Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 October 5

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

Media Organisations Biography Society Web Games Science Arts Places Indiscern. Not-Sorted

< 4 October	6 October >

Guide to deletion

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. Jujutacular (talk) 01:36, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Khamoshiyan (song)

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

Song fails

WP:NSONGS for no multiple, non-trivial, independent sources. One claim is of "Mirchi Top 20" #6 position. But there is no clarity on how these charts are prepared on their website. Also, TOI publishing this top 20 list shouldn't be considered as secondary source as TOI and Radio Mirchi are part of same Times Group. Other reviews from BH, Koimoi, Rediff even if seem notable on first glance, fail NSONGS as "Coverage of a song in the context of an album review does not establish notability"; which is what is happening here. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 04:51, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 04:53, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 04:53, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:33, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 07:16, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Reverted no consensus NAC, because the argument for deletion appears to be rather well founded. Courcelles (talk) 23:18, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles (talk) 23:18, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to
covered in the main article. Esquivalience ^t 00:08, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Some sources about the song? Where are they? And

just the way our page hits don't count, YouTube's hits shouldn't count either; especially with click fraud. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 04:54, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete - Dharmadhyaksha makes compelling arguments regarding the one claim to fame, the charting. Do not believe that passes the criteria for
WP:NSONG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:33, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Question: Not being very knowledgeable about the Indian music scene, can someone tell me whether the Radio Mirchi list qualifies under
talk) 14:36, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Radio Mirchi's website doesn't state anything about how their charts are prepared. With no clarity or transparency we can not consider it to be notable enough to match WP:CHART. Although if this can be established then we can reconsider. But recently on one occasion at the AFD of "Ainvayi Ainvayi" I discovered that Radio mirchi was media partner of the film and had launched various promotional schemes, mainly one scheme where your marriage would be sponsored by the group. The article then also claimed that the song from this film was in top 20 for 38 weeks!! Well, that's promotional much. I haven't hunted down who the media partners of this film are. One would have to see various promo videos on youtube or the film itself to see credit list. So its going to be tough to prove notability of this particular chart. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 05:13, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Through the merger could be an alternative option but since there is COI in sources as nominator have stated above a deletion seems to be a better option as compared to the merger. — Sanskari ^Hangout 19:05, 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 Redirect obviously as there's no need for a further AfD (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 05:35, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gordon Station

)

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

A very short article, has not yet been editing for about 1 month. 333 -blue 23:15, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge any useful information into

bus stop. --Amble (talk) 23:40, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Redirect to Gordon railway station. Hack (talk) 15:23, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the

list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:16, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:16, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect obviously as there's not much for a separate article (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 05:37, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Parkinson Station

)

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

A very short article, has not yet been editing for about 1 month. 333 -blue 23:14, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge any useful information into

bus stop. --Amble (talk) 23:40, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete as non-notable per
WP:BUSOUTCOMES. clpo13_(talk) 08:25, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the

list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:15, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:15, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 16:17, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Graham Roumieu

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

Stub on a Canadian illustrator whose illustrations appears frequently in the big name publications: Atlantic, New York Times etc. However there is next to nothing written about him in secondary sources. I suggest that perhaps he does not meet WP:GNG. New Media Theorist (talk) 22:37, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the

list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:16, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:16, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:16, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe delete for now as although "Graham Roumieu Canada" found results at Books, News and highbeam so far, there's nothing to suggest worthwhile improvement. SwisterTwister talk 05:24, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I cannot find significant coverage of him in reliable sources. Jujutacular (talk) 03:06, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, there appears to be quite a few reviews of books he has illustrated out there, like these - [1] [2], unfortunately my internet is extremely slow so cannot open anymore, says coolabah, asking for another seven days....Coolabahapple (talk) 15:10, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 16:08, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, have updated his article with some reviews of books that he has illustrated/written and that he has won at least two silver Canadian national magazine awards. So, he may now be notable? This page [3] shows that he has won numerous other awards, whether they are seen as significant I leave for other editors to decide (where are the Canadian editors to support this guy???)Coolabahapple (talk) 15:00, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles (talk) 23:11, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Based on the reliable sources provided above about him, as well as [4], I think they add up to significant coverage, per
talk) 14:44, 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 00:55, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Kerstein

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

This is an article about a domain squatter, who got Microsoft to make a deal for the domain he was squatting on. This is a case of

WP:BLP. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 17:26, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 17:31, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 17:31, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 17:31, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

keep I had no problem finding sources on line, so apparently meeting
WP:GNG. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:16, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Can you provide some as examples? The only ones I could find were press releases for his company, a quotes various news outlets probably from one of his various press releases, press releases are not reliable. I cannot find anything which covers him in depth except for the stories about his squatting. I am willing to withdraw the nom. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 21:32, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete likely as although News, Books and highbeam all found links, there's nothing to suggest better improvement. Although it seems almost all the past commenters are either not active at all or only minimally active, I'm pinging possibly interested Starblind. SwisterTwister talk 05:22, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 16:30, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above points. --
computer 18:04, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles (talk) 23:07, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This article also was created by a one-purpose account and strongly resembles Kerstein's official bio posted elsewhere, indicating to me that it was probably created for promotional purposes. Blah2 (talk) 14:38, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per
WP:BLP1E. Otherwise it is just a resume. Edison (talk) 15:43, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Clear case of
WP:BLP1E. Edwardx (talk) 17:46, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per
WP:NOTHOST; Wikipedia is not a resumé directory. Esquivalience ^t 00:14, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:54, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Curt DiCamillo

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

Blatant promotion, does not seem notable for Wikipedia, cannot find sources from reliable outlets (besides his own personal pages/websites). Would like to hear opinions from other editors about the relevance of this subject for Wikipedia. Article possibly written by the subject himself. Sheroddy (talk) 21:19, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now as although Books and Scholar found a few results, there's nothing to suggest likely improvement. SwisterTwister talk 05:59, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:03, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:03, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:03, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:03, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:40, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unsure - he's listed in Who's Who, but that's
the best source so far. Bearian (talk) 15:05, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles (talk) 21:04, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles (talk) 23:03, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Some mentions, but not enough to meet
WP:BASIC. Esquivalience ^t 00:44, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. Article has been at AfD for almost a month and sources are still just webpages. Agricola44 (talk) 16:16, 7 October 2015 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:54, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Mace

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

PROD (mine) removed, without comment, by an SPA who has appeared since the original author was recently blocked for promotional edits related to the tent company. PROD rationale was "Promotional biography by somebody connected to the subject, if not the subject himself. The awards are not convincing. Some of the references are not convincing (e.g. YouTube). Much here is unconvincing. There may be a very little genuine notability but it does not seem to justify an article far less a hagiography." I have nothing much to add to that except to note that

Chamber of Commerce is a type of organisation, not a single monolithic organisation, an unusual misconception that both the original author and the new SPA mysteriously seem to share. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:33, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. DanielRigal (talk) 22:42, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:34, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:34, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now as I found nothing better than this and this. SwisterTwister talk 05:34, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles (talk) 23:00, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I've been watching this page since shortly after it was created, and while I tried to keep the worst of the promotional spam to a minimum it seems to have slipped off my radar. Hardly any of the references actually talk about Mace himself, and the ones that do sound like press releases dripping with praise. Gala Tent may be worth having an article about, but not Mace. It doesn't help that it's the work of three (blocked) SPAs. Primefac (talk) 15:00, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:54, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

VIRUS (Cyber Fools) (film)

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

Seems like a hoax to me, as I found no sources online (other than a Facebook post) that refer to this film. Also, the article states that the film has premiered on October 29, 2015, a date yet to happen. Even if it's not a hoax, it clearly fails

WP:NFF. Gparyani (talk) 22:59, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete: per nom, maybe it sure a hoax. 333 -blue 23:02, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

it is not a hoax. please see the corrected "premiers" tense. also, there are numerous youtube videos of the film's audience reaction to the film-feature, VIRUS, and an Official Trailer. the Theater website will also be updating their calendar soon to display VIRUS. Teaser Trailer Launch parties have already occured, and evidence can also be provided. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Virtual assassin (talk • contribs) 23:12, 5 October 2015 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Virtual assassin (talk • contribs) appears to have a close connection with the subject of the article being discussed. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:44, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If the user (talk) actually investigated the film and its events then they would understand that there is much more than a singular facebook post, but an RSVP event where more than 100 attendees are already reserved, and an entire production company that is legitimately established and promotes the film regularly until its release on October 29th. DO NOT REMOVE----Virtual assassin (Virtual assassin) 22:59, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@

inclusion criteria

?

yes it does meet the criteria. it will be featured in the next slamdance film festival that has yet to occur, as well as myself being a graduating student with a BA from California State Univerysity of Long Beach. not to mention, external references have been added to the page, and artwork will also be included once i have permission. Virtual assassin (talk) 00:05, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is an unreferenced article about an unreleased, unreviewed extremely low budget film. The film clearly fails Wikipedia:Notability (films). Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:32, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

the budget is irrelevant for a digital film in 2015. if real specs were to be taken into consideration, $15,000 have been used on camera equipment, renting locations and vehicles. Please see the official trailer in the external links section before you pass judgement without doing proper research, and understand that this is a legitimate film that will have a social and cultural impact on the long beach film scene. Also because the film is so new, the article will become extremely relevant upon the first public screening of the film in under a month's time. please don't harass this page. :@Cullen328: ----Virtual assassin (talk) 02:41, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

conflict of interest as someone involved with the film production, then you are obligated to disclose it, and to refrain from directly editing the article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:59, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

@Cullen328: are you getting paid to bully independent films because they do not meet the likes of Michael Bay's multi-hundred-million dollar budget and sales? or are you doing this on your own accord? i suggest you get outside and take a deep breath, and talk to a living person. there's no need for you to passive-aggressively attack a wiki article that is unimportant to you, and clearly are uneducated about the critical impact of art and its archiving significance. Virtual assassin (talk) 03:12, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Many editors would respond with anger to your unwarranted personal attack, Virtual assassin. I will respond with the facts instead. No, I am not paid for any of my edits and I am not bullying. I have participated in thousands of Articles for Deletion debates on a very wide range of topics, as a volunteer. My only goal here is clear: To maintain the quality of the encyclopedia. I have helped save many articles on notable topics, and have expanded and referenced many articles. They are all listed on my user page. Hint for you: Impugning the motives of a highly experienced editor is not a good strategy for keeping an article. Bringing forward reliable, independent sources discussing the topic is the only thing to do. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:56, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While not a hoax, this does appear to be a non-notable independent film. Per
(｡◕‿◕｡) 05:27, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - needs independent sources, which don't seem available, to pass the bar of notability on Wikipedia. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:59, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:17, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:17, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the

list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:17, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete as being
DRAFTSPACE as we wait, I'd say okay. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 07:00, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete for now as there's simply not much. SwisterTwister talk 05:38, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (

non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:56, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Sealed orders

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

Nothing more than a definition with no real possibility of expansion. The dab page should be moved back. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:54, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

keep I would hope for expansion here. There's certainly scope for it. The UK nuclear submarines would be one direction for starters. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:06, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have expanded it. Andrew D. (talk) 04:56, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:49, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as this is acceptable. SwisterTwister talk 05:34, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Looks well sourced (in the conventional sense, even). It's a nice little article that has checked all the guideline boxes. --69.204.153.39 (talk) 04:48, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:54, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Idea (2006 film)

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

Delete for lack of significant coverage. The article only cites related sources (the firm's own web site and production company) or film directories like IMDB. I was unable to find any review of the film. It does not appear to have received any awards. Difficult searching given the title, but even focusing on the director did not yield a review. I did find it in directory listings, listed in the director's biography, and offered for sale. At the Institute of Contemporary Arts directory I discovered that it had been shown at the 8th BFM International Film Fest. There was a brief one sentence note in May 2006 here about its future production. That's it, basically no coverage. Fails the

WP:NFILM. Note: The article was created in June 2006‎ by editor User:Halaqah, same name as the production company. --Bejnar (talk) 22:05, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete or redirect to
(｡◕‿◕｡) 05:32, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:27, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:27, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Shorts are often difficult to source with online sources, unless they won a major film festival prize (the short film circut has dozens of minor festivals). I tried to find sources for The Idea + Owen 'Alik Shahadah but without any luck. Fails NFILM/GNG. -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 19:53, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

expanded searches:

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

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

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

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

Delete, for even though this film topic is not completely unsourable,[5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12] none of the available sources give enough analaysis or commentasry to show this film as meeting
Sona Maya Jobarteh or Tunde Jegede or Halaqah Media. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 22:04, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete for now as there's nothing to suggest better. SwisterTwister talk 05:41, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete - straightforward

A7 case. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 19:25, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Oliver Henry Buckley

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

Does not state notability.

talk) 19:05, 5 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 00:54, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Michel Mersereau

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

Article on a Canadian photographer. I cannot find any decent non-trivial sources to prove WP:GNG. New Media Theorist (talk) 19:20, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the

(talk) 22:11, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the

list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now as I found nothing better than a few links each at Books, News and browser. SwisterTwister talk 06:27, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles (talk) 23:44, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —

^Talk 18:29, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete I searched for sources and found some photo credits plus brief mention of his role organizing a local event. I found no significant coverage of him as an artist/photographer. He is not notable, it seems. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:13, 6 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. WelshWonderWoman's opinion does not address the reasons for deletion (or is in fact an argument for deletion), and the rest of the discussion clearly tends towards that. Sandstein 18:50, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sports & Fitness Industry Association

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

No evidence of notability, all references are to a company/organization website. Notability tags were added in June, no improvement since. Rwessel (talk) 20:41, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Sources exist, but the article doesn't reflect the fact. [13] Bloomberg Boston Globe It would take some work to determine if these are enough for a strong keep, however. LaMona (talk) 16:18, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:21, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:21, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:21, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:21, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now as WP:TNT and restart when completely better as the name is not easy to search but with some recent Books results, it's imaginable this may have better coverage (although I found none at Newspapers Archive). SwisterTwister talk 06:34, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles (talk) 23:43, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It seems like an interesting article, it just need more sources. WelshWonderWoman (talk) 00:19, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the www.tennisindustry.org link cited above says little other than that a name change is happening, the Bloomberg link doesn't appear to have any content about the organization at all (I'm not clear that what's displayed there isn't actually the title of that portion of Bloomberg's web site), and the Boston Globe just quotes one statistic from them, without any other indication of notability. Rwessel (talk) 02:53, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —

^Talk 18:29, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Weak delete - I think I'm just on the other side of the line from LaMona. Userfy if there is an interested editor, but I don't think the current article meets notability criteria, and my searches didn't turn up enough to warrant keeping. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:29, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - looks like it could be notable, but without significant independent coverage this is a delete. The article's SPA-written promotional content is another problem, which would need fixing (if sources could be found). The article does not take an uninvolved point of view, but describes the association from its own perspective. GermanJoe (talk) 20:04, 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. MBisanz ^talk 00:53, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Randy Lee Cutler

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

reliable source coverage which properly verifies that they pass a specific inclusion criterion. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 18:41, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:44, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:44, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the

list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:44, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:44, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I found nothing better than some links at Books and browser. SwisterTwister talk 06:05, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —

^Talk 18:28, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete. No evidence of passing
WP:PROF. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:57, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was nomination withdrawn due to sourcing improvements. Bearcat (talk) 13:56, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Hyde

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

reliable source referencing — but a Google News search didn't turn up any serious indication of improved sourceability, resulting in just a small handful of glancing namechecks of his existence in articles about other things. Delete unless somebody knows where to find much better sourcing than I've been able to. Bearcat (talk) 18:23, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete - this Anthony Hyde
has never done anything of note, although there seems to be a criminal with the same name. Bearian (talk) 16:29, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:43, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:43, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as I easily found links at Books and Newspapers Archive suggesting he at least got
WP:GNG attention. Notifying Bearcat and Bearian. SwisterTwister talk 06:11, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

comment, have added book reviews to the article, also according to WorldCat his works are held by quite a number of libraries ie. [14] - The Red Fox around 1000 libraries, [15] - China Lake about 700 libraries.Coolabahapple (talk) 15:29, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —

^Talk 18:28, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Weak delete I have to say, this author is as much of a mystery as the plots of his books. His first book was expected to be a big success (I can't tell if it really was), but his others seem to have gotten almost no attention. I added the review of that first book from the NYTimes, and for a short while after that he wrote a couple of book reviews for that newspaper (e.g. [16]), but that seems to be it. He has a web site, but the bio there is limited. I don't find bios anywhere else. His brother, Christopher Hyde, also wrote thrillers, but I don't find much about him either. He's got two solid reliable sources, the NYT review and the article about him in the Montreal Gazette. But shortly thereafter, the trail goes cold. LaMona (talk) 20:04, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Here are some more reviews and articles written about the author Christian Science Monitor, Montreal Gazette, Joseph Finder's site, Atlas Society and both he and his brother are included in the Encyclopedia of Literature by W.H. New. There is certainly enough for
WP:GNG. User:Fraserlaidlaw 01:35, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Okay, the referencing's been improved enough that I'm withdrawing this. Thanks, guys. Bearcat (talk) 13:56, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:53, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gleemax

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

Completing nomination for an IP editor, whose rationale (from Talk:Gleemax) is included verbatim below. The first AFD was closed in June 2007 as a redirect to Unhinged, though that article does not mention this subject at all at present. The redirect was undone three weeks later, as a result of discussion at Talk:Unhinged (Magic: The Gathering)#Gleemax. So we know that this existed, which is good as far as it goes, but I'm not seeing any sort of reliable sourcing that discusses its impact or notability. I usually don't opine when I complete someone else's nomination, but this has sat for a good long while with little prospect of improvement. With no good options for a redirect or a merge, I think deletion is our best option at this point. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 18:43, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nominating for deletion because this is a small footnote in the history of Wizards of the Coast and doesn't need a dedicated article. The website never even made it out of the alpha stage and there is little to no coverage from third party sources (the article has been tagged with this problem for the last 7 years). 37.228.231.1 (talk) 10:39, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect if this is best again as my searches found nothing better than some of the currently listed links at browser and some more at Highbeam...but nothing to suggest better notability and improvement. SwisterTwister talk 06:10, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 18:18, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —

^Talk 18:27, 5 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 00:53, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ting Chen

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

reliable sources. Previous AFD in 2014 closed as no consensus -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 11:26, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete likely as he would be best mentioned as part of another article. Pinging past users Tom Morris, Kierzek, I am One of Many, SwisterTwister talk 06:37, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 16:22, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —

^Talk 18:27, 5 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. Perhaps rename also. Sandstein 18:48, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Darul Uloom Bolton

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

There are virtually no sources supporting this article. There is no notability. Even more damaging is the fact that someone took the link to the ofsted report on Jamiyah Islamiyyah and posted it here as a source. Proposing deletion and Salting FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 04:51, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The full name of the school seems to be something like Al Jamiatul Islamiyah Darul Uloom - which (allowing for the usual problems in transcribing from Arabic or Urdu into English) rather suggests that the Ofsted report referenced in the article has simply used a different part of the full name than was used by the article's creator. Assuming this to be the case and as we are dealing with a secondary school, the article looks as if it should be a fairly easy keep under
WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES - even though it looks promotional enough that substantial trimming would be advisable. However, most of the references I have seen seem to be either routine or passing mentions and there seem to be several other schools with distinctly similar names in England (including one in Bury, only about five miles away) - so far as I am concerned, there is enough room for confusion that I would prefer others to check before coming to a firm conclusion. PWilkinson (talk) 23:07, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment. There is indeed a lot of confusion here. Ofsted 26-27 January 2010 and SC 009423 are not relevant to the Wikipedia article's details although the postal address is given as the same. Not only is the latest Ofsted report not 'Outstanding', it is generally only 'Satisfactory' with some items judged as 'Inadequate'. I am tempted to suggest that this article is possibly a hoax. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:05, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment According to the planning section at bolton.gov.uk, specifically here, "AL JAMIATUL ISLAMIYAH DARUL ULOOM" was at 296 Willows Lane, Bolton, BL3 4BT at the end of 2013. It was housed in a former convent. There is a Charity Commission report of 2014 for "Al-Jamiatul Islamiyah Darul Uloom Lancashire U.K." based at Willow Lane, Deane, Bolton, BL3 4HF. That report lists a website at www.jamiah-al-islamiyyah.org.uk which appears to be down ATM and not at Wayback. There was an Ofsted report in 2004 about "Al Jamiatul Islamiya Darul Uloom" at Hospital Road, Bromley Cross, Bolton, BL7 9PY which fits the information in the article.

It just looks like a poor article to me. Mr Stephen (talk) 21:45, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 16:18, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Appears to be a genuine secondary school, which we keep per longstanding consensus and precedent. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:10, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —

^Talk 18:27, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Move I think the name on the OFSTED report should be used: 'Al Jamiah Al Islamiyyah' [17]. Darul uloom seems to be a generic expression which literally means "house of knowledge". Derek Andrews (talk) 19:49, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment These links suggest it is at least a genuine estblishment and support the name suggested above [18][19][20] and this one provides more info though probably primary sourced [21] and has the subtitle 'INSTITUTE OF ISLAMIC HIGHER EDUCATION'. Derek Andrews (talk) 20:03, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Some care needs to be taken in making a move though as the name I suggested above may also be somewhat generic as there is

Jamiah seems to mean the perhaps more familiar 'Madrasa'. Derek Andrews (talk) 20:10, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Keep or Move, appears to be a genuine school. Ljgua124 (talk) 23:14, 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 redirect to

non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:58, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Stanislav Shalunov

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

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

I can only find brief mentions of this person in reliable sources so
WP:BIO is not met. His company Open Garden is notable, but he is not. SmartSE (talk) 16:07, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Cmt I did find one fairly good bio article published by United Jewish Community of Ukraine this month. -
talk) 05:06, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:39, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:39, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:39, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:39, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:39, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Open Garden in any case as I also found links at News, Books, browser and Highbeam so if there is a better article in the future, the chance is available. SwisterTwister talk 06:15, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —
^Talk 18:27, 5 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 00:53, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

MotorCityConnect

MotorCityConnect (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 may be somewhat known locally but my searches found nothing good to suggest better improvement here, here and here (only a few with this last one) and a few other searches found nothing at all, this has also hardly been changed since starting by a SPA in September 2008. SwisterTwister talk 00:06, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 00:08, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 00:08, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 00:08, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I was unable to find significant coverage of the subject in reliable, independent sources. Jujutacular (talk) 18:38, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 16:07, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —
^Talk 18:27, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete no apparent notability. Kharkiv07 (T) 22:57, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 15:32, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agoda.com

Agoda.com (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 creator has affiliation with company of Wiki article, and article seems advertising focused. Icematikx (talk) 15:25, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm the article creator. Here are some points I'd like to highlight. Happy to discuss further.

In light of this AFD submission, the article has been edited and tightened up as of 1 Oct 2015. A full list of references has been reinstated. Language has also been edited to be more objective. References provided in the article are purely editorial in nature from reputable media organizations.

As the article creator of the page, I have complied with Wikipedia's paid contribution disclosure guidelines. Disclosures have been made on my talk page and edit summaries.

Facts provided in the article reflect on the service provided by the company. It intends to provide an objective view of the nature of business. The company is also part of a public listed entity (NASDAQ:PCLN).

The article talks about a service used by tens of thousands of people from around the world every day. The service is a household name in Southeast Asia and warrants an encyclopaedic entry.

The original article was subject to ongoing disruptive edits by user boonchong_chua, whose history of Wikipedia contributions have focused solely on this article. Edits were inappropriate for an encyclopaedia and were in violation of several policies such as no research and vandalism.

This AFD submission also appears to have been made by a user that appears to be suspiciously new. Edit history of multiple AFD submissions suggests motive.

asheshong (talk) 06:33, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:37, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:37, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:37, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Does Boonchong chua work for or get paid in any way from the Agoda company. [22] They have no edits ever other than this article. [23] All their edits seem to be edit warring with various other users, so they should be blocked from it. Dream Focus 03:58, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Boonchong_chua is believed to be a user of the service who has had multiple encounters with customer service. Asheshong (talk) 03:39, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I found nothing better than some Books, browser and Highbeam links. SwisterTwister talk 06:21, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Don't think this warrants a Delete call as the reasons provided by SwisterTwister are not aligned with the reasons for deletion according to Wikipedia:Deletion policy. Please feel free to provide valid reasons or discuss the points stated above. Asheshong (talk) 03:39, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The secondary sources provided appear to be
WP:COI edits by boonchong_chua, but that shouldn't reflect on the article itself. clpo13_(talk) 06:24, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —
^Talk 18:26, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep Agoda is a major travel brand and a household name in most of South East Asia. Notable for being part of the global Priceline Group, whose companies include North American and European brands Priceline.com, Kayak.com and Booking.com. The sources cited are independent and include top tier news organizations in North America, Europe and Asia. The article will be of interest to observers of multi-national businesses operating in Asia. It seems a primary reason the article is considered for deletion is due to the ongoing disruptive edits of user Boonchong_chua. This user has consistently reverted other user contributions with little or no clear explanation, been warned against edit warring and dispruptive editing on numerous occasions, and is using the article as a soapbox to promote opinions as facts. Reykcollider ^talk

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:53, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OpenCloud

OpenCloud (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 article for a non-notable telecoms product and the small company that makes it. The article was created July 2010 by
reliable sources
. The company fails WP:CORP and both it and the company fail WP:GNG. It's been tagged for ref improvement since October 2011 with no sign of improvement.
Note this is unrelated to OpenCloudConsortium, OpenCloudConnect and various projects like php-opencloud which do cloud computing on OpenStack. -- Finlay McWalterᚠTalk 11:58, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:58, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:58, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:58, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:58, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I found no better improvement aside from a few links. SwisterTwister talk 06:32, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —
^Talk 18:26, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete they are no more notable than before. CoronaryKea (talk) 04:51, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 18:47, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Step Up For Students

Step Up For Students (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Unsourced. I will withdraw it once RSes are found.
talk · contribs) 13:00, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
^Talk 13:31, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
^Talk 13:31, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment - Page was created by a now blocked user
^Talk 13:39, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep - There are sources I could find such as this, this, this and this. Seems to pass GNG. Article needs a major revamp though. Regards—
^Talk 13:39, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep or merge to Jeb Bush as the sources are minimally but redirect if there isn't a better separate article. SwisterTwister talk 06:31, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 07:18, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —
^Talk 18:25, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep - I think it's a borderline
WP:BASIC, since while there references which are just passing mentions, there are quite a few of those: "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability". Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:18, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Move - based on the references above (though not the one about dancing!) I think the article could be kept, but it is just one of two organizations currently authorised to adminster the
Scholarship Tax Credit. Derek Andrews (talk) 10:56, 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 merge to
non-admin closure) Kharkiv07 (T) 22:50, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Millfields Charter

Millfields Charter (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 doesn't appear to meet
independent of the founders. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:59, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment. The Millfields Charter is not yet mentioned even once at Physical restraint? Wouldn't that be an obvious target for merging? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:49, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe? There's certainly a need for information about criticism there, but is this particular group important enough to mention by name? I don't really know. I'm always in favor of a good merge, though. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:31, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:24, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:24, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:24, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to physical restraint and I would've merged and closed as such but considering I'm not sure how to merge any of this to that article, I'll wait but I found some links at Books and browser to easily suggest some sourcing. SwisterTwister talk 05:46, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to physical restraint. However, I see the sect at Physical_restraint#Misuse_and_risks_of_physical_restraints is completely unsourced. Perhaps some sources already present in this article, could be used to improve that sect. — Cirt (talk) 13:00, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:53, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dawn (demo)

Dawn (demo) (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 topic lacks
ping}} me. czar 17:45, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete demos almost never gain notability unless they lead to a best-selling game (and even then, who cares about the demo?). Can't find any indication that this was anything other than a small project. Primefac (talk) 18:03, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not delete was important milestone (note the editwar, PrimeFac just wants to punish me for not agreeing with him) - please disregard that vote should there be a tie) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.196.204.46 (talk) 19:18, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Searches turned up nothing to show that this meets notability criteria as per
WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:09, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:23, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:23, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:23, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I'm not seeing better improvement here. SwisterTwister talk 07:02, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:53, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nalu (demo)

Nalu (demo) (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 topic lacks
ping}} me. czar 17:44, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete demos almost never gain notability unless they lead to a best-selling game (and even then, who cares about the demo?). Can't find any indication that this was anything other than a small project. Primefac (talk) 18:03, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails
WP:GNG, no signficant coverage was found on any of the search engines. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:07, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:22, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:22, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:22, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I'm not seeing better improvement here. SwisterTwister talk 07:02, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete as copyright violation. I've created the redirect. Huon (talk) 17:54, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Orb-3D

Orb-3D (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 video game lacks
ping}} me. czar 17:41, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Hi there! Not entirely sure how to reply but the game is actually quite important.
Czar here has been culling pages and replacing them with links to the creator or manufacturer of the subject. Orb-3D while lacking information does contain some information. I think using a search engine would be more productive than vandalising the pages. The "what links here" tool is very important. Being linked to the company that made it was disorientating and I urge Czar to cease this nonsense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.196.204.46 (talk) 17:46, 5 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 00:52, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom

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

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

Orphaned, practically unreadable due to the size, violates
MOS:SCROLL, and under construction for years. Frietjes (talk) 17:13, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. I suppose illegibility is not a reason for deletion, though this one is a good argument for changing that, and I think it violates
List of Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom (quite well, actually--it's an FA), and we have Template:UKPrimeMinisters, and Category:Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom, so this strikes me as an unnecessary quadruplication. Drmies (talk) 17:18, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. How long they lived before and after their terms in office have not attracted much interest/study. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:58, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Looks like it really wants to be a graphic timeline rather than a Wikipedia article. Did you ping the original creator, User:P.hogg, to see if they want to keep a copy in userspace? --Amble (talk) 00:12, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:21, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:21, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:21, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Wow-those were my eyes! Ok-this article is about the most user-unfriendly list/timeline I've seen here. But can someone more knowledgeable chime in and confirm that appalling style is valid deletion grounds? I can't find a provision for such a thing -- just verifiability, reliable sources, encyclopedic (one probably could have found a timeline like this in an old school encyclopedia), and the catch-all of notability.--69.204.153.39 (talk) 04:53, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per
List of Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom. This page in it's current form does not really stand up as an encyclopaedia article. _└^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 07:41, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was speedy delete.
WP:CSD#G3 hoax - references are false JohnCD (talk) 22:18, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Nishit Ashokkumar Mehta

Nishit Ashokkumar Mehta (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 an obviously notable singer. The references in the article don't seem to be about him, and a search for sources don't turn up anything else. The article seems to have been an autobiography as well. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:13, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete In the reference, the original title is "Toshi, Sharib and Swaroop Khan perform at Rajasthan Day celebrations in Jaipur" not "Toshi, Sharib, Nishit Ashokkumar Mehta And Swaroop Khan perform at Rajasthan Day celebrations in Jaipur". The page creator created an auto-biography about himself and created the fake reference name by adding himself, as there is no mention of him in the source. This is the latest version.--The Amazing Spiderman (talk) 16:19, 5 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.

PS 96 (Bronx)

The result was Redirect to List of public elementary schools in New York City (non-admin closure) --  Kethrus |talk to me 10:08, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

PS 96 (Bronx) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats
)

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

Does not meet
WP:GNG). Upon searching for the school, I wasn't able to find much (apart from the fact it exists). --  Kethrus |talk to me 16:12, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. --  Kethrus |talk to me 16:36, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. --  Kethrus |talk to me 16:36, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. --  Kethrus |talk to me 16:36, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - to List of public elementary schools in New York City per guidelines and historic outcomes at AfD. John from Idegon (talk) 09:43, 6 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
non-admin closure) Kharkiv07 (T) 22:48, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Dorian Price

Dorian Price (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)

MMA fighter and kickboxer, but he doesn't meet the notability criteria (
WP:GNG is met either because most of the sources are routine sports coverage or are not independent. I'm OK with a redirect to The Ultimate Fighter: Team Hughes vs. Team Serra.Mdtemp (talk) 14:25, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment This was just created today (don't really like quicky AfD's) but it is interesting that the article
Dorian Price is a redirect as suggested. I am not sure what the author was thinking or how best to handle it - since a copypaste would disrupt things. I have asked a speedy delete of the redirect before moving this article to the correct capitalisation. That said the original redirect was a be bold move but IMHO the best move so an AfD to formalise the process is a good idea.Peter Rehse (talk) 14:38, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 14:38, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've just move the non-capital price to Price and updated the links here. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 11:57, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nominator. Does not meet notability requirements.Peter Rehse (talk) 13:13, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:15, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:15, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now I suppose until a better article can be made. SwisterTwister talk 05:58, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Ultimate Fighter: Team Hughes vs. Team Serra He doesn't appear to meet any notability criteria. I would prefer a redirect to outright deletion, but he doesn't seem to merit an individual article at this time. Papaursa (talk) 02:43, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. (
non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:59, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Jindal Centre for Social Innovation & Entrepreneurship

Jindal Centre for Social Innovation & Entrepreneurship (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails notability of company. The Amazing Spiderman (talk) 14:20, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Referencing the Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) page specific to Non-commercial organizations
Moneycontrol.com ^[3] 3) The_Financial_Express_(India) ^[4] Also please note that Google News Archive has been broken since 2013 as per mentioned.^[5] Jeremywade10 (talk) 18:33, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

References

^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(organizations_and_companies)

^ "India, Pakistan and UK Students Collaborate to Design Sustainable Ventures on Women Safety at the International Social Innovation Challenge". 2 September 2015.

^ "India, Pakistan and UK Students Collaborate to Design Sustainable Ventures on Women Safety at the International Social Innovation Challenge". 2 September 2015.

^ "India, Pakistan and UK Students Collaborate to Design Sustainable Ventures on Women Safety at the International Social Innovation Challenge". 3 September 2015.

^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Free_English_newspaper_sources

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:30, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:30, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:30, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:30, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as this seems better acceptable. SwisterTwister talk 05:52, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect to space food seems to be the overall consensus here (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 06:11, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Food systems on space exploration missions

Food systems on space exploration missions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats
)

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

Substantially duplicates topics discussed in Space food. Roches (talk) 13:30, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge anything useful (and sourced) to Space food, then jettison what's left into outer deletion/redirection space. The title is somewhat misleading; "exploration missions" to me means they're boldly going where no one has gone before, whereas the topic actually also applies to astronauts/cosmonauts (sinonauts?) orbiting the Earth. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:05, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into its own section in the Space food article.--Fixuture (talk) 18:17, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge any useful content to Space food. Dimadick (talk) 21:18, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:33, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:33, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:33, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:33, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sandstein 18:41, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Bryant (Virtua Fighter)

Sarah Bryant (Virtua Fighter) (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 video game character lacks
ping}} me. czar 13:01, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep This video game character has a plenty of
?) Since 1993. And even the claim of it being "every time she was ever mentioned in a listicle" is false, which I can eaily prove by just adding more. In fact I can just give here's some incomplete and sample more print media sources in just English magazines that I own: EGM 155; Arcade 3; GameStar 1; PSM 4; GamePro 79, 88; Mean Machines Sega 48; Official Sega Saturn Magazine 12, 13, 14, 16, 18; 24; CVG 170; EGM2 18; Dreamcast USA 1, and lots more about various aspects of the character and the article. I've got it written down because I've been preparing to work on Virtua Fighter articles before the deletionist Czar started redirecting them (even the list of characters!) without any discussion. In all, another completely frivolous nomination based on false premises. --AggressiveNavel (talk) 17:27, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Can you please scan those pages so we can see the articles? czar 18:52, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I was going to ask about this as well. Its hard to make a call on whether or not there is fictional, in-universe information and a reception section that merely seems to document every time a journalist has made a passing mention about her being called her sexy or a good fighter... Sergecross73 msg me 18:56, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
And what else can one possibly except from a coverage of a fighting game female character, especially a white one (which means an exotic minority character in Japan but who cares), except on how good is she in being female and/or fighting, besides sheer popularity? And in this case, the first 3D-polygonal one but her early 1990s polygoness is discussed already. How about Chun-Li, will we remove Chun-Li? Why not? Why yes? I know you'll disagree on that, but will anyone remain but Chun-Li? Ryu, let's talk Ryu then, what really is he good for? (And dear goodness, "Evil Ryu was noted to be a trope of protagonist gaming characters who reveal an evil alter-ego" - Tropes and characters are different things!) Obviously deletionism is the way, so Ryu's got to go. But OK let's see what can we get else for Sarah let me think, something popular today, like...feminist criticism? Tropes vs Women video on "fighting fucktoys" might be some 3 years late so far, but here's the original feminist criticism of video games, an apparently very influential book from the end of last century, and look who's on the very cover: http://www.amazon.com/From-Barbie-Mortal-Kombat-Computer/dp/0262531682 No, of course she's not from Mortal Kombat (let's not forget to redirect Mortal Kombat characters) but it's a silly book. Oh did I mention even the very list of Virtua Fighters characters was just redirected without any discussion? How is any of this, and all of this, improving Wikipedia in any way? It's not isolated. I'll give you some scans tommorow. --AggressiveNavel (talk) 20:50, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Really not interested in debating anything except for its significant coverage in reliable sources, so I'll just wait for those scans then. Thanks. Sergecross73 msg me 22:43, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here you go: http://imgur.com/a/Ehkmc/all plus [26] that's of course only some. And now let's all move away from unreasonable deletionism like that, generally speaking, please. --AggressiveNavel (talk) 23:24, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. czar 18:49, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. czar 18:49, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Significant coverage clearly demonstrated. AusLondonder (talk) 22:35, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: With the sources brought up here discussing the character in detail, I see no good reason for the article not to be kept.
talk) 12:35, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep - I'm fine with keeping with some of the magazine articles that have been found, but please, someone clean this article up. It should be written according to some of the sources presented here, not all this GameZone voted her "best breasts" garbage that currently makes up her Reception section. (Beyond the fact that its bad writing, it'll keep us from further AFD debates on this. I do understand Czar's nomination, the article's shape is terrible as is.) Sergecross73 msg me 15:01, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There is significant coverage and subject is clearly notable. Satellizer (´ ･ ω ･ `) 09:26, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've yet to see anyone actually explicate what out-of-universe coverage makes this character any more independently notable than the other characters she's listed beside. There's that first pin-up spread scan with a paragraph of commentary and the rest are passing mentions from articles about the game, not the character. If this is weight for anything, it's for a section or page dedicated to Virtua Fighter characters, not its own page. czar 23:06, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As long as she's discussed in-depth, does it really matter if it's out-of-universe coverage? It seems a bit ridiculous to me that her own detailed article must be redirected and crammed into the page for Virtua Fighter characters, all because her coverage is not out-of-universe.
talk) 01:22, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
I do find it particularly noteworthy that she seemed to have whole article's dedicated to her in some of those scans. That is definitely more attention than most individual characters seem to get from fighting games... Sergecross73 msg me 16:43, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I can only see one scan (the first page, the pin-up article) that can be construed as being a whole article dedicated to her, and it would only amount to a few sentences, at most, in the WP article. (And we have no info on whether it follows/succeeds similar articles for other fighters.) The rest are covered in context of the series, usually a single sentence mention, if you'll take a closer look. My point here isn't to wipe Bryant from the encyclopedia, but to say that she should be covered with due weight. She is not known as a standalone figure but as one of the Virtua Fighter characters and should be covered alongside them (whether in a section or its own list). If she were the subject of dedicated, in-depth coverage, there would be no dispute worth having. czar 18:42, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would have to disagree with the notion that she's "just another Virtua Fighter character" (someone like Lion Rafale would be more fitting for that statement). Along with Akira Yuki, she's one of the first characters people think of when they think Virtua Fighter. In fact, she's even appeared as a guest character outside the VF series before. But as long as she gets enough coverage, it shouldn't really matter how well-known she is outside of VF.
talk) 00:35, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete or redirect for Czar, and how well-known she is outside of VF does matter, from
WP:VG/GL - "If the content only has value to people actually playing the game, it is unsuitable. Always remember the bigger picture: video game articles should be readable and interesting to non-gamers." Rainbow unicorn (talk) 03:25, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

That paragraph you've referenced makes no mention of notability, just not to overly detail the article, and before that, it also says simply "A general rule of thumb to follow if unsure".
talk) 03:59, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
From your last two responses, it seemed relevant to add and I don't believe that you or others have adequately addressed Czar's concerns.

Can you explain how the scans of parts of magazine articles provided by AggressiveNavel are significant, reliable, independent coverage? [27] [28] part of larger character list, see bottom right corner, [29] don't see her on this game review, [30] don't see her, [31] [32] interviews with game creator, [33] review of gameplay, other characters are present, [34] with other videogame merchandise, [35] don't see her, [36] "showcase" with other characters, [37] "showcase" continued, don't see her here, [38] other characters on the page, [39] interview continued.

"she seemed to have whole article's dedicated to her in some of those scans", doesn't look like it to me. Rainbow unicorn (talk) 05:57, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(
WP:GAMECRUFT
and trivia, and completely irrelevant to notability.

In your second point, you repeatedly claim that the scans don't constitute sigcov as "other characters are present", but that's untrue.
WP:GNG clearly states, and I quote, "Significant coverage [...] need not be the main topic of the source material"; thus the presence of other characters is also irrelevant. Satellizer (´ ･ ω ･ `) 06:23, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Well, some of these images are kind of hard to see. But in any case, it doesn't matter that she's not the only character these articles discuss, because under
talk) 06:13, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
The presence of her and other characters minor <Oxford dictionary definition(what Google currently displays when you search for "word definition"): lesser in importance, seriousness, or significance> inclusion in articles that are probably game reviews, which will likely go over other aspects of the game(each scan is not a whole article), is relevant to the value of the source no matter what you say. What makes this character stand out from the other characters in the same review, other characters from other articles of the same magazine from which the source came, and the thousands of other characters being included in game reviews that are published all the time? Let's see what others think.

Just a reminder that I couldn't see this character anywhere in some of the scans and that the interviews are not independent coverage. One of the two ask a creator if Sarah is still his favorite character and that's it. For the first two scans I say it's part of a list, or something larger since it's titled "Virtually Perfect", bottom right corner says "Virtual Fox" and it begins with "Why are all our Virtual Foxes so violent?". "Virtually Perfect" appears to be a reoccurring feature in the short-lived Arcade magazine [40] , doesn't seem like a widely known or notable accomplishment. Rainbow unicorn (talk) 19:51, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"The presence of her and other characters [...] is relevant to the value of the source no matter what you say" ....no it isn't, and it's not what "[we] say", its what Wikipedia policy says (and quite explicitly too). Point me to the policy which claims on how the presence of other characters diminishes a source's value and then I'll believe you.

The fact that Sarah Bryant doesn't appear in some scans is a non-issue as you could simply just use the ones where she does appear. Keep in mind that plenty of sources exist in the article already and it really becomes quite incredulous how a subject can have so much independent coverage and still somehow not meet sigcov. (I don't understand your argument on how Sarah needs to "stand out" from other characters so I can't respond to that.) Satellizer (´ ･ ω ･ `) 05:52, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it seems to me that policies are just being made up here, and what is being said is a contradiction to what GNG says about how coverage doesn't need to necessarily be independent. As for Sarah "standing out", it could be argued that she indeed does "stand out" when she gets more coverage, compared to other Virtua Fighter characters.
talk) 06:26, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Where does it specifically say that it isn't relevant? See where we could go with that? Simply saying that it isn't doesn't convince me of anything. What I think it does do is make it less significant, explain to me how it doesn't if you disagree.

That was just general reminder, incase other users comment here, so they don't have to look through it all. There's already some agreement that the sources currently in the article are not good (Czar's nom, Sergecross73's first comment, and me]. And it doesn't matter how many sources exist for a subject if they're not good. Each scan is not a separate article, probably part of a larger game review, and other character are included, her parts in them aren't that big if you look at it this way(to me at least).

WP:GNG clearly says that: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." I'm assuming you ment to say that for her one question in an interview, insignificant anyways. Remember, each scan contains other characters so it's not really more coverage compared to others and there's some agreement that the sources currently in the article re not good. The source you recently added is a mention [41]. Rainbow unicorn (talk) 11:01, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Not entirely, as Sergecross ultimately went with a keep vote. And you're still taking this out of context. When I said "independent", I didn't mean sources that are affiliated with the subject, like their official website or something (which is what that part of GNG is referring to), I was referring to how whole articles dedicated to her are not required. GNG also says ""Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it need not be the main topic of the source material". The sources brought up here and in the article fits the bolded criteria.

When I gave my argument about her "standing out", I meant she gets more coverage in sources in general, compared to other Virtua Fighter characters

The source I've added to the article wasn't necessarily to try and establish notability, but to just to add an opinion of Sarah Bryant as a guest character outside of Virtua Fighter.
talk) 14:02, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Sergecross's earlier comment is completely valid(see what he said in his keep), until he/she says it's not, AfD is not a vote, there are no sides to this, we can have a mix of agreements and disagreements. Rainbow unicorn (talk) 01:14, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
He just said that the article is not currently in a good state, which has no bearing in notability. While the consensus at AFDs are not determined solely by the number of votes, "keep" does overall have 3 more votes, all of which are supported by policy-based arguments.
talk) 01:50, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
No, they're patently not policy-backed arguments—they're me-too single-sentence pile-ons that say the
general notability guideline is about whether something is a topic in itself. Everything that needs to be said about this character can be said in a small section of a list. "elected her as having one of best breasts in video games"? "the third top 'girl on the Dreamcast' in 2000"? These superlatives are junk and no serious AfD would consider them substantial enough to include in an article, nevertheless be the basis for a dedicated article. The scans are the same story. czar 03:15, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
@
Czar and Rainbow unicorn
: "Patently not policy-backed arguments"? I beg to differ. Over the course of discussion we've outlined repeatedly how the coverage here meets the GNG, how it is significant coverage, and why Sarah Bryant deserves an article. Meanwhile, the arguments put forward for deleting the article are either based upon misinterpretations of policy, or are flat out wrong, or are based on subjective opinion. But since you guys still claim that we "haven't addressed your points", despite the fact that I have, repeatedly, I'll put it to you this time in dot point form, because apparently prose is too hard to understand.

Incorrect argument for deletion: "I've yet to see anyone actually explicate what out-of-universe coverage makes this character any more independently notable than the other characters she's listed beside." This is immaterial; the only reason Sarah Bryant has an article and the other characters do not is that someone had actually bothered to make one for her. Of course, if this bothers you then you could always pitch in, help out and create articles for other characters instead of engaging in deletionism at AfDs. Additionally, this argument for deletion is backed up by no Wikipedia policy - none of the guidelines on notability mentions anything about coverage having to be "out of universe" or that the character has to be "more independently notable than other characters". If you really think that this is backed up by policy, then please supply the link to said policy!

Incorrect argument for deletion: "how well-known she is outside of VF does matter, from WP:VG/GL - "If the content only has value to people actually playing the game, it is unsuitable. Always remember the bigger picture: video game articles should be readable and interesting to non-gamers." I've already said it once and I'll say it again: this quote has been taken out of context. Read the entire paragraph over at VG/GL which this quote fits into and you'll see that it is explicitly about gamecruft and completely irrelevant to notability.

Incorrect argument for deletion: the references supplied are not usable as Sarah Bryant is listed with other characters, or in part of a game review. Again, this is backed up by absolutely no Wikipedia policy. Indeed,
WP:GNG
explicitly claims otherwise with the quote "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it need not be the main topic of the source material". If you still disagree then cite a policy that backs up your views, and don't forget to link to it.

Incorrect argument for deletion: The sources present in the article are "not good" (to quote Rainbow unicorn) or "junk" (to quote Czar). Ok, I get that you
don't personally like the sources, but no policy whatsoever has been supplied on why they cannot be used. They are all from reliable sources and I am absolutely fine with the sources present in the article. "No serious AfD would consider them substantial enough to include in an article" - don't worry, we are being plenty serious, I shit you not. Satellizer (´ ･ ω ･ `) 04:03, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Look, if you're not going to respond to our breakdown of the sources, which is the only aspect worth discussing at this point IMO, then there's nothing to discuss. I think the above (patronizing) rant is unwarranted—you've already established that you read the GNG to be really permissive. If you have nothing new to add, all the above does is make third parties less likely to address the actual source concerns raised. czar 04:14, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but... are you serious? As a person with some experience debating IRL all that I can say is that you've pretty much done a stock standard dismissal and forced change of topic, which is 1) rude and 2) very ineffective. Please explain how I didn't respond to your "breakdown of the sources", but, more importantly please explain how you're entitled to expect us to respond to every one of your arguments (which we've tried our hardest to do, backed up by policies and all) when it's obvious that, with a comment like that, you don't give a trifle about ours? Despite being asked multiple times to provide a policy to support your arguments on how 1) Sarah Bryant being listed with other characters or in a game review makes the source worth less, or 2) why "out of universe coverage" is necessary, or even explained how the sources in the article are "crap"? You believe my "rant" to be "patronizing" (when it's actually an explanation on how I responded to your concerns, why they aren't correct, and you specifically asked for it), but what's really "patronising" here is your outright refusal to discuss points raised by other parties or even address concerns that have been asked for repeatedly. Frankly, we're being snubbed here, and you're attitude of superiority on how your source concerns are "actual" while everything else we've asked for repeatedly is "not serious" (and "patently not policy-backed") is impudent and not appreciated.

Look, I respect you and all and what you do for the wiki, but I'm not going to leave a discussion just because you say so, as you've not-so-subtly implied. Especially when my concerns are being brushed aside while I've made effort to respond to yours, including why I believe the sourcing to be useful and appropriate, backed up by policy. Satellizer (´ ･ ω ･ `) 05:14, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What? There is very clearly an impasse not just about this article but in understanding of the GNG vis-à-vis fictional characters—one that has been much better addressed in a more public venue:
WT:VG#Character articles. The widespread consensus there answers your two explicit questions (re: not just aggregating mentions from sources and out-of-universe context). So unless someone is going to do a source-by-source breakdown (like Rainbow and I did) explaining how the sources cover her, in specific, in any significant depth at all—that is, not throwaway lines about her skills or breasts—there's nothing to discuss here. And even still, I'm not convinced that would be productive. As for the rest, no one asked you to "leave" and I don't consider this a "debate"—I have zero interest in debating or entertaining the above personal accusations and I hope you'll respect that. czar 15:52, 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. MBisanz ^talk 00:52, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rafael Ríos

Rafael Ríos (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 boxer does not meet
WP:NBOX Peter Rehse (talk) 12:45, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 12:45, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails
WP:GNG. Mdtemp (talk) 14:49, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:14, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:14, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails
WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 02:39, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Does not meet GNG. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 16:14, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:33, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rakan 8000

Rakan 8000 (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 product. No evidence of notability. Fails
WP:GNG. - Mr X 12:15, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - Almost a speedy delete. A Youtube video with like 7 hits, fails
verified! - Pmedema (talk) 15:23, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per above. No references to be found at all. --Non-Dropframe _talk 15:25, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:13, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:13, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Topic had no meaningful hits in a
ping}} me. czar 23:16, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete for now as there's not much to suggest better. SwisterTwister talk 06:00, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep as no one has vehemently voted delete (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 05:56, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Commercialization of the Internet

Commercialization of the Internet (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 feel that the topic could be notable, but probably not in this state. For one, the article's definition of "commercialization" is vague. Plus, it is mostly from a United States point of view, which could easily be fixed, but is still a major problem. This could be merged to the
csdnew 11:24, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep or Userfy I think this article has potential, but it was just created today. We should give the editor at least a week to build it up. If they would like more time, it could be userfied or moved to draft space. There is MUCH to be said on this topic, and just from my own reading there will be no dearth of sources. LaMona (talk) 00:11, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve the article. --Fixuture (talk) 17:47, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but agree with LaMona that it could be userfied if that would be helpful for Thevideodrome to further along the Quality improvement process. Good luck, — Cirt (talk) 02:40, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:12, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:12, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:12, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:51, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis Contreras

Dennis Contreras (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 boxer - does not meet
WP:NBOX Peter Rehse (talk) 11:09, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 11:09, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails
WP:NBOX and has no significant independent coverage.Mdtemp (talk) 14:52, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Fails
talk) 00:13, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:10, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:10, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No significant coverage to meet
WP:NBOX. Papaursa (talk) 02:33, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 15:26, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lizard bite

Lizard bite (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 warrant an individual article. Just because a type of animal has a venomous bite doesn't mean we need an article on it. Most sources online talk solely about how to treat lizard bites, not lizard bites themselves. Delete. Mr. Guye (talk) 22:45, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Mr. Guye (talk) 22:47, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Mr. Guye (talk) 22:47, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Mr. Guye (talk) 22:48, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

t@lk to M£ 01:09, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. There seems no reason at all to treat lizard bites as distinct from other bites. The ICD codes given don't - they lump lizards in with other herps, the snakes. If this is an article, it should be merged into snakebite. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:24, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Although there's nothing mentioned as such there is a section at Lizard#Relationship with humans which mentions the bite being painful so there's not really any need for this article. –Davey2010^Talk 01:47, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

t@lk to M£ 02:10, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Redirect Lizard#Relationship with humans (talks about aggressive lizard behaviours in the first paragragh, which is one kinda related location) or Animal bite (more general, as a medical ailment). 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 04:45, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lizards bite plenty of other creatures besides humans; typically, they bite their prey. This should not be seen as a purely medical topic. Andrew D. (talk) 12:45, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The bite of policy to improve these rather than deleting them. Andrew D. (talk) 12:42, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

AIUI, that type of bite is specific to the Komodo dragon (as the only one of comparable size, and yet relatively small compared to the large prey it will take). It's certainly a distinct form of attack ("injure and wait"), but even that would be better in the species article, not in a vague article on "lizard bite". Lizard bite is both too broad, and insufficiently distinct. Non-toxic and non-venomous bites from lizards are no different than those of non-venomous snakes. Gila monster bites are specific to the heloderms, and don't have a real envenomation mechanism. The Komodo dragon is an outlier amongst other lizards. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:31, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As noted by Andy Dingley, the ICD codes provided are not unique to injuries caused by lizards (they are primarily snakebite codes). I particularly object to keeping the article on the grounds of the komodo dragon's purported "injure and wait" disease-inflicting bite, because current scholarship has roundly rejected the idea that komodo dragons are especial disease vectors in this manner (earlier evidence of pathogen load in their saliva was the result of feeding on non-native water buffalo in feces-fouled water). Just because an animal can bite does not mean a specific animal bite article is warranted. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:08, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✈ 10:36, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete, essentially per Squeamish Ossifrage, above. But without prejudice to recreation if an extremely well sourced article can be demonstrated. — Cirt (talk) 12:58, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not sure why this would get its own article, but agree with Cirt's assessment above.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:09, 13 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. There is actually only one "keep" opinion here, and I largely discount it because it does not address the concerns raised. Sandstein 15:30, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of League of Legends champions

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/List of League of Legends champions

Articles for deletion/List of League of Legends champions (2nd nomination)

List of League of Legends champions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

The list of characters does not meet WP:GNG/WP:NLIST or any criteria for inclusion that justifies the spinout from the main article. Even with the incredibly
✉ 23:57, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Can you be more specfic as to why you think this way?--Prisencolin (talk) 00:51, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. With rare exceptions, nearly all game characters aren't iconic enough to merit spinoff articles. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:54, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Actually, according to Wikipedia's guideline on
list of BLP people.--Prisencolin (talk) 19:18, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. This list is basically
flyer 10:13, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Speedy Keep and cleanup. See rationale from previous AFD nom.--Prisencolin (talk) 04:13, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You did not comment on the first AfD... please explain why you think this should be kept, or at least which opinion from the previous AfD you are referencing. Also, please precise which
✉ 13:42, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
I think the arguments made by others on the first nom still stand for this one. This nom falls under SK criterion 3 because I strongly suspect that the nominator glossed over the articles and because of dislike or indifference for the subject decided that it should be deleted.--Prisencolin (talk) 07:54, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If your claims are that weak, you're much better off sticking to commenting on content, not editors. (Besides, in my experience, Salv seems rather into all these various video game sub-culture topics...) Sergecross73 msg me 17:21, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Out of all the arguments I expected in this AfD, I definitely did not expect someone to assume that I WP:DONTLIKE
✉ 18:13, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

talk•cont 19:05, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. Nominator is correct; it's also correct that this is fancruft. — Scott • talk 08:35, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:44, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:44, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:44, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~. Needs TNT, but I established in the last AfD how these characters are individually the subjects of significant coverage. Most of the characters do not warrant their own articles, but there is plenty of sourcing available (here are the links I pulled for characters at random last time: Shyvana [42][43] Draven [44][45][46][47][48] Syndra [49][50][51][52][53][54]). There's easily enough to write at least a paragraph on each character's noteworthy features, which would necessitate an article separate from the main one. But, yes, as it is, the article doesn't justify the spinout from the main article, though I believe I've demonstrated that there is
sufficient sourcing to justify a standalone list. czar 15:10, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete For others. I'd say that the above sources are not signifiant coverage. All of those websites are dedicated to videogame related stuff, them putting out a piece on a character does not make it nor any combination of said characters notable. GameZone was used for 7 of the 13 sources(more than half), and it's article has been tagged for notability for over almost a year. And GameZone has been around for over 21 years, longer than YouTube and reddit combined, not a good sign. Generally if what's writing about a subject isn't wiki-notable, then the subject isn't either. I suppose something like this would need coverage in national news sources, not just videogame news sites. Rainbow unicorn (talk) 04:15, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All of those sites, including GameZone, were vetted as reliable at
WP:VG/RS, which is to say that they aren't random blogs. (Being around 21 years would usually be a marker of quality too, no?) It's very common to make lists of things that may not be individually notable but are discussed both as a set and have individual coverage as well. Also I agree that the article is in awful condition—the point is that the topic itself has enough coverage and just needs to be blown up and started again. All things considered, I'm rather amazed at the amount of deletes on this page considering all of the other character articles that are kept with nothing near the degree of potential sourcing this topic has. So, yes, other stuff exists, but please do see the other fictional character articles, especially if you think this type of article requires national sources as a baseline. czar 04:25, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
I never said they weren't reliable, I said they weren't significant. It's averaging maybe, 15 sentences per source? And the sources for individual characters pretty much have the same information. Maybe the thing about GameZone isn't a bad thing, it has been around along time, but so has my local newspaper. It's just that if it might not be wiki-notable and there's other videogame sites that have been around a shorter time, yet they are more well-known and/or respected, maybe it isn't the best source. Rainbow unicorn (talk) 05:02, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The vetted sites have been used at AfD long enough that I don't see your concern. Yes, they are specialty outlets, but they are assumed to be of national than of "local" interest. If you have an issue with a specific one of those links, feel free to raise it, but they should be in-depth enough to constitute significant coverage (not passing mentions). And they were just a random sample... try any one of the other characters in a
video game reliable sources custom Google search and see what you get. czar 15:14, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

For Shyvana: [1] - 10 sentences total discounting last section to get 8, [2] - 7 sentences total. For Draven: [3] - 16, discount first two and last two sections to get 9, [4] - "art trailer" video, basically the character being drawn, [5] - 31 sentences, take out first three sections, last section, and "What's the ult going to be like on Draven?", "Another overpowered, brute, executioner. Lovely.", "While Riot is likely to wait until E3 next week to officially unveil Draven's abilities, it seems one site got hold of his abilities early. These haven't been confirmed.", to get 18, most of the other content is
WP:GAMEGUIDE
info on character moves(abilities), so we're left with a few sentences describing the character, [6] - 16 sentences, could further reduce this and is way too specific, it's about the "skins" of the characters, [7] - 7 sentences, could further reduce this, and it's even more specific, about a "skin" giveaway.
Showing the insignificance of the sources for two of the three characters you gave should be enough. I found that they are, pretty short and can be assumed insignificant, are too specific, have similar information as others, and can you can further reduce them. I shouldn't have to do this for each character since I will likely get similar results. They are pretty much standard "video game news", not even of interest to most gamers, just those who play League of Legends, so I would consider it "local" in the video game world. I don't understand how something like "localised Italian launch nears, players to get free Gladiator Draven skin" [7] can be assumed to be of national interest. Rainbow unicorn (talk) 18:47, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

... but having multiple paragraphs of dedicated coverage across multiple sources is itself the marker of
general notability guideline, whether it's seven or 18 total sentences apiece. That is plenty to write a detailed section on each character, replete with out-of-universe context and all. Nothing else to add without going back and forth. These characters are sourced way better than most of the fictional characters I send to AfD. Please do keep an eye on Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Fictional elements in the future. czar 20:55, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
I don't they can be considered multiple paragraphs of coverage if they have an average of less than 10 sentences each when you take out the useless parts and each source says pretty much the same things about the character, minus [4], [6], [7] which are off topic and shouldn't be considered. Just because we can (barely) write a paragraph on something doesn't mean we should.

Also still is
WP:GAMEGUIDE
"avoid lists of gameplay weapons, items, or concepts, unless these are notable in their own right". A "League of Legends champion" can be considered a concept. Honestly, when I first saw the title I though it would be about real world champions, like the winners of major tournaments.

From
WP:VG/GL: "A general rule of thumb to follow if unsure: If the content only has value to people actually playing the game, it is unsuitable. Always remember the bigger picture: video game articles should be readable and interesting to non-gamers." Rainbow unicorn (talk) 23:43, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
There's not much that I can add to this assessment; the quoted coverage is extremely poor and not sufficient to merit the retention of this list. — Scott • talk 09:53, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Among the dozens of sources on these characters, I'm confident that I could source and write a full article (and that the characters have depth of coverage), but it's a low priority. Do as you will, consensus. But once again, if you think this sourcing is poor, for the love of God, please see the other video game nominations at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Fictional elements. czar 18:54, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✈ 10:35, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - The sources that I've spot-checked have mostly looked like this - reliable sources, sure, but they're not saying anything of substance. I don't feel it meets the
WP:NLIST... Sergecross73 msg me 17:21, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment There are the professional League broadcasts, especially the world championships in month, that get tens of millions of views and can be used as a source.--Prisencolin (talk) 22:42, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody's disputing the game's worldwide popularity. But "broadcasts of world championships with tens of millions of viewers" cannot possibly be considered in-depth/dedicated
✉ 23:13, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Well if you word it that way, then "worldwide popularity" should be synonymous with
WP:GNG, no? The sources people have looked very likely to not including Chinese and Korean language sources. Also, strictly speaking these aren't really fictional characters, these are components of a game, just like pawns and queens are components of chess.--Prisencolin (talk) 23:55, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
I'm not sure there can be any serious argument about the fictional status of these video game characters (seriously!?), but nobody's disputing that League of Legends meets WP:GNG beyond the shadow of a doubt. The characters (champions), by themselves and on a standalone basis, might not. ☺ ·
✉ 00:04, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Since this is technically a List page it made no sense to group the champions based on their origin since that is not a valid enough classification for these champions in a simple list page in anyones opinions. The simple table should be made collapsible and put on the main page or left as is for the main viewing source of the article (because i made it lol) U Hwotm8 (talk) 10:07, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This recap of a World's match from is from SB Nation which has generally been seen a Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_National_Basketball_Association/Archive_17#SB_Nation reliable for sports reporting.--Prisencolin (talk) 00:15, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to
WP:CRUFT to be around. LjL (talk) 21:02, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:51, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lauren Elton

Lauren Elton (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)

Don't believe this person meets WP:NACTOR. Not mentioned in the Dance Academy or All Saints pages, has had minor roles. Article lacks RS Gbawden (talk) 10:28, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 00:06, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails
WP:ENT and can't find any decent sources.Doctorhawkes (talk) 10:34, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:56, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:56, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:56, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there's simply no improvement here. SwisterTwister talk 06:08, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:51, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Hernández (boxer)

Daniel Hernández (boxer) (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 boxer. Does not meet
WP:NBOX Peter Rehse (talk) 10:10, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 10:10, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails
WP:NBOX and the only coverage is a press release and a link to boxrec.Mdtemp (talk) 14:51, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails to meet
WP:GNG is not met. Papaursa (talk) 02:36, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:51, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Desperate Dudes Productions

Desperate Dudes Productions (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)

Film production company with no finished projects and one single film,
WP:GNG. -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 08:21, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete: No hope of making it into a half-decent stub article out of that mess. Ceosad (talk) 04:33, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:54, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:54, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:54, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now as there's nothing to suggest a better article. SwisterTwister talk 06:08, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:51, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur David Murray

Arthur David Murray (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:SOLDIER, I don't see anything that makes him notable Gbawden (talk) 07:56, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:06, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:06, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:06, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete
WP:NOTMEMORIAL and fails GNG, only one source which appears autobiographical. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 03:14, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. Looks like a memorial article written by relatives. Lieutenant commander; hardly a "high-ranking officer"! -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:30, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now at best until a better article with better sourcing can be made. SwisterTwister talk 06:11, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Sources did not turn up enough in-depth coverage to show they pass
WP:BIO. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:14, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 15:32, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Burhan Bashir Bhat

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

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

Biographical article of 3 year old child who was killed in firing by terrorists in
WP:NOTNEWS, article should be deleted. Human3015^TALK 13:17, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 13:22, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Provisional Keep this Double murder of father (described as a "former member" of terrorist group Jamiat-ul-MujahideenJamiat-ul-Mujahideen) with child in his arms certainly received substantive [55] national coverage in India. I think it can be kept, but only if the article's author or another editor takes the time to turn it into a better written, NPOV article on this as a double murder, or as one in a series of such murders as described in the Indian press accounts. As presently written, this is POV attempt to use Wikipedia as a political advertisement and should be deleted or merged.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:42, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep if the coverage is sufficient. SwisterTwister talk 06:32, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 07:19, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - sufficient coverage....--BabbaQ (talk) 19:23, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: don't we usually in these cases, where there obviously is not coverage to write a regular bio, default to an article title like "Murder of XX"? Pinging (Human3015—E.M.Gregory—SwisterTwister—BabbaQ). -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 07:47, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose. SwisterTwister talk 07:50, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think coverage is not enough to rename it to "incidence". Only 4-5 lines can be written on this incidence. It can be part of parent article of Human rights abuse. Such incidences of killings are nearly daily thing in Kashmir. --Human3015^TALK 10:43, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly it should be renamed in a more standard way. There is enough in the major papers for a brief good article on this double murder.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:53, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 07:48, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename, sufficient coverage, but I agree with the conversation above. Kharkiv07 (T) 22:45, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a
WP:LASTING impact. Another victim of a long civil war, today big news, tomorrow forgotten. Kraxler (talk) 13:48, 13 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 00:50, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Spiritual Warrior (indigenous)

Spiritual Warrior (indigenous) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

WP:NOT, article was previously PROD'd and author removed the PROD in likely misunderstanding, claiming an oral primary source as a means to establish notability. See article history. Also see help desk discussion here. RegistryKey^(RegEdit) 07:39, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Per
WP:SYNTH. There are plenty of other places on the web that this theory can be placed. MarnetteD|Talk 12:36, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - it is an interesting read but unfortunately it is complete
original research. - Pmedema (talk) 00:42, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - Not encyclopedic. Written like an essay (and non-neutral) rather than article. Inadequately sourced and apparently
original research. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:51, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Strong delete - clearly
WP:OR. ukexpat (talk) 17:34, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

delete fails
WP:GNG - no third party published materials about the subject. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:01, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

DO NOT DELETE! This page is real wisdom and the rules that make it a candidate for deletion are the rules that are preventing indigenous wisdom from having any credibility in the western world. There are third parties that have published material on this. It is a gem of an entry, done by an actual Hawaiian Kahuna, the knowledge is precious and should not be deleted. It is well-accepted knowledge among the kahuna's of hawaii but it is an oral tradition so very little is written down. This is the beginning of the lifting of kapu, or restriction, for this sacred knowledge and the kahuna is reaching out to wikipedia to help distribute this knowledge that is real and ancient and needs a good place to live on the internet. PLEASE DO NOT DELETE as this knowledge is important for the new spiritual warriors to find so they can come back to their source! Please find your own spirit warrior and DO NOT DELETE. The world needs this information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.234.106.118 (talk) 00:06, 6 October 2015 (UTC) — 72.234.106.118 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment - Sorry unknown IP, it is not the policies of Wikipedia to use this forum to publish
Five pillars. If you had a user page, I would put a 'Welcome' tag into your talk page to help you with the creation of your article. - Pmedema (talk) 00:53, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete as per all the above delete views. This is interesting, and there are probably several places where it might be published, but Wikipedia isn't one of them. DES ^(talk) 02:45, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is an essay, it's not an article about a subject. Maproom (talk) 06:42, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hawaii-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:03, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:03, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:03, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 16:15, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Derek Buttles

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Derek Buttles

Articles for deletion/Derek Buttles (2nd nomination)

Derek Buttles (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)

Buttles seems never to have played a regular season game, and is therefore not notable, bu the usual standards for this sport. DGG ( talk ) 03:19, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There seems to be more coverage about his attempts to go to the NFL than most players, see, e.g., [56] [57], perhaps because he doesn't come from powerhouse footballs areas for high school or college, but ultimately he is not substantively different than other bios deleted for not playing a regular season NFL game.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 12:19, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 07:09, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Coverage I'm finding is local, including: (1) this and this from the Bangor Daily News, (2) this from Portland Press Herald, (3) this from Warsaw's County Courier, (4) this and (5) this from The Daily News (Batavia, NY). Cbl62 (talk) 02:16, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails
WP:GNG. No significant independent coverage. Local coverage is not enough.Jakejr (talk) 03:31, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 07:28, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a
WP:GNG pass, per Cbl62's sources. Ejgreen77 (talk) 02:15, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment - I'm struggling with this one, guys. The subject is not particularly noteworthy as a college football player (and never played in an NFL regular season game), but putting aside the usual transactional coverage of injuries and free agent signings, he has received significant coverage in the small town, local newspapers of his home region in upstate New York. To my way of thinking, the subject is one of those ex-CFB players who is primarily known for his efforts to make an NFL squad. This is a gray area for me: technically satisfying a minimum level of coverage for GNG, but with nothing substantive underneath. He was a decent CFB player, but what significant coverage there is, is about a failed effort to make an NFL team. Is that encyclopedic? Do we really want several hundred of these perma-stub article about unsuccessful NFL free agents? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:05, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:50, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Piyush Tiwari

Piyush Tiwari (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)

Dubious notability and sourced only to self-editable page Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:16, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 08:30, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete likely as I found some links at Books, News and Scholar but nothing to suggest immediate improvement. SwisterTwister talk 06:53, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 07:14, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article is CV of "average professor" and the single reference is his homepage. Agricola44 (talk) 16:08, 7 October 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Delete. Nothing in the article stands out as particularly notable and nothing in the article indicates a pass of any
WP:PROF criterion. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:55, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete-Searches do not show they meet
WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:05, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:50, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mom's Breastaurant

Mom's Breastaurant (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)

According to the organization's web site, the single location organization hasn't been active since 2012. Their Facebook page is missing. I can find only one reliable source about the group. Based on
Non-commercial organizations
, it fails the two key tests:
Organizations are usually notable if they meet both of the following standards:

The scope of their activities is national or international in scale.

The organization has received significant coverage in multiple
reliable sources that are independent
of the organization.

Based on these standards, I think this group and the article lack notability. — btphelps ^{(talk to me) (what I've done)} 04:40, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:06, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:06, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:06, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there are simply no signs of improvement and this has not changed much since starting in June 2009 with my searches finding nothing good at all. SwisterTwister talk 06:52, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 07:12, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - I looked, but failed to find sufficient sources to satisfy
WP:ORG. Some small blogs, social media, and primary, but not enough otherwise. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:16, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Weak Delete My searches show there's just not enough coverage out there. A complimentary news piece or two isn't enough. Additionally, nearly all the sourcing would seem to be from 2008/2009 (when this sort of thing was in the news quite a bit), which suggests this is lacking long-term notability. I'm wary of deleting an article that has remained unchallenged for such a long time, but don't see a way forward involving keeping it.--69.204.153.39 (talk) 04:17, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not enough in-depth coverage to show they meet either
WP:NORG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:57, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Withdrawn by nominator (
non-admin closure) — JJMC89 (T·C) 21:51, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant – Sinai Province

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

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

The article is the same as all the articles deleted here and here and hence should be deleted. Mhhossein (talk) 06:46, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn by nominator: The article seems notable per explanations. Mhhossein (talk) 05:44, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sinai Province is a militant organisation that is based in the Sinai Peninsula. It has been reported on by
WP:RS
including:

Reuters [58], AFP [59], BBC [60], The Guardian [61], The Independent [62], Al Jazeera [63], The New York Times [64]

The US State Department recently amended it's terrorist designation of
Ansar Bayt al-Maqdis to include the following [65]
: "Also under the FTO and E.O. 13224 authorities, the designations of Ansar Bayt al-Maqdis (ABM) have been amended to add several aliases, including ISIL Sinai Province (ISIL SP). In November 2014, ABM pledged allegiance to ISIL, and has since used ISIL Sinai Province as its primary name. ISIL leadership accepted ABM’s pledge that same month. ISIL Sinai Province continues to attack Egyptian targets."

The group is a major player in the
WP:RS as refs, showing the topics notability. Gazkthul (talk) 07:13, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Strong Keep - As it is a notable topic and has received a large amount of media coverage by this point. This is also an active branch of ISIL operating outside of Iraq and Syria. LightandDark2000 (talk) 10:49, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:37, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:37, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:37, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:37, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:37, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The Sinai insurgency is a separate issue from ISIS in Iraq/Syria. They have affiliated themselves to ISIS, but that doesn't make them the same group. However, this article might need to be merged to the Sinai insurgency. Buckshot06 (talk) 05:47, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Buckshot06: Why do you think the article should be merged? Mhhossein (talk) 12:56, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If the group is effectively the same group as the one that started the insurgency. Similar to GSPC which became AQIM. Buckshot06 (talk) 20:41, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Buckshot06's merger proposal. Mhhossein (talk) 18:01, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There's a major if in my thoughts: has anyone done the research to tell if the Sinai bedouin insurgency is effectively the same as ISIS/ISIL-Sinai Province? Buckshot06 (talk) 19:52, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Affiliation with ISIS plus real and growing capacity of this group is notable.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:24, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 00:30, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Zack Niizato

Zack Niizato (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 obvious non-notable actor with only a few roles so unless he actually got considerable Japanese coverage, there's simply nothing to suggest keeping. Pinging tagger Michitaro. SwisterTwister talk 06:22, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:24, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:24, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly
Talk to my owner:Online 06:37, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete I cannot find anything on him in Japanese. Part of the problem is that I'm not sure of the
WP:NACTOR. Michitaro (talk) 12:59, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

As a Spanish speaker, I can confirm he is not notable. SwisterTwister talk 17:38, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No reliable sources or third-party coverage to indicate that this person is notable or has played any roles other than extras. --DAJF (talk) 11:53, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Searches did not turn up anything to show they meet
WP:NACTOR. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:54, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:50, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

VGMaps

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/VGMaps

Articles for deletion/VGMaps (2nd nomination)

Articles for deletion/VGMaps (3rd nomination)

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

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

After some dramatic activity by PeterAmbrosia with the previous AfDs, it would be beneficial to get a new take for this as I found nothing better than a few links at Books, News and browser. Pinging past users
Salvidrim and Mark viking. SwisterTwister talk 06:23, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:28, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:28, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article topic lacks
ping}} me. czar 06:54, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete lack of reliable coverage, fails GNG.
talk) 12:30, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

I have procedurally reformatted this vote, as it was formatted incorrectly. --
talk) 16:53, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. Sounds like a useful resource, but it hasn't gotten coverage in reliable sources. Too bad we don't have a place we can merge this. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:56, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Have to agree with the rest that the current sources do not constitute significant coverage to satisfy
WP:GNG, despite there being several. I don't see any new sources since last AfD. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 15:17, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was
non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:03, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Community Resources Against Street Hoodlums

Community Resources Against Street Hoodlums (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)

Unneeded fork. Redirect to LAPD John from Idegon (talk) 06:06, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Appears to meet sourcing and notability thresholds. Additionally, The LAPD article is long enough as it is. --
talk/_contribs) 09:03, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:55, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:55, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:55, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:55, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as this seems acceptable and better as a separate article with no urgent need of deleting. SwisterTwister talk 06:02, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- sourcing and notability trheashold meets. --BabbaQ (talk) 14:13, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Seems to be enough content here for a stand-alone article. -- œ^™ 17:36, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:50, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Der Golem (magazine)

Der Golem (magazine) (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 found noting to suggest much needed improvement with my best search result this and we usually think of magazines and other publications as notable or at least known but I doubt anyone would care or miss this article (it only publishes twice a year suggesting few to almost none attention) as it has been untouched with never anything close to change since starting (by a German IP, with only two edits and this one included as one of them) in November 2004. At best, this would be best mentioned elsewhere such as a list. SwisterTwister talk 04:44, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:45, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:45, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:45, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:45, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. The article is not backed up by reliable secondary sources, nor am I able to locate any. The only reason I qualify my !vote with "weak" is that I don't read German, so it is possible that something is out there that I am unable to uncover. -
Location (talk) 21:01, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:08, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:35, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A search with a preference for German web content didn't find any secondary sources. On the publishers web site is a statement that the magazine has been ceased with a last edition in 2006. --— Ben Ben ^(talk) 12:34, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep as no one has at all suggested deleting since this AfD started (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 06:04, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kat Blaque

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Kat Blaque

Articles for deletion/Kat Blaque (2nd nomination)

Articles for deletion/Kat Blaque (3rd nomination)

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

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

This article is a textbook failure of WP:IMPORTANCE, and also has several exacerbating circumstances pointing towards deletion. Notability guidelines require evidence from reliable independent sources, and of the eleven references for this article, five are self-published videos and one does not mention the source at all (CNN). Of the remaining five sources, an article from “THE LGBT UPDATE” is non-independent and only 54 words, “Awesomely Luvvie” is a self-published blog that fails reliability guidelines, and “Mic.com” is a highly progressive and hence non-independent source. This leaves us with two sources that could plausibly qualify as reliable independent sources: MTV and Huffington Post. Both of these have noticeable political slant and both are considered to be low-quality or “clickbait” websites. As such, the subject must fail notability guidelines. Furthermore, the article appears to have been self-written in violation of WP:AUTO and undisclosed WP:CONFLICT (as evidenced by the inclusion of non public biographical details), the article reads like a resume, and the article is an orphan. PhysicalRemoval (talk) 04:22, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article could definitely be improved, but there are RS which cover her, which is somewhat interesting, as she is an internet phenomenon. Buzzfeed meninists] article chose a whole bunch of memes and one 10 minute video by Blaque, which it called a "great video" refuting the critique of feminism; The LA Times, did an article in 2014 (shows is not a fleeting phenom) talking about the importance of YouTube as a "lifeline" to the Trans community and about 1/3 of the article is devoted to Blaque. This article from the independent in the UK] shows that Kat Blaque reaches an international audience. I also see nothing to support the nominator's claim that the article is self-published or published by someone with a COI. SusunW (talk) 06:23, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article seems sourced and the topic seems somewhat notable. Dimadick (talk) 06:45, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Article comfortably makes the case for notability, and the nominator's attempts to wave off reliable sources that they don't like is not on. The Drover's Wife (talk) 09:40, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I agree with above comments. Funcrunch (talk) 14:22, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:17, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:17, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:17, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:17, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:17, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Sufficient sources to pass
WP:ANYBIO. Some of these sources are stronger than others: Huffington Post, Pride.com, Upworthy, Independent, LA Times, Bustle, guest on HuffPost Live, The Advocate, The LGBT Update, MTV, Independent Journal. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:31, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. Was able to find hundreds of secondary sources at Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. Also, agree with astute analysis by Rhododendrites, above. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 04:27, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:53, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:53, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep.
WP:SNOW. Editors can use normal channels to consider the possibility of splitting. postdlf (talk) 21:47, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

List of law clerks of the Supreme Court of the United States

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

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

Does not meet criteria for standalone lists/Topic is so incredibly broad that the number of listings can quickly approach infinity Jax 0677 (talk) 03:59, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A well-defined, finite (albeit large), and highly significant list. The importance of Supreme Court clerkships, and the quality and usefulness of this list, are both noted in a December 2014 article at
Talk:List of law clerks of the Supreme Court of the United States#RfC: Should the List of law clerks of the Supreme Court of the US be trimmed down to include only notable clerks?. --Arxiloxos (talk) 14:54, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Snowball Keep. This most certainly does meet the criteria for standalone lists. Per
WP:ATD). This article can certainly use some editing, but AfD is not the way to go. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 15:08, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. This is an incredibly notable and encyclopedic page to have. I'm certainly sensitive to the concerns over at
Talk:List of law clerks of the Supreme Court of the United States#RfC: Should the List of law clerks of the Supreme Court of the US be trimmed down to include only notable clerks?, but none of that constitutes grounds for deletion.--69.204.153.39 (talk) 22:04, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep - all would be notable lawyers. Bearian (talk) 00:17, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but divide to several pages - it takes too much time to load. It certainly goes quickly for some computers, but not for mine - and many people have much older and slower computers than I. K9re11 (talk) 09:13, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - @K9re11:, I agree in part with your statement. If the article cannot be kept, we need to have the discussion about splitting the article, as it is approaching 1GB. --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:59, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:51, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:51, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:51, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AndrewPeterson12 left their vote on the talk page, so I have copied and pasted it below. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 15:22, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article is tremendously useful for law students and attorneys and may be the only such list in existence. This topic is important for the following reasons: (1) SCOTUS law clerks routinely become prominent attorneys, judges, and Supreme Court justices, and keeping track of these individuals is of political importance; (2) for those intersted in becoming SCOTUS law clerks, this article shows which circuit and district judges have sent law clerks to SCOTUS; (3) this article is a useful starting place for empirical research regarding prominent attorneys and SCOTUS Law Clerks.— Preceding unsigned comment added by AndrewPeterson12 (talk • contribs)

Keep and split (also signed a post from the talk page). Law clerkship is
notability guidelines are satisfied as well. The page though is already creating page load problems so I'd suggest a split per Wikipedia:Article size.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:08, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete.
SOFTDELETE per low participation herein. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:35, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Trustive

Trustive (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'm not entirely sure if this is fully notable as the best results I found were this, this, this and this and it seemed to have gotten the most attention around 2007. SwisterTwister talk 06:06, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:07, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:07, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:07, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:07, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:07, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 07:17, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 02:26, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Searches turned up some hits but were either brief mentions or press releases. Can't see how it passes either
WP:NCORP. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:51, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was keep. Never usually close on one !vote but been up 2 weeks and the sources all meet BASIC so wrapping up early. (
non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:05, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Peacefield (band)

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

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

This seems like a rather obvious open and shut case of non-notability and I found no better links than here and here, I could continue searching but this seems obvious to me. It's worth noting there's not much at their website which seems rarely updated and there's also not much at their social pages and lastly this has hardly changed since starting in November 2007. SwisterTwister talk 03:51, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 03:51, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 03:51, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 03:51, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 02:23, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I found a mixture of coverage from several sources, some brief, some not. They also had a track in the soundtrack of the film Kingpin. Coverage includes [67], [68] (probably written by the band), [69], [70], [71], [72], [73], [74], [75], [76]. --Michig (talk) 08:41, 5 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. with
non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:40, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

EGM Green

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/EGM Green

Articles for deletion/EGM Green (2nd nomination)

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

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

There weren't many comments at the first AfD and editing has changed since February 2008 and my searches actually found no recent and better coverage with these results [77], here and here. No one loves environmentalism more than me but there's simply nothing to suggest better improvement here. Pinging the only still active user Eastmain and notifying author Rankun (although it seems there's certainly not active anymore). SwisterTwister talk 21:41, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 21:43, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 21:43, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 21:43, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep without enthusiasm. The company isn't exciting, but I think it's notable. The coverage shown at http://egmgreen.com/news_press.html and http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/2008/11/12/slot-machines-and-gaming-tables-going-green-80410 is probably sufficient. I see that the most recent date on that page in January 1, 2010. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:24, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:10, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 02:22, 5 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 00:50, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Truelove

Stephen Truelove (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)

Of course his works seem to be before the Internet but I found some here, here and here so I'm not entirely sure if this has better notability and improvement; it's worth noting the subject briefly edited this article in 2009 shortly after this articls started in February 2007. Pinging Jerome Kohl for comment. SwisterTwister talk 00:06, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, what do you wish to know? I created the article in February 2007, as noted. It currently cites five sources. I believe that Mr Truelove did make some changes to the article. What exactly is the issue?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 00:13, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not entirely sure if he's notable and if there's better sourcing. If he is notable and there are better sources, very well. SwisterTwister talk 00:49, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. Suppose that he is notable, but there are no better sources? (This same criticism could be leveled at any article at all.) Or do you have specific issues with one or all of the sources cited?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 03:55, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 00:07, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 00:07, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 00:07, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:09, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To rephrase my question: Which of the five cited sources fails to meet the minimum standards for reliability? It can always be objected that better sources would be preferable, but this is a counsel of perfection.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 03:55, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 02:21, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jerome Kohl, there are problems with the sources. The source BY him is not a third-party source. The Sunoloco source is just a few sentences - not a good contribution toward notability. With the dissertation (which is not generally considered a published source), since he isn't named in the title as one of the foci of the study, it isn't clear how much there might be about him in that source. The McCoy work isn't cited anywhere in the text of the article, so it isn't clear what it contributes. The awards that are mentioned (which could count toward notability) are not sourced. His list of compositions also is not sourced. (I found a source here [78], but it is so close to this article that I suspect it may have been copied from WP.) I would say that the article lacks basic wp:verifiability. Given that he is a musician, a few reviews of his work would go a long way toward bolstering this article. LaMona (talk) 00:43, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for responding with your detailed criticisms of the sources. First of all, let me point out that dissertations are generally regarded as published sources ("printing" is not the same thing as "publishing"), but that is not really the question here: it is whether dissertations are WP:Reliable sources. That article states, in the section "Scholarship": "Completed dissertations or theses written as part of the requirements for a PhD, and which are publicly available (most via interlibrary loan or from Proquest), can be used but care should be exercised, as they are often, in part, primary sources." This particular dissertation is not, even in part, a primary source. Consulting the source itself which, like most American dissertations, is publicly available through ProQuest, is the best way of determining what portion of it is dedicated to Mr Truelove, and the answer is, approximately one-fifth. It is not conventional to include an annotation to such a fact in a bibliography, but it could be done in this case, if it pleases you. I have read this dissertation myself; would it help if I looked for a link to it (even if it had to be a "subscription only" link to ProQuest)? Second, indeed you are correct about reviews. Two of the items you mention (McCoy and Nordin) are in fact reviews. I'm not sure where you get the idea that Ingvar Nordin's review amounts "just a few sentences". Perhaps you only looked at the introduction. Eight different CD recordings are individually reviewed (the links are in the sidebar). Purely as an example, I quote the tenth paragraph from the first of those eight reviews:
This music has all the strength and inner significance of Beethoven’s late string quartets as well as the persistence of some of the post-asylum works by Giacinto Scelsi, and the emotional web is complicated, never easily sorted out – but flowing, all the time flowing, in a relentless natural force, like the sleep-walking fulfillment of a categorical imperative.

The sound of the instruments has real body, real anatomy, almost enabling you to smell the wood lacquer, sense the surfaces of the rounded wooden vessels of resonant vibrancy.

“Allelama Chakratour” is nothing short of wondrous; a tonal materialization of the finest moments of a composer’s most honest creativity. There is love in this music, in a pure, soaring, suspended form; without any weighing attachments of human selfishness…

There are perhaps seventy-five paragraphs all told. Hardly what can be called "just a few sentences".

I shall look for a source for those awards. They cannot have fallen out of the sky.

As to the source by the subject, it cannot of course be counted as a third-party source. However, at the risk of once again quoting the guideline on reliable sources:
Primary sources are often difficult to use appropriately. While they can be both reliable and useful in certain situations, they must be used with caution in order to avoid original research. While specific facts may be taken from primary sources, secondary sources that present the same material are preferred. Large blocks of material based purely on primary sources should be avoided. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors.

This source is used solely to support the circumstances of his dissertation research. Do you find a problem with the appropriateness of this use? If so, perhaps it can be addressed with an suitable edit to that sentence.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 06:17, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Jerome Kohl, thanks for pointing out the reviews on the Sonoloco site. However, looking at the background, that is an individual's site (Ingvar Loco Nordin). Therefore, not RS. LaMona (talk) 14:16, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DGG I would appreciate it if you commented as so a consensus can be accomplished. SwisterTwister talk 06:24, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Meets neither WP:PROF nor WP:CREATIVE. Publishing a doctoral thesis (and a DMA is, as the article says, an advanced practice degree, normally for performance or composition, not a research degree such as a PHhD. The thesis requirement on such degrees is normally less substantial. ) There's no evidence of major performances or major recordings or major first place awards, or critical comments on the compositions, just a few local or blog reviews. DGG ( talk ) 18:07, 6 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
non-admin closure) Kharkiv07 (T) 22:42, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Hex (novel)

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

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

I'm not finding references for this book that confirm its notability. Mikeblas (talk) 00:28, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to
WP:BKCRIT. Fuzchia (talk) 00:53, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete and redirect Ceosad (talk) 04:50, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:43, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:43, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:43, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete and redirect as this seems best. SwisterTwister talk 06:07, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect - seems the best course of action. Not enough notability for stand-alone article. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:40, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:49, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hiteeka Ruchchandran

Hiteeka Ruchchandran (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)

Other than the brief mentions in the current sources, searches turned up nothing to show this person meets either
WP:NACTOR. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:18, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. --  Kethrus |talk to me 16:45, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. --  Kethrus |talk to me 16:45, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. --  Kethrus |talk to me 16:45, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. --  Kethrus |talk to me 16:45, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per above. --  Kethrus |talk to me 16:46, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as we'll often consider moving to the one best known work but this seems best deleted for now. SwisterTwister talk 07:10, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:49, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nature Living

Nature Living (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 band which does not meet
WP:BAND. My searches have found nothing about this band to prove notability. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 00:06, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 00:06, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 00:06, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Exactly and this has existed since July 2010 with hardly any change and giving more than enough time for improvement but there obviously isn't any and my searches found no better sourcing. Not to mention with the official website closed and the social media only active now, there's nothing to suggest better notability and improvement and frankly the Japanese Wiki article needs to be go as well (unless this can actually be improved later). SwisterTwister talk 07:36, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment One issue here is that this band technically has charted.
WP:GNG might help. There is some coverage on the net in Japanese: [80], [81], [82], [83], including some album reviews and mentions on a major site like CDJournal [84]. But at this point I hesitate to judge whether this is sufficient. Michitaro (talk) 00:27, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete for lack of notability. The issue raised by Michitaro is valid, but it is not at all clear how much weight we should give to albums that chart so low on such a large chart. I reach my position by looking at the article itself and noting that, in the lead paragraph, the only asserted claim to notability is recording two cover versions (and with no indication that these covers charted on their own). NewYorkActuary (talk) 22:35, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Given the absence of any in-depth coverage or third-party sourcing, it's hard to see how the basic notability criteria are satisfied here. --DAJF (talk) 11:55, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - charting only means it "may" be notable. NewYorkActuary's point is spot on. Searches show it lacks in-depth coverage. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:38, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2015_October_5&oldid=1142624269"

[3]

[4]

[5]