakshade (talk) 15:28, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems to meet

WP:PERSISTENCE at face value.Bahb the Illuminated (talk) 07:38, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

After a review, perhaps the creation of a disambiguation page and renaming this page United Airlines Flight 826 (1997) or something along those lines would appease objections due to redirects.Bahb the Illuminated (talk) 07:41, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
discuss 05:14, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
discuss 05:14, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
WP:ITSNOTABLE aside, is there any rationale based on WP's actual polices or guidelines? --Oakshade (talk) 04:04, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
The polices and guidelines are interpreted by the editors who use them. The incident makes a good newspaper or magazine article, but a stand alone article in an encyclopedia it is not. Samf4u (talk) 14:49, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Which exact polices or guidelines are you interpreting to mean the topic doesn't pass them and how did you reach that conclusion?--Oakshade (talk) 16:37, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor Talk! 04:20, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable by

Talk to me 23:03, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

How is this topic receiving significant coverage by multiple independent sources spanning several years not passing
WP:NOTE? And why delete this article because the "incident was entirely preventable"? What does that have to do with WP:NOTE? Almost every aviation disaster was entirely preventable. And how is your subjective opinion that the topic is "probably not memorable" mean it doesn't pass our notability guidelines? --Oakshade (talk) 05:25, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Talk to me 19:15, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
WP:DEPTH as the in-depth coverage spanned many years.--Oakshade (talk) 03:34, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
  • I don't get why my statements including:
  • "Which I've said does not give it the WP:GEOSCOPE (as this article was covered locally in the United States by this article, which even if it makes it more likely to be notable, doesn't mean an article should be created), WP:DEPTH (which the article only has 2 being CNN and the book), WP:DIVERSE (which is relaying information already used), and WP:LASTING (as the outcome of this event was only the retirement of one aircraft from an airline that can buy more, something that would make it lasting would be a lawsuit by the family) it needs to pass." and
  • "Besides even if it passes that one criteria, it still fails the other four important criterias that I've mentioned in the previous log of WP:EVENT (One criteria does not trump all)".
  • I've explained why they don't meet a lot of times before, which seemed to be ignored and I don't know how to say it again rather than copying and pasting it from my previous paragraphs. As for
    WP:NOTE
    , there are other events like I've stated twice. Its not notable compared to them as they seem like common events with common tragedies. As I've stated:
  • "...to comply with evidence who's to say that here by a simple search, an Air France flight in 1996, Eastern Airlines in October 1990, China Airlines in 1982, or Indian Airlines in 1980 aren't notable? All five are similar with one or two deaths" and
  • "...looking up similar incidents like this here which are greater or equal to the resulting information of this incident."
  • "Besides even if it passes that one criteria, it still fails the other four important criterias that I've mentioned in the previous log of WP:EVENT."
Just a guideline? Any rationale of how in-depth coverage of this event spanning almost two decades applies to NOTNEWS?--Oakshade (talk) 16:45, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 08:52, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Integral Transformative Practice

Integral Transformative Practice (edit | 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 our

outside notice of this peculiar practice means we probably shouldn't have a dedicated article on it. jps (talk) 17:42, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:20, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No substance beyond a narrative about this single group, no outside points of view or sources. The general concept (and criticisms) is covered in
    Integral_theory_(Ken_Wilber).Cyrej (talk) 22:23, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus.  Sandstein  19:14, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Photo Researchers

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

Seven-year old completely unreferenced stub with only one wick and few constructive (as in expanding the content) edits (all of them are minor changes, and none added sources). As for the subject itself, a GS brings up no secondary sources except this news article reporting the merge with Science Source (which isn't mentioned in the article at all). GNS returns no news articles covering the subject enough. GSS returns nothing usable either, at least that I could access. (GS=Google Search, GNS=Google News Search, GSIS=Google Scholar Search). Verdict:Unremarkable company stub consisting entirely of OR. Hop on Bananas (talk) 20:27, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note:This debate has been included in the list of list of Photography-related deletion discussions.Hop on Bananas (talk) 20:48, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note:This debate has been included in the list of list of Business-related deletion discussions.Hop on Bananas (talk) 20:48, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note:This debate has been included in the list of list of New York-related deletion discussions.Hop on Bananas (talk) 20:48, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 20:40, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 02:54, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed that the article itself is outdated. When it was written in 2008, Photo Researchers and Science Source were independent stock agencies (although the latter was owned by the former). They have since merged, as the linked news article explains. That's why the merge isn't mentioned. Also: 

"The company was founded by Peter Schults in his apartment on Manhattan's East 57th Street. At first running the business from his home, Mr. Schults amassed one of the largest collections of travel photography, covering many rare and exotic locations and cultures. To this day, if you pick up a book on geography or cultural anthropology or an atlas published between the 1950s and 1970s you are pretty much guaranteed to see Photo Researchers as a major photo source."

A quick Google Books (henceforth GBS) search reveals this, but of course, if no reliable sources state this directly, it cannot be in the article. Anyway, the GBS got nothing but endless zoology, ecology, geography, anthropology etc. books using photos from it/listing it in the photo credits, which is...not a good sign. I wouldn't be surprised if the Wikipedia article is the only source covering Photo Researchers in existence. (The news article I linked, and maybe others (especially on stock photography news sites) cover the merge, but this one might be the only source about the agency specifically. Some of the news articles I mentioned might explain the history of PR, but this might as well be the only source covering the agency itself and not the merge.

- Hop on Bananas (talk) 20:12, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor Talk! 04:12, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can't we just delete this since it obviously fails

WP:NOTABILITY? Hop on Bananas (talk) 15:48, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

If the subject is, in fact, notable, it needs citations like the ones you linked. In fact I think it needs to be rewritten entirely. Hop on Bananas (talk) 23:40, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus. Consider discussing a merger on the talk page.  Sandstein  17:45, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

New Square arson attack

New Square arson attack (edit | 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:POVSPLIT. Proud Novice (talk) 17:57, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:02, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:02, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:02, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
discuss 01:15, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:41, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | Talk 04:12, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. KTC (talk) 02:05, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Michelle Mackey

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

Subject of the article fails

t@lk to M£ 21:15, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
t@lk to M£ 21:16, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
t@lk to M£ 21:16, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 02:52, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 18:57, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor Talk! 04:07, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Thanks to

non-admin closure) Sam Sailor Talk! 00:21, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Pitafi

Pitafi (edit | 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

reliable publications. clpo13(talk) 16:50, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. clpo13(talk) 16:50, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete. There is this, but it is just a passing mention. Nothing else strikes me as a reliable source.

/tlk 17:32, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. North America1000 18:03, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It should be added that this was initially a proposed deletion on 29 October 2015‎, which was overturned and deprodded shortly after by 2602:30a:2efe:f050:6c6f:3b3d:9f18:9068 (talk · contribs) who was later blocked for disruption. As the article currently stands, there are no reliable sources which would support the existence of this article, nor have there been since the inception of this article on 12 July 2013‎ from what I can tell. Should evidence of reliable and non-trivial coverage of this tribe come forward during this discussion please do not hesitate to contact me on my talk page for consideration. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 21:23, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I have found half a dozen references that demonstrate the existence of the tribe. If the subject can not be shown worthy of its own article Merge into a suitable parent article, which can be created if required. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 03:13, 13 November 2015 (UTC).[reply]
User:Wikiisawesome, User:Antrocent, User:Yamaguchi先生: care to revisit? – Juliancolton | Talk 04:02, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | Talk 04:02, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mkdwtalk 23:23, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ashton Moio

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

Doesn't pass

WP:GNG. TheAstuteObserver (talk) 08:53, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:38, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:38, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:38, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:38, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor Talk! 00:48, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor Talk! 04:01, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. joe deckertalk 15:37, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

REP Interactive

REP Interactive (edit | 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 was not properly made by a single purpose account. A quick google search reveals that he works for the company. Thus, there is a conflict of interest. The article also uses peacock terms. It should either be drafted or deleted. --JumpLike23 (talk) 00:48, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Me, I would gave probably just tagged it for speedy deletion as unambiguous advertising. Anyway, I don't see any coverage that isn't PR-newswire type stuff, like this. They've won marketing awards, but nothing that would confer enough notability to keep, I don't think.
    talk) 02:47, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 02:50, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 02:50, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 03:05, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor Talk! 04:00, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. The hardest part of this was figuring out who all the sockpuppets are. All of these are

WP:SPAs
:

Note, that includes people on both sides of the argument, including the nom. Anyway, throw all that away and I see NC. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:39, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Farshid Delshad

Farshid Delshad (edit | 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 entry was created for self-promotion. It is poorly written and contains little, if any, relevant primary and secondary sources. If you look at the Edit history of the user ("Europersia") who created this Wikipedia entry, and then look at the history of Europersia's own User page, you can see that the entire entry on "Farshid Delshad" existed on Europersia's personal User page at the time this article was created: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Europersia Exposing selfpromotion (talk) 01:32, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The "Farshid Delshad" entry was created for self-promotion. It is poorly written and contains little, if any, relevant primary and secondary sources. If you look at the Edit history of the user ("Europersia") who created this Wikipedia entry, and then look at the history of Europersia's own User page, you can see that the entire entry on "Farshid Delshad" existed on Europersia's personal User page at the time this article was created: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Europersia Exposing selfpromotion (talk) 01:33, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know who created the page but I made some editing. all I added has sources and besides that, his name is mentioned in different wiki pages and different categories. could you tell me what's the reason that you keep asking for deletion? thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aviva Jacobson (talk • contribs) 01:40, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Despite the timestamps in the nomination, this was created on 27 October 2015 and listed on that day's AfD log page. North America1000 15:11, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 15:07, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari Hangout 19:23, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari Hangout 19:23, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:55, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | Talk 03:58, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, and some questions; this article reads like a resume, telling readers what Delshad has accomplished, there appears to be no referenced analysis of his work, nor references showing the impact of his work in the area of linquistics. He has been a lecturer, not notable, has written a thesis, not notable, has obtained additional linguistic training, not notable, is a scholar, not in itself notable, and a translator, not notable, and has written a number of books, not notable. Where are the reviews of these books that tell the reader the impact they have made in Delshad's field? has he won any notable awards? As the article presently reads he does not appear to have made "a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field"
    WP:CONTN, but I hope that those editors who believe this article should be kept can provide some useable citations. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:37, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep(non-admin closure) Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 15:13, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Muzi Dlamini

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

Once this person is disambiguated form the comedian of the same name, the only results on a Google search are to

WP:GNG. KDS4444Talk 03:48, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Struway2 (talk) 12:57, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. While I agree that it doesn't help that name-wise, Muzi Dlamini appears to be the Swazi equivalent of John Smith, it seems odd that nominator could only come up with statistical stuff. There are any amount of routine match reports, scoring goals in important games (e.g. an agency piece carried worldwide reports his opening the scoring as his team eliminated a South African team from this season's CAF Confed Cup, the first time a Swazi team had ever done so) as well as just name-checks where he didn't do much, but that's what you always get with sportspeople. And there are enough bits to take coverage beyond the routine, e.g. from 2010, individual praise from the country's Sports Minister for the then 16-year-old Dlamini,
Minister of Sports, Culture and Youth Affairs Hlobsile Ndlovu rightly praised youngster Muzi Dlamini as he scored three of the seven goals that were by his team to beat Hhohho Super League side Supersport 7-nil and send them out of the competition. The Minister pointed out that football is coming home if the country has youngsters such as Muzi who can score such wondrous goals.
the Times of Swaziland features him as one of four potential matchwinners in the 2010 Swazi Cup semifinals;
from 2013, the Swazi Observer reports detail of contractual difficulties the player had with his club (the general manager is also called Dlamini, which is confusing, and the player is mainly referred to by his nickname, Mzoro);
from 2014, an attack of chickenpox (!)
etc, etc. While none of this is a two-page spread in the New York Times, it does amount to ongoing coverage of the player in the national press of his country (and to some extent outside it) over at least the last five years, and illustrates that in Mr Dlamini's case, the presumption of notability afforded to senior international footballers by the
subject-specific guideline is justified. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 12:57, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. KTC (talk) 02:06, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stadium attendances of Asian Football Leagues

Stadium attendances of Asian Football Leagues (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Attempted to PROD this article but original author objected, so am bringing here to AfD. I am not sure how a list of stadium attendances is itself a notable thing— the references as given appear to support the statistics given in the list, but this does not mean that the subject of the article is itself notable. KDS4444Talk 03:39, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 17:57, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick tcs 14:19, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick tcs 14:20, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Sam Walton (talk) 16:32, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Healey (autism activist)

Kevin Healey (autism activist) (edit | 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 independent third party sources provided there seems to be trivial coverages such as the celebrity/Twitter backed anti-bullying campaign, meeting the Queen and the Olympic torch relay and not serious enough to make up any real forms of

independent
to be useful.

Taking those rotten sources away, this leaves an article without anything useful to make up an article as the evidence of notability provided does not hint anywhere further than outside his hometown. This article fall short of

WP:BIO in this current state. Donnie Park (talk) 17:48, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
(talk) 18:31, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
  • looks like a personal attack on Kevin from this first user, whom requested a deletion - page taken down, Kevin has won the Queens Award the first autism charity in the UK, service user led, is an award winning campaigner, and the sources still do exists, and its not just his home town he has won national awards, — 81.108.171.188 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 22:29, 2 November 2015‎ (UTC).[reply]
  • Personal attack? Who is he? I don't know this person at all, there are people who gets these achievements and do they get Wikipedia articles. You can nominate all you can but those who think they can get away,
    WP:SPA applies to nominators because I'll be checking the history from time to time. Donnie Park (talk) 22:40, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Whoa, why be personal? Why do you have to think an AfD is an attack? If you think he is notable, why don't you sort the article out yourself and namecalling standard editors a troll and wishing karma up against them won't help either, especially from a so-called anti-bullying campaigner. Donnie Park (talk) 23:09, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is obviously wrong to delete this page.
1- "Taking the sources away, this leaves an article without anything useful as his notability does not go anywhere further than outside his hometown." This statement is false. Kevin Healey's notability is far wider than his hometown.
2- Kevin Healey is notable for his campaign against internet bullying. Which is supported by many people, over a large geographical area, and not limited to Autism. It is acceptable for him to mention the attempt to delete his Wikipedia page on Twitter. — Standmain (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 00:44, 3 November 2015 (UTC).[reply]
  • This is not the point, the point is does this article meet the guidelines required for notability as its in a terrible state. Plus most of these claims are self-published like his website and autobiography which takes the notability away and the national coverage he has such as Daily Mail are trivial mentions, so that solely leaves his notability in terms of Wikipedia standard within his home area and anybody with a story can contribute to a local newspaper. Donnie Park (talk) 00:53, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disability-related deletion discussions. Donnie Park (talk) 23:26, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would agree that the page is in need of improvement in being more biographical and ensuring neutral point of view but it feels like the notablility guidelines are being met.
I would disagree that the Daily Mail article constitutes a trivial mention - as stated in the guidelines "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it need not be the main topic of the source material". Kevin Healey is mentioned and features throughout the article even though more photo space is given over to celebrities. Whilst it could be argued either way that the main topic was the celebrity support or the main topic was his campaign I don't see even the latter case equating to a trivial mention.
It is also stated that much of the information is "old" however the guidelines also tell us that "Notability is not temporary; once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage." So it seems to me that over time signifcant coverage has been given to the subject. Pstansbu (talk) 11:54, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not trying to say he isn't overall not notable but it did not appear to be when I nominated it or aside Daily Mail, his third party coverage provided seems restricted to within Staffordshire. In the latest edit, he really should be thankful for In actu (Guerillero) for doing the job for him but Healey himself mounting a twitter hate campaign against me in between this and the nomination doesn't help at all. Donnie Park (talk) 12:06, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There does seem to be a lot of ad homimen commentary form all sides around this topic (on wikipedia and off it) - generally not helpful. Also I haven't tracked back through all earlier versions of the page - in its current state it feels in need of improvement rather than deletion.Pstansbu (talk) 12:39, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Pre-In actu version, I could had helped but
he have bred one angry Wikipedian out there. Donnie Park (talk) 13:03, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Keep: I have spent a couple of hours bringing this article up to Wikipedia standards, including reference formatting, what is (and isn't) allowed under external links, rephrasing some plagiarism that was previously present, and, most importantly, adding sources to establish Kevin Healey's notability.
‣ For the benefit of newcomers to Wikipedia deletion discussions, I would like to point out that Wikipedia holds all articles to a notability standard (
reliable sources are defined as publications with editorial control and fact-checking, such as newspapers, magazines, TV news, and some book publishers
; and independent means neither the subject's own website or book, nor the websites of organizations to which they belong, nor even interviews with the subject of a Wikipedia article, can establish that person's notability as Wikipedia defines notability.
‣ For the benefit of my fellow experienced editors, I would direct your attention to the Daily Mail article (which is clearly not a "trivial mention" if you read the entire article), the ITV coverage (the video is ITV content, not the documentary itself), the two BBC News articles, and this article in The Sentinel, all of which are properly cited in the article under discussion. I agree that Healey's notability was questionable before, but I argue that it is now well-established. —
talk 12:53, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
I agree entirely with your assertion that he is no different from thousands of other activists and I have no doubt there are also many activists (probably still in the thousands) who would meet the notability criteria even more clearly than Kevin. This serves to highlight one of the great things about Wikipedia - unlike with print media we no longer have to be relative and selective to contain the publication to a certain size or length. Therefore no is no concept of ranking or saying a person with a Wikipedia page is more worthy than one without - anybody who meets the specific Wikipedia criterion for notability (summed up neatly in an earlier post) can be included. So this is all we are considering is this case.Pstansbu (talk) 15:10, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I do not consider anything here notable. Being invited to a garden party and chinwagging with queenie may be an honour, but many people have done it throughout her reign, some truly notable and worthy of articles, others not. Similarly, bearing the torch must've been a great honour, but in itself does not make the subject automatically notable. The book is as close to being self published as possible, and has not generated much hype. The Staffordshire and North Staffordshire groups seem to me regional groups with little national coverage or influence. There are many regions and many conditions, and they do not to me confer the status of notability. The one thing that did impress me was the number of Twitter followers, which at over 100,000 does indicate a following if all are genuine, however other platforms (such as YouTube) do not replicate the same level of success. I do not consider someone notable just because their tweets are picked up by a large following. And the final point on notability, and perhaps the most significant is: if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. It seems the DM article only attracted attention because of the famous names attached to it. There have been a couple of BBC news stories but they are regional ones, and finally an ITV/ITN video. Overall this does not seem to me anywhere near the significant level of coverage needed to justify a page here. Some of his charity work is good, but there are many, many tireless campaigners and charity administrators who get some recognition from within their own communities, and occasionally get mentioned in the press etc but would never warrant an article on here. I believe this is the same with this subject.

For the record, I am looking at this from a completely objective standpoint. There are no personal attacks here, I'm just stating the facts as I see them and applying the guidelines. Rayman60 (talk) 04:47, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:02, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | Talk 03:39, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Kevin Healey is a well-known figure who has done notable things, such as appearing in newspapers and meeting the PM. He is a serious campaigner whose campaign has recieved coverage in third-party sources, therefore making him notable as per the guidelines. RailwayScientist (talk) 16:35, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: HEY LOOK EVEN MORE SOURCES

All have of course been added to the article as citations backing content in the article. Will those in favor of deletion now try to claim that

talk 17:58, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was Already deleted. as G8 by bot. (

non-admin closure) Sam Sailor Talk! 00:16, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Insurance technology

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

Delete what was just made a redirect by another author, along with InsureTech, as both terms appear to be invented by the article creator and sourced a book written by someone with same name Legacypac (talk) 02:32, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete,

WP:SOFTDELETE--Ymblanter (talk) 08:15, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Lat Lag Gayee

Lat Lag Gayee (edit | 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 song fails

WP:RS sections but NSONGS says "... Coverage of a song in the context of an album review does not establish notability. If the only coverage of a song occurs in the context of reviews of the album on which it appears, that material should be contained in the album article and an independent article about the song should not be created..."; which is what is happening here. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 08:58, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 08:58, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 08:58, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 18:04, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
discuss 02:24, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Consensus is that this doesn't need a separate article. The current material (some paragraphs about his portrayal in literature) could perhaps later be restored and merged to another article if there's consensus for that.  Sandstein  17:37, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Non-Muslim view of Ali

AfDs for this article:
View AfD · Stats
)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

At least 90% of the content here is identical to content found at Ali, so this article is an unnecessary duplicate. More than 80% just consist of block quotes, all of them also found at Ali. The intro makes no sense, and also seems to have been copied. If we remove the duplicate material, we're down to one or two sentences. Jeppiz (talk) 00:03, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: The content needs to stay in an article somwhere. Either in this article, which has already survived two AfDs, or the Ali article, or both. The nominator is currently trying to delete the content from both articles. Softlavender (talk) 00:50, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
WP:DUE (I'm not saying it all should be deleted), but that is a matter for later discussion. My point here is that we currently have one article that is identical to a section in another article, making it an unnecessary duplicate. Non-Muslim views on Ali is notable, and should be found on Wikipedia, but I think the article on Ali is the right place for that. And once again, it's all there already in Ali, so this AfD is simply about deleting a duplicate, not about deleting any content. Jeppiz (talk) 01:51, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Given your wholesale removal of the content from the Ali article 8 hours ago, and your subsequent talk page insistence on keeping it out, I am not finding that statement to be convincing. Softlavender (talk) 02:12, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Can I note that Softlavender has been stalking me across several pages and repeatedly misrepresented my comments. At ANI she claimed I had not notified a user, which I had. She claimed I had reverted an article three times, which I had not, and now she's here assuming bad faith about the nomination, ignoring that the article is a duplicate. Anyone can check the talk page at Ali, where I discuss how to best use the material, not to keep it out. We should have this section, and we should have it in one place. Jeppiz (talk) 02:17, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Jeppiz, I am not stalking you. This is an article you publicized on ANI, and you publicized
Muhammad's views on slavery (which you also publicized on ANI). At ANI I mistook your tag-teaming with the other editor as three deletions by you when only two were by you, and I noted that. I'm not ignoring the fact that this article in part duplicates some material contained in part of another article, I'm pointing up the fact that instead of trying to resolve that situation you have been insisting that the material be removed from both locations. Softlavender (talk) 02:46, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Not accurate. I have tried to initiate a discussion about which quotes to use [127], [128]. Jeppiz (talk) 02:49, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, Jeppiz, you deleted the section entirely, started a talk page discussion to keep it out, and tagged the entire article with a POV tag and tagged the section with an UNDUE tag. Softlavender (talk) 03:12, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I removed duplicate material once from Ali, then realized that that article was the proper place for it, not this one. As my talk page edits show, I've repeatedly stated we should have this material in one place (at Ali) and in proper format. You consistently misrepresent my concerns about the format as wanting to remove it all, even though I've exlained it repeatedly. Jeppiz (talk) 13:14, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Jeppiz, please don't use the word "stalking" lightly. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 05:54, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
repeatedly ascribed me sinister motives, but I should have expressed myself differently. Jeppiz (talk) 09:57, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Thank you, Jeppiz. Drmies (talk) 15:14, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Fully sourced and notable topic. Has already passed two AfDs. This is feeling like a bad-faith nomination to me for reasons stated above. I'm actually trying to AGF as much as possible despite the edit-warring and tag-teaming on both articles, but the worst-case scenario is that for some reason the user is trying to suppress positive viewpoints on Ali or Islam. Softlavender (talk) 02:12, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above does not address the topic. As I explained, at length, the article is a duplicate. It's not about suppressing positive viewpoints, it's about not having an article that is identical to another one. Jeppiz (talk) 02:14, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pointing up the fact that instead of trying to resolve that situation you have been insisting that the material be removed from both locations. Softlavender (talk) 02:46, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I have tried to initiate a discussion about which quotes to use [129], [130]. Jeppiz (talk) 02:49, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And we have told you we are using all quotes, so can you stop disrupting the articles. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 02:57, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, Jeppiz, you deleted the section entirely, started a talk page discussion to keep it out, and tagged the entire article with a POV tag and tagged the section with an UNDUE tag. Softlavender (talk) 03:12, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above user is the main champion of the article, but again does not address that this is a duplicate article. I'm not suggesting deleting the original, just the copy. Jeppiz (talk) 02:30, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm the main champions because other users are not patrolling the article enough to point out their reasons. Previous attempt had garnered 5 or more people in the consensus. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 02:34, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the last nomination results in no consensus, the first one is 9 years old. Perhaps it was not a duplicate back then? This nomination is for the situation in 2015, not 2006. If you and
WP:ABF against me and instead explain why we should have a duplicate article here? Jeppiz (talk) 02:37, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
And you are assuming good faith to us???? Please you are hurting my stomach from laughing Alexis Ivanov (talk) 02:47, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm asking you to explain why we should have a duplicate article, that's all. Jeppiz (talk) 11:18, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a duplicate article Alexis Ivanov (talk) 23:45, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:00, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:00, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The main issue for me is that the topic of the article seems to be made up. The quotations are selected without any seeming rhyme or reason. Who selected the authors and quotes? Is "non-Muslim view of Ali" an object of scholarly study, rather than simply a hodgepodge of views of Ali by non-Muslims? There should be a scholarly review article which does the selecting and quoting, not random wikipedia editors. As it stands, the article is a virtual copy of the section Ali#Non-Muslim_views, and should not exist. Kingsindian ♝♚ 05:03, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response to allegations: > The main issue for me is that the topic of the article seems to be made up.
    Yes made up of the non-Muslim views of Ali.
    >The quotations are selected without any seeming rhyme or reason.
    They are selected based on the notability and knwoeldge of the author to Ali ibn Abi Talib.
    >Is "non-Muslim view of Ali" an object of scholarly study, rather than simply a hodgepodge of views of Ali by non-Muslims?
    It doesn't have to be an object of scholarly study to be featured in Wikipedia with references and sources.
    >There should be a scholarly review article which does the selecting and quoting, not random wikipedia editors.
    Why? These random editors is what helped create and made these pages flourish. That is the beauty of Wikipedia.>
    As it stands, the article is a virtual copy of the section
    Actually it's not you can look it by yourself. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 06:39, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Why"? Because
WP:SYNTH, except for some lists. LjL (talk) 16:21, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
>"Why"? Because
WP:SYNTH, except for some lists
You mean your wikipedia? Alexis Ivanov (talk) 20:29, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Of course you didn't say that, I did. I mean the one Wikipedia with its policies and guidelines, such as the above-cited
WP:NOR. Please stick to the topic of this article's deletion. LjL (talk) 21:09, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Are you talking about me? Sir enough with the spreading of misinformation about me, I'm actually assuming you have good faith in deleting this article? Alexis Ivanov (talk) 06:40, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comment HyperGaruda, maybe what you are saying is true. We can move it to Wikiquote Alexis Ivanov (talk) 20:29, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Which is why you're trying to show it's notable by linking to the exact phrase on Google Search? LjL (talk) 14:02, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The results show how the the article have been the discussed in sources. Mhhossein (talk) 15:49, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If by "sources" you mean (rather than
WP:RS) "random websites including Wikipedia"... LjL (talk) 15:55, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
If you expect books or articles entirely devoted to this subject I think there are few! but I could find some persian reliable sources. Mhhossein (talk) 05:52, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The same goes for that subsection as for this article: a clear
WP:NOTQUOTE (#1). LjL (talk) 14:06, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
At present, it is a poor article. however, we can the current situation is not enough reason to delete the article based on
WP:ARTN. Therefor, we can move the quotations to wikiquote and improve the article.--Seyyed(t-c) 05:02, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Do you mean don't keep? Because you know, Wikiquote is a separate site from Wikipedia. It would mean it's not being kept here. LjL (talk) 14:44, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,

discuss 02:13, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

That still risks being OR Synthesis, just like the current one (before it was stripped of its quotes). We have Ali in Muslim culture, Shia view of Ali and Sunni view of Ali - that should be sufficient since almost all other views will be non-faith based factual accounts or opinions about his historical importance, which are the sort of things that should be in the main article. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 15:14, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Deleted. As A11 by TomStar81 (

non-admin closure) Sam Sailor Talk! 00:11, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

InsureTech

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

Also Delete

Insurance technology which was effectively a duplicate until it was just redirected to InsureTech
Evidently Puschmann coined this term in his book because I can't see anyone else using it. A User:Tpuschmann - same name as the writer of the only cite, is the article creator. There are several companies that use InsureTech in their name. but that is not what this is about, and this title would not be suitable for possible articles about the companies.Legacypac (talk) 01:51, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
(talk) 02:33, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy Deleted (A3, A7, G5, G11) by

non-admin closure) –Davey2010Talk 22:24, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Helloworld.com.au

Helloworld.com.au (edit | 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 is basically advertising for a travel website. It's been tagged for improvement for months. Previously PROD by me. Legacypac (talk) 01:42, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


DELETE... I agree that this article is basically advertising, but I think that it should be considered for speedy deletion, especially since it fits in category A.7 (no indication of importance). If there was a wiki for every app that topped the charts of the iTunes store, we'd have a MAJOR problem. EDIT: I placed a tag on the page, nominating it for speedy deletion. The creator was banned. {Thank you! larsona 07:35, 14 November 2015 (UTC)}[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2015_November_14&oldid=1142624747"