Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 September 16

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 15 September	17 September >

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. Courcelles (talk) 01:01, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of Canadian soccer players who have played for other national teams

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

Fails

WP:NOTSTATS and is listcruft JMHamo (talk) 21:40, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. JMHamo (talk) 21:41, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable topic. Giant Snowman 17:00, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as listcruft Spiderone 17:46, 17 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 keep. (

non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:11, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Charles Gaynor

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

Delete: as insufficiently notable

musician/composer. Quis separabit? 21:35, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the

(talk) 22:09, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Keep. Several notable works, which justifies at least a short article . Carol Channing was Tony-nominated for her performance in Gaynor's Show Girl ([1]). --Michig (talk) 08:27, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:27, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:27, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as this is acceptable and although most of my searches found no better results, I found this at Newspapers Archive. SwisterTwister talk 05:27, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per
WP:BARE. Bearian (talk) 17:49, 21 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. Redirect if you want, but I really don't like redirecting BLP's to one thing they did. Courcelles (talk) 01:01, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Emma Bolger

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

Non notable actress who fails NACTOR & GNG - I originally redirected to In America (film) as assumed she was only notable for being in that, Anyway the article contains no refs and I couldn't find any myself either, I propose redirecting back to the film. –Davey2010^Talk 21:34, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: insufficiently notable actress, failing GNG. Maybe
TOO SOON. Quis separabit? 21:39, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the

(talk) 22:13, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Redirect again obviously as she's not fully notable yet and this her best known role. SwisterTwister talk 00:23, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Apart from an IMDB Profile, I could not find anything close enough to establish that this actress has "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", and hence this actress does not meet
WP:NACTOR. If she had significant roles in film, a large fan base or a significant "cult" following, or made unique contributions to a field of entertainment, there would be reliable coverage to easily show that this is true. However, I do not see them. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:00, 17 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. Title is a useless redirect Courcelles (talk) 01:01, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Spectre(Tycho Single)

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

No content, no references, no claim of notability, fails

WP:GNG. Prodded and prod removed. Richhoncho (talk) 21:26, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete per nom. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars Talk to me 15:39, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails
notability guidelines for songs are met. -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 19:42, 23 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) 01:02, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hours(Tycho Single)

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

No content, no references, no claim of notability, fails

WP:GNG. Prodded and prod removed. Richhoncho (talk) 21:25, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete per nom. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars Talk to me 15:37, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails
WP:GNG. -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 19:43, 23 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) 01:02, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dive (Radio Edit)

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

No content, no references, no claim of notability, fails

WP:GNG. Prodded and prod removed. Richhoncho (talk) 21:24, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete per nom. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars Talk to me 15:36, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails
WP:GNG. -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 19:46, 23 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) 01:02, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dive (Tycho Single)

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

No content, no references, no claim of notability, fails

WP:GNG. Prodded and prod removed. Richhoncho (talk) 21:23, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete per nom. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars Talk to me 15:36, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails
WP:GNG. -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 19:47, 23 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. Ged UK 12:25, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Montana (Tycho Single)

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

No content, no references, no claim of notability, fails

WP:GNG. Prodded and prod removed. Richhoncho (talk) 21:22, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete per nom CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 21:54, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This could probably just redirect to
(｡◕‿◕｡) 08:27, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per nom. Can't find a reliable that suggests this was a single. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars Talk to me 15:40, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the

(talk) 13:36, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete. Fails
notability guidelines for songs are met. -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 19:59, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment. We disambiguate by "song" and not "Single" so for practical reasons, if anybody thinks a redirect is appropriate, they should create the redirect rather than redirect this namespace. --Richhoncho (talk) 09:05, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Insufficient reliable coverage, so the article should not exist, but the search term is a legitimate one, even though this has no indication of notability. Vanamonde93 (talk) 20:58, 24 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) 01:03, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Coastal Brake

)

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

No content, no references, no claim of notability, fails

WP:GNG. Prodded and prod removed. Richhoncho (talk) 21:21, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete - The few hits on News weren't about this song, same on Newspapers, Books, Scholar, Highbeam had a single hit, but it was just a mention. Not a single hit on JSTOR. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:37, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No notability. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 15:35, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails
notability guidelines for songs are met. -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 20:08, 23 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. There was very strong consensus that the article ran afoul of

WP:NOT. There were reasonable attempts to distinguish the applicability of the policy, but they were soundly rejected. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 01:09, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

List of The Pirate Bay proxies

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

List article that serves no purpose other than to provide external links to websites that facilitate copyright infringement. Was incorrectly declined for speedy deletion under

WP:SPAM, and The WMF Terms of Use. - Mr X 21:17, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. - Mr X 21:20, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. - Mr X 21:22, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Piracy-related deletion discussions. - Mr X 21:23, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. - Mr X 21:24, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please elaborate on which section of those policies that is violated?

CFCF 💌 📧 21:26, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:30, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – very clear pass of
CFCF 💌 📧 21:33, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
- Actually, no it doesn't, as the list goes against this paragraph in the first section of
  WP:NWEB: Wikipedia is not a web directory, in that it is not a site that specializes in linking to other web sites and categorizing those links. Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files. Articles which merely include an external link and a brief description of its contents may be deleted. This list is exactly a repository of links with little to no description of their contents. —烏Γ ^(kaw), 21:54, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]

That applies to single external links such as

CFCF 💌 📧 22:58, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

How does it pass notability? --

talk) 23:32, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

By being mentioned sufficiently in reliable sources. They are obviously notable enough to have articles written specifically about them.

The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself. This criterion includes
CFCF 💌 📧 22:32, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment - The nominator is incorrect in asserting that the article was "incorrectly declined for speedy deletion under
WP:CSD#G11". The CSD nomination was not appropriate, which I had explained earlier, as it did not meet the requirement of CSD#G11. The nom has provided a laundry list of links, but I too would like to know how the article fails to meet each of the guidelines. It's easy to list guidelines but the nom is claiming the article should be deleted, so he really needs to justify deletion, which a laundry list does not do. --AussieLegend (✉) 21:47, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Per G11: "Pages that are exclusively promotional, and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic." The page does nothing more than to direct readers elsewhere. That's what makes it promotional, rather than informational. - Mr X 22:44, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

tl;dr clarfication of each policy and guideline linked in my nomination statement

From
WP:LINKFARM
: "There is nothing wrong with adding one or more useful content-relevant links to the external links section of an article; however, excessive lists can dwarf articles and detract from the purpose of Wikipedia."
From
WP:ELNO
: Links to avoid: "Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article."
From
WP:SPAM
- "There are three main types of spam on Wikipedia. These are: advertisements masquerading as articles; external link spamming; and adding references with the aim of promoting the author or the work being referenced."
From
WP:LISTN
: "One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by 'independent reliable sources"
From *
WP:SPAM
: "Adding external links to an article or user page for the purpose of promoting a website or a product is not allowed, and is considered to be spam."
From The WMF Terms of Use: "Infringing copyrights, trademarks, patents, or other proprietary rights under applicable law." - Mr X 22:44, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Simply linking to a site is not being promotional, which is partly why CSD#G11 does not apply. As for your other comments:

excessive lists can dwarf articles and detract from the purpose of Wikipedia. - That's aimed at lists within articles, not at articles that are solely aimed at being a list.
Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article. - This is aimed at the external links section, not at articles that are solely aimed at being a list.
There are three main types of spam on Wikipedia. These are: advertisements masquerading as articles; external link spamming - The links are provided within a single article aimed specifically at listing proxies for a website so they do not constitute spam. Nor is the article an advertisement for a site.
One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by 'independent reliable sources - There are numerous independent reliable sources in the article.
Adding external links to an article or user page for the purpose of promoting a website or a product is not allowed, and is considered to be spam - Again, this is aimed more at the extrernal links section and again, simply linking to a site is not being promotional. The article is simply listing proxies for a site that is already the subject of an article and I don't see how any of the content can be considered promotional. It's far different form adding, say "MrX.com" to multiple articles where MrX.com is not relevant to the subject.
Infringing copyrights, trademarks, patents, or other proprietary rights under applicable law - As discussed elsewhere, TPB doesn't contain any infringing content so this is a non issue. The
WP:ELN
discussion mentioned an email from WMF legal that said there was no outright ban on linking to the site, so this copyright thing is a non-issue

I'm not saying that this article should not be deleted (or kept), I'm just saying that your justifcation for deletion is based on a lot of invalid arguments. --AussieLegend (✉) 23:06, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:LINKFARM is an overarchng policy that describes what Wikipedia is NOT. Suggesting that it applies to a portion of an article, but not an article consisting almost entirely of external links is nonsensical.- Mr X 23:40, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Our policies and guidelines are not intended to be interpreted so narrowly. We're not a bureaucracy.- Mr X 23:40, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The Pirate Bay proxies are not encyclopedic content. Full stop. Mass linking to pages with content not in accord with Wikipedia's purpose (being an encyclopedia) is a form of spam.- Mr X 23:40, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The two sources for the list are of dubious reliability (TorrentFreak.com and nextinpact.com). Also, two minor source don't establish notability.- Mr X 23:40, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Our policies and guidelines are not intended to be interpreted so narrowly. We're not a bureaucracy.- Mr X 23:40, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Contributory copyright infringement. - Mr X 23:40, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

4. It now links the French court order as well.

CFCF 💌 📧 23:52, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

6. WMF-legal have stated that additions are up to editor discretion. See the discussion at

CFCF 💌 📧 23:55, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

6. Actually, WMF legal said that it's up to the community.- Mr X 02:07, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and per the list creator's consistent attempts to circumvent consensus, ignore policies and guidelines, and badger everyone who opposes him into providing justification that has already been provided many times. —烏Γ ^(kaw), 21:54, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

CFCF 💌 📧 21:57, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

As the number of specific diffs in which you do these things is staggering, I will link to all of the relevant discussions in which these claims are founded, in chronological order of the discussion's start:

WP:ELN#The Pirate Bay, provides more context to the genesis of this dispute. —烏Γ ^(kaw), 20:32, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete - Wikipedia is not a directory --Oscarthecat (talk) 21:55, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Which of the 7 points in that policy document do you find this article to be in violation of?

CFCF 💌 📧 21:58, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Would it be better if I point at "Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files" on that page ? --Oscarthecat (talk) 22:00, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, because neither is this article, it gives information on blocks and is fully sourced where the proxies are treated as notable in and of themselves-additionally so for being blocked in some countries.

CFCF 💌 📧 22:34, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete We had an RfC. CFCF's position did not prevail. He is now trying to sneak in links he failed to include in the original article. This is a blatant run-around of an RfC and Wikipedia guidelines. Further, how many of these links guide people to malware sites? TPB proxies are well-known for this. Is Wikipedia to get into the business of validating links to aide and abet intellectual property violations? Wikipedia has stated a respect for IP rights. Objective3000 (talk) 22:05, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The RfC had absolutely nothing to do with the links presented in this article. The RfC was specifically about including thepiratebay.gd, thepiratebay.la, thepiratebay.mn and thepiratebay.vg in the infobox at The Pirate Bay. --AussieLegend (✉) 22:21, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please. You and he failed to get those links included in the article. So now, he created a new article with the same links, added many more, and linked to that list at the very top of the TPB article. And how many more times are you going to repeat those links? Words fail. Objective3000 (talk) 22:37, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Again, the RFC had nothing to do with the the links in this article and So now, he created a new article with the same links is incorrect. Of the links that were the subject of the RfC, only thepiratebay.vg is included in this article. Please stick to the facts. --AussieLegend (✉) 22:46, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You can repeat this nonsense ad infinitum. But, it's misleading. The links keep changing, as you well know. He is attempting to include, surreptitiously, the same types of links (and many more) that the RfC consensus would not allow. At some point, you have to stop wasting everyone's time. Objective3000 (talk) 22:50, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That the RFC had nothing to do with the links being included in this article is not nonsense. That only one of the links listed is included is not nonsense. That he created a new article with the same links is incorrect and misleading is not nonsense. About the only valid thing you've said in your latest post is that they are the the same types of links. That's far less misleading. --AussieLegend (✉) 23:12, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what you are talking about. CFCF attempted to add links seven times in a massive edit-warring example. There was an RfC to keep these links, which did not prevail. As you know, the links keep changing due to the fact that government after government after government keeps killing the links to an illegal site. You and CFCF have spent months attempting to add these links to an encyclopedia. You have not prevailed. Now, a new trick is being used to include new links, including links that will infect PCs with malware, against consensus. Frankly, it is difficult to imagine a purpose that is not malevolent. Objective3000 (talk) 00:18, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please try reading what was written? The RfC was specifically about adding a limited list of links to the article's infobox. Only one of those links has been listed here so the claim that There was an RfC to keep these links is blatantly incorrect. To say it another way, 80 of the 81 links in this article were not the subject of the RfC. I really don't think I can say this any more simply. --AussieLegend (✉) 00:42, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your continuing claims that I don't read are boorish. The RfC was about adding multiple links. Your position did not prevail. As I predicted, you would ignore the RfC. Objective3000 (talk) 10:45, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was the person who started the RfC so I am well aware of what I was asking when I opened the RfC. It was started because there disagreement as to which links should be listed and only 1 of the 81 links in this article was the subject of the RfC. You are well aware of this, so I don't understand why you are persisting in misleading readers. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:48, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

When you started the RfC, you presented a false dichotomy. It was corrected and the discussion was wide-ranging. The conclusion was no multiple links. It doesn't matter which links. If 5 aren't allowed, 81 certainly are allowed. Objective3000 (talk) 16:57, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The speedy delete needs to be restored. This article has a list of links some of which point to malware sites. Why would anyone be in favor of such? If, for some odd reason, people thinks this makes sense, it can be restored and we can harm random people. Objective3000 (talk) 00:31, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The CSD nom was rejected. If you have a problem with that, the correct process is to take it up with the admin who rejected it, or take the article to AfD. The latter option was chosen so that's where we are and should have been from the beginning. Restoring the speedy delete tag is not appropriate. --AussieLegend (✉) 00:42, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon, so you feel this page is so important that we should just say screw the people that will have their PCs destroyed by malware? Is it really that important to aide and abet a criminal site? And please, do not again insist the site isn't illegal after the courts have said they are. Objective3000 (talk) 00:49, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No U.S. court has yet ruled on the legality and there are as yet no decisive court actions against it in U.S.. Malware troubles are your own problem for picking vulnerable platforms and exercising unsafe computing practices. Wikipedia would have to contain no links at all...[2][3] I suggest OpenBSD or Qubes OS if information security is of concern. And, of course, there is the National Security Agency and ther Tailored Access Operations so maybe one should not be on the internets at all. -- dsprc ^[talk] 04:55, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per
WP:NOTLINK. Wikipedia is not a directory, and not a repository of links to external websites. I also agree that this could potentially violate WMF's TOU, as pointed out by the nominating statement. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:09, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete we are not writing the yellow pages. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 03:42, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:: If some entries are verifiably notable by third parties and sourced as such then they should be listed and article moved to List of notable The Pirate Bay proxies -- dsprc ^[talk] 04:45, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Dsprc: - if some of the entries are verifiably notable, then they sh/could be mentioned in the article The Pirate Bay, in prose form. None of the items in the list will every rise to the level that they will be independently notable so that they will get an own article. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 05:16, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The list as current would not be unsuitable for inclusion within parent article as it is simply too lengthy and would not adhere to

MOS:LISTS etc.. Therefor is prime candidate for its own stand alone list. Entries themselves do seem to be sourced to reliable third-parties. -- dsprc ^[talk] 06:47, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

In fact, I was entertaining the idea to include it as prose, not as a list. The whole list as it stands now could collapse into about 3 full sentences ... "TPB used numerous proxies, including A, B, C, D ..., which all have been blocked by .... <ref>. Only .. and .. have not been taken offline ...<ref> ....". --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 07:41, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article is unencylopedic in accordance with a range of the policies mentioned above. Anyone who wants a list of Pirate Bay proxies can type "pirate bay proxy" into a search engine. There is no need for a Wikipedia article to do this.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:32, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Now that CFCF has started verifying which proxies are accessible using
WP:OR, I believe Wikipedia is now aiding and abetting copyright. This page should be deleted now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Objective3000 (talk • contribs
) 13:06, September 17, 2015 (UTC)

Entirely incorrect, the colors specifically refer to blocks in the country. It is all properly referenced as per

CFCF 💌 📧 20:18, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete - mainly per everyone above, especially
Chat:Online 20:09, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

CFCF 💌 📧 20:17, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

I have no opinion on this to say I like or don't like it, but I'm thinking what could happen if it stays. I noticed this AfD because someone is contacting WMF legal to get their input on this. The foundation could get in trouble for having this page. To me it looks like a web directory, and Wikipedia is not a web directory. I fail to see how there is any notability in these proxies. I know the pirate bay itself is notable, so if you want these links, I suggest merging them into the main article, and condensing it.—

Chat:Online 20:33, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

It is my observation they've a bone to pick with other contributors (and this topic area in general) and have been lobbying for ways to have them banned from editing. This is largely an overflow of that outta control flamewar. As for Foundation getting into trouble, not very likely as it is largely a list of blocked domains already censored by ISP and is public information as demonstrated by cited sources. Other than that, we have information on Falun Gong which will get you and your family disappeared, tortured, killed or worse in China. Wikimedia has hosted the cover of Virgin Killer album for years and censored in UK on child pornography grounds for it. We would be prevented from sourcing WikiLeaks or other news organizations that publish government documents as it is contributing to the access of top secret materials whose possession is deemed illegal by the State. We could not link to the Internet Archive because they carry out all kinds of digital preservation initiatives without permission of copyright holders. Google Books and Newspapers, which we link to on every single AfD are also blatant copyright infringement and suits are still ongoing. It is illegal or unlawful in some European states to even use quotations. Slippery slope. -- dsprc ^[talk] 22:56, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop inserting your political opinions. Objective3000 (talk) 01:07, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unhelpful flame war. Cool it or I'm going to seek a mutual interaction ban for you two. - Mr X 21:41, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

He tried adding to the main site and failed. That's why he created this fork. Objective3000 (talk) 20:40, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Patently false, please do not resort to ad hominem.

CFCF 💌 📧 21:01, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Far from it. You spent months edit-warring, putting multiple links in the article over and over and over in violation of

WP:ELBURDEN. Now you are trying to circumvent all the discussions on the subject by putting links here and adding a link to this article at the very top of the TPB article. Objective3000 (talk) 21:09, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Again false, there was an RfC on that page concerning the proper link(s) to use in the infobox when the main page had multiple official links. If by participating in discussion and restoring a smaller number of edits going against long-standing consensus to include a link (they removed all of them) you call edit-warring – I would suggest you study the policy documents.

CFCF 💌 📧 21:34, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

You really should stop lecturing editors. You've made three errors on three pages in the last hour attempting to do so. Believe what you want. But, my statement was what I saw and meant as an explanation to another editor as to why his suggestion would not apply. It was not an ad hominem. It was not a flame. Objective3000 (talk) 21:43, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is not a repository for links to illegal websites. Immortal Horrors or Everlasting Splendors 17:58, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. Corrected location. Immortal Horrors or Everlasting Splendors 18:02, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Can't say about the TOU, but the
WP:IINFO territory. 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 11:18, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

WP:NOTDIRECTORY

does not apply – these are all notable for being blocked or otherwise important. None of the 7 points listed in that guideline apply:

NLists or repositories of loosely associated topics
NGenealogical entries
NThe White or Yellow Pages
NDirectories, directory entries, electronic program guide, or a resource for conducting business
NSales catalogues
NNon-encyclopedic cross-categorizations
NSimple listings without context information

Repeating an inapplicable guideline over and over will not "beat it to mush". The sourced independently demonstrate notability for proxies, this article lists them according to the reliable sources.

CFCF 💌 📧 12:59, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

YDirectories, directory entries, electronic program guide, or a resource for conducting business

Wikipedia is not a resource for helping people locate pirated software and generating clicks for TPB.- Mr X 14:35, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That seems like a very dubious rationale. So because the list can potentially be used in the manner it therefor classifies as a directory. That isn't the way Wikipedia operates.

CFCF 💌 📧 22:28, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Nobody is buying what you're selling here dude... It is so blatantly a violation of these things you claim it isn't violating that it's becoming ridiculous. Just... Let it go man. Immortal Horrors or Everlasting Splendors 14:41, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Setting the NOTDIRECTORY issue aside... I don't think this list passes WP:Notability#Stand-alone lists. NSAL repeatedly calls for notability to be based on the group or set... not the individual components of the list. So... the key question is whether the topic of the list ("proxy servers for The Pirate Bay") has been discussed (in reasonable depth) as a group or set by independent reliable sources. I think the answer to that is "no". What I see is a string of sources that each mention individual proxies (and often not in depth)... but no sources that discuss "proxies of The Pirate Bay" as a unique phenomenon or concept... no sources that discuss them as "group or set". Blueboar (talk) 13:50, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You will find that your argument strengthens the rationale of keeping the list. TPB proxies are extensively discussed by reliable sources, not in the very least by those that are linked in the article.

CFCF 💌 📧 15:05, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Looking at the sources in the article, I didn't find what I am talking about. However, I am always willing to to be proved wrong... so, could you be more specific... which of the sources cited in the article do you think discuss TPB proxies (as a group or set) in reasonable detail?... post them here, so we can examine and discuss them further. Blueboar (talk) 15:27, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The introduction to the article discusses the type of site quite extensively - so those citations would be a good start: ^{CFCF 💌 📧 16:53, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Interesting quote in the BBC article you cited: "UK internet service providers have begun blocking access to websites that provide a list of Pirate Bay alternatives, as part of the battle against online piracy." In other words, the UK is now blocking sites that do exactly what you are doing in this article. Will the UK block Wikipedia if we continue aiding and abetting copyright? The article would suggest so. Why would an encyclopedia do this? I am more and more convinced this should be a speedy delete. Objective3000 (talk) 17:21, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
On the other hand, by providing a list, we actually make it easier for the service providers to block such proxies ... since we give them a handy list of which websites they should block. And... if all the websites on our list are blocked, the article would quickly become a List of blocked TPB proxies (which, paradoxically, might actually be a more Notable topic than a list of unblocked ones). Blueboar (talk) 18:15, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In addition to proxies, the service providers are blocking proxy list sites, like this article. That's what the quote says. Objective3000 (talk) 18:43, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]}

(←) As stated, this list is comprised of notable sites already censored by various governments and corporations. Wikipedia is also already blocked by numerous repressive governments across the globe that wish to restrict the free flow of information. U.K. have blocked us over Virgin Killer before. We have even blocked ourselves(!) [4] over unlawful censorship without judicial process. Wikimedia is a U.S. based organization not bound by oppressive controls U.K. exacts over its media ( where you've to be licensed to watch television). Linking to material is not illegal or unlawful in the U.S.[5] and is legal constitutionally protected speech. At least one member of WMF Board supports such free expression[6][7] -- dsprc ^[talk] 07:14, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Referring to the U.K. as a repressive government is not likely to convince anyone. Please stop inserting your political beliefs.

WP:NOTSOAPBOX Objective3000 (talk) 12:19, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

I am not the one who put forward the notion that it is illegal (when it isn't) and would get the entire site censored. Also not the one to bring Britannia into this. Not opinions, but facts. No freedom of speech or press in U.K.; can be imprisoned there just for reading something the State doesn't like, or a simple racist tweet. Is a reason WMF incorporated in U.S. and not Britain. -- dsprc ^[talk] 06:04, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop inserting your political beliefs.

WP:NOTSOAPBOX Objective3000 (talk) 11:02, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete - per NOTDIRECTORY. Carrite (talk) 21:44, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

CFCF 💌 📧 22:28, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Seems there's strong consensus that NOTDIRECTORY applies. --

talk) 00:18, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

References

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 01:04, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Naseer Bhai

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

Fails

WP:N He is just as a guest on the show. I don't think Wikipedia should have article on this type of personality. Musa Talk 20:34, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete. There's already a page for the show (Khabarnaak), which covers all that this article covers, and all my hits when googling are about Naseer Bhai's role on the show. This article isn't necessary. Fuzchia (talk) 20:53, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the

(talk) 21:13, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete as I found nothing better. SwisterTwister talk 00:27, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Redirect. For the reason stated by Fuzchia, this page is unnecessary. I propose it be turned into a redirect to Khabarnaak NewYorkActuary (talk) 16:52, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom and above editors. Found nothing on searches to show notability. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:34, 23 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 redirect to

non-admin closure) Kharkiv07 (T) 17:56, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Cooperative Stock Market

Cooperative Stock Market (edit | 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:V with current sources and I couldn't find proper sources to back up the claims in this article. A merger to Cooperative has been suggested, but I don't think the material here needs keeping. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 20:33, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - didn't find much on News or the other search engines. The vast majority of the hits were of the phrase, rather than this subject. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:12, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Cooperative nothing much here except the Iranian experiment. --Bejnar (talk) 00:26, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:24, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:24, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as I see nothing to suggest improvement. SwisterTwister talk 05:24, 19 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 keep. (
non-admin closure) -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 19:00, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Bárbara Gil

Bárbara Gil (edit | 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: non-notable actress. Quis separabit? 19:33, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This article isn't well-sourced, but she has a lengthy filmography (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0317731/) and seems to have been a pretty well-known telenovela actress. I'm turning up several articles in English and Spanish about her death, and plenty of biographies. I'd say she passes muster for
WP:N. Fuzchia (talk) 21:00, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep It just needs an expert.--Musa Talk 21:04, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:22, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:22, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Likely keep as most Mexican actresses will have gotten coverage one way or another and this is from the 1950s so chances are there are some somewhere. SwisterTwister talk 05:23, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per these GNews results (As I'm obviously not a Mexican speaker I wouldn't have a clue whether they're relevent or not!). –Davey2010^Talk 19:50, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - passes
WP:NACTOR, although the article could use more and better sources. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:40, 23 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. --MelanieN (talk) 22:46, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sound Spark Studios

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

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

This article was created by the company's owner, an obvious
WP:COMPANY. Drm310 (talk) 19:14, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

The Sound Spark Studios page has more of a right to exist than the 300 Entertainment page, which is entirely self-serving of 300 Entertainment. Jeremysouthgate (talk) 19:57, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Two wrongs don't make a right - right? We should consider the nominated article for its own merits and shortcomings and not other articles. Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 20:31, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm mostly just turning up Facebook, Yelp, and other social media listings for the company. Not notable. Fuzchia (talk) 21:03, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Don't delete. Please don't rely on Google's biased search algorithms to determine notability, particularly since Google is backing infringement of Sound Spark Studios. How is this not notability by a secondary source? Lyor Cohen and Google noticed Sound Spark Studios as a competitor. For this reason, the public ought to be able to read about how Sound Spark Studios actually came to be and what it's doing. Jeremysouthgate (talk) 22:27, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Take it to the press, then? Wikipedia is not a newspaper, and we're not reporters. Wikipedia's volunteers use verifiable, reliable sources to create a record of things of note. I looked up your studio on Bing too and got similar results, if that helps. Fuzchia (talk) 22:37, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Yet there was no record of the notable Sound Spark Studios, so I created one. WP:ARTIST "2. The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique. 3. The person has created ... a significant ... work." WP:ENT "The Entertainer ... Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment." i.e. the logo is significant and unique Secondary source: https://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/massachusetts/madce/1:2014cv13861/164705/26 WP:ORIGIND "Once notability is established, primary sources and self-published sources may be used to verify some of the article's content." Jeremysouthgate (talk) 00:23, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is looking like a walled garden, though the fence has some holes now that I deleted the article on the person and his album. Both are not notable; the biggest claim to notability comes from this supposed lawsuit, content that I'm about to remove from this article as well. Note that "it is alleged"--yeah, on some website. The rest of the paragraph looks impressive (Billboard article etc.) but has nothing to do with the subject. Oh, primary documents related to court cases are really never acceptable here, and if they're intended to show that someone is in fact notable, the attempt is risible. Drmies (talk) 01:20, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And Wikipedia's your walled garden with some holes where the articles could have been. Respect. Jeremysouthgate (talk) 02:22, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
See this: Wikipedia:Walled garden. Your two main articles basically had the same text anyway. Drmies (talk) 02:44, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete autobio of an aspiring musician,
WP:GNG, WP:Walled garden and about every other guideline in the book. Kraxler (talk) 23:24, 23 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:09, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Azhar Sulfikar

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

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

Tagged for speedy deletion but does have some sources, however weak. Best to bring it here for discussion. Black Kite (talk) 18:01, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as
WP:MUSICBIO; winning one obscure talent competition is insufficient. Miniapolis 22:52, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete The kid who won that competition created the article himself.--WP:SOCKSTRIKE Kraxler (talk) 18:51, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - fails
WP:GNG... searches turned little other than a YouTube hit. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:30, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Fails
WP:ENT too Scr★pIron^IV 12:45, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete – yeah, the article's current sources are not up to snuff, and good luck finding better ones. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:37, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:21, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:21, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as my searches obviously found nothing. SwisterTwister talk 05:21, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails
Hangout 05:27, 19 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:11, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Smith Seth

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

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

An article where the references first posted were mere links to IMDB and Twitter among others, probably fails
WP:NACTOR. Kebabpizza (talk) 17:09, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete: as
"TOO SOON". Quis separabit? 19:38, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:32, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:32, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - IMDb basically seems to summarize well - not independently yet and simply no minimal improvement and my searches unsurprisingly found nothing. SwisterTwister talk 05:33, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails
WP:NACTOR. Searches turned up nothing. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:42, 23 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) 01:04, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jacqui Holland

Jacqui Holland (edit | 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 actress. I was unable to find anything about her from a simple Google search, and her filmography lists such untitled roles as "Girl in Bed" and "Kindly Stripper". Natg 19 (talk) 16:31, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Someone has been deleting true information about her, and restricting editing, which dilutes the value of Wikipedia in general. Seems the techies like to impose their will on people. The page belongs in that she's a recognizable public figure, with a large tilt towards the internet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChessProdigy50 (talk • contribs) 22:57, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 16:32, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 16:33, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 16:33, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

She is better known for her softcore adult work and as a hypnotist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.191.25.204 (talk) 16:01, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, she is not. Unless you can provide references? samtar ^(msg) 16:59, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable actress. samtar ^(msg) 17:09, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as although IMDb lists two awards, there's not much else to suggest weight for this article therefore best to delete and start again when better. SwisterTwister talk 06:22, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non notable actress, Fails GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 19:45, 22 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 speedy delete by NawlinWiki under A7.(non-admin closure) Altamel (talk) 17:29, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WeCharge Tech

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

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

Notability issues Action Hero Shoot! 15:17, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Has already been speedy deleted by User:NawlinWiki. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 23:52, 16 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. This should have been an A9 Courcelles (talk) 01:06, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lighthouses (Midnight Escape album)

Lighthouses (Midnight Escape album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Self-released album by band whose article was deleted at
WP:NALBUMS. JohnCD (talk) 13:49, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. JohnCD (talk) 13:50, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable album by non-notable band. Rainbow unicorn (talk) 20:29, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Exactly, there's simply no improvement. SwisterTwister talk 05:31, 19 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 per
(｡◕‿◕｡) 09:11, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Unraveling a mystery of space

Unraveling a mystery of space (edit | 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 sure if this is a hoax, a random essay, or just a poorly written article on an encyclopedic topic related to Hindu theology, but regardless of what it is, it's so poorly written that I can't even understand where it's going. The title doesn't help, because we don't need articles about unravelling space mysteries (surely adherents of these doctrines, if they're real, wouldn't call them "unraveling a mystery of space"?), while some of the contents make me question whether it's real: is there really a religion of sound waves, for example? Nyttend (talk) 13:03, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't quite merit speedy deletion per a variety of criteria (G1, G11, A11) and may or may not be original research, but it's an unencyclopedic mess all the same. --Finngall ^talk 13:15, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Yes, there probably are some good historical sources behind this but the piece is so much an essay that the only option is to rub out and wait for someone else to start it again. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 13:25, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unsourced, unclear, PoV/vanity article - Arjayay (talk) 17:30, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Ditto Arjayay's comments --Gronk Oz (talk) 01:57, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Whatever this is, it's not an encyclopedia article. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:21, 17 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:12, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tiny Travel Tracker

Tiny Travel Tracker (edit | 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 software product. Appears to fail
WP:GNG. Has no third-party (or any at all) coverage. -- dsprc ^[talk] 12:35, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Additionally this page was created and populated by Tine Ngler which bears a similarity to the author of the source code: Tim Engler. Teeks99 (talk) 11:51, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for reasons above, found nothing substantial in my searches, zero Google News results for a product that's been around since 2010 is also a strong indication [8]. Rainbow unicorn (talk) 20:40, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:44, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I found nothing better than this. SwisterTwister talk 05:44, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Software article of unclear notability, lacking independent references. A search turned up no significant
WP:RS coverage. Article was created by an SPA as possibly promotional. Dialectric (talk) 12:25, 21 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 keep. (
non-admin closure) Kharkiv07 (T) 17:58, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Rowan Peacock

Rowan Peacock (edit | 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: non-notable athlete. Quis separabit? 12:33, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets
WP:NOLYMPICS. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 12:56, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

~~Delete~~; Olympians are always notable. Nyttend (talk) 13:05, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, meant to type keep. Not sure how "delete" came out. Nyttend (talk) 13:06, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Keep as an Olympic athlete. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:07, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:39, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:39, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as this is obviously notable and acceptable. SwisterTwister talk 05:39, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep since Olympians are generally presumed to pass the notability threshold. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 12:32, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Presumed notable as per
WP:NOLYMPICS. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:01, 23 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 speedy delete by Bearcat as a blatant hoax (G3), also salted by NeilN.(non-admin closure) Altamel (talk) 01:04, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Aashiq Ali

Aashiq Ali (edit | 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 subject. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 12:09, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete This is a composite of material from other articles:
WP:HOAX repurposing others' achievements and others' Wikipedia texts. I'm tagging CSD G3 AllyD (talk) 19:40, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Thank you. After I've tagged it for deletion 3 times, I just gave up on Speedy Deletion for this. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 21:40, 16 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. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:10, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Seán F. Quinn

Seán F. Quinn (edit | 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 and NO MERGER: non-notable ~~paramilitary~~ IRA officer. AFD rules clearly indicate that you can't merge a name with a city or town unless there is a deep and recognised affiliation/connection between the subject and that city or town, which Seán F. Quinn most certainly did not have with Castlebellingham. Quis separabit? 12:11, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The event described in this article might be notable if the person is not. Based on a google books search for 'castlebellingham "frank aiken" ', several books seem to discuss the event, including two biographies of Frank Aiken. I do not have full access to the books, so I can't assess depth of coverage. Maybe a a partial merge to Frank Aiken would be in order. 109.79.174.71 (talk) 13:25, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Quinn's involvement in what sounds like quite a minor event does not make him notable per se. ww2censor (talk) 10:04, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:42, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:42, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:42, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there's simply no improvement. SwisterTwister talk 05:42, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with
WP:SECONDARY sources beyond the two listed. There's not even much in the Irish Bureau of Military History, which is mostly a primary source. Fiachra10003 (talk) 13:18, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Upon re-review, I must point out who ridiculous this article is. To wit, and this is basically all the info there is; Also there was Frank Aiken (O/C) and Ned Fitzpatrick. They were betrayed [clarification needed]by a Catholic priest who had said Sunday Mass for them. Soon surrounded by a large force of Free State troops, Seán Quinn decided they would shoot their way out.[citation needed] Seán and Pádraig Quinn were shot and captured. Aiken escaped (he was named IRA Chief of Staff the next day).
How/why did a Catholic priest "betray" them, by the way? Does someone not know what the verb "to betray" means? The sources cited are inaccessible and almost certainly unreliable and biased. I found nothing via Google searches. No notability derived as the alleged uncle of Ruairi Quinn, nor any redirect. The whole thing is juvenile agitprop nonsense. No merger. There are too many Sean Quinns already on Wikipedia, don't add to the confusion. Quis separabit? 20:22, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Other than that this person clearly existed, clearly having a part in the aforementioned military group, there seems to be no broader notability whatsoever. Wikipedia is not a genealogy record that just lists people. This article should be deleted. I also don't think a merger or redirect is necessarily a good idea either. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 09:25, 24 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) 01:07, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shaji (writer)

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

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

naveenpf (talk) 11:48, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -Although he may have written a lot, I am not finding anything written ABOUT him in reliable secondary sources that could help establish notability, aside from this. ABF99 (talk) 03:15, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:43, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:43, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there's simply nothing to suggest better improvement. SwisterTwister talk 05:43, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Subject does not have significant coverage in
Hangout 06:22, 19 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 speedy delete as article was deleted by
non-admin closure)[reply
]

Alexander Dudley Cross

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

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

Obvious hoax, though a new user has removed the CSD template. Pretty clear cut
WP:G3. --Non-Dropframe _talk 11:43, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Speedy delete. I think it likely the new user is the same person as the page creator, given that their edits started when the others ended. 331dot (talk) 11:49, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
331dot Agreed. I generally don't level sockpuppet accusations in AfD discussions but I did open a sockpuppet investigation. --Non-Dropframe _talk 12:10, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as G3, obviously. The person may be real but the claims certainly aren't.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 13:03, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deleted; Cross is not currently the Prime Minister of Australia, and "Alexander Dudley Cross" is not an actual alternate name for Malcolm Turnbull. Nyttend (talk) 13:08, 16 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) 01:08, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sophie Soong

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

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

Tagged for notability since 2009, I don't believe she meets GNG. Some ghits for her appearance as a weathergirl but all minor coverage. Gbawden (talk) 11:27, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Mostly typical coverage for a local reporter as stated above, outside of that a few minor roles on television shows [9], but nothing that meets GNG. Rainbow unicorn (talk) 01:30, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:57, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:57, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:57, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:57, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I see nothing to suggest improvement beyond a local journalist and although my searches found results at News and browser, there's still nothing to suggest better. SwisterTwister talk 05:58, 19 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 redirect to
non-admin closure) Kharkiv07 (T) 18:00, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Glen Abbey, Ontario

Glen Abbey, Ontario (edit | 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 neighbourhood of
notability. As best as I can determine, this neighbourhood was never an historical town or village. The external links section has a town planning document which is now dead but can found through the Wayback Machine. It also gives no indication of notability. Whpq (talk) 11:22, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:56, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Redirect to Oakville, Ontario#Neighborhoods as is usual with questionable independently notable geographic places. SwisterTwister talk 05:56, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as suggested. Even the very small Cherry Grove, New York and Union Vale, New York have several small neighborhoods, but not all of those are notable. Bearian (talk) 17:57, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - As nominator, I'm fine with a redirect. -- Whpq (talk) 18:06, 21 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 keep. (
non-admin closure) -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 18:57, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Orbital engine

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 cites two sources: a patent, and a segment in a radio programme on the wider context of purported fuel-saving devices which turned out to be duds. Most of the content - all but a single statement as far as I can tell - is sourced to the patent, a clear example of
WP:OR. The article either needs the addition of substantial reliable independent sources, or it needs to be nuked. Right now it does not comply with policy. Guy (Help!) 10:56, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

There are a lot of sources cited on the article for
WP:BEFORE checks for sources? Even if it turned out to be a dud, it still might be notable, like Piltdown Man. 109.79.174.71 (talk) 14:14, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep Clearly notable. Googling '"orbital engine" Sarich' finds many refs, including that it's in the Powerhouse museum, as well as news articles from all major Australian newspapers - and that's just recent (last 10 years or so) news; 1970s and 1980s Australian news isn't covered at all well online. The-Pope (talk) 14:24, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: There are many references available, as noted by The Pope and the IP user above. The article is certainly lacking attention when compared to the article about its inventor, but it is not in such a poor state that it requires being wiped clean. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 01:04, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 02:10, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The basic issue appears to be that the engine does not work. Sometimes we need coverage of things that do not work, and this is one of those cases. Documenting flawed inventions is sometimes encyclopedic. It has been adequately documented in secondary sources. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:43, 21 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 speedy keep per
non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 13:15, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Devprayag Institute of Technical Studies

Devprayag Institute of Technical Studies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats
)

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

No indication that it meets
WP:ORGSIG Derek Andrews (talk) 10:41, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Withdrawn by nominator, given documentation cited at
WP:ORGSIG. Derek Andrews (talk) 11:52, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep as a degree-granting institution per longstanding precedent and consensus. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:10, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:10, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:10, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Regardless of official policy, it has become clear de facto policy to keep articles about such educational institutions. It has received coverage in reliable sources as wellTimes of India (1) , Times of India (2). Other sources may be found in languages other than English. AusLondonder (talk) 20:51, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as this seems acceptable and notable. SwisterTwister talk 05:48, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per
Hangout 05:35, 19 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) 01:08, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jordan Blake

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

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

Practically unreferenced BLP, only cites facebook and YouTube. Tagged since 2011. - Andrei (talk) 07:57, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -No reliable sources found to establish notability. ABF99 (talk) 03:03, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No notability beyond the bands he's been in. Binksternet (talk) 07:09, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:03, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:03, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to A Skylit Drive] as my searches found some results for this and this is obviously what he's best known for. SwisterTwister talk 06:03, 19 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. SpinningSpark 23:02, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quizzaciously

Quizzaciously (edit | 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 be a
neologism. May be better suited for Wiktionary. clpo13_(talk) 06:37, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

See this video for explanation...
talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:25, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Huh, so not a neologism. Still better suited for Wiktionary, though. clpo13_(talk) 08:34, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like this should be merged into the Zipf's law page — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.130.247.251 (talk) 15:19, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Neologism, Dictionary entry, barely used. An intentional internet joke word. Unsourced and lack of good sources. SPACKlick (talk) 16:06, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete
WP:A11. ubiquity (talk) 16:18, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete, neologism. NawlinWiki (talk) 19:53, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As mentioned above by Fabrice Ferrer, this is not a neologism. Per the Vsauce video referenced, it is in the OED. It is also not an intentional internet joke word. Michael Stevens uses it in a discussion about Zipf Law. Michael's video has many good sources, but this article does not. This article can certainly be improved, but the instant popularity of the word is a great demonstration of the principles Michael was discussing. EricKent (talk) 22:09, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see no problem with this word, although you could reference the video. Andro498 (talk) 11:19, 17 September 2015 (UTC)Andro498[reply]

Transwiki to Wiktionary per
WP:DIC. It was the OED'd word of the day on 3 Jun 2013 [10]. All the delete !votes have not done even 5 seconds of research. Mediocre. ^walk victor falk^talk 14:33, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Poor faith to say we haven't done research. This article exists because of the internet popularity of a word with barely enough usage prior to an internet meme to warrant mention in the dictionary. Subsequently prior to 2006 it had only one mention on the internet that wasn't a dictionary entry and that was the wiki page for words used only once where it was notable for being published only once. There's no topic here to discuss. And there's already a wiktionary entry for Quizzacious. Is it relevant in a discussion of Zipf's law? Yes, it should be, But there's no topic here for a page. SPACKlick (talk) 16:19, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's why it should be on Wiktionary and not on Wikipedia. But it should not be deleted. ^walk victor falk^talk 11:58, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per
soft redirect to Wiktionary. Anonymous talk page comments on the relevant page suggest that if deleted, it will just be recreated. Etamni | ✉ | ✓ 19:37, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Merge with Zipf's Law. Benjamin (talk) 21:01, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non notable word, wikipedia is not a dictionary InsultedElephant (talk) 08:37, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge relevant content to Zipf's law and soft-redirect to Wiktionary. -- œ^™ 23:11, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

While I'm not an expert in a lot of Wikipedia's rules and guidelines, I'll just say that at least at this point in time, there isn't enough discussion for it to merit its own page, outside of Michael's video.
WP:GNG In its current state, it really is better to put it on Wiktionary and delete this page. 2602:302:D178:B130:B568:47D1:E9C1:CBBD (talk) 00:40, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Sorry if my question looks dumb but, isn't an internet meme around a popular Youtube science video (2.6M views in a week, and filled with verified and sourced info) a sufficient pop and cultural content for it to be important in human history, thus to have its own page on Wikipedia ? Also, why bother that much ? Would it take the place of another homonym ? Murazaki (talk) 20:12, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:35, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per the above discussion. Heyyouoverthere (talk) 22:19, 25 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 keep. (
non-admin closure) -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 18:42, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

The Gaze (novel)

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

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

May not pass
WP:NBOOKS I dream of horses (T) @ 05:45, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (T) @ 05:46, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep~~Delete~~ not even a claim of notability, just a plot summary. Not sure that a translation can be notable in its own right anyway Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:53, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jim, are you aware this article has been changed and improved? SwisterTwister talk 06:05, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
SwisterTwister, thank you. I note that the article has improved substantially since I posted my delete, and I'm happy to change it now Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:26, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:11, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the article has been improved a lot since the first version which was just a plot summary. While the translation is probably not independently notable, the novel itself appears to be since it has won a major award in Turkey. The article could be better sourced, to be sure. --bonadea contributions talk 15:06, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per Bonadea. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 17:11, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Likely keep as this is acceptable now especially for a foreign subject. SwisterTwister talk 06:05, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:05, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep now that it's been improved. Passes notability criteria. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:44, 23 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:15, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ankita Shrivastava

Ankita Shrivastava (edit | 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 actress, had small stints in the movies. Kavdiamanju (talk) 05:22, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Actress does not meet GNG, with no evidence of significant independent coverage, has played minor roles in films thus far. A case of
WP:TOOSOON also. Cowlibob (talk) 10:40, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:16, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:16, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there's simply nothing to suggest improvement. SwisterTwister talk 06:18, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Fails
Hangout 06:28, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete-as per nom and above editors. Fails
WP:NACTOR, nothing turned up on searches. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:46, 23 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) 01:08, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rhys Thomas (director)

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

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

BLP, does not pass general notability. Kavdiamanju (talk) 05:18, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: does not meet threshold for notability. Quis separabit? 17:35, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:19, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:19, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now as there's simply nothing to suggest better improvement. SwisterTwister talk 06:19, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Searches did not turn up anything to show that they pass
WP:DIRECTOR. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:49, 23 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) 01:09, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lalit Mangal

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

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

Contested PROD due to notability concerns. I dream of horses (T) @ 05:16, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (T) @ 05:17, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (T) @ 05:17, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unremarkable businessman doing his job. Looks like a vanity article: article creator has also created article on the man's business partner, who looks a smidge more notable.TheLongTone (talk) 14:09, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and possibly redirect to
commonfloor.com as although my searches found results at News and browser, there's not much for an article yet. SwisterTwister talk 06:30, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - searches did not return enough to show the person meets the criteria of
WP:BIO. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:50, 23 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:20, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Philip French (artist)

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

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

Doesn't establish notability (
general) or even significance. Only source so far is to his official website. clpo13_(talk) 04:43, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 09:33, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 09:33, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 09:33, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ref search comes up with nothing significant.New Media Theorist (talk) 21:20, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:20, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there's not much information and I found nothing to suggest better improvement. SwisterTwister talk 06:20, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No
WP:SECONDARY sources that I could find. Fiachra10003 (talk) 13:20, 21 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. Very clear consensus to delete, so I don't see a need to relist. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:07, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rick Schwartz (zookeeper)

Rick Schwartz (zookeeper) (edit | 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
Autobiography of individual lacking coverage in independent reliable sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 04:11, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 09:32, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 09:32, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 09:32, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm not finding anything that rises to the level of notability. I checked the San Diego newspaper and found only one minor article [11]. There are self-created social media sites, and a youtube video of a TV appearance that was part of his job. It is plausible, also, that this is autobiographical, given the
single-purpose account with the name "Zkrick" (e.g. "zoo keeper rick") that is responsible for most of the content. LaMona (talk) 17:18, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:07, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now unfortunately as I found nothing better than some usual News links. SwisterTwister talk 06:08, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep his contributions to the San Diego Zoo are notable and he has made notable appearances. I found an interview of him on NPR which is a very notable news radio program: [12] and [13]. If it helps I can add this to the references on his page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djhero2099 (talk • contribs)
I tweaked these links so they don't need a reflist. Drmies (talk) 00:13, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A couple of mentions and some TV appearances don't make for notability. Drmies (talk) 00:13, 22 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. I think Tokyogirl79 sums it up best, did the most homework and just has the best bead on this. Consensus is already to delete, but I would agree that if a user wanted to userfy and do some digging on this difficult to source topic, it would acceptable. They may ask any admin and point to this AFD, no further permission needed although they probably should have Tokyogirl or another admin review before moving it back into mainspace. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:06, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Candice Guardino

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

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

Doesn't appear to meet the notability guideline for biographies; tagged since June. Slashme (talk) 21:59, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
(talk) 22:04, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete for now as I would've suggested moving elsewhere but there's no target and my searches found results such as here and the like at browser but nothing to suggest better improvement. SwisterTwister talk 00:14, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly
Talk to my owner:Online 02:22, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She has been consistently the topic of news from major sources over the years and continues to be featured (for various reasons). She has an off-Broadway show and appears as a stand up comic in different venues. The article needs work, but the lack of information in the article does not make her non-notable. The fact that there are significant sources that can be used to fix the article show that she is, in fact, notable, at the very least passing the general notability. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 21:20, 6 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) 03:12, 9 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) 03:29, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm finding stuff, but a lot of the coverage isn't very good and by this I specifically mean the suit currently against her that alleges that she swindled money from her investors ala The Producers. Since the suit hasn't had a resolution I'm going to leave the allegations out of this but I will use the sourcing to at least write something about the stage play. This is kind of why it's sometimes not the greatest idea to make an article - if there is negative coverage then it'll likely get mentioned or used as a source at some point in time.
(｡◕‿◕｡) 04:00, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

I'm giving this a cleanup. One of the sources, the one from the Business Journal, is actually a press release. This makes it a primary source and since this is already backed up with a reliable source, I see no need to include this in the article. I've whittled down the puffery and removed the sources that wouldn't be seen as a RS, so now it's just a matter of finding good sourcing. I do think that there's enough here to assert notability since her stage play (despite the controversy surrounding it) did gain some coverage.
(｡◕‿◕｡) 04:12, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

It also looks like there was a little headline tweaking. There was a source that asserted that the Daily Mail had covered Guardino with the headline "Brooklyn-born Candice Guardino lined up investors to stage a production of Italian Bred, a show based on her Italian upbringing", but I can find no Daily Mail piece by this name. It also stated that it was written by Pete D'Amato, who posted it on September 12, 2014, but this does not seem to be the case, at least not exactly. The article was actually entitled "An off-Broadway actress and her husband snuck off to LA with $68,000 to stage a flop and then spent the money on themselves, lawsuit alleges", but whomever posted it decided to pick one of the subheaders because that way it would sound more positive. I also note that they specifically chose not to include the URL, because this would alert people to the article's true headline. I'm going to have to look closer at the remaining sources.
(｡◕‿◕｡) 04:21, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Soft delete/userfy/weak keep. Here's my rundown of the sources. The good sources are the SI Live post and the Laugh Button. These are both undeniably usable sources. The Playbill source is a little weaker since it is somewhat more of a notification of an event and reads a lot like a press release, but it can be considered usable by many editors, which is why I included it. The Daily Mail is a bit iffy since it's the Daily Mail, but so far it's still technically a RS despite it being a tabloid. The Tolucan Times is also sort of iffy since it's a local paper and not entirely a major news source. The DM and TTT aren't really the strongest sources and ultimately they're sort of what we have to decide notability on as the SI Live and Laugh Button posts aren't really enough to show notability per Wikipedia's guidelines. Despite the assertion above that more coverage exists, I can't really seem to find it. There's no record of her in Highbeam and a search in Bing and Google brings up little. Much of the heaviest coverage centers around the allegations of her and her husband misappropriating funds, which isn't something that can or should be in the article at this point in time because it's just allegations. A suit has been filed, but there haven't been any decisions or court dates yet. In the end all we have here is some fairly weak sourcing overall. It's not the strongest and I can't really see where anything other than her one woman stage play has gained any coverage. There are some blog posts and press releases out there, but not really anything that Wikipedia would truly consider to be usable. My argument here is for a soft delete and userfication (if anyone wants that), where the article is deleted without prejudice to recreation. We could probably argue for a weak keep at this point, but it's really not the strongest. Guardino has done what many actors have: she has worked in her field, but none of that has really translated into coverage at this point in time.
(｡◕‿◕｡) 04:30, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

That's an excellent review, thank you!! --Slashme (talk) 06:01, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Pinging FreeRangeFrog and JoeSperrazza for comment. SwisterTwister talk 06:10, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per
WP:NACTOR Kraxler (talk) 14:09, 24 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) 01:10, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sreejansena

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

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

Questionably notable and improvable and my searches found nothing good. SwisterTwister talk 02:31, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 02:34, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 02:34, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 02:34, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment User:SwisterTwister - May I ask what searches you have conducted? Have you searched in Bengali? AusLondonder (talk) 04:24, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not Bengali as I'm not a speaker but the usual News, Books, browser, highbeam and thefreelibrary searches and searches at The Hindu, Times of India, Deccan Chronicle, Indian Express and Hindustan Times found nothing. I would've also used the Bengali name to search at Bengali-language news had it been available. SwisterTwister talk 04:39, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A student theatre group. Not reasonably likely to be notable. DGG ( talk ) 05:05, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails
WP:ORG. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:59, 22 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) 01:10, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Patrick Walls

Kevin Patrick Walls (edit | 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: non-notable actor. Quis separabit? 02:00, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable enough for his own article. Kierzek (talk) 02:35, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 09:31, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 09:31, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an obvious case of open and shut with IMDB summarizing it well, simply not notable for an article yet because there's not much. SwisterTwister talk 06:15, 19 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. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:01, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

James M. Murphy

James M. Murphy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails
WP:RS. BLP considerations (if he's still alive). Vrac (talk) 01:53, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 09:29, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 09:29, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 09:29, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per
Location (talk) 13:51, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
That's, er, quite a source. So, he was one of a three-man hit-squad in a gang-related, 1968 double murder. Not tried because he got away. That one must show up in the old newspapers.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:59, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per
WP:PERP: "Editors must give serious consideration to not creating an article on an alleged perpetrator when no conviction is yet secured." Subject was acquitted. The alleged crime was not unusual. And the sources are low quality. Being on a big city police department's most wanted list does not establish notability. • Gene93k (talk) 14:03, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Added conviction, prison sentence, on one crime, sourced to Boston Globe.E.M.Gregory (talk) 09:47, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ The
Boston Globe is not searchable for non-subscribers, and the Boston Herald has lousy online back files. the fact that he was not convicted would, to a Bostonian, more of less prove that he was a member of the Winter Hill Gang. These guys made Al Capone look like an amateur. They were connected. Article just needs sourcing, by someone with access to Boston Globe back issues, and who knows the right key words to find this particular Murphy.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:13, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Boston Globe articles are on HighBeam. I looked and didn't find anything. The Winter Hill Gang is notable. That doesn't make every alleged associate of the gang notable. • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proquest has quite a number of Boston Globe articles.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:32, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

comment Sourced one crime/trial/conviction to the Boston Globe. This man was part of the Winter Hill Gang. I am no expert on mob crime, Whitey Bulger or Boston-area thugs, but I do wonder what his "working" name was. Hard to believe that hw was addressed as "James M." while pulling off an armored car heist. I continue to think that this article should be kept in the expectation that someone with expertise will come along and improve all of the Winter Hill/White Bulger articles.E.M.Gregory (talk) 09:45, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Added articles on some of his crimes from Worcester and Boston papers. Good search engines find him. using his name with keyword: FBI turned up more articles than I added. I don't watch a lot of mobster movies, but he seems to be the guy who says things like, "Whatever you say, boss," pockets his gun, and heads out to rob a bank.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:05, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Added news article on Murphy's participation in murder located by
User:Location (near top of AFD). User:Location's source also reveals that Murphy at least sometimes used the nickname "Jimmy". There is more material out there. In addition to his very common name, Winter Hill/Bulger mob in those years was named Shelly Murphy, and, of course, (Whitey) Bulger's first name is James. This whole thing is reminding me why I don't watch mobster movies; I will leave this now and let other editors weigh in.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:17, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Which guy are you stating is notable? That article states that "James Murphy" remained at large as of September 2014, so it's not the same person who was "tried and sentenced for participation in an attempted armored truck robbery" in 1993. -
Location (talk) 13:54, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
So we have a James M. Murphy written by the Telegram & Gazette at age 49 in 1992 involved with the the Bulger gang in a string of armed bank robberies in the early 90s. And a James M. Murphy - age not given - involved with the the Bulger gang in a double murder in 1970 recorded as still on the loose in 2014. And a badly-sourced article about one James M. Murphy, born 1943 and involved with the the Bulger gang. I suppose there could have been 2 or even 3 man by this name involved with that gang. Or one or more of the dates or other details are wrong. I am withdrawing my iVote.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:06, 21 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. Fundamentally, this seems to boil down to whether the coverage is significant becuase of the intended audience.
Whilst the policies on 'local' and 'regional' are clear, there isn't really consensus on whether these sources are one or the other, or indeed wider. Consequently, agreement on the sources is unlikely to be reached. Ged UK 12:33, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sierra Vista Mall

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Sierra Vista Mall

Articles for deletion/Sierra Vista Mall (2006 nomination)

Articles for deletion/Sierra Vista Mall (2nd nomination)

Articles for deletion/Sierra Vista Mall (3rd nomination)

Articles for deletion/Sierra Vista Mall (4th nomination)

Articles for deletion/Sierra Vista Mall (5th nomination)

Articles for deletion/Sierra Vista Mall (second nomination)

Sierra Vista Mall (edit | 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
czar 18:13, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:41, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:41, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:41, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per long-standing precedent that this level of coverage is sufficient for asserting a mall's notability; see
WP:OUTCOMES to assert enough notability. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:54, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Merge because the mall does not have the notability for it to be covered in a stand-alone article, even in summary style; it will not be a considerable detriment to navigation nor will it lose important context. Esquivalience ^t 00:05, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Mall is covered in newspaper sources and appears notable. Article could use a little expansion though. Dough4872 04:58, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sources do not establish notability all sources are either local, passing mentions or perfunctory. This is just a run of the mill mall with no national coverage. Consensus can change and past AFD outcomes does not give this article an instant pass. Me5000 (talk) 16:38, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Can't speak about the previous AfDs but there have been multiple new in-depth sources about this topic since the last one. Our guidelines don't ban "local" sources as evidence of notability.--Oakshade (talk) 17:28, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No,
czar 19:44, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Fine, those publications serve the
WP:CORP. --Oakshade (talk) 21:50, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
That's some selective reading. The last sentence of AUD makes its intent clear: to have major coverage from some place wider than its near surroundings. None of the sources fit that description. –
czar 22:25, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
If you're going to get
WP:AUD to exclude regional sources then you need to make a proposal and gain consensus o the WP:CORP talk page, not invent your own definition to selectively serve an AfD you started. --Oakshade (talk) 22:36, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
A Rovian accusation. The named papers make their constituency very clear in their titles: they're local papers. If you're saying they serve the Valley based on their WP pages, remember that WP is not a reliable source, especially when unsourced. AUD clearly addresses your original question of how WP treats local coverage: when a structure such as a mall only receives coverage (weak and incidental, at that) in sources of a local nature, some sign of greater area significance is needed to justify its own article. Furthermore, if this is really the extent of the mall's coverage, there's no reason to keep it standalone rather than as a major feature in the township article. –
czar 00:09, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Generally, a mall will not be mentioned outside of local or regional source unless a nationally significant event happens. Usually, good coverage in local or regional sources will justify notability as most people on the East Coast will probably not care about a mall in California. Dough4872 04:47, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as being properly sourced for
WP:GNG. VMS Mosaic (talk) 01:14, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep Seems to have enough reliable sources. Could use an expansion like a user above mentioned. --Caldorwards4 (talk) 05:42, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Two of the users who participated in this AFD(Caldorwards4 and Dough4872) were notified by Ten Pound Hammer here[15] and here [16]. I believe this to be possible
WP:Votestacking to sway the consensus towards keep since both him and the users he notified are members of wikiproject shopping centers[17] and in two of the AFD's linked by Ten Pound Hammer above, Dough4872 !voted keep with the reason "enclosed malls are notable"[18][19]. Me5000 (talk) 19:43, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

I asked Dough4872 because I had seen them in other AFDs for malls, not because they happened to !vote "Keep" in them, which I didn't even notice they had. Asking other users to participate in a discussion without attempting to sway them in your direction is not canvassing. Ten Pound Hammer • ⁽What did I screw up now?) 20:36, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As per
WP:AFD, it is stipulated to report an AfD to related Wikiprojects as long as the note is neutral. Caldorwards4 and Dough4872 are both members of WikiProject Shopping Centers and were both left neutral notes, although it probably would have been better to put a note on the project the talk page.--Oakshade (talk) 22:33, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep per the significant coverage in
reliable sources to allow Sierra Vista Mall to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 22:58, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Lean keep, although I could argue either way. I believe keep is the correct outcome, not because this particular mall-article kinda-sorta satisfies a strict reading of
WP:POLITICIAN
), there are several categories of quasi-inherently-wiki-notable "community institutions" like the local mall.

Almost every town has a high school, almost every high school receives purely local coverage, very
WP:ANYONE
.

Thus, my argument here is not that
encyclopedia... but most malls, like most high schools, do very much belong in the 'anyone can edit' encyclopedia. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 21:30, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
I have no idea what this honeypot theory is about, or if you are serious. Are you saying bad articles should be kept so that inept eds will vandalize them instead of good ones? —
talk) 05:14, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
WP:GEOSCOPE perhaps, but methinks WP:Don't_cite_WP42_at_AfD most definitely applies here. See also my reply to DGG, below. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 13:11, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
I believe the process you just described is usually referred to as talk) 15:46, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete as for previous afds. The material here is purely routine overage in local publications, which are not reliable sources for local malls. Most malls this size have not been kept, unless there was actually some special non-local notability. (The rule on High schools is purely in the nature of a compromise to keep them and not primary schools, to avoid the great number of afd debates--it's not a precedent for other local institutions) DGG ( talk ) 05:56, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@DGG: The malls I linked to in my !vote were all of this size or smaller and every single one was kept. Brighton Mall, Sumter Mall, and Middlesboro Mall in particular aren't even half the size and serve far smaller markets than Clovis. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:00, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that high schools are a compromise, and not a precedent. But not sure we shouldn't implement the same compromise for malls, as long as they have *some* local coverage; articles on the local mall, might attract a different subset of potential-wikipedian, than articles on the local high school. Malls might also attract more linkspam/etc than they are worth in terms of incentivizing newbie editors to click 'edit', which is why I'm on the fence. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 13:11, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Local sources don't necessarily make the article notable. Per DGG, malls this size usually don't get kept unless something happened (like an accident). MrWooHoo (talk) 01:53, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@MrWooHoo: See my !vote; most if not all of the malls I linked to the prior discussions of are of this size or smaller. 500,000 SF is "medium" for a mall. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:56, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

medium is non notable, by the ordinary meaning of the word. There indeed have been some erratic decisions on malls--the mood on them is inconsistent--we have reached very near consensus in the past on 1 million sq ft, but never quite got there. I continue not to understand why anyone would expect than article on malls of this very mild degree of importance in an encyclopedia. The sources bear me out--they;re essentially local and trivial. DGG ( talk ) 03:23, 14 September 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Delete: This is not supposed to be an encyclopedia about "things", that's called a business directory. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia about "notable things", i.e. interesting. This has not a scintilla of interesting about it. Has it shaped its region, culturally or otherwise in any notable way? No, and nobody is arguing it has. Even a West Coast paper whose name I recognize mentioning a momentous "110,000-square-foot outdoor lifestyle section" does nothing to change this, Cunard's labeling it as "substantial coverage" notwithstanding. The best we can hope for is that a
talk) 16:04, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

@
Brianhe: Did you even look at all the other discussions I linked? Clearly there is a precedent that malls are notable. That many AFDs weren't closed as "keep" for nothing. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:45, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. Seems to fail
WP:NCOMPANY, sources seem local, business as usual (ex. [20]), or passing. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 00:31, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Again, why the sudden bias against them when so many have been kept before? Ten Pound Hammer • ⁽What did I screw up now?) 00:38, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, slakr^\ talk / 01:49, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I agree with TenPoundHammer's comments above.
Dough4872 (talk · contribs) also provides an excellent explanation about why malls, like high schools, typically don't receive coverage in nonlocal sources: "Generally, a mall will not be mentioned outside of local or regional source unless a nationally significant event happens. Usually, good coverage in local or regional sources will justify notability as most people on the East Coast will probably not care about a mall in California."
Here are more sources I found about the subject in The Fresno Bee that can be used to verify content in the article.

Steinberg, Jim (1988-06-15). "Clovis Welcomes First Major Mall, Growth". The Fresno Bee. Archived from the original on 2015-09-16. Retrieved 2015-09-16.

Nax, Sanford (2003-06-21). "New retailers move into mall in Clovis - Sierra Vista Mall welcomes a restaurant and three stores". The Fresno Bee. Archived from the original on 2015-09-16. Retrieved 2015-09-16.

Clough, Bethany (2005-12-23). "Sierra Vista Mall gets a remake - 120,000-square-foot expansion aims to keep shoppers in Clovis". The Fresno Bee. Archived from the original on 2015-09-16. Retrieved 2015-09-16.

Nax, Sanford (1996-08-18). "Malls Branch Out For Retail Combat Competition Means New Offerings From Inside the Centers' Walls". The Fresno Bee. Archived from the original on 2015-09-16. Retrieved 2015-09-16.

Hostetter, George (1998-06-17). "Sierra Vista Mall Plans Expansion Clovis Shopping Center Would Add up to 200,000 Square Feet of New Retail Space Under Proposal". The Fresno Bee. Archived from the original on 2015-09-16. Retrieved 2015-09-16.

Nax, Sanford (2002-12-17). "Fig Garden owners buy Clovis' Sierra Vista Mall - Deal puts property under local ownership for the first time". The Fresno Bee. Archived from the original on 2015-09-16. Retrieved 2015-09-16.

Hostetter, George (1996-10-24). "Sierra Vista Mall Fortunes Turn Up. Clovis Shopping Center Called Close to Fulfilling the Promise Its Builders Envisioned". The Fresno Bee. Archived from the original on 2015-09-16. Retrieved 2015-09-16.

Cunard (talk) 04:42, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AUD. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:23, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
WP:AUD, which notes that a regional source is "a strong indication of notability". Cunard (talk) 05:26, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep The sources demonstrate notability. The hand-waving about local interest and run-of-the-mill is just a variety of
WP:DELAFD, "It can be disruptive to repeatedly nominate a page in the hope of getting a different outcome." Andrew D. (talk) 07:03, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
This hand-waving of local interest is supported by
WP:AUD. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:24, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep - Passes GNG. "Malls are the city centers of the 20th Century," I think the saying goes... Still pretty true. Carrite (talk) 21:47, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per DGG. You can't compare this to schools, it simply isn't the same. Local coverage doesn't really do the trick unless there is some cultural significance or coverage outside the serving area, as local only coverage is routine for any mall. This would force us to keep all malls, which isn't consistent with policy. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:59, 24 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) 01:10, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

United States Army Corps of Engineers (disambiguation)

United States Army Corps of Engineers (disambiguation) (edit | 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 second link on the disambiguation page is to the same article as the first link, the disambiguation page makes no distinction between the two entities. If a separate article is created then a hatnote can direct the reader from one to the other. Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:40, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Absolutely useless. This page isn't actually linked from anywhere in mainspace, but if it were, it would be from the page the dab page points to twice, so it would send you back to where you came from ... twice! Clarityfiend (talk) 09:09, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 09:28, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 09:28, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 09:30, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the above - useless page; even if the two targets were different a hatnote would cope. PamD 10:07, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Engineer Branch (United States) provides interesting background reading. There were two separate articles in the past. PamD 10:14, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom, unnecessary page following redirect of one article to the other several years ago. Anotherclown (talk) 16:40, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a disambiguation page with nothing to disambiguate. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:22, 19 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:27, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Martijn Hehewerth

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

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

Does not appear to meet Wikipedia:Notability (people). No in-depth coverage in the sources that are attached, and a look on Google didn't turn up anything meaningful. The closest to in-depth coverage is this article in Cleo - a long way short of what is needed for notability. Schwede 66 01:35, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable enough. Kierzek (talk) 02:37, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 09:26, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 09:26, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 09:26, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 09:26, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clearly fails SIGCOV. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 09:46, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per above. May be a case of too soon as well
talk) 01:53, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

'Delete for now as there's simply no better coverage other than this. SwisterTwister talk 06:22, 19 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. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:56, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Raj Group

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

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

There's hardly any information here and, although a company affiliated with Nepal's king may be notable, this is simply the son-in-law. Also, this company may not exist anymore as it has not been significantly edited since starting in January 2006 and my searches found no recent or significant for that matter coverage, with the best results being this and here. Pinging the only editor that would seem possibly interested
Bachrach44. SwisterTwister talk 22:26, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Actually I think
talk) 20:01, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Bachrach44 I'm sure but I almost never ping someone who was obviously a SPA account from 2006 so chances are they're never coming back. I pinged you in case you wanted to comment. SwisterTwister talk 20:54, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:53, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:53, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —
Talk 14:29, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:28, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. no evidence to support notability DGG ( talk ) 05:04, 21 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) 01:11, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Luke Archer

Luke Archer (edit | 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 nomination genuinely doesn't give me pleasure, as I've tried to save it by a bold merge of Luke Archer (fashion brand) and a rewrite, but ultimately, we have to be blunt - this was originally created as promo/conflict of edit editing by the designer's husband and business partner. Many of the sources are primary or press releases, and there is no evidence that the designer is sufficiently notable on his own merit. I can't find anything remotely reliable beyond a few "former student doing good' pieces on the Middlesex University website. So very sadly, I have to say that this article should be deleted, (although I'd love to see notability proved) and if Luke Archer lives up to his husband's grand claim that it will be a leading luxury brand by 2017, then I'll gladly welcome a new article when the time is right. Mabalu (talk) 10:59, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 22:16, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 22:16, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 22:16, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:28, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now as I simply found nothing good aside from this thus no better improvement. DGG For the sake of consensus, would you like to comment? SwisterTwister talk 06:14, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The only award isa junior award, which normally means "not yet notable". Family COI can give even worse results than paid editors. DGG ( talk ) 00:51, 20 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) 01:11, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

BE FORWARD

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

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

Apart from being written in a promotional tone, two of the three sources cited are primary (one paid advertising). Fails
WP:GNG Flat Out (talk) 07:17, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 09:23, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 09:23, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 09:23, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:27, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, promo puff piece. Kierzek (talk) 02:39, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now as I found nothing better to suggest better improvement other than these News links. SwisterTwister talk 06:26, 19 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) 01:12, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

TheScoop08

TheScoop08 (edit | 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 notable outside of the usual and expected news coverage at that time and my searches found nothing better than this and this and, as this was a one-time event and unlikely to start again (nothing to suggest this even continued after 2008), there's also no move target and there has been no better improvement since starting in September 2007. Pinging past editors Drmies and Pigman. SwisterTwister talk 05:56, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:58, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:58, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:58, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:45, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:45, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:26, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I would agree on that, as its only really covering it in 2008. It doesn't even tell you where it is. Is it really needed, I think not.
are coming 23:46, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per nom. Does not satisfy
WP:GNG.--Newbreeder (talk) 17:14, 18 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:24, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Polly Gasston

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

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

How is this subject even on Wikipedia? Do not see any notability whatsoever - just purely promotional. Sheroddy (talk) 01:20, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable. Kierzek (talk) 02:40, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Nothing in searches on Questia or The Guardian, but a Highbeam search did locate a piece by the subject in a "This Month's Objects of Desire" listing in Harper's Bazaar (October 2012) but no textual discussion. I am seeing nothing that meets
WP:ANYBIO criteria. AllyD (talk) 06:24, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 09:25, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 09:25, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 09:25, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Single ref is a link to the official page. Szzuk (talk) 19:15, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now as the best links I found were these. SwisterTwister talk 06:27, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Promotional. Fails GNG. Carrite (talk) 21:49, 22 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) 01:12, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mindy Gibbins-Klein

Mindy Gibbins-Klein (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Blatant promotion written possibly by a publicist for a subject who is not notable enough for Wikipedia. Sheroddy (talk) 01:13, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable for own article; promotion piece. Kierzek (talk) 02:42, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 09:23, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 09:23, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now and draft & userfy as the best links my searches found were at News here. SwisterTwister talk 06:28, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - promotional article, searches don't provide enough to meet
WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:10, 23 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) 01:12, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ramon Casha

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

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

Promotional and non-notable " Ramon Casha conducts weddings, baby namings and funerals, as well as other secular ceremonies." The extensive references seem to be his letters to the editor, or postings on his own site--or not even to mention him. DGG ( talk ) 23:42, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as my searches found results such as News and Books but nothing to suggest better improvement. SwisterTwister talk 00:12, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Deleting a notable person's article who represents the irreligious society in Malta including secularists, atheists, agnostics, liberals, etc because yet you cannot find online books or other news from your search is quite shocking. He has been working on equal rights and for secularism for years. It is as recent as 2015, this year, that he managed to satisfy and acquire rights from the Maltese government. Over time more material will be available. You are missing also his activities, human rights campaigns, referendums, Maltese language spellchecker, his work position etc. it is likely that you always want to point out basic things in order to delete. For most Maltese Barack Obama is NOT notable enough but I am sure you should not delete his article.
WP:AFDFORMAT.[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:14, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:14, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep being an out atheist or secular humanist activist makes him unusual... Esp in Malta. He has many sources as confirmed by article and Google search. Article needs cleanup, not delete. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:59, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

unusual is not notable. Even if he were the only one in the country, that still wouldn't be notability. DGG ( talk ) 04:42, 6 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) 02:51, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:11, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Promotional and possibly COI; does not meet notability guidelines. The article tries really hard (which is a dead giveaway of promotionalism) but is obviously promotional. Being a humanist/atheist (even a fairly notable one on the island) on an island with a population of 400,000 does not confer encyclopedic notability. Insufficient significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. The citations are a mind-numbing over-bloated scatter-shot grab-bag of passing mentions, self-sourced information, speaking engagement mentions (which are tantamount to press releases), and completely irrelevant trivia. DGG said it best in the nomination: When we get to such trivia as "Ramon Casha conducts weddings, baby namings and funerals, as well as other secular ceremonies", and the hobby trivia in the Personal Life section, we know we have a self-promotional dud on our hands. Softlavender (talk) 07:28, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's not often we get to see somthing that's so obviously promotional or vanity driven. A plethora of refs is not an automatic indication of notability and Internet barrel-scraping for sources is a classic case of trying to render a subject notable that really isn't. Does indeed look strongly like a case of COI by an aide, PR person, or agent. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:20, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - One of the most ugly examples of footnote stacking I've seen this year. Remember Timbo's Rule 14: Whenever you see multiple stacked footnotes in a lead to document a subject phrase as encyclopedic, it probably isn't. Carrite (talk) 21:52, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Searches did not turn up any RS to show this person meets the notability criteria. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:12, 23 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 redirect to
non-admin closure) Kharkiv07 (T) 18:12, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Community Middle School

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Community Middle School

Articles for deletion/Community Middle School (2nd nomination)

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
talk
) 14:42, 23 September 2015 (UTC) middle school with no clear claim to notability. Has been redirected and reverted, so bringing to AfD.
talk) 16:48, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep Article makes a number of rather specific claims of notability, particularly as National Champion at the National Science Olympiad Tournament, backed up by reliable and verifiable sources. I'm not sure that the nominator has reviewed the article, but it seems abundantly clear that the requirements of
WP:BEFORE have not been met. Many middle school articles should be redirects, this is a cardinal example of one that should continue to remain. Alansohn (talk) 16:52, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete or merge to the article about the school district, as is the common practice for middle school articles. The relevant notability guidelines are
WP:ORG does not list "winning a national competition" as being sufficient. It says "Evidence of significant coverage by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability." An organization must have significant coverage by multiple reliable and independent sources and should have " significant or demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education." So far that has not been demonstrated. Edison (talk) 17:48, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 23:08, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 23:09, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:48, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Twice winner of the Science Olympiad. There is enough coverage to distinguish it from a standard middle school. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:19, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to West Windsor-Plainsboro Regional School District, for Edison. Other articles on middle schools who have won the Science Olympiad have been redirected in the past [21], [22], making this the only one with an article. And I could not find any independent coverage on the school winnings. Best I found was a press release by the NJDOE [23] and a piece by Princeton [24], which according to the title it seems that at least part of that years competition was "hosted by Princeton". Rainbow unicorn (talk) 04:07, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per longstanding consensus that all but the most exceptional middle schools are presumed non-notable. I see nothing to indicate that this is more than a run-of-the-mill middle school. The fact that this passed a previous notability challenge back in 2006 is an excellent illustration of how community consensus can change — back then inclusionists and deletionists were fighting trench wars about schools. Now there is an understanding: elementary schools are out, secondary schools are in. Life is simpler, better, that way... Carrite (talk) 21:55, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - Consensus is to redirect these, No evidence of notability for a standalone article anywqay. –Davey2010^Talk 23:15, 22 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. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:55, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Olfa Hamdi

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

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

does not appear to meet WP:PROF or any other standard. . Her Google Scholar record, cited in the article, shows one publication with 3 citations, one with 1 citation, and nine with 0 citations. The only publication by the title "Advanced Work Packaging" in WorldCat is her Master's thesis. She has no doctorate, and no academic position. The publication referred to of which she is a coauthor is apparently "Advanced Work Packaging: Design through Workface Execution, Version 3.1 Implementation Resource 272-2" where she is presumably one of the team. There seems some significant COI: The article was contributed by the same editor who a few months ago added the long section on Advanced Work Packaging to the article on Work Packaging, a section that quotes only Hamdi's thesis and material from the Advanced Work Packaging Institute. The article contain uncited promotionalism: "the renowned research team RT272"; "considered to be an industry best practice and a game change". DGG ( talk ) 22:30, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DGG. My interest in this topic is more about Technology than Project Management, being a Software Engineer impressed in the dramatic change in Work Packaging Management process and what a massive impact Software can do to this topic. Hamdi's work grabbed my attention because of an award she got from the Tunisian Community Center which led me into this. Anyways, that's out-of-topic of this discussion.

It is my mistake for not finishing the article in my sandbox before publishing it, as it still needs more work. I tried to start with Hamdi then work more on the RT272 team (a coalition between COAA and Construction Industry Institute) and their work so I can bring more education about Advanced Work Packaging. The
Work package
article only had a definition before I started working on it, even though Advanced Work Packaging is just a part of it.

Does this seem related to WP:PROF mentioning a list stating they "have taken leadership positions in industry and academia"? Otherwise, I guess I'll just work on her publicity in Arabic media.

My main issue was most articles & interviews talking about her research in this topic is in French, which I don't like translation. I guess I'll just be more careful with citations and use the Arabic citations with translation (at least it's something I can read).

Thoughts... ~ AdvertAdam ^talk 04:35, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:18, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:18, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:18, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:18, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As the nominator states, there is no evidence here of academic or any other kind of notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:24, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:54, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 21:01, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:34, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks the significant independent coverage to meet
WP:GNG and doesn't meet any other notability criteria.Jakejr (talk) 15:00, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Sources are Google Scholar with 6 citations, and a lot of works by the subject, not anything about the subject, except that she got some award as "Tunisian Student of the Year in the United States". That hardly passes ANYBIO. Kraxler (talk) 14:21, 24 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. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:58, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wireless World Research Forum

Wireless World Research Forum (edit | 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 current version could easily be speedied but I nominated this instead in case it was marginally notable or the like, and the best results I found were this, this, this and this. The article hasn't significantly changed since April 2007 and standards have changed since then so the time for attention is now. Notifying Herostratus. SwisterTwister talk 00:31, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:49, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:49, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, go ahead and delete it I guess, if you want. Whoever or whatever they are, they don't seem to be gaining much notability or traction. I wouldn't speedy it, no; they're not nothing. But they're not much either it looks like, some sort of obscure gabfest-sponsoring logrolling thingy. There's been a template asking for anyone contribute some refs -- or even just a ref -- for like ten years now. Nobody's bothered to. Delete. Herostratus (talk) 03:22, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete on basis of sound arguments above. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:35, 16 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 keep. Courcelles (talk) 01:14, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thai Amulets

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's no references found for this article, and so can't find any importance on Wikipedia.
talk) 19:47, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. Unfortunately, there's just nothing to salvage here. The entire article is unverifiable and written in broken English. (comment by U:Non-dropframe)

Comment We do not delete articles merely because of poor English, if they can be improved by rewriting. I don't find the English all that awful--the main error is writing it's for its. Every individual sentence is understandable. DGG ( talk ) 17:53, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It cites absolutely no sources to indicate its notability, the structure/layout is completely off and it generally doesn't seem salvageable. I actually nominated this article for speedy deletion when it was even worse and had failed to notice that the original author just took it upon themselves to simply remove the speedy deletion tag...
~~talk) 23:25, 3 September 2015 (UTC)~~[reply
]
Since the article has been essentially re-written from the ground up, keeping it seems logical. Good job,
talk) 20:24, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:16, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Buddhism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:16, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is notable. See CNN Travel [25], Reuter [26], NY Times [27], Lonely Planet [28]. Every Thai Buddhist has at least one of those: see this news related Thai Prime Minister [29]. The language used in the article is not too bad and can be improved. --Lerdsuwa (talk) 15:32, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Subject is clearly notable, but I'm not sure the article as currently written is worth saving. Might as well rewrite it from scratch. --Paul_012 (talk) 17:59, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, make that a keep. Just noticed that Lerdsuwa had done some major clean-up on the article. --Paul_012 (talk) 18:01, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:53, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:21, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This really shouldn't have been relisted a second time. Consensus has become rather clear; the only reasons given for deletion (lack of referencing, unverifiable and written in broken English) have been addressed. Pinging User:Josu4u and User:Non-dropframe, in case they have further arguments. --Paul_012 (talk) 04:26, 16 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) 01:14, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Fankhauser

Ben Fankhauser (edit | 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 any notability here. Playbills, college reports and supporting cast. Nothing substantial and no substantial refs despite the long list. Fails
WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 17:15, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
(talk) 18:02, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:55, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:55, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now as my searches found nothing to suggest better improvement aside from the usual results such as this. SwisterTwister talk 00:17, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:53, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:19, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Same as above. Rainbow unicorn (talk) 04:14, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and above editors. Searches returned nothing to show notability. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:30, 23 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 redirect to National Athletic Association of Schools, Colleges and Universities. Ged UK 12:28, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

NAASCU Season 15

NAASCU Season 15 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats
)

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

Does not appear that individual seasons of this athletic association are notable. Safiel (talk) 17:04, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:09, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:09, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:09, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, unlike previous seasons, the men's basketball tournament is now on TV, like UAAP Season 78 and NCAA Season 91 so there's some semblance of notability. –H T D 22:24, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:52, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect for now to
csdnew 13:08, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
This is almost patently false. After every gameday, the newspapers always have something about the results the day before. There is plenty of sources to go around. –H T D 16:48, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:19, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There are no articles for any of the first fourteen seasons and it is too soon to say whether this season will be notable. NewYorkActuary (talk) 21:21, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There aren't any articles of the first 14 seasons of the
NCAA (granted, they happened prior to World War II), but it ain't stopping the creation of UAAP Season 77 and NCAA Season 90. –H T D 16:48, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

You could have made a stronger argument. There are no articles on the first 54 seasons of the UAAP and none for the first 74 seasons of the NCAA. Unless you count the articles covering only basketball. The earliest season on UAAP basketball covers Season 50 (1987), but this article wasn't written until 2011. The earliest season on NCAA basketball covers Season 63 (also 1987), but this article also wasn't written until 2011. I am aware that you are the person who created both article and I am not suggesting that you should have done it sooner. What I am saying is that, by the time you wrote those articles, both organizations had existed for decades and plausible claims of notability could be made for the individual seasons. And that's what's missing in the instant case. Notability for individual seasons of the NAASCU has not been established and this article was created before the season even started. The whole things smacks of "too soon". NewYorkActuary (talk) 18:32, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. Instead to the List of NAASCU seasons, to make sure the list is properly handled. - Supergabbyshoe

But there is no "List of ..." page. If kept, this would be the only article on any of the association's seasons. NewYorkActuary (talk) 23:20, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well uh, this pretty much refutes every oppose vote on this page. What now? This has three reliable sources, two of which are independent of the subject (the first is connected with the association so it's "unreliable".)–H T D 16:48, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect I see that it currently redirects and seems to be an appropriate choice. Heyyouoverthere (talk) 04:01, 25 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 keep. Weighing the policy based rationales given, consensus is to keep this radio station. The population of the town it serves, the ownership and similar factors are not a part of policy, so really can't be considered. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:51, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Radio Entreolas

Radio Entreolas (edit | 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 is not possible to independently establish the notability of the radio station serving a small-town (pop.13000). Sources used are a mention in a local newspaper from the same town and a link to a pdf listing the the radio as "admissible" to state subsidies. The local newspaper, El Marino (not to confuse with the defunct newspaper of the same name), mentions the radio station frequently but is it enough? In small community of 13000 poeple (Pichilemu) there can be plenty of cross-references, but zooming out to a regional or national level references are practically non-existent. Sietecolores (talk) 11:30, 1 September 2015 (UTC) Sietecolores (talk) 11:20, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
(talk) 12:05, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep The radio passes notability guidelines. I suggest you withdraw this biased nomination, and stop this behavior. If you nominate just one more Pichilemu-related article, I will report you to the administrators' noticeboard for disrupting the project Diego Grez-Cañete (talk) 13:58, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't make threats, and don't argue ad hominem. Discuss the issue instead. Kraxler (talk) 23:52, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[30] [31] [32] A couple of refs from non-Pichilemu sources. There are more in print, in El Cóndor, a newspaper of Santa Cruz; that, excluding local sources such as pichilemunews, El Expreso and El Marino (my newspaper, but nothing else), which have provided extensive coverage to the radio. One of its most important stages was during the 27 February 2010 earthquake emergency, it was the only radio that broadcasted in the area for several days, because of the power outage that affected much of Chile. BTW, the radio has a provincial audience (+60,000 people), not just in-town.
WP:AFDFORMAT.[reply
]
None of the three refs mention Radio Entreolas. Kraxler (talk) 23:52, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Of course the name does not appear by simply looking at the URL ;-) --Diego Grez-Cañete (talk) 00:44, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, the name is "Radio Entre Olas", you should correct the spelling. All three refs contain trivial mentions of the name. Kraxler (talk) 00:59, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In fact they use, indistinctively, "Entreolas", "EntreOlas" and "Entre Olas". As for the rest, well, whatever, I'm sorry it isn't a New York radio!! Diego Grez-Cañete (talk) 01:21, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:04, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete an article without any encyclopedic relevance. --Keysanger (talk) 12:31, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please elaborate (this and your other similar comments)? Diego Grez-Cañete (talk) 03:32, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: per
WP:OUTCOMES#Broadcast media. Sources provided do not get the station past GNG but do confirm that the station is licensed and originates content, consensus is that such entities are notable. Vrac (talk) 14:54, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

This is a good point. But how do we know that it is licensed? The only (primary) source in the article shows that it is mentioned in a list of entities "admissible to receive funds" from the government. I'd like to see something more conclusive, which says something like "this is the license to operate a radio station". Kraxler (talk) 13:54, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Admittedly I was making an inference there. I presume that because it is eligible for subsidy from the government that it is licensed by same. Vrac (talk) 13:59, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The government of Chile is very strict when it comes to unlicensed radio stations, they simply force them to shut down. Here you have a list of licensed radio stations, provided by the Telecommunications Subsecretariat [33] --Diego Grez-Cañete (talk) 14:05, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We mustn't infere, we need to ascertain, Vrac. Thanks for the link, Diego. Kraxler (talk) 14:30, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'll have to disagree with you there. It's highly implausible (if not inconceivable) that Chilean government agencies would subsidize an illegal radio station. Vrac (talk) 17:37, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:50, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:12, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is a
financial conflict of interest since the radio is sponsor of "El Marino" website, owned by Diego Grez-Cañete [34]. --War ko ^talk 20:31, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Prove it is a sponsor. That does not say anything. ;-) Diego Grez-Cañete (talk) 22:28, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Rather I would say there is little
independence of the subject. Writing about subject X in your local newspaper does not make X notable. Sietecolores (talk) 05:22, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep - passes
WP:BROADCAST ("Radio stations") - the link provided by Diego confirms that it is a licensed radio station. The sources show that it has original programming. Kraxler (talk) 14:30, 24 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) 01:15, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of oldest people by year of birth

List of oldest people by year of birth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

The subject fails
non-encyclopedic cross-categorization of oldest people and certain years whose entries correspond with a single source: Gerontology Research Group (GRG) table Oldest validated centenarian by year. Ca2james (talk) 00:12, 16 September 2015 (UTC) Ca2james (talk) 00:12, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:15, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't see doing mathematics or organizing a list in chronological order as original research. It is no different than what Guinness World Records presents in truncated form showing the living people, that we have at the bottom of the list. This is just a more complete version that includes the people who have died. Most of the links are blue aabnd the list serves as a navigation device to those articles. The chart is fully wikitable sortable, so it can be sorted on any field. It is by default sorted by year of birth and that is the title, if the title is bothersome, it can be changed. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:52, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The issue here isn't whether the table is OR or sortable or whether it's like what Guinness has; the issue is whether the topic is notable and encyclopaedic. Having blue links in the table does not automatically makes it encyclopaedic, since any collection of Wikipedia articles will be blue-linked whether the collection is useful or trivial. Ca2james (talk) 04:58, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The topic is the world's oldest people, and I don't think there's a plausible argument that topic isn't notable. This list just happens to present that information organized by birth year and doesn't magically become a new topic by virtue of that presentation and organization. A better question is how this list relates to other lists that appear to cover the same topic. postdlf (talk) 16:23, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
See below...apparently I've been confused as to what this list's topic is. postdlf (talk) 18:22, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Richard Arthur Norton's arguments. This is a useful and encyclopedic list. ABF99 (talk) 02:03, 16 September 2015 (UTC) Delete Changing my !vote due to new info offered below by Calathan. Since many of the oldest people are not even listed here, it no longer seems so useful. ABF99 (talk) 15:21, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - it is a rehashed list of the (presumed) oldest people that could be further sorted by any database program by continent, sex, etc. Should not be (re)listed here in Wikipedia. Zezen (talk) 11:50, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How is this not a duplicate of List of the verified oldest people, which itself contains a birthdate column and is sortable? I'm having trouble figuring out why this needs to exist as a separate list, but maybe I'm missing something. @Zezen: is this basically your concern, or is there yet another list in Category:Lists of oldest people to which you think this one is redundant? postdlf (talk) 16:23, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The two lists are very different. This one is a list of the oldest person born in each year, not a list of the oldest people ever. For example,
Lucy Hannah and Marie-Louise Meilleur are the third and fourth oldest peoeple ever (according to List of the verified oldest people), but they don't appear on this list since Jeanne Calment and Sarah Knauss, the two oldest people ever, were born in the same years as them (1875 and 1880, respectively). There are also numerous people on this list who aren't on the List of the verified oldest people, since those people are the oldest person born in a certain year but not among the oldest people ever. This list has many people who are only about 100 years old, which wouldn't be even close to the cutoff for the list of oldest people ever. Calathan (talk) 18:09, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
I see now, that isn't at all clear from the list itself, and I think most of the commenters on both sides so far have also been confused by just what we were looking at. I'm inclined to take back my earlier comment to the nominator, as the subject of "oldest surviving person born in a particular year" is a different one than I thought we were dealing with. And while "oldest people alive" or "oldest people ever" is unquestionably a notable topic, I don't know that "oldest person born in year X" is, and that seems to slide us more into trivia. postdlf (talk) 18:22, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This article should actually be called "List of the oldest centenarians born in each year". I don't think any official body other than the GRG keeps track of things like this. The GRG already has a table of validated ones,[35] as the nominator has pointed out. This table includes entries which that organization doesn't consider validated, which is another concern. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:00, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Another rehash of what could be a single sorted table. EEng (talk) 10:30, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see much substantial evidence that this is a topic covered in multiple, reliable, third-party sources, which therefore makes it unsuitable for Wikipedia per the notability guidelines. Canadian Paul 16:58, 22 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. (
WP:NPASR). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:14, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

DJ Mog

DJ Mog (edit | 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 one song with Sarah Lynn was probably the most notable and at least most noticeable but I'm not sure if there's much for better notability; my searches here, here, here, here (this is also found in browser) and some searches at a few other Irish news sources found nothing particularly good. There's also not a good move target, it was started by the record label and edits have not been significantly good so I hope this AfD can get some attention. Pinging past editors Beetstra and Joe Decker. SwisterTwister talk 06:30, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:30, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:30, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - If it seems like the only notable thing that he can be connected to is the "Somewhere" song, then I suppose the information about him that's actually cited (not much given the state of the 'DJ Mog' article right now) can be merged onto the song's page and a redirect could be set up. I'm not sure, though. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 12:42, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:48, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:10, 16 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.

~~~~Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2015_September_16&oldid=1142624170"~~~~

💌

📧

reply

Objective3000

talk

List of blocked TPB proxies

Blueboar

talk