Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 October 14

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

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete.  Sandstein  22:05, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of three tallest structures in the world

AfDs for this article:
Timeline of three tallest structures in the world (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)

Where to start. Unsourced since the turn of the decade and so impossible to check. The tallest structure is interesting but the second? The third? And if that why not the fourth or fifth?

The lengthy inclusion criterion is largely arbitrary, and is presumably editorial whim as there’s no source for it, making the lists subjective even if accurate. Accuracy is a particular problem the further back you go as it is presumably based on those still standing that can be measured.

And the formatting is badly broken. The laptop I am typing this on has a 1280 pixel wide screen but still cannot fit most of the third column in the top set. The combination of small blue text on saturated colours renders it at times unreadable. This can probably be improved but I’m not sure it can be fixed. JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 23:37, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Human3015TALK  23:49, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Nobody but a trivia junkie cares about anything other than the tallest over the course of time, and the titleholders are already covered in
    List of tallest buildings and structures in the world#History. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:35, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. North America1000 21:18, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The inclusion criteria certainly do seem a bit arbitrary. I found this article at Smithsonian magazine, but it doesn't really give specifics, and it mostly just highlights how inclusion criteria can vary across groups that track these things. According to them, one prominent group doesn't even count TV/radio towers at all. As far as actual citations for the content, that's even more difficult. I assume that it's out there, but I'm not finding it in my quick-and-dirty searches. Most hits seem restricted to "it was at one point the tallest structure in the world" without giving any dates or specifics. So, I'm not really sure what to say. I guess it could just be deleted, but I suspect that a dedicated trivia fan could probably dig up a few sources. I'll wait to see if any do. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:00, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There is really no point in keeping this article. The topic hasn't been covered by reliable sources, so by necessity the creator put it together on his own. As others have pointed out before, the choice of the "top 3" structures and not the top 4, 5, 6, 7, etc. is quite arbitrary. By this logic, we could create an article on every single imaginable topic, which would be quite silly (
    Biblioworm 19:22, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete - material covered in other articles. Appears to be
    WP:LISTCRUFT. Onel5969 TT me 13:43, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (

non-admin closure) –Davey2010Talk 18:25, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Kiril Manolov

Kiril Manolov (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 my searches found nothing better than this and the current state is hardly acceptable with not much change since starting in July 2008. Note that this was once nominated before at

Wikimandia and Bearian. SwisterTwister talk 23:19, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:21, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:21, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been notified to
WikiProject Opera. Voceditenore (talk) 10:18, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jenks24 (talk) 13:34, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sofie Ølgaard

Sofie Ølgaard (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 my searches found was this and this and basically it seems there has been no further coverage about since 2011. Pinging Robert94704, Stone and Felix Folio Secundus. SwisterTwister talk 23:18, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:20, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:20, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:20, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, but a comment - I did not find much coverage or scope for improvement, and this was pretty much the only decent source I could find. However, I have to ask the nominator why it's so very difficult to link to specific pages (as I did just then) rather than to general Google search result pages without commentary, as if Google search results are guaranteed not to change and show different hits at any given moment... Mabalu (talk) 09:41, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. the awards mentioned do not show notability. I note there is no corresponding article in the Danish WP. DGG ( talk ) 08:48, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (

non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:54, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Gertrude Weaver

Gertrude Weaver (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)

Longevity is not a reason for inclusion here. Wikipedia is not a directory of longest living people Fiddle Faddle 21:57, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Do you have a policy-based reason, or are we to understand this nomination as based simply on a I just don't like it argument? The article certainly has plenty of sources to establish notability. --I am One of Many (talk) 22:10, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Delete the world oldest person article?...It is incorrect. also, this article has been created with the other 20 languages of Wikipedia. This person is well-known, there is no reason to be deleted. You're why hated so much longevity article? I do not understand the meaning of your action.--
    talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply
    ]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America1000 21:20, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arkansas-related deletion discussions. North America1000 21:20, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

*Strong Keep This is getting ridiculous now. --2602:306:8381:7390:C091:2760:198B:C94 (talk) 23:19, 15 October 2015 (UTC) Editor has been indefinitely blocked as a block evading sockpuppet. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:11, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Oshwah, on this reasoning, shouldn't all of the thousands of articles on athletes such as Alan Simpson (athlete)—notable only for an event—be deleted? --I am One of Many (talk) 23:52, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
WP:1E mentioned have been contributing to the need to do just that - resort explicitly to old AfD's in the past. ~Oshwah~ (talk) (contribs) 00:10, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Update: After getting some preliminary input and opinions from other editors, I've decided to draft a proposed change to
RFC. Also, see this Afd regarding a similar article currently nominated; editors in rebuttal have responded with very strong arguments (IMO). I'm considering whether or not to change my vote back to "Keep". ~Oshwah~ (talk) (contribs) 06:00, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
I've changed my vote back to Keep. See this edit with my explanation. Sorry for all of the redacting. I found the essay that I was missing knowledge of, and I'm 100% back on board now :-) ~Oshwah~ (talk) (contribs) 14:11, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
News coverage like this is clearly not routine. How many times has your birthday been reported in the news? -- Ollie231213 (talk) 19:34, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -
    longstanding tradition exists that the "oldest person in X Country" is kept. Bearian (talk) 00:34, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (

non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:56, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Misao Okawa

Misao Okawa (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)

Longevity is not a reason for inclusion here. Wikipedia is not a directory of longest living people Fiddle Faddle 21:56, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. She was the oldest woman in the world part of her life. Georgia guy (talk) 23:18, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Human3015TALK  00:38, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Human3015TALK  00:38, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep By this point, Canadian Paul should be laughed out of Wikipedia for attempting to nominate someone who's the 6th oldest person in history. Anyone this desperate to prove a point needs to take some time off, as they have successfully embarrassed themselves to the point that the only thing they could do that is more embarrassing would be nominating Shigechiyo Izumi or Jeanne Calment for deletion. This is not up for debate, this is literally the worst AfD I have ever witnessed, an embarrassment to the process. This is what happens when AfD decisions are twisted to the point that no one bothers to try anymore. --2602:306:8381:7390:C091:2760:198B:C94 (talk) 23:14, 15 October 2015 (UTC) Editor has been indefinitely blocked as a block evading sockpuppet. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:10, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

demeaning, and doesn't accomplish what this process is supposed to do. ~Oshwah~ (talk) (contribs) 01:10, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
I redacted this vote and changed to Delete. However, after taking additional time to find and read
WP:1E and articles regarding people who lived an above-average life span. ~Oshwah~ (talk) (contribs) 13:59, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Notice that EVERY other person in this discussion - including editors uninvolved in this project - can clearly see that 1. Being the oldest person in the world is a notable accolade, and 2. The coverage in reliable sources is significant, and therefore this article should be kept. Citing a previous AfD to argue that this person isn't notable and that this one should be deleted is ridiculous (Koto Okubo wasn't even the world's oldest person and was unusual in that she didn't get covered widely in the media). -- Ollie231213 (talk) 22:28, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Except it was different when it was Okubo as the oldest woman. Is the rule the oldest person, man or woman at that time? Therefore only the people at Template:Oldest people? I don't see the consensus for that from the other discussions. This feels like a complete one-off and I can't figure out why. And no, I'm not citing the prior one to reject this article per se; I'm saying that all the comments here that "Oldest woman ever = automatic keep" are quite odd and differ from all the prior discussions about this category of people. Most of Template:Oldest people is not written and as I noted, the depth of coverage here is largely obituaries which basically is routine coverage for most people. Not everyone who has a obituary is notable enough for inclusion so I'd need something more. All these AFDs are going wild with a ton of keeps or a ton of deletes (or just my delete and a ton of keeps) for some reason and we haven't seen to have figured out the middle ground yet and to me, "Oldest person ever" isn't it. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:09, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'd just like to note for the record that 8 out of the 14 references listed at the bottom of the article were written before the subject had died. So to describe the coverage as "largely obituaries" is innacurate. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 00:46, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep No specific policy cited to justify deletion. Subject is notable enough by virtue of the depth of coverage. clpo13(talk) 20:26, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Being the world's oldest person in and of itself does not confer notability per any policy, but the extent of coverage in this case seems to satisfy
    WP:N. Canadian Paul 21:54, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete - I took some extra time to evaluate
    notable test". Instead of each long-living person having their own article, they could instead be mentioned in an article regarding long-living persons. ~Oshwah~ (talk) (contribs) 23:03, 16 October 2015 (UTC) Changing back to Keep - See explanation.[reply
    ]
I'm not sure I understand your logic. It's like saying "If Tiger Woods wasn't a golfer, he wouldn't be notable, so he shouldn't have an article". The whole point is that she didn't die at a young age, and that's why she's notable. Being extremely aged isn't one event any more than being a golfer is; it's an intrinsic part of the person. The amount of coverage that the world's oldest people receive in the news is evidence that the oldest people in the world are notable. Furthermore, it's not true to say that AfD's in the past have deleted articles like this. World's oldest people titleholders are typically considered notable enough for an article. (P.s. I know I've posted a similar message elsewhere in response to a similar comment, but not everyone will have seen that one). -- Ollie231213 (talk) 23:37, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A myriad of sources from different parts of the world (such as Great-Britain [13], Brazil [14], and Japan [15], for instance) have reported on this woman, most notably during the time when she was the world's oldest person - as the three previously cited sources all confirm. As such, she has gained enough notability and media coverage to be considered encyclopedia-proof. Fiskje88 (talk) 16:31, 18 October 2015 (UTC) — Fiskje88 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Snow Keep - Article is about a person who has garnered widespread media coverage. Former oldest living person, and the fifth-oldest person ever. Clearly notable. Nominator does not provide a policy-based reason to delete. Chessrat (talk,contributions) 18:30, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A woman who lives to be 117 is notable, end of story. I think the problem with many of the recent longevity based Afd's (of which there have been a lot, I can hardly keep up) is that the nominator's are not interested and cannot understand how anyone else could be interested in this topic. I'm not interested in footballers, but I understand their articles serve a purpose. I also don't understand the nominator's point that "Wikipedia is not a directory of longest living people" - agreed 100%, but it's also not a directory of footballers, Members of Parliament, ice hockey players, beauty pageant winners, Olympic cyclists etc. If you're going to apply the same standards to all of these categories, then you're going to have a busy week. JKSD93 (talk) 22:26, 18 October 2015 (UTC) — JKSD93 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Keep = article about a old supercentenarian. No reason to delete. Per other users. --74.130.133.1 (talk) 03:49, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - She is the oldest Japanese person in history. --Nixus Minimax (talk) 11:02, 19 October 2015 (UTC) — Nixus Minimax (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Keep -
    longstanding tradition exists that the "oldest person from X large nation" is kept. Bearian (talk) 00:39, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (

non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:57, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Ethel Lang (supercentenarian)

Ethel Lang (supercentenarian) (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)

Longevity is not a reason for inclusion here. Wikipedia is not a directory of longest living people Fiddle Faddle 21:56, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Being the oldest person in a country of 60 million, one of the oldest people ever, and the last subject of Queen Victoria is not notable? And you're concerned about the lack of sourcing? Oh well yeah, I suppose if you just ignore all the reliable sources she was covered in. This kind of attitude ("people can't be notable for longevity and I don't care what you say la la la") is typical of many involved in the
WP:BATTLEGROUND on longevity-related articles. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 22:40, 15 October 2015 (UTC) — Ollie231213 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply
]
Ollie hit the nail on the head right there. This has devolved to the point that one editor was BLOCKED for this scenario - DN-boards1, and while I agree that their block was COMPLETELY justified - they violated civility - that does not mean every SC and centenarian article made by said user, or related to said user, is worthy of deletion! --2602:306:8381:7390:C091:2760:198B:C94 (talk) 23:18, 15 October 2015 (UTC) Editor has been indefinitely blocked as a block evading sockpuppet of User:DN-boards1 who already voted above. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:14, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I gave a revision and add sources to this article.[16][17]--
    talk) 17:22, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America1000 21:22, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America1000 21:22, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Changed back to Keep. See this edit with my explanation. ~Oshwah~ (talk) (contribs) 14:03, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
See my comments here and keep in mind that
notability is not temporary. She was clearly for being the oldest living person in the United Kingdom, and that notability does not end with death. --I am One of Many (talk) 23:16, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
I am One of Many - After reviewing everything again, I agree and I've changed my vote back. See my explanation above. ~Oshwah~ (talk) (contribs) 14:04, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Although being the oldest person in the United Kingdom is not, in itself, reason to justify a standalone article, the vast amount of media coverage given to Ethel Lang from various reliable sources certainly allows for such an article to exist. Bodgey5 (talk) 01:22, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A large amount of media coverage is available, and other factors mentioned in these sources (e.g. being the last British subject of Queen Victoria) indicate notability beyond simply longevity. Yiosie 2356 19:24, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -
    longstanding tradition exists that the "oldest person in X Country" is kept. Bearian (talk) 00:35, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete

G12 (non-admin closure) JMHamo (talk) 22:44, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

ALEX AL

ALEX AL (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, fails

WP:MUSICBIO JMHamo (talk) 21:45, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was keep. (

non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:58, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Sakari Momoi

Sakari Momoi (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)

Longevity is not a reason for inclusion here. Wikipedia is not a directory of longest living people Fiddle Faddle 19:59, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep this one. Unlike the other supercentenarians nominated at the same time, this individual was, for a time, the world's oldest living man. That's a far more credible claim to notability than (from some of the other nominated articles) the oldest living person in California, the oldest Irish-born person, or even the oldest Jewish person. The latter are all, at least arguably, trivial intersections. But there is a unique oldest living man at any given time and, presuming there is third-party coverage sufficient to provide sourcing, those record-holders likely do have an inherent claim to notability. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:42, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Human3015TALK  21:44, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Human3015TALK  21:44, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Biographical articles on Wikipedia only survive on the basis of "person is notable or non-notable". And record holder of "world's oldest living man" is notable. --Human3015TALK  21:48, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Changed back to Keep. See this edit with my explanation. ~Oshwah~ (talk) (contribs) 14:07, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Consistently cited in various sources, and is certainly notable as the world's oldest man. Bodgey5 (talk) 00:29, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Squeamish Ossifrage. This particular article is well sourced and the person is clearly notable. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 00:39, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep Non-policy based deletion nomination. --I am One of Many (talk) 05:05, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep he was the oldest living man in the world. Dman41689 (talk) 06:54, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As discussed at
    WP:N. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:19, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Ricky81682, the Japanese sources numbered 2 and 3 are dead links, but their titles are about him becoming the oldest man in Japan. Then as you can see from the English titles, sources 4 and 5 are about him becoming the world's oldest man. So they are not all obituaries. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 00:40, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Black Kite (talk) 02:05, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Goldie Steinberg

Goldie Steinberg (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)

Longevity is not a reason for inclusion here. Wikipedia is not a directory of longest living people Fiddle Faddle 19:57, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. CommanderLinx (talk) 12:04, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Human3015TALK  21:55, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Human3015TALK  21:55, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Human3015TALK  21:55, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I'm going to look into your argument in-depth when I get home. Precedents are definitely worth examining, and this is potentially a precedent I didn't know about. ~Oshwah~ (talk) (contribs) 14:09, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Oshwah: Don't give them too much credence though. Consensus can change and with the small number of users at AFD nowadays, consensus can swing wildly article to article for whatever reason. I just bring those up because the nominator here really didn't put much effort in and the issues I'm looking at have been discussed. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:38, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
1. Koto Okubo was never the oldest person in the world, only the world's oldest woman.
2. She remained anonymous until age 114 and was not covered widely in the media, so there wasn't much to write a biography about. That was the bigger reason to delete her article. But clearly, if a world's oldest person titleholder DOES get covered in the media, the wider community clearly does think that they're notable. See here.
3. That Goldie Steinberg is the "oldest verified Jewish person ever" is not really an issue of "trivia". Notice that in a large number of reliable sources, she was reported on because she was the "oldest Jew". Remember that Wikipedia is supposed to reflect outside sources... and the media clearly think that this is notable. So do I. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 23:01, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In contrast, Steinberg was the sixth oldest person. As to sourcing,
WP:BLP1E situation and not evidence of notability. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:38, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Being the sixth oldest person is not what she is primarily notable for. She's most notable for being the oldest Jewish person ever, as determined by the reliable news sources that have reported her as "the oldest Jewish person ever". Furthermore, your reasoning regarding the Koto Okubo AfD does not make sense. Why should, in theory, one particular world's oldest person be less notable than another? They both held the same title. And the fact that the W.O.P titleholder usually gets covered in the media suggests that being the world's oldest person is notable. That's why I'm in favour of saying that all such titleholders pass
WP:GNG, in the same way that it's often decided on Wikipedia that "every member of parliament is notable enough for an article" and "every PGA tour golfer is notable enough". The only reason not to have an article would be the odd case like Koto Okubo where she wasn't as widely covered and as such, there aren't many details to write an article about. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 15:21, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Then forgetting Okubo then, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Augustine Tessier was closed with a person who was (1) the oldest living person; (2) the oldest living woman; (3) the oldest Frenchwoman ever and (4) the oldest nun and none of those facts made her automatically notable enough. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:15, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As Tessier wasn't recognised as the WOP at the time due to Izumi's claim; had people known about him not being the age he claimed to be at the time, there would have been a (large) probability for Mrs. Tessier to have received more media coverage (such as Izumi received). Using Tessier as an example is clearly taking issues out of their context in this case.Fiskje88 (talk) 14:15, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not convinced that
WP:BASIC, but in this case there are a couple of reasons that make this dubious. First, a lifespan is not an event. It is the length of a lifespan that is notable, not any particular point in time. Second, she is the oldest verified Jewish person. If we were to call a lifespan an event, then according to WP:1E: "If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate." For many, being the oldest Jew is a highly significant event. So, I think you had a stronger argument for your original keep. --I am One of Many (talk) 23:08, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
I'm not sure I understand your logic. It's like saying "If Tiger Woods wasn't a golfer, he wouldn't be notable, so he shouldn't have an article". The whole point is that she didn't die at a young age, and that's why she's notable. Being extremely aged isn't one event any more than being a golfer is; it's an intrinsic part of the person. The amount of coverage that the world's oldest people receive in the news is evidence that the oldest people in the world are notable. Look at all these reports on Goldie Steinberg while she was still alive. [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] [47] [48] -- Ollie231213 (talk) 23:23, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi,
WP:1E
, and that this lack of clarity is allowing AfDs to close inconsistently as well as overly-wide interpretations to occur. I think that you're right; the cause for notability (longevity) isn't an "event". I just see a big problem when editors are able to cite old AfD's with articles in identical areas that resulted different closures. Seeing the older AfDs that resulted in deletion of similar articles (people who loved a long time) is what contributed to my vote change. Expansion and clarity to this guideline is needed, and will help clearly define two very important terms:
  • What is an event, and
  • What is highly significant.
See my discussion about this here. I'm going to start on this now. ~Oshwah~ (talk) (contribs) 06:02, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed my vote back to Keep. See this edit with my explanation. ~Oshwah~ (talk) (contribs) 14:09, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (

✈ 11:41, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Dominga Velasco

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

Wikipedia is

WP:GNG and the article is a massive copyright violation of http://www.insidebayarea.com/ci_2360616 Fiddle Faddle 19:56, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Move to List of Mexican supercentenarians (retaining the redirect). Rework the content appropriately, styling it after the other by-country supercentenarian lists. Much of the coverage about this individual is fundamentally local in nature; I think the project is better served by merger to (or, in this case, creation of) the appropriate list, along with a sourced capsule biography (in the mold of List of German supercentenarians) rather than a stand-alone article, regardless of whether the bare expectations of the GNG can be satisfied. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:54, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Out of a zillion worthless longevity bios, this is one only one with material coming on line at this very moment. It may very well work out as you say. But jeesh, why the hurry? EEng (talk) 22:15, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Human3015TALK  21:57, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Human3015TALK  21:57, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Human3015TALK  21:57, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Debatable delete This page is a total blatant to

WP:GNG, but important. Since List of Mexican supercentenarians is not made yet, merge is off the table until it is, although I would personally prefer it when it is made. Either delete it, or revise it. We also need LESS PICTURES, agreed. GyrizeGSBWALUIGI77 (talk) 22:56, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Changed back to Keep. See this edit with my explanation. ~Oshwah~ (talk) (contribs) 14:01, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to
    Articles for Creation banner which will give six month increments to improve and review it while this page is then made into a new, separate redirect. If the draft article works out, we can move it back. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:56, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
This biographical section about her has more details, including a link to the plaque. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:04, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (

non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:00, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Arnold Fruchtenbaum

Arnold Fruchtenbaum (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 satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines. The sources cited include: a very brief entry on him in a list of people on a page headed "About us", and therefore clearly not an independent source; two dead links; a book of which he was co-author, and so not an independent source; a brief paragraph about him on the web site of a church. The only source cited which contains significant coverage of him is an article on the web site "The Christian Post", here, but that is nowhere near enough to satisfy the standards required for notability on Wikipedia. The editor who uses the pseudonym "

talk) 19:38, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Human3015TALK  22:00, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Human3015TALK  22:00, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Human3015TALK  22:00, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Human3015TALK  22:01, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Human3015TALK  22:01, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - very significant (as above) - very well known internation speaker on the Christian / Messianic circuit. Well published and often refered to in academic theological reading lists. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 08:10, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The claim of notability is backed by sources present both in the article and available for addition as listed above. Alansohn (talk) 14:14, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jenks24 (talk) 13:35, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2010–11 Albion Rovers F.C. season

2010–11 Albion Rovers F.C. season (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)

Season article for a club not playing in a fully-professional league. Clearly fails

WP:NSEASONS. Was prodded and deleted but restored as a result of this discussion. Similar AfD
in September resulted in deletion.

Also nominating: 2012–13 Albion Rovers F.C. season and 2011–12 Albion Rovers F.C. season. Number 57 19:32, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 19:41, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick tcs 20:15, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick tcs 20:15, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick tcs 20:16, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (

✈ 11:43, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

North Side Gymnasium

North Side Gymnasium (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 structure John from Idegon (talk) 17:27, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Human3015TALK  22:14, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Human3015TALK  22:15, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Human3015TALK  22:15, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Elkhart Central High School. I fail to see why a HS gym would be notable, but since it is one of the largest in the country and might be a search term, a redirect makes the most sense. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 22:23, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. North America1000 21:27, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. North America1000 21:27, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I do not oppose a redirect, but since both high schools use it, I think merging to the school district is a better option. John from Idegon (talk) 23:04, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I agree that there isn't much here, but I also note that it was used as the home field for a team in the International Basketball League. The good folks over at WikiProject Basketball don't seem to have formed any guidelines as to the notability of venues. But I've seen other sport WikiProjects take the position that even a single professional game played at a venue renders it "notable". Unless the Basketball project says otherwise, I'm inclined to give the benefit of the doubt to "keeping". NewYorkActuary (talk) 23:27, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mildly Oppose. The problem with a merge and redirect is that this fieldhouse is used by both high schools in Elkhart (both of which have articles even though only one is linked to in the fieldhouse article). Which high school article should it be described in, and to which one would the redirect go? Indyguy Indyguy (talk) 02:43, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The claim of largest high school gymnasium in the country is not only a strong claim of notability, but is backed up by appropriate reliable and verifiable sources. A smattering of the available material was added, and more could be included, but the notability standard is met. The lack of an obvious merge target for a shared gym makes the redirect option less viable than retention. Alansohn (talk) 04:21, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  Sandstein  22:09, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Belim

Belim (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 proof of existence. Article says that there are large number of people belonging to the community but it's hard to believe when I can find almost zero sources online (even mentions). Possibly a

Talk 16:30, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
Talk 16:32, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
Talk 16:36, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jenks24 (talk) 13:37, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur Voss

Arthur Voss (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)

Seemingly NN pastor of a marginally notable church and professor. Doesn't appear to come close to passing

WP:Academic. The Dissident Aggressor 16:21, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Mr RD 17:25, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Human3015TALK  23:54, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Human3015TALK  23:54, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete took a swing at sourcing this by searching news archives with keywords like Lutheran and Milwaukee, did so because I figured someone must have had a reason for starting an article on him. I found nothing.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:47, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. North America1000 21:29, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jenks24 (talk) 13:37, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Taktum

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

Subject doesn't seem to pass

Talk 15:56, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
Talk 16:13, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
Talk 16:13, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 16:46, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of NBA players who have played in the Chinese Basketball Association

List of NBA players who have played in the Chinese Basketball Association (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 don't think this list meets

WP:LISTN Some of these athletes who've played for or originated from the CBA are already mentioned in the opening paragraphs of Chinese Basketball Association. I'm not sure whether this should be merged and deleted to Chinese Basketball Association or fully deleted. MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 23:53, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:54, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:54, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:54, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:54, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:54, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I did find this, which could potentially be helpful, but I don't know if it's comprehensive. Zagalejo^^^ 15:08, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —
Talk 15:18, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (

non-admin closure) –Davey2010Talk 18:29, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Paul Nassif

Paul Nassif (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)

promotional and not notable. The only RSs are about his divorce from his wife, who is notable. He's not even simpt. enough for a redirect,unless we add redirectsfrom the names of everyone who is divorced from a notable person. DGG ( talk ) 23:14, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. He is the co-host (and also a co-executive producer) of Botched, which will be entering its third season next year. He's also appeared on Dr. 90210 and The Real Housewives of Beverly Hills. I'm not too familiar with those two shows, and I don't know what his role was on 90210, so I'm not sure if those appearances make him notable. He has also contributed to/authored roughly 20 to 30 journal articles that I can find on Google Scholar, again I don't know if those make him notable. The article is lacking and maybe a bit promotional, but I think with work and better sources it could be improved. Melonkelon (talk) 23:23, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 00:43, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 00:43, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 00:43, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 00:43, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 00:43, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Botched obviously as searches easily find links for him but there may not be enough for a better separate article and he is best known for the TV show thus linking there is best. SwisterTwister talk 00:44, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:37, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:37, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —
Talk 15:18, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Mar del Plata#Culture. Black Kite (talk) 02:05, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Prosa Mutante

Prosa Mutante (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)

Basically seems to be an advert for an art collective/regular event night in Buenos Aires, but the only tenuous claim to notability is having a profile on a website linked to the Ministry of Culture. Online I can only see coverage in blogs, events listings and other unreliable sources. This Wikipedia article seems to have been written enthusiastically but prematurely. Fails WP:GNG. Sionk (talk) 21:14, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Correction: the festival is actually held at
talk) 11:26, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Question - I live in Mar del Plata and after the collective was awarded an official recognition by the City. They have also appeared in the local newspaper several times. And some of the sources used are Digital Magazines and Newspapers that cover events in the Mar del Plata area, like Ajo Digital, EntreArte and Butaca 22. Though it doesn't seem much compared to groups and collectives from bigger cities around the world for one in Mar del Plata, they are actually quite known within the artist's community. If the issue arises from the need of more reliable sources like newspapers, the local newspaper doesn't upload all the articles, but I can get the dates when the articles about them where published to reference. So, does the article need more important references? Acrata 08:45, 4 October 2015 (UTC)AcrataAcrata 08:45, 4 October 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Acrata (talk • contribs)

Reply Thanks for the information Sionk. I also want to ask, if in an event people from other cities and countries participate, does their involvement not make the event known enough even if it moves in the independent artist community? I'm asking as one of the references is from the Uruguayan Book Fair and they have spread to the city of La Plata where a similar event takes placeAcrata 08:06, 5 October 2015 (UTC)AcrataAcrata 08:06, 5 October 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Acrata (talk • contribs) [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —
Talk 16:32, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —
Talk 15:17, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 17:26, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Schoortasche

Schoortasche (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)

Can find no evidence that such a term exists. Only hits are mirror sites. Vrac (talk) 20:15, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Holland-related deletion discussions. Vrac (talk) 01:43, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
I found it in the orphanage. Know any Dutch-speaking editors? Maybe one could shed some light on this term. Vrac (talk) 13:11, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —
Talk 16:31, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —
Talk 15:17, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Black Kite (talk) 02:06, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of tallest buildings in Ranchi

List of tallest buildings in Ranchi (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 recently created article, published by

WP:BEFORE this nomination to locate reliable sources, but were not successful on my part. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 18:43, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —
Talk 16:31, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —
Talk 15:17, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jenks24 (talk) 13:38, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Say the Time

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

Fails

WP:NSOFT. A shareware people's choice award is a distinction of questionable importance. Lacks coverage in RS. Barely scraped by its first AFD in 2006. I suspect standards have evolved to where this subject is no longer considered notable.Vrac (talk) 18:05, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for now as I found nothing better than a few links at Books, browser and Highbeam and a better article can be started later if it can. Pinging still active users LFaraone and Nihonjoe. SwisterTwister talk 05:37, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —
Talk 16:31, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —
Talk 15:17, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jenks24 (talk) 13:38, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Zoltán Vörös

Zoltán Vörös (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 as there's not much here especially sourcing and my searches found nothing better. SwisterTwister talk 17:49, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 17:51, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 17:51, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - searches turned up nothing to show notability, fails
    WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 02:10, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —
Talk 16:30, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —
Talk 15:17, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. With Tokyogirl79's addition of 2 more reviews, consensus seems to tip to keep. (

non-admin closure) Onel5969 TT me 13:54, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

The Fight for Canada

The Fight for Canada (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 indication of notability, found one HuffPo review but that's about it. Primefac (talk) 16:06, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —
Talk 16:30, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —
Talk 15:17, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jenks24 (talk) 13:39, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fabio Galdi

Fabio Galdi (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)

Biography of a non-notable CEO, fails

WP:BASIC. Most of the available sources are press releases and websites that are almost certainly owned by the subject's company, World Global Network. See the similar AfD: WP:Articles for deletion/World Global Network. - MrX 15:29, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. - MrX 15:30, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. - MrX 15:30, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —
Talk 16:30, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
True, SwisterTwister. The reason that I didn't nominate it for CSD A7 is because I removed the (unsourced) claims of significance.- MrX 18:40, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —
Talk 15:16, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Black Kite (talk) 02:06, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Drync

Drync (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 am the creator of the page and SmartSE thinks that this I have a conflict of interest which is not a truth. I would like to move it to AFD to deny this claim. Ireneshih (talk) 15:23, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete: I guess
    WP:SOAPBOX applies here. Even without sock puppets... This is just another app that tries to establish its notability by spamming product reviews. Ceosad (talk) 05:28, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep While I don't given much credence to the
    WP:Wikipedia is not. Any investigation should certainly take its course and any misconduct be dealt with, but that would not seem to bear on a deletion request at this time.--69.204.153.39 (talk) 13:58, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —
Talk 16:29, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —
Talk 15:16, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jenks24 (talk) 13:39, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

World Global Network

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

Article about a non-notable company that fails

SPA, in what appears to be an effort to promote the subjects. Possible an Orangemoody connection? - MrX 15:19, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. - MrX 15:31, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. - MrX 15:31, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:23, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —
Talk 16:27, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —
Talk 15:16, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jenks24 (talk) 13:40, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Caldani

Paul Caldani (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 an autobiographical article. Just doesn't have the sourcing to meet the notability guidelines per

WP:MUSIC. Kelly hi! 12:42, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:10, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:10, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:10, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:11, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - My searches instantly found no better sourcing thus nothing to suggest keeping. SwisterTwister talk 07:32, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —
Talk 16:26, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —
Talk 15:16, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jenks24 (talk) 13:41, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Beauty Pageants in Georgia (country)

Beauty Pageants in Georgia (country) (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 have no idea what this is about. Is Georgia Beauty pageants a company? Or is this article mean to summarise the topic of beauty pageants in Georgia? I can't find any WP:RS to indicate that Georgia Beauty Pageants is an annual event. I recommend WP:TNT Gbawden (talk) 09:39, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:22, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:22, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:22, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per G3, an obvious hoax. You don't hold a beauty pageant to pick representatives to multiple other pageants. Established pageants make their own selections. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:25, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is quite common for a national pageant to select delegates to multiple international pageants. (Example: Miss Iceland). My concern for this article is that it is an obvious recreation of deleted material. • Gene93k (talk) 10:37, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —
Talk 16:26, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —
Talk 15:16, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jenks24 (talk) 13:41, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Gretz

Jeff Gretz (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 musician. He may have been a drummer in several marginally notable bands, but he himself is not notable and there's nothing in the article that would be missed if it were deleted. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:54, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:37, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:37, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:37, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I suppose as there's nothing to suggest better improvement aside from some News, browser and Highbeam links. SwisterTwister talk 05:44, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —
Talk 16:06, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —
Talk 15:16, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jenks24 (talk) 13:42, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Northern Skies

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

Non-notable band. Natg 19 (talk) 06:54, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 06:55, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 06:55, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for now as I found nothing good aside from this and this is the same type of artices I have been nominating and currently and am going to continue searching for as there's simply no improvement including this one. Pinging tagger RJFJR. SwisterTwister talk 05:49, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —
Talk 16:06, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —
Talk 15:15, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jenks24 (talk) 13:42, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Live at the Double Door Inn

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

Contested PROD. I can't find any to support notability. No AllMusic staff review. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:54, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:34, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:34, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —
Talk 16:05, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —
Talk 15:15, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. (

✈ 11:51, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Eclectic Paganism

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

This page has numerous issues; I would like for the community at large to give their opinion as to whether or not it should be kept. I believe it was already deleted in the past, but I am not entirely sure of this.

talk) 05:11, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

The term neopagan provides a means of distinguishing between historical pagans of ancient cultures and the adherents of modern religious movements. This category of religions includes syncretic or eclectic approaches like Wicca, Neo-druidism, and neoshamanism at one end of the spectrum, as well as culturally specific traditions, such as the many varieties of polytheistic reconstructionism, at the other. However, some reconstructionists reject the term neopagan because they wish to set their historically oriented approach apart from generic neopagan eclecticism. Scholarly writers often prefer the term contemporary paganism to cover all new polytheistic religious movements, a usage favoured by The Pomegranate: The International Journal of Pagan Studies, the leading peer-reviewed journal in the field.
I suppose that this could probably be redirected to the article on modern paganism. It's slightly a neologism in this specific format, but the above section does show that the term "eclectic" has been used to describe modern paganism so it'd likely be a reasonable redirect. I'm going to perform a little more research before making a final decision, though.
(｡◕‿◕｡) 09:36, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paganism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:30, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —
Talk 16:05, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —
Talk 15:15, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jenks24 (talk) 13:43, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fire Machines

Fire Machines (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)

Short-lived local company and my multiple searches simply found nothing at all so although there may be some sources archived and at local news media, this is enough to show the company never got noticeable attention and, at best if necessary, this can be mentioned elsewhere such as Edina, Minnesota's article about this company but I'm not seeing much need. SwisterTwister talk 04:47, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:50, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:50, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:50, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No evidence of non-trivial coverage by
    reliable sources, the article fully admits one of its sources was basically a paid promotion, non-notable defunct company. Nsteffel (talk) 22:11, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —
Talk 16:04, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —
Talk 15:15, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. No policy-based reasons for keeping stated. Black Kite (talk) 02:07, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ramriddlz

Ramriddlz (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)

Person's only claim to fame is that a famous person remixed or covered one of his songs, if I understand it correctly. The sourcing is thin as well. Not notable per ARTIST or per GNG. Drmies (talk) 03:06, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The
    Vice Media, Inc. which is very credible.— Preceding unsigned comment added by I'm from Covina (talk • contribs) 03:23, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Also see his song "Sweeterman" was mentioned in a written article for Billboard. http://billboard.com/entry/view/id/132525
    • Actually, I got interested in your edits because it was suggested you were a sock of a pretty prolific master. Anyway, it doesn't matter: the article should be able to stand on its own, and whatever you bring up here (minor mentions) doesn't add up to enough coverage to pass the GNG. Having done an interview and getting a song covered isn't enough. That story on Complex is just silly, and only a few paragraphs because there are no facts to cover ("[Ram and his manager] have managed to keep a low profile"--voluntarily?) Rap-up mentions him in one single sentence (a sentence about Drake and his banana). The Fader story is also about Drake (and Meek Mill), and has two sentences on Drake covering the song, with 13 words devoted to your subject. That's not significant discussion--it's not even discussion. Drmies (talk) 04:17, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:17, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:17, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —
Talk 16:04, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —
Talk 15:15, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Consensus is clear. Drmies (talk) 01:50, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jordan Haerter

Jordan Haerter (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:NOTMEMORIAL, WP:BIO1E. Prod removed by article creator. "Petition" for MoH has not gone anywhere in several years, and it is unlikely that it will. MSJapan (talk) 02:08, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Wikipedians have not come into an agreement into what constitutes notability for soldiers.
    WP:SOLDIER but that page is an essay rather than a guideline. Regardless, the essay states we should consider whether the soldier received the second highest award a nation can confer. This is the case for Haerter who received the Navy Cross. Looking at what we do rather than what we should or should not, one notices that it's quite common to host articles for Navy Cross recipients as we have a standalone category for them: Category:Recipients of the Navy Cross (United States). The category hosts more than 680 articles. Picking one randomly, such as Edward H. Ahrens, we notice it's common in Wikipedia to host articles for soldiers that only detail the event related to the award. Haerter differentiates himself from the rest as it's likely that his Navy Cross will be "upgraded" to a Medal of Honor in the future. As our guidelines are not clear it's difficult to assess whether Haerter deserves an article on its own. However, when looking at the number of references provided and their time horizon once notices that Haerter's notability extends throughout the years: he has been covered in 2008, 2009, 2011, and 2014. Even in 2015 he is still casually mentioned by the press [52]. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 03:28, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:14, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:14, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:14, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete While Yale and Haerter did display extraordinary heroism warranting the award of the Navy Cross, they are one of nearly 6900 estimated recipients of the Navy Cross. The bill to upgrade their awards died in congressional committee in 2014. The consensus has been that being awarded a nations highest award would confer sufficient notability, but the second highest award does not. This would seem to be
    Wikipedia is not a memorial. EricSerge (talk) 01:39, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • I don't think that coverage by Fox News and Business Insider can be considered "local" coverage though. Besides, we don't care if the coverage is local or not. Our notability guidelines only care about independent coverage on time horizon. Haerter fulfills that criteria. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 05:26, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A single second-level award is not generally regarded as enough to establish notability. We have deleted many recipients of such awards of various nationalities. I see no reason to make an exception here. If it is subsequently upgraded to the Medal of Honor then obviously he will become eligible for an article, but not yet. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:16, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Irrelevant. Every serviceman from the United States killed or decorated these days gets plenty of internet coverage. That doesn't make every one of them notable. It's just a symptom of the internet age. Is he any more significant than someone who won a Navy Cross in the Second World War just because he lived in the 21st century? Of course he isn't. That's why we have
    WP:ROUTINE. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:13, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —
Talk 16:04, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —
Talk 15:13, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Black Kite (talk) 02:08, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ghofeyleh prayers

Ghofeyleh prayers (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 supported by any reliable sources. No results on Google Books or Google Scholar. Only 27 results of low quality on Google web search. Anders Feder (talk) 01:53, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

New References added But
Mafatih al-Janan book is an authoritative source. Felestin1714 (Felestin1714) 18:34, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:13, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —
Talk 16:04, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Article is from reliable References.Article should not be removed. Felestin1714 talk 21:57, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —
Talk 15:13, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America1000 21:31, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I cannot read the sources, but the article makes sense, despite the poor English. If verified, it would be notable. DGG ( talk ) 04:11, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete because its significance can't be evaluated because the content is unintelligible. If this is a notable topic, the article would need to be rewritten from scratch by somebody who can write understandable English sentences.  Sandstein  22:08, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jenks24 (talk) 13:44, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Al Naama

AfDs for this article:
Al Naama (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 simply haven't found anything to suggest better sourcing and improvement and I'm not sure if this is why the first nominator nominated it. The only thing saving this would be archived and offline sources but I simply found nothing to even suggest this exists. This has hardly changed since October 2007 (started by SPA) aside from one blanking and few other contributions. Pinging Calamondin12 and TheGGoose. SwisterTwister talk 01:48, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 01:50, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 01:50, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 01:50, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 01:50, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- We sometimes have lists of people by surname, effectively disambiguation pages. This is potentially such a list. However, since both those listed have no article, they are presumably NN. Accordingly, there is nothing worth keeping as a navigation tool. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:09, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —
Talk 16:03, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —
Talk 15:05, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Nomination Withdrawn. (Non-admin closure) Now the article is well sourced and meets the notability criteria. — Sanskari Hangout 14:52, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ranveer Brar

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

Subject does not meets

notability
criteria. Also the article lacks independent reliable sources; in current state the article have references either from self-published sources such as personal website, Facebook and partner sites which is the violation of Wikipedia's policy for use of reliable sources to establish notability. The article links to some reliable sources such as Times of India, which lacks significant coverage. In addition, earlier the draft was declined two times for failing Wikipedia's
conflict of interest or paid editing. — Sanskari Hangout 14:35, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari Hangout 14:36, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari Hangout 14:36, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Challenging the AFD

WP:CREATIVE, one can be "regarded as an important figure" to be notable. In this case, you can see from the Sanjeev Kapoor reference [1] , he is not just well regarded by Sanjeev Kapoor
, an renowned Indian chef, he is also well regarded by many other organisations, such as the James Beard foundation. Chef Ranveer is at par with the top chefs of the country, along with Sanjeev Kapoor and Vikas Khanna. He was the co-judge of MasterChef India season 4 [2]. He has many more accolades to his credit, validation for which have been added to the article. The credits for which I could not find anything relevant were omitted to avoid guideline violations. Request if this challenge can be reconsidered and the article reinstated. I assure you this is not a paid edit or service. If the challenge is w.r.t the facebook page inclusion, that was just one instance, reason being there was no other news ref at that time. But today I have found and included an article link from the Economic Times and removed the FB reference. Kindly check and advise further. Coolkrc (talk) 06:18, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://web.archive.org/web/20150512233128/http://sanjeevkapoor.com/Starchef/Ranveer-Brar
  2. ^ http://indianexpress.com/article/lifestyle/food/master-of-spices-4/
@
How to contribute to Afd. (pining @Chess:). — Sanskari Hangout 10:53, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
@Sanskari: thanks for your reply. This morning, I have edited and verified all the supportive links in the References section. Additionally some websites had archived or removed their articles, and I have amended those mentions. Have you checked the article post its latest revision please? They are all external sources. Please let me know. Coolkrc (talk) 11:04, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Sanskari: WP:CREATIVE states "The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors." I have already quoted a reference from Chef Sanjeev Kapoor's page to this effect. Chef Sanjeev Kapoor is an industry on his own and is world-famous!! I had also, when putting this article together for the very first time, added a whole bunch of external links which talked about Chef Ranveer to support my claim to his notability. But some admin asked me to remove that section completely!!! Coolkrc (talk) 11:07, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This doesn't help in establishing notability. You need to cite the facts with independent and reliable sources E.g. Ranveer Brar is important figure[
WP:BOMBARD does not helps the article to establish notability. — Sanskari Hangout 11:21, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
@Sanskari: going back to my first question, have you checked the article after I have revised it this morning? As mentioned, I found out only today that some websites had removed or archived the links I had quoted and I have since changed or omitted them. Whatever I have mentioned in that article is supported by a reliable external reference Coolkrc (talk) 11:42, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@
WP:BLP. — Sanskari Hangout 11:48, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
@Sanskari: Do you suggest i add multiple references for 1 statement? Sorry, I dont understand what you mean by coverage here. If you see Sanjeev_Kapoor it is such a limited article with basic references. I have followed that simple model, by sticking to known facts and supporting them with valid links. If you google Ranveer Brar, there are pages after pages talking about him and his work. So help me here, in what more I can add in terms of coverage. I have added all he has done and been part of till now!! Coolkrc (talk) 11:54, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Look at [53]. If those don't establish notability I don't know what will. Grognard Extraordinaire Chess (talk) Ping when replying 12:29, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please Resolve@Sanskari: I presume you have gone through the google search results link thankfully posted by Chess(talk) above. These are more than enough to establish Chef Ranveer's notability as a celebrity in his own regard. Obviously I cannot include these in a WIKI article!! Moreover, whatever info had a verifiable external source, I have mentioned and recently updated as well. This celebrity chef is also due to be part of I Can Do That (Indian TV series) starting 17th Oct. Please see the program WIKI page to confirm. Can I take your silence as acceptance, and if yes, can this issue please be favourably resolved at the earliest? TIA Coolkrc (talk) 07:06, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Coolkrc: You can actually include the articles that are listed in the Google News search results as references. Just not the search page itself. Also, if the nominator does not withdraw their nomination, then you'll usually have to wait at least 7 days for the discussion to end. Since he nominated on October 7th, you have until the 14th about till the deletion discussion is over. Grognard Extraordinaire Chess (talk) Ping when replying 02:05, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Chess: Thank you for that :) I'll try add extra references where valid and possible. Coolkrc (talk) 12:02, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:58, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:58, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —
Talk 15:05, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
@
JAaron95: Hi..why has this been relisted please? I was hoping the discussion would be resolved by today. Is this part of the deletion review process? From my end, I have added all valid references to support each and every point, there is peer support reference, references from newspapers and important publications, plus there is an ocean of Google search results to validate this person's notability, for anyone who wants to do a background check. Please advise. @@Chess: Help! Coolkrc (talk) 15:49, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
@
Talk 09:33, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Consensus, though slim, was to keep after article's sourcing was improved. (

non-admin closure) Onel5969 TT me 14:09, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Ahmed Rafiq Almhadoui

Ahmed Rafiq Almhadoui (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)

Unfortunately this is another case where sources may not be easily accessible, if any exist, and without anything to confirm this information including after all this time, there's nothing to suggest keeping (We have different standards here so maybe Arabic Wiki can keep it where standards may not be as high and maybe someone can eventually improve it). This will need attention after all this time and definitely familiar attention if it is to be improved. SwisterTwister talk 04:47, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:49, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:49, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:49, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:25, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:25, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 14:35, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral. If we take the unreferenced article text at face value, he was a member of the Senate of the Kingdom of Libya, which would make him presumptively notable. But I cannot find any list of the members of the 1952 Libyan Parliament (especially the appointed upper house, to which this individual is claimed to belong). This is clearly an access and cultural bias issue; sources that list the members of the first Senate of the Kingdom of Libya must exist, but without access to them, our options are badly constrained. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 19:17, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep.
    WP:COMMONNAME transliteration of his name should be. Our article is currently titled Ahmed Rafiq Almhadoui, but uses Ahmed Rafiq al-Mahdawi in prose. The cited journal article below uses both Ahmed Refiq al Mahdevi and Ahmed Refik el-Mehdevi in its English abstract. That sort of thing didn't make sourcing easier... Regardless, that's an editorial issue, and not a concern for AFD. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 14:45, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —
Talk 15:05, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.

WP:SOFTDELETE. Jenks24 (talk) 13:45, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Diablo Management Group

Diablo Management Group (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)

Questionable notable company and I found no better sourcing aside from this and I considered PRODding but I thought comments would be better. SwisterTwister talk 04:47, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:52, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:52, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly
    Talk to my owner:Online 05:06, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 14:33, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —
Talk 15:04, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.

WP:SOFTDELETE. Jenks24 (talk) 13:45, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Ather Habib

Ather Habib (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 hardly see how he is independently notable let alone any chances of improvement here as the best links I found were this, this and this (for what it's worth, I found the same results with the second link at

WP:INDAFD). The only other alternative to deletion is simply redirecting to Myself Pendu as it seems this may have been his best known work and I'm not familiar with this to know what his television work was. Notifying tagger Masssly and author Deepcruze. SwisterTwister talk 06:51, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:51, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:51, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 14:32, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —
Talk 15:04, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Brookside. MBisanz talk 17:26, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Irene Marot

Irene Marot (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)

Relatively minor British television actor; unable to find enough press to demonstrate notability. Primefac (talk) 22:25, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:23, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:23, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Likely redirect to Brookside as it seems she was best known for this and had a long enough time to be noticeable for that but there's especially not much for a better separate article. SwisterTwister talk 04:25, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete - Some work, but doesn't appear to rise to the criteria of
    WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 13:15, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✈ 12:10, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —
Talk 15:04, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete and redirect to Emarosa. Black Kite (talk) 02:08, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bradley Walden

Bradley Walden (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)

Should be redirected to Emarosa. Subject fails to have enough notability on his own to warrant an article. reddogsix (talk) 10:03, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • You could have just redirected it yourself. This is articles for deletion, not articles for redirecting. Anyway, I've redirected it again and I'll revert any undone edits. If the redirect does not fly, I will support a merge to his band's article.
    csdnew 12:28, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Tokyogirl79, I'm sorry that I've repeatedly reverted the redirect, and that I went to REFUND, I don't fully understand this process, and don't really know when or how these things are taking place. I can't code or anything like that for shit. So, sorry about the misunderstanding, if it needs to be deleted because it's not an adequate page, then fine. But is there not a way that I can get the topic to have an article made after it? The reason why RD6 requested it for deletion(redirection) was because he said the topic failed to enough notability to warrant it's own article, and I disagree. If the case was with my errors, and it being an incomplete page(I wasn't done editing it, and learned to use the sandbox after the article was already set for deletion), then I'd be fine with that, as I could upload a complete and adequate page later on.(or could I not?) Knuxfan
    9:55 AM, 7 October 2015 (CDT)
  • No, stuff like that isn't considered to be something that would give notability on here. These are all things that can make it more likely that someone will gain coverage, but popularity (which is what this boils down to, essentially) isn't something that automatically makes something notable. (
    (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:00, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —
Talk 15:03, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Human3015TALK  01:46, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Human3015TALK  01:46, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Emarosa as there's simply nothing to suggest better and I say this instead of deleting because I hope this isn't going to simply be restarted again without thinking if it should first. SwisterTwister talk 05:33, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (

non-admin closure) –Davey2010Talk 18:30, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

David de Burgh Graham

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

Not notable as a political candidate (fails

WP:NPOL). Doubtfully notable as a software-whatever and a trainspotter. FUNgus guy (talk) 07:39, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:30, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:30, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:30, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:30, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:30, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:30, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep at this seems notable, acceptable and adequately sourced for now. SwisterTwister talk 06:54, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —
Talk 15:03, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 17:25, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sigaw ng Kabataan Coalition

Sigaw ng Kabataan Coalition (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 be a notable advocacy group. A search for sources only results in minor mentions in news reports about them condemning an incident involving (now-resigned) Metropolitan Manila Development Authority chairman Francis Tolentino. Nothing actually on this organization.

csdnew 13:16, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines -related deletion discussions. Human3015TALK  01:48, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Human3015TALK  01:48, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable.--RioHondo (talk) 01:46, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Can't find sources to support notability for this group. Fails
    WP:NORG. Onel5969 TT me 14:11, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jenks24 (talk) 13:47, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Harvest Channel

Harvest Channel (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 appears to be about a television station that does not meet the general notability guidelines. Has no citations except for one to its own website. I propose we delete as non-notable. KDS4444Talk 13:13, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete User keeps adding non-notable companies. We cannot have an article for every TV or radio station in the world. There are probably hundreds of thousands of them. We should only have articles for the notable ones, and this one did not assert notability. It can be re-created when and if it is properly shown as notable. -- Alexf(talk) 15:45, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Human3015TALK  23:58, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Human3015TALK  23:58, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Human3015TALK  23:58, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jenks24 (talk) 13:48, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Poul Thorsen

Poul Thorsen (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)

Pseudobiography of a researcher accused of fraud and listed on HHS' most wanted fugitives list. Violates

WP:BLPCRIME. Gets some coverage for vaccine-autism controversies. Recreated after PROD deletion and PRODed twice again. • Gene93k (talk) 11:37, 14 October 2015 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 11:37, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:38, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:38, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:38, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:38, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:38, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:38, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:38, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:BLPCRIME. I found sources here, here, and here, but this seems to have the potential for
    WP:COATRACK
    . Per the Forbes article:
Since news of his indictment on 22 counts of wire fraud and money laundering broke in April 2011, the conspiracy adherents have homed in on Thorsen as the mastermind of a fraud to convince people that vaccines are not causative in autism. Why Thorsen? Because he is the fourth author of seven on a paper showing no link between MMR and autism in a large population study of Danish children. The study and data, which are readily checked thanks to Denmark’s meticulous population registries, have not been called into question (through formal channels) or retracted.
I'm not convinced that this has the coverage necessary to write an appropriate BLP. -
Location (talk) 12:52, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Delete as lacking substantial coverage, per BLPCRIME and BLP1E, noting that the article is indeed almost certainly an antivax stalking horse. Guy (Help!) 12:58, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete To be a biography, something must actually be there about the person. The source presented is absolutely BLP1E/BLPCRIME material, and thus this BLP must be deleted ("Res delenda est") Collect (talk) 13:52, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, with all deliberate speed As Users Collect and SzG point out, and a quick google reveals [58], this article by a SPA is a hit piece on a researcher whose work is disliked by some pretty intense anti-vaccine activists. An embarrassment for Wikipedia.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:58, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per above - Fails BLP1E & BLPCRIME. –Davey2010Talk 20:41, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Fails BLP1E & BLPCRIME, amongst other concerns. Asav | Talk 21:16, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Per reasons above. If he was fourth author out of seven, his role in the paper was almost certainly minor. And I do not believe any of the other people on that wanted list have articles. Note that it says "awaiting extradition to the United States", but it does not mention any legal proceedings in Denmark. Roches (talk) 03:56, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Clear case of
    WP:BLPCRIME, etc. OhNoitsJamie Talk 01:11, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jenks24 (talk) 13:48, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kosovans in France

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

No indication topic meets

WP:GNG
. Editor is creating many such articles including.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. JbhTalk 11:34, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kosovo-related deletion discussions. JbhTalk 11:34, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - beside the missing content, it lacks basic structure from this kind of articles so far. What does "Kosovan" mean? Mondiad (talk) 17:36, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for failing
    WP:GNG. Ceosad (talk) 18:06, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not supported by in-depth coverage in independent sources. Can't see where an article about this particular group in this particular country is notable. Onel5969 TT me 13:19, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was withdrawn by nominator. (Non-admin closure) "Pepper" @ 15:11, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Greeks in France

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

No indication topic meets

WP:GNG
. Editor is creating many such articles including.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. JbhTalk 11:34, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. JbhTalk 11:34, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn by nominator - my error. JbhTalk 14:43, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This one actually presents some history of the Greek presence in what is now France. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 12:23, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment it also cites several on-topic books as sources, was created in 2007, and has been extensively edited by multiple users. This is quite unlike the other articles nominated, which were created recently by one editor and cite only census tables & foreign ministry pages. 210.6.254.106 (talk) 14:01, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jenks24 (talk) 13:48, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth Heery

Elizabeth Heery (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:NACTOR, non-notable JMHamo (talk) 11:33, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Human3015TALK  00:16, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Human3015TALK  00:16, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jenks24 (talk) 13:49, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Austrians in France

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

No indication the topic passes

WP:GNG JbhTalk 11:14, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Comment Editor is creating many such articles including.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. JbhTalk 11:39, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. JbhTalk 11:39, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. JbhTalk 11:39, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • It might have been better to do a combined AfD. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 12:21, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@
Dutch people in France article was nominated by another editor so not sure how that would work. There are likely other articles by the same editor like these, I stopped after a dozen AfDs. JbhTalk 12:47, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Individual AfDs is a bit chaotic, but then it might be the case that some of these turn out to be notable while others are not, which could make a single AfD complicated too. It's a tricky call. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:33, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
For reference, instructions on creating an AfD for multiple articles are at
WP:MULTIAFD. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:34, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not supported by in-depth coverage in independent sources. Can't see where an article about this particular group in this particular country is notable. Onel5969 TT me 13:10, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. In addition to being on the wrong end of a 2:1 opinions ratio, the "keep" side mostly fails to convincingly address the "we are not a newspaper" argument, with few people making arguments concerning the event's lasting significance.  Sandstein  22:03, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

American Airlines Flight 550

American Airlines Flight 550 (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:NOTNEWS. Flight was never in danger. The incapacitation of someone at the controls of transportation, it happens, and unless that causes something more than a diversion, it isn't notable. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:46, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
list of United States-related deletion discussions....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:17, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:17, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:17, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:17, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is my first article up for deletion so it could be my simple mistake (I've only been here for a month/two). Refer to what I said previously which you could vote for a Transwikied which fits your comment better. Also forgot to add that I didn't mean to type the cause of death like a news article, read the source wrong, sorry.
    talk) 00:21, 7 October 2015 (UTC)Adog104[reply
    ]
  • Very true.
    talk) 18:09, 7 October 2015 (UTC)Adog104[reply
    ]
  • Comment - There are at least three events in recent years which are effectively identical (one is arguably more serious as it occurred at a more critical flight phase):
- GB Airways pilot dies[60]
- Britannia Airways pilot dies[61]
- Continental Airlines pilot dies[62]
None of these events is even mentioned on Wikipedia. If this incident warrants an article, they all do. SempreVolando (talk) 17:53, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - So shouldn't an article be granted admission since the incident hasn't been created on Wikipedia or create an article for that more notable incident? It's kind of weird that those incidents (or similar ones) haven't been listed or created on Wikipedia before even for their rare occurrences (unless there is an article somewhere, then please list it here). Whether this article is deleted or not, the least it could be granted would be a name change since it isn't listed.
    talk) 22:39, 11 October 2015 (UTC)Adog104[reply
    ]
Comment It isn't weird. Airline flights that just happened are far more likely to find an editor who is willing to create an article than a airline flight that happened in the past. I'm one of the editors whose done articles on older crashes. In my case of the 45 accident articles I've created I did one for as far back as
WP:RECENTISM is the main reason for the focus on what has more recently happened. Another reason is sourcing an older crash can be difficult....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:57, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Comment - Agreed, since most people note this doesn't involve other lives or the plane in danger, a name change could make this article more appropriate.
    talk) 19:26, 8 October 2015 (UTC)Adog104[reply
    ]
  • Comment - I got to step in, but this doesn't happen all the time. It may happen to pilots in plane crashes or other situations, but pilot illness resulting in death mid flight does not happen all the time. Like most sources linked in the article and examples provided by others, the events happen rarely.
    talk) 19:30, 12 October 2015 (UTC)Adog104[reply
    ]

Deletion versus merging
Because it does not meet the criteria for inclusion established for those sections - at
WP:AIRCRASH. SempreVolando (talk) 17:43, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Reply - Actually, it is an "incident" that took place at
WP:AIRCRASH mentioned at that article. At the very least, it should redirect to American Airlines. --Jax 0677 (talk) 18:17, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
If there is a list of "incidents" involving American Airlines including it there would be better than keeping the article. No one can deny it was an incident covered by reliable sources.Borock (talk) 01:27, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - @
American Airlines accidents and incidents or American Airlines? --Jax 0677 (talk) 01:37, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Because the list should only be accidents involving a hull loss or notable non-hull losses. If this article is deleted, then neither would apply....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:35, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Reply -
WP:CHEAP to one of these articles would absolutely be appropriate. --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:10, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Comment
WP:AIRCRASH lays out what is notable enough for inclusion on accident list. 550 doesn't fit the criteria....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:22, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Comment- If this were to be redirected (low chanced, but deletion is favored), it would more or less be belonging to
talk) 18:12, 17 October 2015 (UTC)Adog104[reply
]
Reply - If the entire discussion before and after the relist is considered, it is steering toward No Consensus. --Jax 0677 (talk) 18:50, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - ...Not really? I mean deletion is far greater on the second and the first has more keeps, but all together it votes towards deletion. Either way it will be deleted or the absolutely the least could be a Wiki-transfer (to
talk) 16:31, 18 October 2015 (UTC)Adog104[reply
]

Arbitrary section break

✈ 08:57, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✈ 08:57, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Delete per
    WP:NOTNEWS. Sideways713 (talk) 12:17, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete Will probably soon be forgotten, short media coverage only.--Müdigkeit (talk) 13:46, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per NOTNEWS. Passengers die on airliners, captains die on ships, bus drivers have heart attacks, etc. If no further fatalities occur as a result, they aren't notable. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:05, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete someone dies a natural death at work. If it wasn't in a plane, we wouldn't be having this discussion at all. Seems that it wouldn't be notable - the fact it was on a plane doesn't make it notable. The coverage in the news is typical of the "oh, interesting" to fill up space. Will there be any coverage of this a month from now, 2 years from now? no. Notability isn't temporary; this event was certainly temporary. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 05:00, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete mostly per
    WP:NOTNEWS. A medical emergency happened, the plane was diverted, and everyone but the captain lived happily ever after. It's not an accident, so it can't be merged to a list of accidents. I don't think routine incidents like this should have their own article. Yes, the news media did report on it, but we are not beholden to create an article on every single topic that briefly bubbles to the top of Google News. This is more applicable to Wikinews. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:17, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete Should be relegated to encyclopedia dramatica. Fudpukker (talk) 20:59, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per everything above, but could be mentioned in 2015 in aviation, for example. Brandmeistertalk 11:37, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I agree with the above comment. It doesn't need its own article; it's not particularly notable as the FO took over the flight and the safety of the aircraft and passengers were never in danger. It was a medical emergency rather than a flight emergency. smrgeog (talk) 18:53, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Final comment - My final comment, while searching air crashes on Wikipedia (1997-2010), I found that there are other Wikipedia articles that have the same context as Flight 550:

  • United Airlines Flight 826 - Passenger dies of turbulence injuries, lands safely.
  • Olympic Airways Flight 417
    - Passenger dies of second hand smoke, lands safely, aftermath following lawsuit.

Which by these two alone, Flight 550 seems to fit snug in between them in context, however this event is more rare, like many have already established in the news.

  • After researching, I realized that it can't be classified as an "accident" since the person, inside the aircraft, suffered injuries from natural causes (which is according to Annex 13, section (a.) enforced by the
    talk) 23:57, 20 October 2015 (UTC)Adog104[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 06:50, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of people on the cover of Maxim magazine (India)

List of people on the cover of Maxim magazine (India) (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)

List of Indian good looking people who have appeared on an Indian edition of a periodical doesn't seem to be much notable failing

WP:GNG. The references are all to PR websites, self-published pages, fan-forums and such non-RS sources. Note: The original and main contributor is blocked for socking. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 08:36, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 08:36, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 08:36, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Human3015TALK  08:57, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Human3015TALK  08:57, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
👍 1 user likes this. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 04:07, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was withdrawn by nominator. Non-admin closure. Safiel (talk) 13:33, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For Adults Only (2016 film)

AfDs for this article:
For Adults Only (2016 film) (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)

Previous AfD ended in a consensus to merge, however the merge has never been performed. Subsequent to that AfD, production of the movie has been cancelled. Given that circumstance, I have taken this back to AfD. Cancel the merge and change to delete. Safiel (talk) 04:00, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Human3015TALK  06:50, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Human3015TALK  06:50, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge As before - just because it was cancelled it does not mean that the story of the movie and its cancellation are not notable matters for the director's article. ukexpat (talk) 14:32, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
HEY:
WP:INDAFD: "For Adults Only" "Faisal Saif
"]
  • Merge to
    WP:NFF notability found through coverage may still have a home here even for unmade or cancelled projects... and the director's article is the perfect place to speak of it. That no one did the merge after the last AFD is sad, but not a reason to not do it or delete it because it was not done. Schmidt, Michael Q. 10:09, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
And nominator, what did you gather the article's tag intended?
Were you simply
WP:IMPATIENT? Or was it you felt no desire to assist in a merge? Huh? Schmidt, Michael Q. 10:09, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 23:10, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Individuals with powers of a Constable

Individuals with powers of a Constable (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 for lack of sources, it appears to be all

original research. This is a list and fails WP:Stand-alone lists: which states: Selection criteria (also known as inclusion criteria or membership criteria) should be unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources. This list lacks adequate criteria, lacks reference to sources that would establish those criteria, lacks necessary background information and references to sources for that background information, and lastly fails to provide encyclopaedic context. See also Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section. It is best to remove it. So far as I can tell this information if properly cited would belong, not as a list, but as a discussion comparing the various duties and powers of police and quasi-police officials in the UK, as such it would have a totally different title, or be part of another article. I am sure that there are Police Science textbooks that would prove valuable in such an endeavor. No redirect to Constable as it is not a likely search term. --Bejnar (talk) 00:13, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Delete per
    WP:TNT. Even if this were to be kept, it's a huge mess. On a substantive note, it is a list of comparing other citrus fruits to oranges. Bearian (talk) 20:23, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. North America1000 22:32, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America1000 22:32, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This article is now having references added. The people with powers of a constable are a clearly defined group. To add them to the Constable article wouldn't make sense and would be confusing. The public are generally unaware of what employees other than the Police do and this is a source of tension. This article is only designed to clarify this. Leopheard (talk) 13:14, 10 October 2015 UTC
Constable powers are not uniary. The powers of these various officials vary considerably. A list is not a useful presentation for disparate information. No one is suggesting at this point adding the "list" to the Constable article. What makes you think that people with powers of a constable are a clearly defined group. Do you have a citation to a reliable source that says that? My experience is that neither the "powers of a constable" nor the class of officials with arrest powers are clearly defined. Often they are individually defined, but not as a group. For example, the citation added to the article for "special constables" says nothing at all about their powers. --Bejnar (talk) 14:10, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles (talk) 02:24, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Human3015TALK  06:54, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Some positions in the UK have their powers of search and seizure legally defined as "the powers and privileges of a constable". But the use of that phrase in law is not a topic. It does not, and cannot, satisfy
    WP:LISTN, because there has been no nontrivial, reliable, third-party discussion of the merits of that particular verbiage. And by the article's own admission, the phrasing is what matters; other positions that have search and seizure powers in common with a constable are not included if they are do not share the same legislative definition. And, of course, none of this applies in any other country, where the position of constable may have more (or fewer) powers, shared with entirely disjunct lists of other offices. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 14:57, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
[b]Merge[/b] The deletion of this article will not clarify the confusion that exists with the public when it comes to an individual who is clearly not a Constable but is exercising the powers of. "How is he able to do that when he's not a bobby?". There are countless examples in the media where trading standards have been obstructed, Environment Agency bailiffs or PCSOs assaulted, not to mention a plethora of inaccurate articles explaining the difference between a PCSO and PC yet have many inaccuracies. It is only pertinent to the law enforcement area on Wikipedia to at least cover the basics on the differences and where they come from. Also, there are plenty of other places that use the term Constable for law enforcement e.g. Texas. As whether they have Constables and those with the power of, I am unsure as yet leopheard (talk) 09:23, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The simple anser is No. See
Texas constable article and see just how different they are from the English version. --Bejnar (talk) 21:02, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 17:21, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AHS (high schools)

AHS (high schools) (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)

AHS (high schools), BHS (high schools), CHS (high schools), DHS (high schools), EHS (high schools), FHS (high schools), GHS (high schools), HHS (high schools), IHS (high schools), JHS (high schools), KHS (high schools), LHS (high schools), MHS (high schools), NHS (high schools), OHS (high schools), PHS (high schools), QHS (high schools), RHS (high schools), SHS (high schools), THS (high schools), UHS (high schools), VHS (high schools), XHS (high schools), YHS (high schools) ZHS (high schools), AHS (schools), BHS (schools), HHS (schools), and NHS (schools)

WHS (high schools) was recently deleted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WHS (high schools). The others should be deleted to. No one is gonna search for a high school by typing in the abbreviation. Voortle (talk) 00:38, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2015_October_14&oldid=1142624455"