Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 November 23

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
< 22 November 24 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 Delete. --MelanieN (talk) 12:54, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sheikh Zayed Center Tower 2

Sheikh Zayed Center Tower 2 (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 this article is an unbuilt building, dating as far back as 2006, and fails general notability guidelines due to a lack of non-trivial coverage from reliable third party publications. Recommending deletion until such time the subject receives said requisite coverage. Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 23:59, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 01:25, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 01:25, 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 keep. (

non-admin closure) –Davey2010Talk 01:58, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Bogusława Knapczyk

Bogusława Knapczyk (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: as non-notable athlete. Quis separabit? 23:47, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was withdrawn by nominator. (Non-admin closure) "Pepper" @ 16:38, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gary Lambert

Gary Lambert (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)

Does not meet WP:BLP or WP:GNG, as sources are not notable. NYTimes article has a single quote from subject.

talk) 22:59, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Withdrawn by nominator: Unaware of WP:ATHLETE. Nomination was a mistake.

talk) 15:16, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 15:45, 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. sufficient consensus DGG ( talk ) 06:11, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ken Leistner

AfDs for this article:
Ken Leistner (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)

Does not meet WP:BLP or WP:GNG. References are all broken links.

talk) 22:56, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was withdrawn by nominator. (Non-admin closure) "Pepper" @ 16:41, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Marcotte

Eric Marcotte (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)

Does not meet WP:BLP or WP:GNG, as all sources are online cyclist websites.

talk) 22:55, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Withdrawn by nominator: Unaware of WP:ATHLETE. Nomination was a mistake.

talk) 15:18, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep He won the
WP:ATHLETE.--Racklever (talk) 23:01, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Keep per Racklever. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 23:03, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I made this proposal by overlooking WP:ATHLETE, and this was a mistake.
talk) 08:17, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
No worries, Delta, you can also withdraw this, if you wish. This person meets
WP:NCYC as being a US national champion. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 08:35, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was withdrawn by nominator. (Non-admin closure) "Pepper" @ 16:44, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

R. Keith McCormick

AfDs for this article:
R. Keith McCormick (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)

Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:BLP, as references come from online chiropractic sources and the NYTimes source is simply a list of athletes.

talk) 22:52, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Withdrawn by nominator: Unaware of WP:ATHLETE. Nomination was a mistake.

talk) 15:19, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep Competed at the
WP:ATHLETE.--Racklever (talk) 23:04, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Keep per Racklever and prior AfD discussion. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 23:34, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor Talk! 01:55, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor Talk! 01:56, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I made this proposal without knowing about WP:ATHLETE.
talk) 08:16, 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. --MelanieN (talk) 12:57, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Reed (chiropractor)

Mike Reed (chiropractor) (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 does not meet WP:GNG and has a GNG tag since 2009. References are weak as coming from online chiropractic sources. Article does not meet WP:BLP.

talk) 22:43, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was withdrawn by nominator. (Non-admin closure) "Pepper" @ 16:50, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Terry Schroeder

Terry Schroeder (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 seems to fail WP:BIO and WP:GNG. References cited are not notable, except for one LATimes article appearing in an opinion-like column.

talk) 22:39, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Withdrawn by nominator: Unaware of WP:ATHLETE. Nomination was a mistake.

talk) 15:17, 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. --MelanieN (talk) 13:00, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

David Singer (chiropractor)

David Singer (chiropractor) (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 contains two references which mention the subject briefly. The LA times article has a couple quotes from David Singer. While I think this is a potentially interesting topic that seems borderline fail for WP:BIO, it perhaps meets WP:GNG and should be merged into the article on

talk) 22:34, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:28, 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 withdrawn by nominator. (Non-admin closure) "Pepper" @ 16:53, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shawn Stasiak

Shawn Stasiak (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 contains many references but they are all unreliable online publications within the amateur/professional wrestling community. There is not a single major publication covering this subject. Does not seem to meet WP:BLP or WP:GNG.

talk) 22:30, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Withdrawn by nominator: Unaware of WP:ATHLETE. Nomination was a mistake.

talk) 15:20, 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. --MelanieN (talk) 14:52, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Tomshack

Chris Tomshack (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)

Does not seem to meet WP:BLP or general notability. References are from fringe publications and online promotional sources. Article is written like an advert.

talk) 22:26, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was delete. Mojo Hand (talk) 14:31, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Makaʻala Yates

Makaʻala Yates (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 does not establish notability and is poorly referenced. The subject does not have any reason to be notable, except, according to the article's text is a chiropractor in Hawaii.

talk) 22:05, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk  22:16, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hawaii-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk  22:17, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as article poorly referenced and giving no argument for notability. DreamGuy (talk) 23:50, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom; just another of the ten thousand articles about non-notable people. Would that we had world enough and time to delete them all. --Seduisant (talk) 21:38, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not notable. Thparkth (talk) 19:30, 30 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. --MelanieN (talk) 14:55, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Elliott Killian

Elliott Killian (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:GNG on the basis of a lot more press coverage than has been shown here. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 21:31, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk  22:17, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk  22:17, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk  22:17, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Yet another NN small-town politician. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:18, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete - almost notable. But not quite enough. Thparkth (talk) 19:32, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Smerge to
    WP:POLITICIAN
    .
Centre County Report is a student media outlet at Penn State. Aside from Business Insider, I only found one other piece from Penn State about a student agricultural competition that has a few sentences about him as a team member, and one other minor quote like the StateCollege.com piece. Further to nom's observations, Ward 3 is just one part of the township. He received 317 votes, and that may overstate his individual appeal, as voters had the option of voting a straight party ballot. Worldbruce (talk) 07:13, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mojo Hand (talk) 04:14, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rotunda Amusement Park

Rotunda Amusement Park (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 amusement park, All results I'm finding are all mentions but that's it, Bar technical edits the last edits were in 2013 and it's remained unsourced since, Fails GNG. –Davey2010Talk 22:06, 16 November 2015 (UTC) –Davey2010Talk 22:06, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- Ascii002 (talk · contribs · guestbook) 03:07, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - searches turned up some brief mentions on News, Highbeam and Books, but relatively no in-depth coverage except for a single article from a local Folkestone paper. If this were an older park, I would suspect that there might be more non-online coverage, but it closed in 2003, so I would expect more online coverage if it were notable. Onel5969 TT me 15:10, 23 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 20:59, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. --MelanieN (talk) 14:58, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-crisis analytics

Anti-crisis analytics (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 general notability for this particular method -- it rather seems promotional for a particular book at a particular course -- see User:Olletove/Scandinavian_Institute_of_Business_Analytics. DGG ( talk ) 21:14, 16 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 20:59, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Looks to be an outline of a concept published in a book by Lev Kuandykov, with little coverage outside the book. If anything, it should be renamed and reframed to be about the book, but as it isn't about the book at all currently, it's probably best to delete per
    WP:TNT. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 16:13, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (

non-admin closure) –Davey2010Talk 01:59, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Nursing in Taiwan

Nursing in Taiwan (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 coherent content. At its clearest it was just a list of training hospitals.

talk) 19:52, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 19:52, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 19:53, 16 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 20:59, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. --MelanieN (talk) 15:01, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Men Against Sexual Trafficking

Men Against Sexual Trafficking (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)

Local organization that fails the guidelines in

WP:ORG. Kelly hi! 17:22, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 21:27, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 21:27, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 21:27, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
  • @DGG: Just to clarify, it sounds like a delete, but I'm not sure what "1dd" means. Likely a typo? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:15, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • typo from my macro program. DGG ( talk ) 01:42, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as I see nothing convincingly better. SwisterTwister talk 00:22, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Coverage in Opposing Pornography: A look at the Anti-Pornography Movement by Sarah Durham, together with the coverage given in the article should meet GNG. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 23:25, 13 November 2015 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete. Tiny local group who received a few articles in their local paper because they put out a few press releases over a super-local issue ages ago. I have founded groups more notable than this. The Drover's Wife (talk) 01:36, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Adequate notability and coverage of organization in a major metro area. Montanabw(talk) 05:17, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Coverage seems only local. Rab V (talk) 19:56, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | Talk 02:38, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The book Rich has turned up is the self-published one Rhododendrites mentions. The book and the article have almost identical content but I think the book has copied from here (I can't access the attribution page to see if WP has been acknowledged). (If we delete this article any attribution would likely go up the spout anyway!). Thincat (talk) 19:27, 16 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 20:57, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - A mere 87 Google hits for this organization, none of which seem to count to GNG. Carrite (talk) 18:29, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Local notability is still notability, but this organization doesn't quite reach the threshold of being even locally notable. Thparkth (talk) 20:00, 30 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 first two "keep" opinions are not policy-based.  Sandstein  19:12, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shae Invidiata

Shae Invidiata (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 notability criteria of

WP:BIO. Local activist, founder of a non-notable organization, source coverage is strictly local and/or only contains minor mentions of the article subject. Kelly hi! 16:40, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 18:48, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. JbhTalk 22:23, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep: Founding organizations to stop human trafficking is a notable accomplishment, I think the article is of poor quality and needs expansion, but I'd like to se someone step in and upgrade it. Montanabw(talk) 23:07, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • How does founding an organisation for a cause you like confer notability? Without sources, how do we know it isn't three people in a basement? The Drover's Wife (talk) 17:08, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is some seriously weak stuff: to try to justify an article on her, it has a sentence about an event she merely attended (that then names a bunch of other people who also attended), a listing from one random magazine, a quote in a local paper, and a note that she attempted (not even succeeded) to partner with her local police on a pet project. This not only fails
    WP:BIO, it does it spectacularly. The Drover's Wife (talk) 02:40, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep or merge to Human trafficking in Canada. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 14:36, 15 November 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor Talk! 02:16, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, local sources don't detract from notability. WP:GNG doesn't even address local coverage. It's not a reason to delete if coverage is local. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 15:41, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Their being local doesn't even address the
      WP:GNG issues here. Where is the coverage of her, specifically, period? You could write an article on me that would have far more trouble with GNG than this and I am utterly unnotable. The Drover's Wife (talk) 17:18, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      • I'm just making a point, The Drover's Wife: local coverage does not negate GNG. It's just not a reason for deletion. I commented here above because the nominator uses that argument. I'm not voting on this, just passing through and making sure the arguments are on topic since I see this mistake made a lot. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:44, 21 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 20:57, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Plenty of provincial media coverage. National or international media coverage not needed for notablity, as that would remove e.g. almost every high school from wikipedia. Martinogk (talk) 08:50, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Straight advocacy, and not separately notable from the organization. It might be possible to have a npov article on the organization, because that's what the refs are mainly about. DGG ( talk ) 06:26, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I simply found some links at News and browsers....nothing compelling enough for a solid and notable article but feel welcome to redirect where ever necessary. SwisterTwister talk 06:31, 30 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. Consensus is that this subject meets

(discuss) 03:58, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

John Marshall Clemens

John Marshall Clemens (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)

PROD contested with the rationale that AFD would be more suitable based on him being Mark Twain's father. However, notability is not inherited, and being related to someone famous does not by itself make one notable. Subject fails WP:Notability (people) since he wasn't noted for anything other than family affiliations. Snuggums (talk / edits) 18:52, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Mark Twain. Or merge to retain page history, but most if not all of the pertinent info here is already included there. Agree with nom that notability is not inherited, and without his connection to Mark Twain, this person is not notable. Onel5969 TT me 15:21, 23 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 20:57, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk  22:22, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Redirect --- no reliable sources. Could be a footnote in Twain article, but that's it.DreamGuy (talk) 00:11, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't understand the complicated rules governing
    wp:AfD, but as a wiki-reader I would be very curious to find ot more about the father of Mark Twain. I cannot believe this discussion has not drawn out more editors? Ottawahitech (talk) 16:49, 29 November 2015 (UTC)please ping me[reply
    ]
  • Comment - We all know about NOTINHERITED, but the fact that he is best known as Mark Twain's father is not a disqualifier either. Coverage in The Mark Twain Encyclopedia clearly counts as 1 substantial, independently-published source of presumed notability. Let's see if there are more... Searching... 18:32, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
Decent short bio from THE MARK TWAIN PROJECT, that's two towards GNG. Carrite (talk) 18:34, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Five mentions listed in the index for the book TWAIN IN HIS OWN TIME edited by Gary Scharnhorst (University of Iowa Press, 2010). Carrite (talk) 18:38, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The law office of JMC, a justice of the peace and lawyer, is being PRESERVED AS A HISTORICAL MONUMENT. That gets me over the top for GNG — although there are probably a few more things out there if one wants to spend time to find them.
  • Keep- as a pass of GNG, based on the above. It is a fact that the judge was the father of Mark Twain and that this was his primary claim to historical fame. That is neither here nor there with regards to notability — neither an automatic keep nor an automatic disqualifier. The fact is that he is the subject of scholarly interest and coverage demonstrated in multiple instances of significant coverage in sources of presumed reliability, which is what we are looking for here. Carrite (talk) 18:45, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The relevant notability criteria for biographies (which he fails to meet) is WP:Notability (people). There's more nuance than simply "is covered in reliable sources". Occupations not withstanding, he wasn't really noted for anything of his own merit beyond being Mark Twain's father. Snuggums (talk / edits) 19:50, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, though barely. I found precisely one reference to him in a search of the NY Times archive. There appear to be a few others that barely meet GNG, when
    WP:GOOGLETESTed, but clearly his main accomplishment was fathering Samuel Clemens. 05:54, 30 November 2015 (UTC)Fiachra10003 (talk
    )
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 05:14, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Naoufal Benazzouz

Naoufal Benazzouz (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:BLP Kleuske (talk) 17:00, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 10:32, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable kickboxer.Unsourced BLP that in any case does not meet
    WP:KICK.Peter Rehse (talk) 10:32, 17 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 20:56, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk  22:25, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk  22:25, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Possible keep – The article states that the subject has competed in a
    WP:NKICK
    . This is presently not sourced in the article, though, so it's still an unsourced BLP.
@
WP:NKICK? North America1000 02:14, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
WP:KICK. In addition, Benazzouz does not meet the notability criteria for kickboxers, which includes fighting for a K-1 world title, not merely competing in a K-1 event. Papaursa (talk) 03:19, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Struck parts of my comment above. It appears that the subject competed in the preliminary K-1 World Grand Prix tournament to determine who would compete in the K-1 World GP. North America1000 03:32, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We had an edit conflict. I was going to say that I believe he competed in qualifying events for the final elimination event for the 8 man championship tournament. Papaursa (talk) 03:42, 1 December 2015 (UTC)*[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --MelanieN (talk) 15:04, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tomi Kenn

Tomi Kenn (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 apparent evidence of notability as a musician. Not my field, so I may be wrong. DGG ( talk ) 16:53, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 17:05, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 17:05, 16 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 20:54, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A couple iTunes releases and an album that never came out doesn't warrant an article. DreamGuy (talk) 00:08, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails
    WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 13:30, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. There is clear consensus here to delete this title. I think there's also consensus to replace it with a dab page, but that's less clear. While I'm not going to create the dab page myself, there's certainly nothing stopping anybody else from doing so, as a normal editorial function. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:40, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alterations in the pronunciation of English ⟨th⟩

Alterations in the pronunciation of English ⟨th⟩ (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 looks like a big mess. Moreover it looks like it has content that is duplicate from other articles like th-fronting and th-stopping. It should be deleted. Voortle (talk) 20:25, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 21:58, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. Also moving article to

non-admin closure) — Jkudlick tcs 09:18, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

ILNumerics.Net

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

The article is unambiguous advertisement. My request for speedy deletion was granted, although the article was restored when one contributor provided the following reasons: "The article exists for 10 years, addresses a technology used by an open source/commercial community of 25.000 users, won several awards". This reason itself sounds like advertisement to me. Also the "10 years" claim is inaccurate. Codename Lisa (talk) 19:52, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America1000 04:22, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America1000 04:23, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. North America1000 04:23, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Codename Lisa: looks like there was originally a GPL'd edition; see this Channel 9 post. The article used to say something similar: "After 6 years of open source development, the project added a closed source, proprietary license in 2011, aiming business and academic developers at the same time." QVVERTYVS (hm?) 14:39, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Codename Lisa: It is the same software. You can find out easily by reading the content of the referenced article. ILNumerics were developed and published under open source license several years. This is (and will always be) available still - free of charge. See the references to nuget in the reworked version of the article. Thanks Numbers303 (talk) 14:42, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not sure if I understood you correctly. Are you saying the current company stole the open-source version (and is now using Wikipedia as a free advertisement mechanism)? Or are you saying the opposite? Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 15:04, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hm, I don't know if I understand your question. Do you see evidence of an illegal act? Where do you see advertisement or other violations of WP guidelines in the reworked version of the article? Please be specific. Thanks Numbers303 (talk) 15:16, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wow! Looks like we have a total failure of mutual understanding here. Let me try again and see what I can make of this. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 00:22, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Thanks Codename Lisa for bringing up the issue! The article indeed sounded a little advertising before. However, it would have been obvious by little research that a deletion would at least be controversal. Also, it is better to give the chance for improvement and discussion before considering speedy deletion. I appreciate your effort in helping to keep WP clean and in trying to be effective. Hoever, most parts of the article already contained useful information. I have just addressed the remaining issues and reworked the article. Numbers303 (talk) 14:42, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • After reworking the article and adding several references to reliable and independent sources, these references have been deleted by User:Qwertyus with the reason: "popularity is unsubstantiated; sources are either self-published or affiliated, and don't actually establish popularity". This statement is not true. I will re-add the references[1][2][3] in order to proof the visibility of the project. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Numbers303 (talk • contribs) 15:34, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • A list of alternative projects were added in order to make the topic even more neutral and objective. However, the whole section has been deleted for unclear reasons: "none of this is reliably sourced by third-party comparisons". Numbers303 (talk) 15:49, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for now as the best I found were some News and browsers links, certainly nothing better for a better article. SwisterTwister talk 06:16, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep To the uninformed Delete voters, it was the first open source quality piece of engineering we took on and that you probably have not seen in performance and made available for free. The firm and project has supported a notable act of furthering good causes, in free grants of 2008 as well as GPL terms beforehand and thereafter. The arguments pointing to commercial nature are dubious at best as the piece of firmware, trackingware and trojanware most of the skeptics, and myself too, carry is commercial in nature too and described on WP. Did you argue to delete them? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.223.132.167 (talk) 23:53, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi. The guideline governing withdrawal is
    NAC keep". Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 05:42, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 02:34, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2015 Holy Cross Crusaders Football Season (Dunmore, PA)

2015 Holy Cross Crusaders Football Season (Dunmore, PA) (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)

Exclusively

primary-sourced article about the gameplay schedule of the football team at Holy Cross High School (Pennsylvania). Don't be fooled by the bluelink to Holy Cross Crusaders football in the infobox; that article leads to an unrelated team at the collegiate NCAA level, which happens to have the same name but is attached to an entirely different institution which isn't even located in the same state as this high school is. (There's actually been an ongoing reversion war over this article's erroneous inclusion in the NCAA team's categories — but it rightly doesn't belong in those, because it doesn't pertain to that team.) While we do accept articles like this for collegiate and professional sports, we do not have any established consensus to accept them for every high school that happens to have sports teams. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 19:22, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk  22:27, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick tcs 23:56, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick tcs 00:26, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Kharkiv07 (T) 22:37, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Huma Abedin

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

As it currently sits, this BLP is largely a positive spin on negative news re:Subject. This BLP's content,discussion and edit wars relate to only 4 things:1: Subject's tangential relation to her boss, Hillary Clinton 2: Subject's tangential relation to her husband Anthony Weiner 3: A letter written by 5 Republican Congressmen related to Subject's alleged familial ties to the Muslim Brotherhood which most editors here wish to dismiss and diminish as a smear and "conspiracy theory". 4: Abedin's emails made public as a result of Judicial Watch's FOIA request regarding Subject's emails on Clinton's computer which most editors here feel are non-notable. Rather than have a BLP which is skewed away from "anything negative" about the Subject, I think Wikipedia and our Readers are better served by not having a BLP on this Subject at all. On the other hand, other, perhaps most, Editors here, are not and have not been adding any content at all, just reverting content added by a few of us, thus the BLP is too brief and shallow to qualify for inclusion.Nocturnalnow (talk) 18:49, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a conservative editor...see my Oct. 21st edits re: Lynton Crosby and have never claimed anything about Hillary Clinton re: this BLP. The edit above, however, is a great example of the attack posture and "conservative cabal" paranoia. Nocturnalnow (talk) 19:13, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The subject of this article has sufficient non-routine coverage in reliable sources, establishing notability. Your deletion "rationale" is about things that aren't in this article that you think should be (which are all being pumped up by conservative media, as it so happens). Your problems with this article have nothing to do with subject notability and AfD is a highly inappropriate step for you to have taken. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:44, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely wrong, in my view. The wording is not "sufficient" it is "significant" and that is not the case with Abedin. Also, your lack of AGF is extreme and your continuing reference to conservatives has nothing to do with my editing and in fact I take offense to that allegation which you have made repeatedly about pushing a conservative POV, you are extremely disruptive and maybe just too accusatory to be editing or even discussing edits.Nocturnalnow (talk) 05:32, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please assume good faith. I have no point to make, I am trying to help deal with a currently silly BLP about a non-notable person. Nocturnalnow (talk) 05:36, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hoary, you reference an essay, which is not policy. Please see the top of the page you link to, i.e. "Essays are not Wikipedia policies or guidelines. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints."Nocturnalnow (talk) 05:38, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Good. It is indeed an essay, and an essay may only represent a minority viewpoint; thus it is imaginable that this part of this essay represents a minority viewpoint. However, I doubt that it does. Well, the list of policy reasons for deletion is here. It's a list, prefaced with: "Reasons for deletion include, but are not limited to, the following". So you may wish to add to the list "Articles whose content cannot be freed from bias". But then you'll have to argue convincingly that this is a reason for deletion and that the article cannot be freed from bias. I think you'll find this very difficult. -- Hoary (talk) 08:27, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, The reasons for deletion include #8:Notability, which I think applies and also 9. "Articles that breach Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living persons" which I think also applies as our BLP policy provides that #Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page.[1] Such material requires a high degree of sensitivity, and must adhere strictly to all applicable laws in the United States, to this policy, and to Wikipedia's three core content policies: 1: Neutral point of view" . I feel the BLP does not adhere to the NPOV requirement, thus is in breach Of Wikipedia's policy on BLP, thus, as shown above, fits with #9 reason for deletion. Nocturnalnow (talk) 20:51, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Obviously notable, in the Wikipedia sense of the word; possibly also notable in the real-world sense of the word. And an article here can be helpful: A look in Google Books shows an obsession with Abedin among fringe writers; a WP article can provide a sane version. -- Hoary (talk) 01:14, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment At Notability for People there is a set of qualifications, none of which Abedin meets; i.e."For people, the person who is the topic of a biographical article should be "worthy of notice" or "note" – that is, "remarkable" or "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded" within Wikipedia as a written account of that person's life. "Notable" in the sense of being "famous" or "popular" – although not irrelevant – is secondary."
In addition, under "basic criteria", we have: "trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability." which also fits with the coverage of this glorified secretary and wife of a scandalized husband. I have been asking on the talk page for one example of anything notable Abedin has ever done, and no one has come up with even one example. Nocturnalnow (talk) 05:10, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The questions of notability and biased editing aside for the moment --- perhaps a principal reason for not deleting this entry would be consideration of the interests of non-editor Wikipedia readers and users.
    Certainly, as the 2016 election campaign proceeds, the negative attack ad efforts of the opposing sides will crank up, especially as we move into the general election cycle. As pertains to the subject of this bio., and given the possibility that her boss may likely be the nominee --- all of the various allegations regarding Abedin will predictably resurface in (at least the conservative) media:
  • her dual employment status while at the State Dept.;
  • her State Dept. maternity leave situation;
  • her alleged excessive travel cost reimbursements;
  • her use of the Clinton's non-government, private email server;
  • the whole matter of her husband's sexting scandals;
  • allegations suggesting a lesbian-lover relationship with Clinton;
  • her childhood and youth growing up in Saudi Arabia;
  • allegations of her family's ties with the Muslim Brotherhood;
etc., etc.
Any renewed media coverage of such topics will undoubtedly result in Wikipedia readers searching on her name. Consequently, it would seem advisable that consideration be given, during this discussion on proposed deletion, to factoring in the question of how and where ' Huma Abedin ' searches would then be redirected, if this article were in fact to be deleted. --- Professor JR (talk) 09:18, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is inappropriate for this list of unsourced allegations to appear in an AfD discussion. Surely it's a violation of
WP:BLP? -- Scjessey (talk) 15:22, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
We've been discussing much of this on the article talk page. That's where this belongs, not an AfD discussion. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:52, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the first response. Abedin is internationally notable in a heartbeat, and it isn't out of ignorance of the sources that this got nominated. This is a
    WP:POINT violation fair and square. The Drover's Wife (talk) 09:58, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
      • Read again, User:Muboshgu, and you will note that I am not, in fact, making an 'argument' for their deletion, and of course every article should be considered on its own merits --- I was merely noting the point I made as possibly of interest to editors vis-à-vis this discussion, for whatever it's worth. Really, none of the subjects of the other articles are as notable as Abedin, by Wiki standards, with the possible exception of Podesta(?) and Palmieri(?) As for myself, I would support that we Keep the Adedin article. --- Professor JR (talk) 20:09, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I have looked through the sources that are currently in the article. There are multiple sources that provide significant coverage of her that meets the intent of the
    general notability guideline. I do not see any reason to delete this article, it might need work to clean it up but deletion is not the solution. -- GB fan 12:34, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep - Independently well known individual with significant mainstream media coverage. Satisfies
    WP:GNG with ease. Not even sure why this keeps being nominated. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:22, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep. Both the nomination and the other delete !vote are basing their rationale on the article being "largely a positive spin" - but, if that were the case, that would be an editing issue, not a deletion issue. As such, no reasons for deletion have been provided by anyone. I also cannot help by observe that it's odd that the nomination includes, in the same paragraph, both a claim that the subject of the article is not notable and a complaint that other editors keep removing content that they are adding to the article. Why would one keep trying to add content to an article about someone they personally don't think is notable? Egsan Bacon (talk) 19:55, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Very fair comment, but hard to explain.Initially I thought she was notable because of all the press coverage of Michelle Bachmann et.al's rather worrisome accusations that somehow Abedin had gotten into a sensitive government position without being properly vetted. And then the recently made public (by court order) Abedin email wherein she says that Clinton is "often confused" I also think is notable for several reasons. However, since the first issue is being presented in the BLP as a "conspiracy theory"..which is weirdly strawmanish, imo...and the second issue has not been allowed into the BLP at all, we are left with content which I feel makes the BLP non-notable and in breach of our BLP NPOV policy. These 2 results, non-notability and Breach of BLP-NPOV policy are each reasons for deletion; i.e. reasons number 8 and 9. Nocturnalnow (talk) 21:43, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but that just seems ridiculous to me. While it is true that Abedin is mostly notable through her associations with others, there are many articles in the mainstream media covering the woman herself, her background and her career. If we can have articles on barely notable chiefs of staff like Barry Steven Jackson, we can certainly have one on the internationally known Huma Abedin. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:07, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OK that addresses the notability reason for deletion but what about reason number 9, i.e. Breach of BLP-NPOV policy? Nocturnalnow (talk) 05:32, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
How about it, indeed?
salt with that?) -- Hoary (talk) 09:09, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
salt looks interesting. I did not know about that. Nocturnalnow (talk) 05:19, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Here is the most recent Reliable Sourced content which is not being allowed into the BLP. Professor J.R. and I both tried to add it in a small way yet it was immediately removed. This is just one of many examples of the BLP not being allowed to be NPOV. This is the way it seems to me. Actually, I read the entire BLP last night and it has improved dramatically since I started to edit it :) just kiding...but really, should not this new email content about Clinton being "often confused" in the view of Abedin bein the BLP since its being so widely reported by RSs? Maybe I'm Wrong about this? It looks like I will just have to accept the current editing condition of thus BLP. Nocturnalnow (talk) 17:25, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If we report everything based on being in sources, this would be Kardashianopedia. Policies exist to keep stuff like this from becoming a POV-farm, and AfD is not the place to be hashing this out. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:31, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(
WP:WEIGHT, it does not belong in the Huma Abedin article as it is not a significant event in that person's biography. Or in Hillary Clinton's, for that matter. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:34, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
This AfD began and has continued as a content dispute, which is why I asked for it to be SNOW closed in the first comment. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:51, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. I couldn't agree more. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:53, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The Hill, The Daily Mail, etc. are not right wing echos. Your arguments about content dispute is specious because our policy includes a breach of NPOV in a BLP as 1 of the justifications for deletion, and NPOV is all about content or the lack thereof. Btw, if you are not interested in this discussion or it is a non valid nomination, why do you try so hard to influence it? Nocturnalnow (talk) 21:42, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The Hill is generally neutral, but The Daily Mail is a pretty awful right-wing rag. But like I said, this is not the place for a content dispute. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:41, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And consensus is against you on adding these things, so there is no "breach" of NPOV on this article. Moving on. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:32, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Flawed equation , Just because consensus is against myself, Professor J.R. and D.Creish in some instances does not mean the BLP is NPOV. Consensus and NPOV are not synonymous. The beauty of Wikipedia is anyone can read the BLP and judge for themselves whether there is too much weight and puffery re: Subject's parents in the Early Years section, and too much weight to the media pile-on Bachmann in the Responses to allegations section. Nocturnalnow (talk) 05:03, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And those two issues are sufficient reason to nominate an article for deletion? – Muboshgu (talk) 16:40, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely. And it makes perfect sense that Wikipedia should only contain good articles, especially BLPs. Here is how we get from the 2 issues to nomination for deletion: Step 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Reasons_for_deletion says "Articles that breach Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living persons" Step 2:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons says "material requires a high degree of sensitivity, and must adhere strictly to ... to Wikipedia's three core content policies: #1 Neutral point of view (NPOV)" Nocturnalnow (talk) 22:58, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There's no "breach" here. There's a content dispute that should've been handled on the talk page. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:15, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - For all the reasons above.VictoriaGraysonTalk 00:25, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Such as? All I see are reasons to use the article's talk page. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:15, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Editor cannot nominate article per restrictions. NeilN talk to me 17:54, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gamergate controversy

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

Hashtag campaigns aren´t significant enought to warrant an article, the article itself is very subjective, repeats itself alot, uses emotionally loaded language, treats unverified and/or

accusation guideline of biographic articles, isn´t consistent if it describes the gamergate movement or the controversy of accusations to members of said movement and generally is written very subjectively. Due to the controversity and unverificablity of accusations to the movement and the constant misuse of the article as a political battleground by activists, there isn´t really any hope that this article would stay decent even if somebody managed to somehow get this mess of an article in control. Popcor11235 (talk) 17:33, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was Looked like a fairly obvious Speedy A7 to me... Peridon (talk) 18:47, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jackson William Cowan

Jackson William Cowan (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 person. Claim of significance's credibility is unclear to me. Adam9007 (talk) 17:40, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy delete. no sources, not a glimmer of notability Jimfbleak - talk to me? 17:17, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nedim Malicbegovic

Nedim Malicbegovic (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 person. Adam9007 (talk) 16:57, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. --MelanieN (talk) 15:10, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Draghici

Alexander Draghici (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 LightiningShadow (talk) 16:42, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Very famous Film Producer Alwayssmileguys (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:29, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment This nomination is completely too soon. What happened to the ideology of allowing an article on Wikipedia to grow? Is one now required to write a completed thesis type article? If this is the new construct of Wikipedia then Wikipedia needs to clearly state these new rules to everyone here! --MurderByDeadcopy"bang!" 20:33, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk  22:28, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk  22:28, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk  22:28, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This person produced a film that won the Burbank Film Festival, so what?? There is absolutely no coverage about him and a half dozen mentions, in the context of discussing the film, that he was the producer does not come even close to passing
WP:FILMMAKER. If he gets some significant coverage discussing him then there can be a Wikipedia article about him. JbhTalk 11:42, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Reply I have one of the higher "keep" percentages at AfD. Mainly because I tend to be on the lookout in favour of those who are actually notable. (45% Keep, 44% Delete, 8% Merge or Redirect, 3% Userfy) An appearance on Fox News, if it were sufficient to prove notability, would double the size of Wikipedia <g>. And a ref to SOBA where Draghici is not named at all is not a sign of his notability at all. Again - I fight to Keep articles on notable persons, but when my search yields nada, I can not look other that at Delete. Collect (talk) 14:34, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually it does appear to pass
    WP:ARTIST states, The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors. But, hey, I'm still baffled by this bizarre, dogmatic, biased hated of artists that Wikipedia seems so incessant on embracing! --MurderByDeadcopy"bang!" 21:25, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete - I went through the sources and found lots of biographical ephemera, but little substance. They consist largely of cruft (directory entries, photographs and the like) or passing mentions of varying credibility (from blogs to local news reports). One thing is sure: the "significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject" demanded by
    WP:BASIC isn't there. - Biruitorul Talk 17:49, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete - Not enough to support the bio. Usterday (talk) 18:20, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The most significant accomplishment, the Burbank award is not as significant as it looks. There were 6 different films that received a Best Feature award at that festival that year. And there's no consensus that an award there is suignifiicant for notability at all-most films that have won prizes there do not have articles--including this film. DGG ( talk ) 20:11, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as there's simply hardly much for more of an article and is best restarted when better is available so feel welcome to draft and userfy if needed. SwisterTwister talk 20:55, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. I considered userfying, per the author's final request to be allowed to improve the article. But considering their conflict of interest, their apparent lack of understanding of what constitutes

acceptable coverage, and their promise earlier in this discussion that they would not edit the article any more, I am not going to userfy it even if requested. --MelanieN (talk) 15:22, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Cloud Side Application

Cloud Side Application (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 term with all of 32 unique Google hits, mostly not this particular usage of the term, or this page or this page reflected in the Speedy Deletion Wikia. Nat Gertler (talk) 15:00, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 15:16, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]


I emailed Huon personal contact details for verifications. Tomorrow I will ask students that are using CSA to write testimonies on this page. --Yoram Bucks (talk) 19:50, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Testimonials as to the usefulness of CSA would be inappropriate; inclusion in Wikipedia is not based upon the quality of the item being discussed. --Nat Gertler (talk) 19:59, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, What I should do? --Yoram Bucks (talk) 20:05, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to read
appropriate dealings with conflicts of interest on Wikipedia would also be appropriate. --Nat Gertler (talk) 20:14, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

OK Thanks, I am the inventor of CSA. I will read the articles very carefully and response. --Yoram Bucks (talk) 21:10, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I read the articles. I don't think CSA has a problem of notability; I just need a fair change to present the evidences. I recommend it will be verified by Israeli related editor that knows the organizations here.

Regarding the Conflict of interest (COI) I admit I didn't think about it but after reading I perfectly understand and agree with the issue. I suggest that I will not edit the article any more, I will ask someone from Bar-Ilan university to take control without payment, and I also promise to contribute from of my knowledge soon and write new articles without COI. --Yoram Bucks (talk) 21:48, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I cannot find any significant coverage of this technology either. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 12:06, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry about that; I also had difficulties finding the Item. Chanel 10 says that they have a problem with their archive and it will take at least two days before old programs can be retrieved again.

Can I email you personal contact details of people from Bar-Ilan University and other organizations that are heavily using CSA for development? They gave me their permission and are willing to testify. (--Yoram Bucks (talk) 14:22, 24 November 2015 (UTC))[reply]

  • Delete as I see nothing better yet but feel free to restart when better. SwisterTwister talk 06:14, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can you appoint an Israeli related editor for verifying CSA notability? (--Yoram Bucks (talk) 05:44, 26 November 2015 (UTC))[reply]

  • Keep I visited the campus in Bar-Ilan talked with a tutor and students, CSA is the most popular tool their for software development. (Kutiteli (talk) 08:50, 27 November 2015 (UTC))[reply]
That would be personal testimonials as to the quality of the tech, which (as said before) really do not count toward Wikipedia notability guidelines. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:29, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't a testimony and it has nothing to do with quality. The writer is a retired IBM employee. He has no interest besides the willing to help. He didn’t know CSA before. He voluntarily agreed to be an editor here and verify CSA notability. (--Yoram Bucks (talk) 15:01, 27 November 2015 (UTC))[reply]
Yes, and he is reporting the personal testimonies of the students. This is not media coverage, this is not sign of widespread influence, and it's not verifiable. Whoever closes this discussion is going to be looking not at the count of keep-vs-delete votes, but at how the arguments fit Wikipedia guidelines. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:34, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It is not the only place where CSA got reliable third party recognition and it is verifiable - just appoint any other Israeli related editor. CSA has much more notability then only media coverage that can be bought through PR. (--Yoram Bucks (talk) 16:02, 27 November 2015 (UTC))[reply]

New Update – verifiable third party recognition: after acknowledging CSA contribution to Android community Google has agreed to give a sponsorship and to host a professional event about CSA on its TLV Campus. The event is listed in their web site at https://www.campus.co/tel-aviv/en/events on 11/30 12:00. The luxurious place together with a package of other beneficial tools is given by Google free of charge. (--Yoram Bucks (talk) 19:21, 27 November 2015 (UTC))[reply]

Yoram Bucks What the article actually seriously needs is in-depth third-party sources overall such as news and magazine which solidly suggest notability. SwisterTwister talk 19:38, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that, but don't you think that Google, Bar-Ilan University and others did a real in-depth check before relying on that tech. For me it is better proof then a media article that can be bought through PR Company. The different is that journalists don't leave with the consequences. (--Yoram Bucks (talk) 20:09, 27 November 2015 (UTC))[reply]
  • Delete per nom --ℕ ℱ 19:49, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not an understandable argument? (--Yoram Bucks (talk) 20:09, 27 November 2015 (UTC))[reply]
"Per nom" = "Due to the reasons explained in the nomination", i.e.,this user is agreeing with my initial entry into the discussion. --Nat Gertler (talk) 20:16, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That would be a voting which really do not count, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. (--Yoram Bucks (talk) 20:30, 27 November 2015 (UTC))[reply]
  • Keep. After serious verification there is no doubt in my mind, CSA is notable. I am gathering the facts now and will come soon with the History section. (Kutiteli (talk) 07:07, 30 November 2015 (UTC))— Kutiteli (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
And that addresses Wikipedia's
general notability guidelines how? --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:24, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Significant coverage – two hours event syllabus. And formal site at: http://documentation.tripleit.com/, Reliable and Independent sources: Google (Martamo22 (talk) 18:46, 30 November 2015 (UTC))[reply]
A two-hour talk on one location that is supposedly happening today is not significant, and as I presume that one of the developers of it will be speaking, not independent. A website for the company selling "CSA Studio", not independent. Google is not cited as actually saying anything about this. --Nat Gertler (talk) 19:09, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
With the words "supposedly" and "presume" you can argue against or in favor of anything (Yoram Bucks (talk) 19:35, 30 November 2015 (UTC))[reply]
I'm not going to make believe that everything that is scheduled to happen happens, nor pretend that a listing for the presentation that contains a link to the corporate website is independent of the corporation should be presumed to be independent. --Nat Gertler (talk) 20:01, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The facts are: The event held today with more then hundred people in the audience. The lecturer was an independent former Bar-Ilan student; it is collaboration with Google that includes also implementing the tech in Android.
  • Delete: There is nothing which I can find which is
    WP:SOFTWARE. Before you respond to this or vote you should look through the links in my statement and ensure you understand them before you try to convince me I'm wrong.McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 20:03, 30 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. --MelanieN (talk) 15:28, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Grand Sultans Of Excess

Grand Sultans Of Excess (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 significance; claim is barely significant enough to avoid speedy deletion. PROD tag was removed without comment or improvement by a single-edit IP. —Swpbtalk 13:58, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. —Swpbtalk 14:02, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —Swpbtalk 14:04, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. —Swpbtalk 14:06, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - can't find any independent secondary sources at all. JMWt (talk) 14:13, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as I simply found nothing better, not even generally notable. SwisterTwister talk 05:46, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'm prepared to argue that any established New Orleans Krewe is notable, but not for similar less- well-known festivities elsewhere. DGG ( talk ) 08:19, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 09:22, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Necto (nightclub)

The Necto (nightclub) (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, this, this and this which are not convincingly better to suggest improvement. SwisterTwister talk 06:58, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:59, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:59, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America1000 15:22, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Undecided. This should be salvageable as a historical rock concert venue (Chances Are/Second Chances/The Nectarine Ballroom). Probably too detailed on modern nightclub though. Rmhermen (talk) 17:43, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 04:21, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:29, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 07:40, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Can't tell whether it's notable or not, but it's an awful article. Has suffered from COI/SPA issues since the beginning, is like a poor man's press release and extremely unencyclopaedic and non-neutral in tone. If it does survive, it should be nuked and rebuilt from scratch. Rayman60 (talk) 01:08, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, it's so much easier deleting an article than rewrite one! (FYI - the deletionist brigade has arrived so this one is going, going, gone... to Deletionpedia!) --MurderByDeadcopy"bang!" 20:02, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I'm not sure if this will indeed happen but a third relist would be beneficial. SwisterTwister talk 01:34, 23 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 13:46, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Searches turned up nothing but trivial mentions. It exists, it has some popularity, but is it notable? Not according to searches. Onel5969 TT me 13:49, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not notable: Local club referenced solely with mentions & unreliable sources. Promotional, to the extent of being a misuse of WP as a webhost. DGG ( talk ) 19:37, 23 November 2015 (UTC) �[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was No consensus. (

non-admin closure) — Jkudlick tcs 03:52, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Jorge Alberto Rodríguez

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

Person does not appear notable. Unable to verify sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kigali1 (talk • contribs) 14:53, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America1000 16:32, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. North America1000 16:32, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 04:29, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:42, 15 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 13:45, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Probably notable . The refs seem sufficient. DGG ( talk ) 17:50, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (

non-admin closure) Onel5969 TT me 13:44, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Timuçin Şahin

Timuçin Şahin (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 with only 2 sources, claimingly shows notability. D'SuperHero (talk) 11:23, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 15:03, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 15:03, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. --MelanieN (talk) 15:32, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ayesha Khalid

Ayesha Khalid (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)

Too short and fails

WP:N. Musa Talk  11:08, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk  11:08, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk  11:08, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk  11:09, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep, it is obvious to every reasonable person that the article subject is notable.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:14, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Muawiya II

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

This page does not qualify

Muawiya ibn Yazid does not appears to be Notable. SpyButeo (talk) 10:38, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. SpyButeo (talk) 11:26, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. SpyButeo (talk) 11:28, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. SpyButeo (talk) 11:34, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. SpyButeo (talk) 11:34, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Subject was an Ummayyad caliph. GBooks shows that sources are available. Edward321 (talk) 23:52, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
GBooks does not contain any source about Muawiya II. SpyButeo (talk) 04:17, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you mean GBooks does not contain a biography of Muawiya II, you appear to be correct. If you mean GBooks contains no sources that mention Muawiya II, then following the link at the top of the AfD discussion will show you are incorrect. Edward321 (talk) 05:39, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Put in some more effort next time when searching for an Arabic name, especially since we're dealing with a head of state here. There are different renderings possible, such as "Mu'awiyah ibn Yazid" or "Muʿāwiya II". The latter has its own entry in the
    Encyclopedia of Islam. I've added the source to the article, so now it's at least not totally unreferenced. - HyperGaruda (talk) 06:48, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

--Ymblanter (talk) 17:14, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

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

The result was merge to

List of supercentenarians from the United States. Clear consensus to not keep as a standalone article. Merge seems the most reasonable alternative. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:45, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Charlotte Benkner

Charlotte Benkner (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)

She was the oldest until it was proven she was not the oldest. Fails

WP:NOPAGE Suggest redirecting this to whatever list she is on and putting any salvageable info there below the list. Legacypac (talk) 10:03, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

How? According to one editor writing 5 books, one on the NYT Best Sellers List for 5 weeks, is not enough to pass GNG.[6] Legacypac (talk) 10:49, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OTHERCRAPDOESNTEXIST is an extraordinarily poor argument for deletion. Alansohn (talk) 19:20, 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 speedy keep. Per

non-admin closure) JMHamo (talk) 13:47, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Ronilački klub Bosna

Ronilački klub Bosna (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)

Created in other lang. rather than in project language.

(Talk) 09:56, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 12:05, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. --MelanieN (talk) 15:35, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Metrostar Rattler

Metrostar Rattler (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:MADEUP; No valid source for the supposed released arcade games and only source for the unreleased game is a post on a forum. -Einstein95 (talk) 09:03, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

The editor has tried to delete this notice. -Einstein95 (talk) 09:22, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with corollary: I will note here that I engaged in reverting User:Natsume96 who repeatedly tried to remove the Articles for Deletion notice from above article, as stated by einstein95. I stress that this was not a content-based disagreement, so I feel that it doesn't impact my impartiality, but feel free to disregard my opinion if it's felt to be a conflict of interest.
Searching Google for "metrostar rattler" gives vanishingly few results which at a cursory glance all appear to be mirroring Wikipedia content. There appear to be no reliable sources for the existence of this platform. Recommend deletion on this basis. Vague | Rant 09:50, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk  13:44, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk  13:44, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was procedural close. Article moved to

non-admin closure) ansh666 07:48, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Reich Society

Reich 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)

WP:MADEUP; Only sources cited are primary from its own website.    → Michael J Ⓣ Ⓒ Ⓜ 07:31, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

@
talk) 11:31, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
As per the above, seems to be textbook
WP:TOOSOON. Userify until "more attention" is eventually gotten. JMWt (talk) 14:17, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. There has been no discussion for the past two weeks, so relisting again will not likely result in anything substantial. (

non-admin closure) — Jkudlick tcs 07:06, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Agape International Missions

Agape International Missions (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 the notability guidelines given in

WP:ORG. Sources are either primary, self-published, or trivial mentions. Kelly hi! 14:23, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America1000 18:01, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cambodia-related deletion discussions. North America1000 18:01, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails GNG and NORG. Not enough coverage in reliable sources. JbhTalk 21:13, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • A mass series of
    talk) 06:57, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Kindly evaluate each article on its merits. Legacypac (talk) 07:36, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Drover's Wife made me think twice about my first search. I am capable of errors of judgment in a first pass at assessing notability. I punched Agape International Missions + Brewster into a Proquest News Archives search and found, along with articles that mention the couple only briefly, long stories about Agape, the Brewsters, and their work in real daily newspapers (
    WP:GNG notability. I recommend that editors attempting to evaluate this organization, run a news archive search. This article in KEEPE.M.Gregory (talk) 15:49, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor Talk! 02:11, 16 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) 06:03, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus.  Sandstein  19:13, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

NASHI

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

Local charitable organization that fails the notability criteria of

WP:ORG. Kelly hi! 21:12, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 04:58, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Is it "local" because it's not American -- is that the intended perjorative, here? Do you have an actual argument or just more bad-faith assumptions masquerading as questions? --Calton | Talk 16:16, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

*A mass series of

talk) 06:57, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Sources are a bit of a shambles here. That might require some cleanup before notability can be judged.-- Elmidae 08:50, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The first one is frustrating, since it's a cached overview of a local radio clip. The second one is already in the article, and seems very flimsy. The third is useful, but it's an interview with a person affiliated with NASHI discussing human trafficking in Canada, not independent coverage of NASHI. Being active outside of Canada does make this technically an International org per
WP:NGO, but the sources are so thin that more coverage of the actual scope would be helpful to get this away from being a technically/barely situation. A conference attended by 900 people is pretty small in scope. Grayfell (talk) 09:32, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Yes but the abstract on the CBC interview leaves no doubt that it meets the standard for a reliable source: "Sheila sat down with The Morning Edition's Madeline Kotzer to talk about the work Saskatoon group Nashi is doing in the Ukraine to fight the trafficking of children for sex."
talk) 14:11, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
It's a reliable source, but not for notability. --Calton | Talk 16:16, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You have it [sort of] backwards. Of course a published/broadcast interview conducted by and published/broadcast by a reliable source counts towards notability, so long as it's not conducted by and/or published/broadcast by the subject or someone with a direct connection to the subject. An interview of the subject by a reliable source is coverage of the subject. That's precisely what we need for notability. But apart from notability, because an article subject's own words are a primary source, interviews run into
WP:PRIMARY. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:42, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
  • @
    WP:GNG, as per the previous keep?", as though I didn't also include a whole bunch of other sources and reference links mentioned elsewhere. Also, even dismissing that single source as "a church newsletter" sounds like you're talking about some small town church-in-a-barn. L'Osservatore Romano is a church newsletter, too. The Orthodox Church would not, of course, have the readership of the Vatican's publication, but it's not "hyperlocal" -- it's the national church publication. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 04:38, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Your newspaper source is about an unrelated author, with a very brief, passing mention that she donated to the organisation once. The church newsletter still doesn't meet the bar of a reliable source to establish notability. That you're having to grasp at such desperate straws makes the case for deletion in itself. The Drover's Wife (talk) 05:07, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | Talk 02:11, 16 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) 06:02, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The sources are defeating me. All the Saskatoonhomepage links are broken and apparently unrepairable, since that site has no search functionality. Of the other 5 refs, only 2 work, and I can't rustle up working links for the others. Currently would argue for Delete based on absence of verifiable sources, unless some enterprising editor can solve this quickly - if all these were accessible, Keep would seem justified.-- Elmidae 10:27, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @
    offline sources that are not verifiable online. As long as there's not a compelling reason to believe the sources don't exist (that they're made up), that is. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 16:41, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
I agree that the sources are unlikely to be made up, and thus one might treat them as 'offline' for practical purposes (a generous interpretation of
WP:SOURCEACCESS). The problem is that there's no way to check whether these sources do establish notability, i.e. constitute substantial treatment by third parties etc., or are just passing mentions or in-house press statements. That doesn't normally come up with bona fide offline sources, but it's a distinct possibility with these. IMO if sources of such uncertain pedigree can't be accessed and assessed, they may as well be absent, and don't help in establishing notability.-- Elmidae 16:59, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 18:01, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of Miss International countries

List of Miss International countries (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)

Superfluous fancruft. extensively edited by now blocked sockpuppeteers (but I admit, also by genuine users) The Banner talk 08:34, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
discuss 10:09, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America1000 12:34, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America1000 12:34, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America1000 12:34, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I think a coherent case could be made that all such competitions were not of any real significance, but given that WP includes the competition I cannot see that a comprehensive list of participants by country needs to be deleted. I do not think "fancruft" is a really appropriate tag -- it doesn't seem to mean anything beyond "I don't like it". Imaginatorium (talk) 09:35, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • And conveniently you skip the part about sockpuppeteers... The Banner talk 09:45, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sorry, I don't really understand. I thought the question was about whether this page should be kept, rather than the identity or activities of previous editors. This isn't exactly my subject area, so I cannot make a precision assessment, but the article seems to be a reasonably organised list. Imaginatorium (talk) 11:29, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the kind of thing that belongs in the article about the event. Legacypac (talk) 00:18, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - You'd expect this sort of crap on a fansite ... Not an encycloepdia with 6,841,738 articles and 47,599,621 users!, No evidence of notability, Fails GNG. –Davey2010Talk 18:27, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor Talk! 00:39, 16 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) 06:01, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete "fancruft" about sums this up. This is a category, at best; not a list. Vanamonde93 (talk) 07:11, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  Sandstein  19:07, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of Monster Hunter books

List of Monster Hunter books (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 book series, Google search did not pull up any credible sources. Feel free to oppose deletion if I am incorrect. smileguy91talk - contribs 04:12, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 14:48, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 14:48, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Comment: A search brings up nothing other than this Fanfiction.net account. The name of the author and the editor that created the article appear to be the same. From the best I can judge, this looks like it's an unpublished series based upon an original character someone created for fanfiction purposes. I note that the plot of this appears to be similar to the plot of
    (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:40, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
I could only find this [8] (plus a few other similar pages on wikia.com), which is not useable for notability so Delete as it doesn't meet
WP:GNG.Coolabahapple (talk) 06:38, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:34, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of guests on Red Eye w/ Greg Gutfeld

AfDs for this article:
List of guests on Red Eye w/ Greg Gutfeld (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) 04:10, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 07:08, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 15:31, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Consensus is that he passes the notability criteria for academics. (

non-admin closure) Onel5969 TT me 13:47, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Olav sigurd kjesbu

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 does not meet the guidelines of

WP:ACADEMIC and does not appear to have been the non-trivial subject of multiple independent reliable published sources. The list of external links given only prove that he exists, and existence does not equal notability. KDS4444Talk 12:26, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 19:46, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 19:46, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Weak keep. An
    WP:NACADEMICS#1 in most fields, and I do not think that marine biology is one of the exceptions (though it is probably more borderline than some). The article, though, could do with some fairly thorough improvement (and a title correction) - as it stands, it would not be much of a loss to Wikipedia. PWilkinson (talk) 00:07, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:37, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to

(discuss) 04:57, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Erick Schat's Bakkerÿ

Erick Schat's Bakkerÿ (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 can't quite see that this bakery is notable. There are secondary sources in the article, but the first two are short newspaper/blog articles, really just notices, and the third one is a brief mention in an article describing a road trip. The first source is pretty good but as I said it's short, and I just don't see that

WP:BEFORE but although there are many Google hits, all of them are business listings, review websites, and press releases - nothing independent at all. bonadea contributions talk 10:53, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

I have a feeling that this article might be just to promote the bakery itself. If anyone wanted to know about the bakery, they could just look at the few sources that do exist. The article is also poorly written and very hard to improve without copying sources directly. This needs to be notable and recognised as something important. wikipedia is not a list of businesses or
biting too hard, but this should be deleted. Happy_Attack_Dog (Throw Me a Bone) 14:25, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk  11:49, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Happy Attack Dog, it wasn't written to promote. I wrote it after I stopped there on a trip to LegoLand years ago, but I'll let others decide if it should stay or not. Cheers,--kelapstick(on the run) 14:54, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree that it is badly or promotionally written - the only issue I have with it is the notability question. The article is more than six years old, and a lot has happened with notability criteria in that time. --bonadea contributions talk 16:30, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This is a legitimate tourist attraction in the town of Bishop, covered in The Wall Street Journal [9] as well as repeatedly in the Los Angeles Times [10]. These articles are brief but there are a bunch of them. --Arxiloxos (talk) 15:54, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
All of those seem to be mentions of the bakery in articles about e.g. places to eat, or places to visit, or about the town of Bishop, rather than articles about the bakery itself. ("Seem to be" because some of it is behind paywalls so I have to go by what I can see.) Maybe there's enough such brief mentions so as to make up for the lack of in-depth articles? --bonadea contributions talk 16:30, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I find this notion that "reviews" are somehow not evidence of notability pretty ridiculous. To me it is obvious that if a journalist has noted this as a place to visit, it is by definition notable by a secondary source. Yes, it is different if this is just written on a blog or imported from a press release, but if this is in a proper media publication with proper editing policies, that seems to me to be an independent secondary source. JMWt (talk) 21:38, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely. But if you have a text with very brief reviews (a couple of sentences) of ten or fifteen different places, it's a bit borderline in my opinion. --bonadea contributions talk 22:24, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as failing
    WP:COMPANY (regional/in-passing coverage) but I'd also suggest that the content should be merged to Wikivoyage article about the city, where it can be a valid POI, with its current description copied there. [11] is good enough that it would warrant a mention of the business place at the city's article, too. But I don't feel it's enough to support a stand alone notability.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:08, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Merge into
    talk/contribs) 22:49, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:35, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America1000 02:35, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 02:35, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – If not independently notable, I support a merge to Bishop, California. North America1000 02:36, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - I echo the comments above with that this is not obviously independently notable and while I only found some links at Books, News and browsers, it can be mentioned at the community's article if it is noticeably locally known and significant. SwisterTwister talk 08:12, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 08:35, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Al Salehi

Al Salehi (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 a non-notable politician, whose only elected office is a local library board, the Buena Park Library District.

He is a

United States Congress in 2014 (winning just 2.6% of the vote in a four-way race [12]
).

The sources cited consist of a one-off interview on

private mailbox. OCNative (talk) 10:05, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk  10:07, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk  10:08, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Even if he had come in second in the house race that alone would not make him notable. He came in a distant 4th. Library Board members are virtually never notable for being such. There might be one person somewhere who did enough on a library board to warrant a Wikipedia article, but Salehi is not that person.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:00, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NOT notable, period.
    talk) 18:36, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:32, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – No, a board member of a library that serves a population of 80,000 is not notable. And on top of it all, the article is painfully promotional (e.g, " Al Salehi represents a new generation of liberally minded, fiscally conservative non-partisan leaders. Locally grounded but internationally connected—a capitalist with a social conscience—Al is challenging his party to live up to its ideals of transparency and respect for individual freedom."). Graham (talk) 02:49, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As an aside, what is "his party" that he is challenging if he is indeed "non-partisan" (which he mentions twice)? Graham (talk) 02:53, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neither "library board" nor "unsuccessful candidate for Congress" is a claim of notability that gets a person into Wikipedia, and nothing else here is any stronger — and, as per the nominator, the sourcing here relies too strongly on primary sources and namechecks of his existence, and thus the article is not sourced well enough to claim
    WP:GNG. This reads very much like a campaign brochure rather than a real encyclopedia article, so I'd be very surprised if it wasn't created by his own campaign team. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 17:06, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete - He's a trustee for a library and unsuccessful political candidate - subject is not notable. Meatsgains (talk) 18:26, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was procedural close. The article was speedily deleted per

non-admin closure) — Jkudlick tcs 20:03, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Enea Jorgji

Enea Jorgji (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 prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing

Wikipedia:Notability (biographies) requirement. " It was deprodded by User:Egghead06 with the following rationale "It was until recently the case that referees were assumed to be notable if they had refereed at a fully pro level. The subject has refereed in the Europa League. I am therefore removing the Prod. Feel free to take to AFD". Well, as noted at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football/Notability#Referee_notability, referees are not automatically encyclopedic, and I don't see any sources for this person passing GNG/BIO. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:25, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. It is not even an article. --Mondiad (talk) 01:12, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:31, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. North America1000 04:30, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. North America1000 04:30, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America1000 04:30, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America1000 04:30, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: doesn't satisfy GNG. In addition Jorgji is not a fully pro referee. MorenaReka (talk) 13:35, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I thought referees who officiated in the Europa League were notable - they clearly are not.........--Egghead06 (talk) 17:56, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the position of referee does not in itself confer notability, thus
    WP:GNG is failed. — Jkudlick tcs 18:21, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. — Jkudlick tcs 18:22, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 18:38, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 08:31, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gene's Sausage Shop

Gene's Sausage Shop (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 prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing

Wikipedia:Notability (companies) requirement. " It was deprodded by User:TonyTheTiger with the following rationale "This article is the featured subject in many WP:RS. It should not be deleted without an WP:AFD consideration". Where are those RS? All I see is very local/niche news coverage (up to and including Facebook) failing NCOMPANY's audience requirement,. This entry could only be salvaged by copying it to Wikivoyage's article about Chicago, which is more lenient for listing local restaurants. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:08, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Of two minds here: I think there is probably enough independent media coverage to meet notability, but probably not enough to write a page that contains any useful information beyond the fact that it exists and some people like it. For that, I think there would need to be an extended researched media article about the history, ownership etc of the store to reference, together (maybe) with information about turnover from publicly available records etc. It might then be a useful page to someone looking for additional encyclopedic information about the shop, but at the moment, I'm struggling to see any value in the page at all, so am leaning towards delete. JMWt (talk) 08:43, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@JMWt: An article can be short and notable; the problem is that sources for companies should not be strictly local, and this is what I am seeing here. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:08, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
tending to agree that this seems to be of local interest, but is that really a sensible criteria? Obv if this was a shop in Poland, it is unlikely to be very interesting or notable, but at what point does a long-standing-and-unusual shop in a local area become notable enough? JMWt (talk) 09:19, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NCOMPANY suggests that for companies, the answer is once it generates coverage that's at least regional if not national. I tried to find an example from Category:Restaurants in Illinois and Category:Retail buildings in Illinois but almost all I see makes me want to start more AfDs, so perhaps I am not the best person to ask here. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:05, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 22:12, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 22:12, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 22:12, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:30, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unfortunately as News, Books, browsers and Highbeam easily all found links but nothing for more obvious notability and improvement. SwisterTwister talk 08:08, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nothing here to show notability. References indicate only local interest which could be created for any restaurant almost anywhere.--Egghead06 (talk) 11:28, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sarah-Jane (talk) 19:46, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

HeyWire

HeyWire (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 prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing

Wikipedia:Notability (companies) requirement. " It was deprodded by User:Cavarrone with "Notability is questionable, but probably AfD is the best venue for this". Well, here we are: can anyone find any reason to keep this? I don't see any. As I discussed in my Signpost Op-Ed, this is a good example of Yellow-Pages like company spam; note also the creator's declared COI: from User:Kemipa "Keith Paul is the Director of Marketing at "HeyWire." Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:53, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete, corporate spam with little to no encyclopedic value. Citobun (talk) 10:48, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:29, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 04:31, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. North America1000 04:32, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I do so love these deprodders who just love to subvert the process and waste people's time, having done not one lick of work to back up their actions. Certainly no evidence that this outfit meets
    WP:CORP has been proffered. Ravenswing 06:27, 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. Sarah-Jane (talk) 19:44, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Conrad

Nick Conrad (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 with its current version and the best links I found was only this, this and this. Notifying taggers Nomoskedasticity and Fylbecatulous and WikiDan61 fixed a ref error so I'm not sure if he'd want to comment. SwisterTwister talk 07:21, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 15:16, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 15:16, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:28, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. North America1000 04:34, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America1000 04:34, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America1000 04:34, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. non-notable regional radio broadcaster. DGG ( talk ) 09:35, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per
    WP:TNT is the best option here. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 18:26, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Just enough of a consensus to tip over the keep side. The Bushranger One ping only 08:54, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of ziyarat locations

List of ziyarat locations (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 complete load of OR, SYNTH and POV. If I start a cleanup, we will be left with a small stub, not a list. Why did this pass the AFC anyway? FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 04:30, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@FreeatlastChitchat what makes you think this article was ever submitted to AFC? The empty move log proves that it was created directly in mainspace and not through AFC. I'll thank you not to diss one of the hardest working groups of editors on WP without evidence. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 15:48, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Roger (Dodger67) My apologies, I may have been viewing histories of two articles simultaneously and was mistaken. So , again, my apologies, I did not mean any disrespect. Regards FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 03:00, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Human3015TALK  04:46, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Human3015TALK  04:47, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Human3015TALK  04:47, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Human3015TALK  05:08, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Human3015TALK  05:08, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Are there no reliable sources which describe places as ziyarat locations? Siuenti (talk) 07:29, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Siuenti I think there are only 9-10 which are described as such, and even then the sources as contested as being RS. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 07:32, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tip. A reasonably often used alternative spelling is ziarat. - HyperGaruda (talk) 14:07, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor Talk! 03:04, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - a ziyaret is just a Muslim holy site that people visit. There are probably tens of thousands of them, maybe hundreds of thousands, many of them unofficial or local in nature. There is no source that lists them all, or even those in a single country. A tree with the local tradition that someone holy was buried under it and which has some votive rags tied to it could count as a ziyaret. So any "list" will be unworkable if accurate, OR and probably POV if selective. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 01:21, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep encyclopedic as much so as the contents of Category:Pilgrimage churches and Category:Pilgrim Centres and its contents. The article needs work, of course, but its encyclopedic worthiness is obvious. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:19, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You are thinking that ziyarat is synonymous with a pilgrimage site, but that is not so. A ziyarat does not need any "notability"(lets use this word for the lack of a better) like a pilgrimage site does. For example a site is considered a pilgrimage site if something important happened there or someone important went/lived/died/is buried there. This is not the case with ziyarats. A simple tree outside a town in Pakistan/India/bangladesh/Africa will become a ziyarat site as soon as the first villager hangs a rag on it and says "Ooh loookey, this here tree is a good tree". So comparing the two is like comparing oranges with mangoes. Perhaps you can peruse
Wikipedia:Other stuff exists in your spare time. Ty. Regards FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 03:09, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
"...the article needs to be purged of what you call non-notable rags on trees". You have just confirmed my delete point. Such "purging" would be OR and not nPOV. A tree with rags on it can be a ziyaret. (NB., I'm using the ziyaret spelling because that is the variant I know). Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 15:30, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Carlossuarez46 "I saw Mary" has christian connotation so you are basically agreeing with me here. A person can say that they saw Mary and the site will become a holy site due to its relation with Islam. However the same is not true with these so called ziyarat sites. People don't have to say "Oh this site is connected to Islam or religion so it is holy". they can just arbitrarily choose a site and then say that it is holy. therefore we cannot keep a record of all of them. Regards FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 10:05, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That is not correct. The vast majority of locations listed in the article have no references and no supporting Wikipedia articles. The most important sites will have lots of articles/sources, but that will be as individual sites, not as a collective "List of ziyarats". Isn't there a requirement that to be included in a Wikipedia list article, there has to be either an individual suitable reference for the thing included or an associated Wikipedia article on it? Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 15:43, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not particularly similar. It has the word "notable", "pilgrimage sites" is something specific and not a thing with as loose a term as ziyaret, and about 95% of places in that list have Wikipedia articles that support their inclusion in the list. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 19:39, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:17, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:GNG, but the extentsive use of such lists may require community-wide consensus (or at least clear guidelines) that said lists are undesirable. - HyperGaruda (talk) 15:04, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
List of ziyarat locations is not a usable navigational list since the vast majority of sites mentioned do not have Wikipedia articles, and many of the wikilinks that are in the list actually link to towns in which the ziyarats are located, or are about persons or organisations. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 20:45, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
List has been largely cleaned up now (maybe I should've also removed the link-less entries with additional but unsourced information). Apparently I'm not the first to do such a thing. This article used to be almost 70 kb until MezzoMezzo unleashed a deletion storm in August 2013 and left 9 kb worth of material. - HyperGaruda (talk) 22:35, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as long it is to linked valid referenced articles - the subject is valid, the list is valid, and however disparaging some of the comments in this afd might be, ziyarat or ziarah is a valid topic, and the list to valid articles is still good. It is clear that there have been massive additions, and massive deletions. It should be on the record, that where a valid ziarah/pilgrimage site exists, there is a well referenced article that identifies it as such, that there should be no impediment to having a list. The problem with this list is low level english eds think its a great place to add their local site, which has no linked article. Ziarah as a practice is something which excites the passions, and also fervour, and the life of this list seems to strangely reflect the two sides of pro and anti ziarah populations. JarrahTree 23:34, 30 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. North America1000 03:46, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Korean maritime border incidents

AfDs for this article:
Korean maritime border incidents (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 as it now stands duplicates material in

List of border incidents involving North Korea, the Northern Limit Line, and the main articles for the various incidents described on the page. It has no reason to exist. Jack Upland (talk) 01:33, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Withdrawn by nominator: I will proceed instead with a merge proposal.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:52, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 19:08, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:33, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:12, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 08:27, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kamel Farhan Saleh

Kamel Farhan Saleh (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

blown up and started over. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:19, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:32, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:11, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America1000 04:36, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. North America1000 04:36, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. North America1000 04:37, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as I easily found no better sourcing. Notifying DGG who may want to comment with this familiar subject and also tagger Clpo13. SwisterTwister talk 05:30, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I have to guess a little on this one, but if these are the only published works the person is unlikely to be notable. DGG ( talk ) 06:04, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sarah-Jane (talk) 19:43, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Damien Lay (director)

Damien Lay (director) (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)

Obvious conflict of interest, and fails the

WP:FILMMAKER policy. // Posted by larsona (Talk) // 02:30, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 13:18, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 13:18, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 13:19, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:09, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete the article is full of unreferenced grand claims. Possible autobio. LibStar (talk) 04:54, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. (

WP:NPASR). North America1000 03:17, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Conductive wireless charging

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

Page does not depict a notable and unique technology. It is not about a variety of wireless power transfer, as the title might imply. It is about regular charging, but the wires instead terminate in the shape of a pad instead of a plug. Maybe a section on "plugless" chargers can be added to the article on battery chargers if the information is deemed noteworthy by someone else. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarkreth (talk • contribs)

  • Comment - Discussion page was created without the afd2 template and not transcluded to a daily log. Fixed now--I have no opinion on the nomination itself. --Finngall talk 18:16, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 20:54, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 20:54, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:23, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:09, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm not sure that

Wireless power is a suitable target, given that conductive charging does not make use of any form of electromagnetic ("wireless") transmission of power. Instead, it is just a matter of design of a safe form of conductor pad which connects without a plug or socket - Plugless power or Plugless charging would be the subject. Since those targets don't exist, it may be best to leave the article where it is; or perhaps to rename it, but we don't need AfD for that. The article is cited, the topic does exist and the technical problem is not without interest, so the need to have it at AfD at all does seem rather doubtful. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:05, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

@
wireless power about charging a device without wires between the [e.g. phone] and the [charging station/mechanism]. Why is "plugless" more accurate than "wireless"? I don't think anybody means there aren't wires involved somewhere -- just that the [phone] and [charger] don't have to be connected via wire. I don't think anybody disputes the topic exists -- it's just much less popular than inductive [wireless] charging and looks to be something that could be encompassed by the wireless power article. But if I'm misunderstanding something I would, of course, be content to change my !vote. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 16:30, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Gosh, the term "wireless" used long ago to mean "radio", as opposed to wired (telephone/telegraph). Sorry if that is too dinosaur to be comprehensible. Since the charging pad makes actual electrical contact, the electrons flow the usual way from mains to device, without any transmission and reception of radio waves. The inductive devices, on the other hand, work at a (short) distance through air or plastic. Hope that is clear, the difference is in fact simple and sharp. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:14, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was No consensus. (

non-admin closure) — Jkudlick tcs 04:00, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Anime Conji

Anime Conji (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)

Most of the current sources used in this article really do not establish Anime Conji's notability.

  1. ANN: Solve the Mystery of Danganronpa at Anime Conji - This is the only source that might make the convention notable from the current list.

After researching, here is what I could find towards Anime Conji's notability.

  1. The San Diego Union-Tribune: Anime lovers only - Anime Conji celebrates Japanese animation and manga - Reads like a press release.
  2. Cinefantastique Online: Anime Conji 2011: It’s back, and this time it’s inter- and intra-personal - Possibly establishes notability.
  3. ANN - Anime Expo 2012 - The Future of Anime Expo panel - Briefly talks about Conji after the Anime Expo takeover.
  4. Los Angeles Magazine: Get Your Con on This Weekend - Mentions convention, talks about events being held.

I am bringing this article to AFD, as I am not sure even with the additional sources, this is notable enough. I could not find any extensive TV or Newspaper coverage, or aside from Anime News Network any extensive anime industry coverage. Esw01407 (talk) 19:50, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This convention features several notable guests every year. That alone could make this convention notable. FiendYT (talk) 20:07, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not convinced by that argument, guests will turn up if you pay their fare, room and perhaps other costs and will be looking to increase their exposure and market themselves at the cons expense. For example the first Hyper Japan had a generic voice acting idol group turn up but it was purely a business trip for them - they used the chance to do a photoshoot in London and and spread the word about their show. Guests alone won't make a con notable unless they attract the very cream of the crop, and even then it's a marketing exercise and question of funds rather than the importance of the con itself. The biggest cons will attract bigger guests but again, big show means big marketing exposure. The statement is also meaningless without a guest list and the guests mentioned in the articles linked are not big enough to make a difference. Additionally as the creator of the page and person claiming the guests are notable, you should be providing examples. SephyTheThird (talk) 21:40, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is by SPJA who produces Anime Expo. Here's an LA Weekly article: [13]. The Danganronpa event was also covered by Game Informer [14] Here's a Holtville newspaper article about how the event draws in about 3,000 people. [15] The greater question is at what size an anime convention in the US should be before it is considered notable, now that there are multiple ones in the country? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:43, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think size matters, notability is notability. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:32, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:19, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:09, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. North America1000 04:38, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. North America1000 04:38, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America1000 04:39, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America1000 04:39, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep With Angus's finding of additional sources, one of them is a passing mention but there is enough overall coverage for this one to just squeak by. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:25, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Request As the debate is not moving forward, I have gone ahead and rewrote the article with the sources available. I would like this AFD closed with the note of "no consensus". Esw01407 (talk) 02:28, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 19:41, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Spice Times

Spice Times (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 notability (namely magazines). Their 14 edits over a few days 4 years ago were all on this article or related to this subject. Facebook and website haven't been updated in 4 years. Rayman60 (talk) 02:18, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:08, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America1000 04:39, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America1000 04:39, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 04:39, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. North America1000 04:39, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete' as not yet notable and even WP:GNG would be applicable here. SwisterTwister talk 05:35, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep.  Sandstein  14:16, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Boka Star

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 created by user who had similar content removed from M-87 Orkan page. He created this article for personal purposes and it contains false information. After creation he linked this article with M-87 Orkan page were same content was deleted after Talk. Loesorion (talk) 02:09, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

precisely what information is false, and how do you know that? DGG ( talk ) 18:36, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Information in content of this article is false and it is discussed on M-87 Orkan talk page. There is a police report about content of ship and court judgement(since 2014 Marko Balic pending second retrial with only customs charges no weapons proliferation charges). Not a single word about Orkan M-87 in any official document - see link to police report in Talk:M-87_Orkan page. Such information was never established except in newspapers(in same time as false WMD was established in Iraq) and ship final destination mentioned in papers - Iraq - was never established by police or court. Everything about Orkan M-87 and Iraq was is invented by yellow press witch is used for references in article. User who created this article new about discussion in Talk page Talk:M-87_Orkan for deletion of part of M-87 Orkan article about Boka Star because it was content that he added. When discussion started in 22 june 2013 to remove false content in article because he knew that it is false claim and is going to be erased, as I have seen now he created article Boka Star on 24 june 2013 and later on 23 may 2015 again added link to article in M-87 Orkan page. Article has nothing significant to exist in Wikipedia except if we are going to read about trials in court and one ship involved in it and if it is such a case millions of trials could be made as articles in Wikipedia without any significant emphasis. Loesorion (talk) 23:12, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - I read the talk page: So this is kind of
    WP:POVFORK written from unreliable sources? The editor who wrote this article has made multiple problematic edits (such as blanking a page without an explanation and replacing it with a redirect - see the edit history of Commodity (Marxism)), so I find it quite hard to believe he wrote this in good faith. It is best to delete this page. Ceosad (talk) 05:40, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 18:25, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 18:25, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
I have revised the article, giving a description of the ship, and I think that there is enough coverage now to Keep the article.Nigel Ish (talk) 19:53, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:01, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Now a good articleLyndaship (talk) 20:48, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Per the sources it appears the content is true and its smuggling history was covered well.--Oakshade (talk) 02:05, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Yugoslavia-related deletion discussions. North America1000 04:41, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. All military vessels are generally considered to be notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:57, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:57, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All of sudden on 22. November started activities to add more content to article, very oblivious approach by author and his colleges in order to keep it, but can all of you that added content explain what type of fuel SCUD is using? And such article that is directly misguiding readers is not worth to keep. Loesorion (talk) 14:27, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Loesorion: Please do not accuse editors acting on their own initiative of collaborating with the original creator of the article. One outcome of nominating an article for deletion is that it gets improved and kept, once it is known that the article is at risk of deletion. This seems to have happened here, regardless of the motives behind the creation of the article in the first place. This is not a personal battle between you and the creator of the article. If it gets kept it will be because the original concerns have been addressed. That doesn't mean the the original creator has "won" or that you have "lost". Mjroots (talk) 15:09, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:GNG. Kudos to those members of
    Location (talk) 16:43, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]

I don't know that author so there is nothing personal in trying to delete article that contains false information and there was a reason for deletion and a sudden change of article in day that should be deleted with nobody saying anything prior that and still is kept portion of article with false information's that was reason for deletion is something that made me feel awkward. Sorry if I offended anyone by mentioning something that sound like accusation but I just wrote that without explicitly thinking on anyone but on content that was still there. It was not my attention to accuse but if you find numerous time same wrong info and every attempt to delete it is not successful despite previous discussion about it is time to think about conspiracies - joking of course - I don't mind article to be improved but improving everything else and living reason for deletion is strange don't you think? Loesorion (talk) 21:39, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I agree to keep this article after serious edits and improvements of its content so this discussion should be closed Loesorion (talk) 22:22, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. There is consensus that this subject meets

(discuss) 04:54, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Stanley Keleman

Stanley Keleman (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 insufficiently sourced biography of a living person. This subject does not appear to have had any significant coverage from reliable secondary sources. The sources we have appear to be promotional or not independent (e.g. commercial organizations related to the subject). Salimfadhley (talk) 01:59, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 14:59, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 14:59, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Thanks for taking time to review the sources, could you tell me which of the sources you think best establishes the subject's notability? This person seems to be mentioned on a number of web-sites but I was unable to find a single one that would meet our guidelines for a
Reliable Source. Perhaps I missed something. --Salimfadhley (talk) 17:49, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Ok well that's enough. This is an academic (or pseudo, if you prefer) who's notable for his ideas, not "his life." Reliable sources don't have to be about "the subject's life," per
    talk) 02:32, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 04:42, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. North America1000 04:43, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete until a better article can be made as I found some links at News and Highbeam but nothing surprisingly better. SwisterTwister talk 05:33, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable author. The booksare very widely held by an array of academci libraries 931 in one case; some are published by major publishers. For an academic,and I'll judge him as an academic, this meets
    WP:PROF because it shows the influence of his ideas. The article does need some rewriting, but it meets the usual standard. If there are reviews of the books, it meets WP:AUTHOR as well. It is not necessary for a writer or professor that the references discuss their personal life; they rather need to discuss the factors which make for notable, and in this case it's the books. I personally have a considerable degree of impatience with psychology work of this nature, and I regard it as a sign of incipient absurdity for anyone to derive a theory on the combined basis of Darwin and Einstein. But that shouldn't be a factor in judging the notability of the person for the purpose of a npov encycopedia . DGG ( talk ) 08:40, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep more or less per DGG. Reviews of multiple books in the NYTimes are ordinarily sufficient to demonstrate notability of their author. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 18:24, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, meets
    WP:AUTHOR from reviews talked of above; also ebsco shows some book reviews by Library Journal[17], Kirkus also has a couple - [18], of Living Your Dying - "In spite of some puerile reductions, this is a surprisingly provocative view of the possibilities that the new death consciousness offer us. .. It is unfortunate that Keleman mars this fascinating thesis with a simplistic section on ""self-dialogue"" -- getting in touch with our wish to die and our lifestyles; personal growth is much more complex. But he wisely and pointedly opens doors, and his book may prove an impetus to more complete studies and therapies.", and [19], of Your Body is Alive! - "Keleman, whose Living Your Dying (1974) attracted a good deal of praise, is a bioenergetic therapist whose commendable motives cannot be doubted, but oh, my, how he writes. .. Still, these insights degenerate with remarkable swiftness into jargon, and Keleman's heavy reliance on metaphor tends to be annoying rather than illuminating. Aren't there any bioenergeticists who can write English?" Coolabahapple (talk) 14:40, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep – Meets
    WP:AUTHOR criteria #3, because the subject's works have received multiple independent reviews from reliable sources. North America1000 03:27, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) clpo13(talk) 18:52, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Don Brewster

Don Brewster (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 the notability guidelines per

WP:BIO. References are primary or self-published sources, or don't mention him at all, except for the Los Angeles Times ref which only names him tangentially. Kelly hi! 13:58, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. JbhTalk 22:19, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • See related
    talk) 15:32, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 15:33, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
  • E.M.Gregory, you appear to have recorded two !votes here. I've provisionally struck the second of these, but please keep/strike whichever is more appropriate. Regards, Vanamonde93 (talk) 07:15, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge I also support a merge with this becoming a redirect. I copied the few sentences here over to the Agape article and put the sources E.M.Gregory found on it's talk page. Now just needs a cleanup and put in the redirect when this closes. Legacypac (talk) 21:45, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor Talk! 02:04, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:59, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry. I continue to oppose deletion, and continue to think that a redirect and merge to Agape makes sense. Thanks to User:Legacypac for adding those sources.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:59, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Consensus is that it passes notability criteria for an organization, although it might have a promotional issue which should be corrected. (

non-admin closure) Onel5969 TT me 13:50, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Not for Sale (organization)

Not for Sale (organization) (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 sourcing to establish notability per

WP:ORG. Kelly hi! 13:50, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Also [25]. Admittedly a little harder than usual to google for because "not for sale" is a common phrase (even a common slogan among similar organizations/campaigns dealing with human trafficking). 169.231.4.229 (talk) 04:03, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A
    AFD is not clean up and a bit more time should have been taken in selecting which articles go to AFD. Mkdwtalk 19:33, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor Talk! 02:02, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor Talk! 02:02, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor Talk! 02:02, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to David Batstone (if that's kept) or simply delete as News, Books and Highbeam found some links but nothing convincingly better. SwisterTwister talk 08:22, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:56, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.

SOFTDELETE per low participation herein. North America1000 03:40, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Streetlight Support Services

Streetlight Support Services (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)

Local organization that fails the notability criteria of

WP:ORG. Kelly hi! 21:10, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 09:32, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | Talk 02:01, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:54, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sarah-Jane (talk) 19:40, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Irene Andersen

Irene Andersen (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 bodybuilder. The majority of references are to her facebook and personal page. Has not won any major competitions and the only thing of possible interest is a documentary using her as foil that has yet to come out with no predicatable impact. Never clear whether biggest female bodybuider refers to her impact (not) or her size but again there is not enough supporting references, Peter Rehse (talk) 13:40, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 03:19, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor Talk! 01:54, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor Talk! 01:54, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor Talk! 01:54, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- fails the

biography of a living person. No significant coverage in any independent reliable sources has been cited. And my own search found none -- in either English or Danish. — CactusWriter (talk) 17:50, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:54, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I have been unable to find significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources in any language including Swedish that would make subject meet either our
    general notability guideline for people. Sam Sailor Talk! 11:35, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to

non-admin closure) clpo13(talk) 20:12, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Diamanté

Diamanté (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)

nonremarkable brand name for a diamond substitute, no refs found Mercurywoodrose (talk) 17:39, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I created the page as a redirect to Rhinestone to resolve redlinks. Reverting to that first version is a possibility, though some sources define diamanté/diamante as a more generic term including similar objects which are not rhinestones. A redirect to disambiguation Diamante is another option. I think the word should take readers somewhere, but I've no strong feelings as to where. Certes (talk) 18:37, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Diamante. There's no evidence of this on US trademark search, and at least one of the other topics listed on the disambiguation page (diamante poem) can be "diamanté". Peter James (talk) 21:47, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 01:35, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 22:02, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:51, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect obviously as this is not set for a full separately notable yet. SwisterTwister talk 06:20, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect or Delete - As per
    Talk to me 23:56, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sarah-Jane (talk) 19:39, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Palmer (judge)

Anthony Palmer (judge) (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 seems to be a random list of routine judgments by this justice. Nothing exceptional here. Even some of the Chief Justices of the Supreme_Court_of_British_Columbia don't warrant articles Legacypac (talk) 00:56, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 18:35, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 18:35, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:47, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Despite the name of the judge's court, the Supreme Court of British Columbia is not actually the court that is supreme in British Columbia; that would be the British Columbia Court of Appeal. "Supreme" in this case merely distinguishes it from even smaller local courts. This is similar to, for example, the New York Supreme Court, another "supreme court" that is not, in fact, supreme. Given that this is not the highest court in the province, I'd want to see specific bases for the judge's notability in the article, and I don't. TJRC (talk) 21:45, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not a judge of a high enough court for inherent notability. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:50, 30 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. Michig (talk) 08:22, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Geneva Manifesto

Geneva Manifesto (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's subject does not appear to exist. Only link provided as a references links back directly to this article. KDS4444Talk 00:38, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • I am fairly sure it exists, but it is not clear to me that this is what it is called in English. See es:Manifiesto de Ginebra. Here is a book in English that talks about the matter (of the pretender to the Spanish throne stating opposition to Franco and calling for the monarchy to be restored). I am not yet convinced that the incident requires more cover than a sentence in Infante Juan, Count of Barcelona. —Kusma (t·c) 17:13, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 19:12, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 19:12, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:45, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Alternative search term:
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:59, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

NRL on Nine (2018-2022)

NRL on Nine (2018-2022) (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 original research, it is unreferenced and a google for "NRL on Nine" does not return any results Mattlore (talk) 01:28, 23 November 2015 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related pages which has the same issues:[reply]

NRL on Nine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 23:59, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the (2018-2022) article as being
    NRL#Audience already covers the topic quite well, so I can't see much in the "NRL on Nine" article that is worth saving. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 00:15, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete. Certainly
    WP:TOOSOON
    . Besides Nine owning the rights, the rest is speculation.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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-- Patar knight - chat/contributions 09:48, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Who Am I (Drapht album)

Who Am I (Drapht 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)

Withdrawn by nominator. Flat Out (talk) 02:09, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fails

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. North America1000 04:56, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. North America1000 04:56, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not enough content for an article. Not worth a redirect from this title. --Michig (talk) 07:19, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Article cites three reviews (two, now with archiveurls) and could be expanded to Start class: passes WP:NALBAMS.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 01:15, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - there is more than enough for an article to be start class & doesn't fail
    WP:NALBUMS . Dan arndt (talk) 14:59, 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 13:01, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - sufficient improvements made Rainbow unicorn (talk) 14:31, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The article content beyond the tracklisting is cobbled together largely from directory websites, posts by the artist's record company, and reviews that are either user-generated, from webzines of dubious reliability, or web forum posts. The only one that looks a reliable source is The Mercury and that's quite brief. The rest has been padded out to largely duplicate the section on the album in the Drapht article. I still don't see a good case for keeping this. --Michig (talk) 15:14, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So the fact that it has been included in the National Film and Sound Archive is not significant. Dan arndt (talk) 01:30, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not very. I mean, that's a notable thing, but not so much it "deserves" a separate article rather than a note in the band article - David Gerard (talk) 12:12, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor Talk! 01:11, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 01:03, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 13:33, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oaks Centre

Oaks Centre (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 shopping centre, Can't find anything notability-wise, Fails GNG. –Davey2010Talk 20:44, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 21:26, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 18:34, 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) 01:35, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 01:03, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as it apparently fails
    WP:GNG for lack of sources. Sam Sailor Talk! 15:30, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Move to List of articles which have been deleted -- RoySmith (talk) 02:33, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of guests on The Paul O'Grady Show

List of guests on The Paul O'Grady Show (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) 00:54, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor Talk! 16:42, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor Talk! 16:42, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A list of information that is of no encyclopaedic value. Szzuk (talk) 16:45, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (

(discuss) 04:27, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Bois Beckett Forest

Bois Beckett Forest (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)

Forest does not appear to meet the requirements of

WP:GNG KDS4444Talk 00:29, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 18:38, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
It is an article about a city land deal to obtain land for the park. This is a common occurrence. Mrfrobinson (talk) 01:28, 20 November 2015 (UTC)*[reply]
@Mrfrobinson: Hey Mike, can you please provide a url to sustantiate you claim that this article [is] about a city land deal to obtain land for the park. Ottawahitech (talk) 10:12, 20 November 2015 (UTC){{small|please pingme||[reply]
The link is in the comment right above. The article was by La Tribune. I am not going to copy and paste a link that is directly above my comment. Mrfrobinson (talk) 23:02, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Does not meet the notability requirements. Mrfrobinson (talk) 01:28, 20 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! 00:31, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. Given the existing article that Rayman60 identified, this is a clear A10, new article duplicating an existing topic. DGG ( talk ) 04:56, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Latinas and world war II

Latinas and world war II (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)

That this is part of a class project is not a reason to not delete it. If you wish to create a draft of an article, you must do so in your sandbox or risk it being deleted. Article currently has almost no content, has no references. KDS4444Talk 00:28, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor Talk! 00:24, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor Talk! 00:25, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak keep: I like the fact that they're trying to do this, but this is not the way how. I think the article should be developed in a sandbox (is that the right term? i.e. on-wiki but off encyclopaedia, in draft or user's page), and possibly an experienced editor assist/mentor them. Rather than reject them outright (and deleting it in this manner may feel like procedure for us but for an outsider it can convey the image of a closed shop), we should encourage them. The teacher did mess up by jumping straight in to the article before being ready and even asking us to leave them alone whilst they fumble around, but let's assume good faith, extend the hand of friendship and help them achieve this goal. At the end of it, we could have 20+ kids who understand how to use wiki, what references and neutral/objective tone mean and maybe a couple will stick around and make more contribs to the project. I'm willing to help where I can, i.e. with tone, referencing, formatting etc. Not an expert in the field so may need support with certain bits. Rayman60 (talk) 00:34, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I left a Welcome-Student message on the creator's
    WP:GNG, given the proper citations (which we can only hope the article's creator has some in mind). If some action has to be taken, I'd suggest Userfy or Sandbox. GabeIglesia (talk) 00:55, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Userfy per Piotrus. clpo13(talk) 01:02, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. AustralianRupert (talk) 09:00, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 08:18, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reality TV Movie

Reality TV Movie (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 low budget film. No reliable 3rd party sources that discuss the subject. Fails

WP:NFILM: no awards, no reviews etc. Tassedethe (talk) 00:49, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor Talk! 00:22, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor Talk! 00:23, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor Talk! 00:23, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
year:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
filmmaker:(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)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor Talk! 00:18, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: As per film notability, fail. Same editor also created the article for the writer/star/producer/director. A vanity page full of COI issues that's getting listed now too. Rayman60 (talk) 00:46, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above.
    (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:18, 30 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. Reasonable arguments on both sides, all of which are basically judgement calls about the quality of the references. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:05, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Taken by Storm

Taken by Storm (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)

Does not appear to have made a significant enough splash in independent, secondary sources to justify its own article. The content can be discussed at its author's bio, Ross McKitrick. The article as it is now (and has been for several years) is just 2 promotional blurbs.   — Jess· Δ♥ 00:22, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? His article explicitly discusses this book in the lead and body. I'm suggesting that we move coverage of the book to his bio, instead of having a whole separate article. How would that obscure anything in his bio?   — Jess· Δ♥ 19:48, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't the place for that discussion — I responded on your talk page--S Philbrick(Talk) 20:01, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor Talk! 00:21, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor Talk! 00:21, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor Talk! 00:21, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor Talk! 00:18, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. There is a consensus to either keep or merge, but there are fairly strong arguments that the content of the article is too extensive to be merged into anything. That being said, I'm closing this with no prejudice against a merge discussion taking place in the near future, if any editor believes that that's the best solution. (

non-admin closure) Kharkiv07 (T) 20:12, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

International reactions to the United States presidential election, 2012

AfDs for this article:
International reactions to the United States presidential election, 2012 (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)

International reactions to a US-specific event are likely of questionable notability at best. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) may the force be with you 21:22, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 17:27, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 17:27, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Walton (talk) 00:07, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge - One could argue that the responses by notable heads of states to a notable event are notable (especially when it concerns the most notable head of state on the planet), but that said, the article is a considerably long list at this point. I would love to see this kept or at least condensed/merged, but not outright deleted all together. GabeIglesia (talk) 00:36, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I was tempted by the merge option until I saw the article. Too lengthy to effectively fit in elsewhere, however it contains good info which will no doubt eventually be removed from publications and servers over time, it's useful and nice that it's somewhat concisely(!) summarised here. Rayman60 (talk) 00:54, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. "International reactions to..." is an established article type, the subject is important enough to be worth it, and the material is clearly sufficiently extensive that a split is appropriate--perhaps even necessary. DGG ( talk ) 04:51, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
  1. ^ https://www.nuget.org/packages/ILNumerics/
  2. ^ http://stackoverflow.com/questions/tagged/ilnumerics
  3. ^ https://visualstudiogallery.msdn.microsoft.com/9a67b49d-b0b2-4073-97fd-3f18ba08cc61
  4. ^ https://msdn.microsoft.com/library/hh304368%28v=vs.100%29.aspx#hghg
  5. ^ http://www.hanselman.com/blog/GeneratingComplexMathVisualizationsInSVGUsingCAndILNumerics.aspx
  6. ^ https://entwickler.de/windows-developer-magazin/dot-net-magazin-12-08-118599.html
  7. ^ https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows.developer
  8. ^ http://www.infoq.com/news/2014/05/ILNumerics
  9. ^ https://channel9.msdn.com/coding4fun/blog/Mastering-your-Net-Math-needs-with-ILNumerics
  10. ^ http://www.kdnuggets.com/2013/07/ilnumerics-high-performance-math-library-csharp-net.html
  11. ^ http://www.automatedtrader.net/articles/software-review/137332/software-review-ilnumerics-_-faster-numbers
  12. ^ http://insidebigdata.com/2014/01/21/ilnumerics-high-performance-math-library-c/
  13. ^ https://web.archive.org/web/20080117112203/http://basta-award.de/basta_award/diegewinner.xhtml
  14. ^ http://ilnumericsnet.codeplex.com
  15. ^ http://sourceforge.net/projects/ilnumericsnet/
  16. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=ILNumerics.Net&oldid=691972256
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2015_November_23&oldid=1142624665"