Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 October 7

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

Jaban Ali Khan

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

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

Non-notable, run of the mill businessman. PRODed by

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

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

• Comment: This should really have gone as a result of the BLP Prod process in March 2014, but the notice was removed by an IP. [1] AllyD (talk) 06:48, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: My searches are finding only mirrors of the same text and
  nothing of substance that could support the article. (A couple of news pieces mention "the late Jaban Ali Khan" in the context of police detention but these appear to be about someone else.) Fails biographical notability criteria. AllyD (talk) 06:55, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per non, per AllyD. Should have been PRODed. --nafSadh did say 17:31, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as there's simply nothing to suggest better with my best search links here but that may be for someone else. SwisterTwister talk 06:51, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 22:32, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Abul Hasan M Sadeq

Abul Hasan M Sadeq (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

• Delete unless proper inline citations to reliable sources are added.--DThomsen8 (talk) 21:41, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 16:23, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 16:23, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Now, this article only serves as a
  WP:ACADEMIC doesn't necessarily hold. Only criteria that may apply for him is 6. The person has held a highest-level elected or appointed academic post at a major academic institution or major academic society.. However, per note, the institute has to be major and significant. Asian University of Bangladesh only has minimal significance to warrant an article for its own, but not for its vice-chancellor(s). --nafSadh did say 17:28, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete Nom and nafSadh sum it up well. A vice chancellor, but at an ordinary, commonplace university.
  professor test. Furthermore, searches of the usual Google types, HighBeam, and JSTOR turn up only an occassional passing mention (e.g. "was in attendance"), and a handful of articles he has authored with a small handful of citations of them. There is little verifiable information available, and nothing important to say about the subject, so a stand alone article is not warranted. Worldbruce (talk) 19:40, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

Wuchoo Know (Nicki Minaj song)

Wuchoo Know (Nicki Minaj song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats

)

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

PROD was removed by creator.

• Delete - I see no chart history for the song and it simply does not meet guidelines as a single requires its own notability. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:09, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nominator and CNMall41. Doesn't seem to have any significant coverage by reliable sources, article doesn't establish notability. Melonkelon (talk) 21:29, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete but create a redirect at
  Wuchoo Know to Playtime Is Over (mixtape). It's not an unreasonable redirect without the qualifier. Black Kite (talk) 22:09, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]

I absolutely agree about keeping a redirect. Makes sense. --CNMall41 (talk) 00:08, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the redirect at

Wuchoo Know. --Dэя-Бøяg 03:24, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete - This is the 5th creation, always by LilDennie Wikipedia, despite any warning and a block in September. --Dэя-Бøяg 03:24, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Playtime Is Over (mixtape). I see no source that the song was even a single. But to be fair, everyone, an article doesn't have to be deleted before it is redirected. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 04:32, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your comment on articles not needing to be deleted before redirection, however it can't hurt, and may prevent restoration of the article by its creator (whom removed the AfD tag from the atticle 5 times). Azealia911 _talk 06:01, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:57, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:57, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and salt has been repeatedly deleted for failing WP:NSONGS and is unlikely to become notable in the future Snuggums (talk / edits) 05:29, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, Salt and then Redirect to Playtime Is Over (mixtape) all in that order :) –Davey2010^Talk 21:58, 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.  Sandstein  19:24, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Madhuraa Bhattacharya

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

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

It isn't clear that she qualifies for

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Largo Plazo (talk) 20:40, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Largo Plazo (talk) 20:40, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - "written from a fan's point of view" is something that can be corrected and is no reason for deletion. However, failure to meet notability guidelines is. I found a few references such as these passing mentions [2], [3], & [4] so there is more than just mirror sites. I am not sure if there is a name issue as the article states she changed her name in 2013. I guess I will wait and see if someone has any better luck finding more in depth sources prior to casting a !vote.--CNMall41 (talk) 21:17, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Unfortunately, despite several warnings and G11 speedy deletions, the same contributor keeps recreating the article, under variations of the title, with the same promotional wording. I see no option but to delete. Deb (talk) 10:58, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:09, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for now as the listed sources are instantly signs this may not be improvable material and so if there is none, there's nothing to suggest keeping at this time. SwisterTwister talk 17:20, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - searches did not turn up enough to show they meet notability. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:33, 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. Courcelles (talk) 22:36, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Huang

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

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

Non-notable individual lacking non-trivial support. reddogsix (talk) 20:28, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I created the article on
  WP:GNG. The best article out there is the Forbes article, but it is about the company and only dedicates a small amount of wording to Huang. I also isolated searching for his name and the other companies mentioned and also came up with nothing in depth. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:25, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:29, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:29, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:29, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for now as although I particularly found links at News immediately, there's not much for a better separate article. SwisterTwister talk 06:30, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

Galit Hasan-Rokem

Galit Hasan-Rokem (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Do not believe the subject of this unsourced

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. J04n(talk page) 19:23, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. J04n(talk page) 19:24, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. J04n(talk page) 19:25, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Passes ACADEMIC because she had held a named chair, the Max and Margareth Grunwald Professor of Folklore at the Hebrew University in Jerulaem and was the Head of the Mandel Institute of Jewish Studies. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 20:12, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep While the article as it exists in the English Wikipedia would be a mere Keep, the corresponding Hebrew Wikipedia article passes the our notability guidelines with flying colors. Let's see this article expanded using the material and sources available there, in addition to those readily available in a Google search. Alansohn (talk) 21:17, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep. I have added sources to prove notability from reliable sites, including her biographical listing in the Encyclopedia of Jewish Folklore and Traditions. Yoninah (talk) 23:56, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Withdraw I am withdrawing my nomination J04n(talk page) 00:07, 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.

Bridgewater Systems

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

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

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

• Keep - Company meets
  WP:GNG and previously publicly traded before being acquired. Here are some references [5], [6], [7], [8]. There are a ton of brief mentions which can help fill out content in the article in order to make it more than just a list of projects. If the article is kept, I am more than willing to do the article cleanup. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:35, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:13, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:13, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:13, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep company was listed on the Toronto Stock Exchange between 2007 and 2011 before being bought out, so it has quite a bit of coverage especially during that period [9] [10] [11]. The article is poorly written but shouldn't be a reason to delete. --  R45  ^talk! 20:48, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The article is not well-sourced at all, but notability and such attach to the topic of the article, not the article as it is now. As
  WP:NPOSSIBLE reminds us: "The absence of citations in an article...does not indicate that a subject is not notable. " This was/is a public company with a ton of editorially independent discussion about it.--69.204.153.39 (talk) 20:14, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep - Company is notable, secondary reliable sources regarding the company have been produced (see above), and it passes
  WP:AFD before nominating more articles - this article is a clear 'Keep'. ~Oshwah~ ^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:36, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep only if it can be improved. SwisterTwister talk 06:23, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the

list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:08, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

• Comment I've made some edits to the page to improve some of the issues mentioned here.
  talk) 15:55, 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.

Kubrick Mons

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

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

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

• Oppose I was planning on saying "no opinion", but if your reason for deletion is that there are insufficient sources, then you should add better sources per
  WP:BEFORE. — kwami (talk) 18:48, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]

My reason for deletion is that the source doesn't even say the geological feature is called kubrik mons. It would also violate the notability requirement Huritisho 18:58, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep There are adequate sources available for a stub. Seems intuitively clear that the feature is not going away and people will continue to want to know about it. The name is "informal" for now, perhaps, but that's OK — if it gets a different, more official name, we can always move the article. --Trovatore (talk) 18:51, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The source doesn't even say it is called kubrik mons Huritisho 18:59, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This one does. So do several others that you can find just by clicking the link that was automatically added by the {{find sources}} template. --Trovatore (talk) 19:13, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is also the possibility of moving it to Charon (moon)#Geology Huritisho 19:06, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, adequate sources exist for a stub, and the feature is intuitively notable. I'm sticking with keep. --Trovatore (talk) 19:13, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Neutral, now tending weak keep. Trovatore has found a source showing that the moat mountain is indeed called Kubrick Mons, informally. This also says it. --JorisvS (talk) 19:21, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just trying to cancel this darn nomination I started. Huritisho 19:41, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep as this seems acceptable (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 19:18, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Peggy Speas

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

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

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

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

• Strong keep. Clearly notable. Concur with Hauserivy. Sources on file already denote significant contributions to cultural preservation as well as language. SusunW (talk) 22:44, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep per Hauserivy and SusunW. The Drover's Wife (talk) 00:05, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per
  WP:SNOW. Author of a widely-used text book. Bearian (talk) 18:14, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep Notable and I've added more references. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 22:14, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Meets WP:PROF. DGG ( talk ) 18:58, 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.

Bernie jamon: ang huling halakhak

Bernie jamon: ang huling halakhak (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

No evidence of notability at all, no Google results for the title combined with "Bernie Jamon" except this page and one other WP page that logs speedy deletion candidates. Fails

Note: This debate has been included in the

(talk) 17:46, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete: without sources, it's impossible to know this is even real. ubiquity (talk) 18:16, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alts:

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

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

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

• Delete for (at kindest) being waaaaaaay
  WP:NF. If it ever gets coverage, the topic might be resurrected. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 20:16, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:14, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete. No WP:RS, possible hoax.--RioHondo (talk) 23:40, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: This is a pretty blatant hoax. Initially I was going to just say that this was likely a hoax given that the lead actor is fairly well known and is pretty regularly covered in English language websites (or English searchable websites) and there's no mention of this film anywhere. However a look at the editor's talk page shows that he tried to create a similar article there for a film released in 2025 that's based on a book by the same name as this film. Given that there are no sources out there and it's highly unlikely that there would be no coverage in English for one of Cruz's new roles plus we have content on the user's talk page that gives off the strong impression that this is a hoax, I have to assume that the quacking here means that this is a
  (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:47, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 22:37, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremy Balkin

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

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

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 17:12, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 17:12, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 17:12, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 17:12, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for now as I found some links at News, browser and Highbeam but there's nothing to suggest better improvement. SwisterTwister talk 17:13, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete He seems marginally notable. Marginally. His wealthy father was a director at McKinsey, won the Order of Australia, and doesn't have an article. The son is less notable; he's been loosely associated with important people and events, but hasn't done anything notable himself. His career high point seems to have been one TEDx talk. John Nagle (talk) 17:48, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

Machinson Sisters

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

)

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

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 02:01, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 02:01, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment There is a bit of coverage here but I can't read the whole book, only use the Google Books preview feature. Other than that I couldn't find anything that looked reliable.
  (talk) 02:35, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment Looks like they existed: see this "antique chromolithograph print" complete with kittens in the crotches. I will go with Delete, as these sisters were a copycat act (pun intended) of the
  Barrison sisters. They both had the same "would you like to see my pussy" routine. I sense that I could go on and have a pun or double-entendre in every sentence, but I will stop now.New Media Theorist (talk) 04:27, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Redirect to List of vaudeville performers: L–Z#M. They existed, and redirects are cheap. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:13, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to List of vaudeville performers: L–Z#M as a plausible search term. Source searches are only providing passing mentions (e.g. [13]). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:24, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 22:38, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Slammed (play)

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

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

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:26, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:26, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for now as I found nothing better than this and it's interesting to note that there is a published mirror book at Books. Notifying taggers Jaguar and Animalparty. SwisterTwister talk 06:53, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:53, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

Charlotte Stokely

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

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

Fails pirnbio and gng. Nominations don't count

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:56, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:00, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:00, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 22:13, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - NOTE: I have recently expanded the article under consideration here. The subject here
  model for American Apparel and has "had significant roles in multiple notable films & television shows" (as basically already stated above). Guy1890 (talk) 04:05, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • A couple of points on your vote Guy. Firstly The film (Eve's Secret) is according to its article a made-for cable erotic film. To me that's not mainstream and not significant and I note that there is no evidence that the film is itself notable. I have therefore listed it for discussion at AFD. Secondly, I don't believe that taking part in a reality show counts as featured and again there should really be critical discussion of her performance to lift this into the required zone for PB#3. I'm not sure why you are citing ENT as that does not apply to porn performers by long precedence..
    Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:24, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]

The relevant standard in PORNBIO is "Has been featured multiple times in notable mainstream media", which means that there needs to be more than one featured appearance (in the film in question here, Ms. Stokely starred as the title character "Eve", and Ms. Stokely was one of the contestants on the reality show in question here) and that the type of media needs to be notable (which basically means that it needs to have its own Wikipedia article) and mainstream (of which both Cinemax and Playboy TV are considered, IMO, to be mainstream media).

Subjects of Wikipedia articles can obviously be evaluated under many different inclusion guidelines, and the subject here has appeared as a mainstream model in the past. Therefore, she can be evaluated under the NMODEL standard, which (in this case) is very similar to the relevant PORNBIO standard anyways. Guy1890 (talk) 02:30, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep she featured multiple times in notable mainstream media.--Hillary Scott`love (talk) 12:22, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where? Sources please? Or is just another made up vote from you?
    Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:10, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Delete. Fails PORNBIO and the GNG. Softcore erotica is not "mainstream" work, per established practice. The American Apparel-related coverage includes no significant content regarded the article subject herself, mainly passing mentions and unverifiable self-sourced claims, and would justify no more than a delete-and-redirect to the subsection of the American Apparel article. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 14:33, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - There do not appear to be any significant "unverifiable self-sourced claims" in the article under question here at this late date. The fact that the subject here has appeared as a mainstream model for American Apparel in the past is well-established at this point. Guy1890 (talk) 04:30, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • and that does not make her notable unless someone has written about her modelling for them in RS.
    Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:29, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • And the subject's account of how she entered the porn business ia self-sourced and unverified -- more accurately, her two entirely different and irreconcilable accounts, both referenced in the article. Her version of her hiring by American Apparel falls into the same category. Right now, all the biographical info in the article is as likely to be kayfabe, if not fabrication, as it is to be accurate. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 15:49, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"And the subject's account of how she entered the porn business"...is, in a word, unimportant. It's also neither unusual nor notable at all. I'm not aware of any Wikipedia policies that prohibit the use of self-sourced information in Wikipedia articles, especially for completely non-controversial or non-notable information.

Again, that "Stokely has modeled for several American Apparel advertisements" is an established fact, beyond any reasonable doubt. Guy1890 (talk) 07:45, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:BLP requires the use of high-quality, reliable sources. An article subject who tells thoroughly incompatible, unverifiable stories about her own professional career simply isn't a reliable source. The fact that's she's appeared in a few advertisements may be an established fact, but it's far, far below the standard required to demonstrate notability. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 17:19, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Delete - Fails GNG. Carrite (talk) 07:10, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Guy1890. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:49, 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. Courcelles (talk) 22:38, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rahul "RJ" Jain

Rahul "RJ" Jain (edit | 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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:27, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:27, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:49, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for now as there's nothing to suggest better and the coverage seems to be the same such as this so there isn't anything lasting to suggest a better article. SwisterTwister talk 06:49, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 22:38, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Giorgia Marin

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

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

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:33, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:33, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or simply redirect to her one film although the latter often causes trouble with independent notability for a separate article and such so either will be good. SwisterTwister talk 06:58, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 22:39, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gulf Coast Community Foundation

Gulf Coast Community Foundation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 20:02, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 20:02, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• delete fails WP:ORG. quality sources lacking. LibStar (talk) 06:41, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Any other articles than the originally nominated one must be nominated seperately Courcelles (talk) 22:39, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ovation Global DMC

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

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

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 19:18, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 19:18, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 19:18, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: lots of press release and trade magazine coverage but couldn't come up with anything in RS; fails
  WP:CORP. Vrac (talk) 03:03, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]

P.S. @SwisterTwister: maybe it would be better to have a separate AFD for Lestra; since it is an unrelated company and has some coverage it would be cleaner to be able to separate the votes. Vrac (talk) 03:36, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Deletion for Ovation , but the other article needs renominating. DGG ( talk ) 19:09, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DGG Simply for curiosity though, what would you thoughts of Lestra be? I would also appreciate if you'd comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeffrey W. Schroeder, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lawrence Dial and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eva Nazemson which have gotten low voting attention. SwisterTwister talk 19:35, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

Jean Hilliard

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

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:39, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:39, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep We look for continuing coverage two of the reliable sources posted are from 2015 showing the subject has been covered for 3 decades. Also sources describe the case as a miracle. The uniqueness of the case lends itself to notability. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 22:47, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Miracle" is not a claim of notability that gets a person into an encyclopedia — it's an inherently

non-neutral assertion. And the fact that one or two human interest stories might look back on something that happened 35 years ago does not demonstrate that the subject has been covered in a sustained way "for three decades", if you can't find any sources that are dated anywhere between 1981 and 2015. Bearcat (talk) 00:15, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

The subject here is clearly verifiable by reliable sources. Here is a book source from 2002 [14] and another medical source from 1983 [15]. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 00:39, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Uncertain but maybe weak keep simply because this seems interesting and acceptable. SwisterTwister talk 07:07, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, as unique case discussed in-depth as the singular focus of secondary sources. — Cirt (talk) 06:07, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

Erik Christensen (snowboarder)

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

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

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 18:58, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 18:58, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 18:58, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, in 2008 I tagged it with the {{notability}} tag, so yeah, even then I agreed with deletion. Amazed that it lasted so long. -- Zanimum (talk) 20:49, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My edits in this only involved two cleanup edits to the Phil Shao article. I have no idea why I was singled out from among the other editors to that page. I have no personal interest in either article. I'm not sure these two deletions should be bundled however. Jason Quinn (talk) 15:47, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete no sources other than youtube--failing GNG.--JumpLike23 (talk) 06:58, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom and other comment. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 22:27, 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 Fatally flawed. This AFD was a mistake from the start, nominating two subjects with no apparent connection at all. Reboot this as two AFD's if desired, but this one is so flawed from the start that it cannot reach a consensus to do anything. Courcelles (talk) 22:50, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bethan Nia

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

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

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

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

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

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

Question: @

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:56, 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. Courcelles (talk) 22:53, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wajih Ull Hussnain Nizami

Wajih Ull Hussnain Nizami (edit | 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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:41, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:41, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as there's simply nothing to suggest better. SwisterTwister talk 07:04, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

Sebastian Brown

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

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

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

Note: This debate has been included in the

list of Musicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:15, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

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

Fair enough, but I still don't see how the article fails to satisfy #1, for the reasons I listed above. Nate diddly (talk) 22:25, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Very convincing argument by Nate Diddly, it seems that the article already satisfies the criteria outlined by

• Delete for now but feel free to draft and userfy as there's not much else aside from the current information and my searches simply found some of the same coverage here and here (one of the links was also included at Books). SwisterTwister talk 07:09, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NMUSIC exists for a reason. Why are we inventing additional requirements for notability? Where are these new requirements coming from? Please refer to Wikipedia:List of policies, or cite some precedent. Nate diddly (talk) 19:31, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

At this moment, the only one I can think fits best is music notability guidelines as the current sourcing does not set him apart from any ordinary musicians and will likely even need better coverage local notability much less all around notability. SwisterTwister talk 21:16, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please note that while you're allowed to comment in an AFD discussion as many times as you like, you're not allowed to make more than one bolded keep or delete "vote". Accordingly, that part of your comment here has been struck out.

As for the newspapers, Metro consists of several distinct local editions which do not share most of their content across markets; he may have made the cover of the Toronto edition, but he certainly did not make the cover of every edition. And the Toronto Star attains its circulation figures entirely by virtue of being the dominant newspaper in the country's largest metropolitan area — it does not have any significantly-sized readership outside of the GTA. And newscasts, even national ones, routinely carry human interest "here's somebody you've never heard of before who's doing something kind of cool" pieces about people who don't get encyclopedia articles just because that newscast carried that piece, especially when they can just borrow a piece already created by one of their affiliate stations instead of having to commit their own resources to producing a separate one. And as for the coverage in Taiwan, you keep asserting that but you haven't shown any verifiable proof that it's true — people routinely try to get their pet articles into Wikipedia by claiming that coverage exists which actually doesn't pan out when somebody actually tries to find it, so it's not enough to just say that it exists if you don't show it.

Ultimately, "what more we're looking for" is evidence that he's done something, such as having released albums or songs that are actually getting radio play, that would make him somebody that any significant number of Wikipedia readers are likely to have already heard of, in a significant, sustained and "will actually remember his name twenty minutes later, because they've already heard it more than just once" sort of way. If a person could get an article on here just because their existence was verifiable in two or three distinct sources, we'd have to start keeping articles about heads of local PTAs and neighbourhood watch committees and coordinators of church bake sale committees — hell, we'd have to keep an article about me if that were all it took. Coverage can't just exist; it has to verify that they've done specific things that would make them a topic one would expect to find in an encyclopedia. Bearcat (talk) 11:51, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2<10. Please direct me to ten distinct professional sources about the same head of a church bake sale committee. Nate diddly (talk) 04:23, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Any city that has even one local media outlet will always have at least a couple of dozen, likely far more, people who are active enough in the local community to get their names into media coverage on that local outlet anywhere from two to fifty times a year. (Just as an example, there's no such thing as a city councillor, in any city, who doesn't get media coverage locally, yet we explicitly deprecate city councillors as not appropriate for inclusion in Wikipedia except for a very rarefied tier of special cases — because even though all city councillors could always pass GNG on local coverage, the substance of that coverage almost always fails to demonstrate any particular reason why they would warrant the attention of an encyclopedia with an international audience.) And the more local media outlets there are, the more likely it is that both the number of locally active people who are getting their names into the local media on a moderately regular basis and the number of media hits they're getting are going to shoot up even further. But that still doesn't necessarily make them all suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia just because that coverage exists, if it's not covering them in a context that's of any substantive non-local interest (such as a musician having actually recorded albums that have actually garnered national or international release.) Bearcat (talk) 15:43, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Image

This is a screenshot of one of the CNA articles, but I can't find the originals because I don't speak Chinese. Nate diddly (talk) 04:30, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sebastian Brown is well-known in downtown Toronto. I work in the area and talk with a lot of people there, most are aware of him. Of course, anyone could make such a claim without evidence, in which case we should say, "Who cares?" But the extent of the media coverage speaks to the subject's notability. Erhik (talk) 21:48, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

Count of Paço de Arcos

Count of Paço de Arcos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Unsourced stub about a Portuguese title of nobility. I was unable to find public sources to

• Keep: I wish to side on keeping the article on the counts of Paço de Arcos. First, the article's references state the source of the content (including page number). Owing to the subject matter they are in Portuguese, as would be expected, including the [this] from which this general article was based. Furthermore, in terms of notability the Counts of Paço de Arcos have appeared referenced in other online resources, this general article only uses the "Count" variant of the Portuguese. Regardless, a search on the subject matter will discover other references to "Conde de Paço de Arcos" or "Conde de Paço d'Arcos", including examples of genealogical records, thesis and online research. As much as they may be skewed to the first count, the countship is discussed, noting the importance in the diplomatic, military and economic spectrum in the formative efforts in Brazil. I can also cite that there are online references to Henrique Belford Corrêa da Silva, 2nd Count, indicating the counts importance as well. I hope that this will justify the Countship of Paço dos Arcos/d'Arcos. I suggest that this content be considered a "stub", but that there are important reasons for keeping it.^{ruben jc} ZEORYMER (talk) 17:28, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:53, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:53, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:53, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep from what User:Zeorymer says, this is clearly not a hoax, but a genuine hereditary title of nobility. We have articles on every such British title; and I see no reason for not having them for other countries. The only exception for British titles is where the first holder was also the last, when we redirect to his bio-article. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:40, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Unopposed nomination. Can be restored if more relevant sources are found.  Sandstein  19:22, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sir Philip Grey Egerton, 11th Baronet

Sir Philip Grey Egerton, 11th Baronet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Can't see any reason for notability. Didn't receive the baronetcy himself (for those who may be in doubt, a baronet is not a peer, doesn't sit in the House of Lords, and therefore does not qualify under

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:59, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:59, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:57, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Uncertain as others may be more familiar with this but I would also think this is a historic and interesting subject. SwisterTwister talk 07:13, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• (With some regret) Delete, or rather redirect to Grey Egerton baronets, delinking the article there -- Neither being a major, not DL, nor owning a substantial landed estate (which Oulton Park is (or was) is sufficient: clearly NN. There do not seem to be any links to later generations of the family that will be upset by this. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:47, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:52, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep: Withdrawn by nominator with no remaining votes to delete or merge. Mww113 (talk) 21:45, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Torrance

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

)

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

This article is about a character in

I no longer wish to propose the article's deletion, however I think it may be a good idea to leave this open for a while to see if there is consensus for a merge or not. However, if someone believes the discussion ought to close, we can move the merger proposal to the article's

talk page. Mww113 (talk) 16:37, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

At this time I would like to withdraw the nomination as there no longer seems to be cause to merge. Mww113 (talk) 21:45, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect and merge to The Shining (novel). --Slashme (talk) 06:31, 23 September 2015 (UTC) - The article now actually does a good job to assert notability and discuss the topic properly. --Slashme (talk) 07:09, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:08, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:08, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:08, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: This character is the main protagonist in the sequel novel
  talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:13, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]