Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 September 28

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
< 27 September 29 September >

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) 23:00, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Krisztián Nagy (footballer, 1995)

Krisztián Nagy (footballer, 1995) (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. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails

WP:FPL). Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:51, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:52, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the
(talk) 22:55, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick tcs 01:48, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:45, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 23:00, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Shinto

Dr. Shinto (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 good doctor appears not to be sufficiently notable to have an article here. The one apparently independent reference in the page may well in fact be a press release. The content is wholly unsupported by any vestige of an independent reliable source. With all deference to

WP:CSB, I can't see how this can be kept unless some real sources are added. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:44, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:37, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:37, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:37, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as there's simply nothing aside from some browser press releases. SwisterTwister talk 05:38, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Alt:
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
  • Delete: lacks significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. I can't find a single good source to add. -- Sam Sailor Talk! 07:28, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:44, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- fails both
    WP:GNG requirements. My search found no significant coverage in any independent reliable sources (including Danish-language newspapers and magazines). The only hits appear to be entirely self-promotional. — CactusWriter (talk) 14:49, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 23:01, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

John D. Haines

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

WP:NPOV-violating value adjectives and completely unsourced assertions of his personal feelings about things threaded through it. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 22:18, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
(talk) 22:57, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 15:50, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:46, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

Hey, I did find a reference regarding his football career: http://cms.cfl.mrx.ca:81/uploads/assets/TOR/History/All_Time_roster.pdf User:Bearcat — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kalina3112 (talk • contribs) 09:56, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 17:29, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rachel Santesso

Rachel Santesso (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 for Wikipedia yet. The subject just founded a local choir in the UK (like many other choirs). Cannot find many reliable sources (that are not from her personal pages, e.g. personal website, etc.) that confirm her encyclopaedic relevance/notability. Just one of many singers. Sheroddy (talk) 17:17, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete The subject fails both the
    WP:MUSICBIO. This version represents everything I could find about the subject that was remotely independently sourced—a piece in the local press of Victoria, British Columbia and a review of one of her CDs (the only review I could find) in a magazine which reviews recordings based on whether or not an ad is also purchased [1]. It still isn't enough to pass the notability criteria. However, all of it was removed by the editor who created the article and who has admitted a close affiliation to Santesso [2], [3]. The editor also wrote the current "PR" version as well as Capital Children's Choir which Santesso founded. The choir itself just about scrapes notability, although in its current state that article is a monument to puffery. Voceditenore (talk) 06:19, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Voceditenore (talk) 06:39, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Voceditenore (talk) 06:47, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. With a quick Google I turn up three separate reviews just of her "Songs of Louis Vierne" album, in Fanfare, the BBC Music Magazine, and International Record Review; there seems to be a chapter, or at least some substantial paragraphs, about her in a biography of Lily Allen (mentor etc.); there are news stories about the choir she directs in NME and elsewhere. The article has her down as conductor on Winter Magic (album). If that's right it's pretty major, although the reviews naturally focus on the singer, not the conductor. I've not spent 5 minutes on this. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 21:08, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Santesso did not conduct the whole
WP:NOTINHERITED do vary. Nor am I particularly impressed by this short PR blurb from NME in which she gets a passing mention. Voceditenore (talk) 21:56, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Then she seems to half-meet multiple points of WP:MUSICBIO. I'll stick with weak keep, particularly with her really being on four tracks of Winter Magic. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 22:06, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 16:33, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles (talk) 21:21, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. While it would certainly be preferable to have a Japanese speaker look for sources to demonstrate notability,

notability requires verifiable evidence and an assertion that there may be sources available cannot ultimately counter an argument for deletion based on the notability guidelines. The relative cultural importance of pornography is not relevant here. If a Japanese speaker is able to find sources demonstrating notability then I would be happy to userfy the article for them to be added. Hut 8.5 20:36, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Overturned non-admin close: The result was no consensus

non-admin closure) Esquivalience t 01:55, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Saryu Usui

Saryu Usui (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 only likely source appears to be a reheated press release see here and the award does not appear important or well reported. Plus our own article on the award suggests that became internate advertising before the "award" was given. In short, fails GNG and PORNBIO

Spartaz Humbug! 20:28, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Alts:
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Japanese:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Stage name:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Japanese:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
  • Comment: I note that Japan does not deal with or consider pornography the same way as is done in the U.S. While here it is generally seen and considered to be a "baser" industry, the adult industry is treated by their media there on a level much closer to that of what we would consider regular film stars. With respects to
    Spartaz, and as we are not judge the rest of the world by our somewhat narrow and conservative western standards, I would hope we gain input from Japanese Wikipedians better to offer insights as to how that industry is considered and treated in Japan, under their non-Western standards of propriety or lack. Schmidt, Michael Q. 09:34, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor Talk! 17:56, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per MichaelQSchmidt's comments. Pornography is a more "notable" industry in Japan than The US. T Kanagawa T (talk) 18:51, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per MichaelQSchmidt's comments. There are quite a few biographies of Japanese porn performers (styled as "AV idols" which report mainstream coverage and crossover roles. This performer, in contrast, appears to be a non-notable advertising model with a small number of very minor TV roles who turned to porn and has had a relatively brief, little-remarked-on career. If porn receives broader and more respectable media coverage in Japan, it should be easier to find sources, not more difficult (as some proponents of such articles seem to imply.) The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 17:17, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 16:35, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well
    do not wish to wait for Japanese-reading Wikipedians to offer translations of the Japanese-language sources that appear available, at least let a possible deletion be without prejudice for a return when such is done. Thanks. Schmidt, Michael Q. 21:41, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No harm in giving it another week to see if someone who can navigate Japanese shows up. Hint: I can't read a lick of it, either. Courcelles (talk) 21:20, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles (talk) 21:20, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (

non-admin closure) –Davey2010Talk 00:04, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Carly Craig

Carly Craig (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 claims "best known for starring in Role Models and Hall Pass; based on the WP articles, tho she's a named character with a role in the plot, she's very far from "starring in" and nothing else here is more than trivial. DGG ( talk ) 19:22, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:18, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:18, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Probably delete for now as although my searches found a few results here and there (Books and browser) there wasn't anything convincingly good and her IMDb summarizes it well that there's not enough for a better article at this time. SwisterTwister talk 06:08, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor Talk! 18:04, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 16:37, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I've added a couple of references to the article. I would give the subject the benefit of the doubt as to notability. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:55, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Per above comment. More discussion would help. Courcelles (talk) 21:10, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles (talk) 21:10, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Courcelles (talk) 23:02, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jaime Zapata (painter)

Jaime Zapata (painter) (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)

Nothing notable about this individual Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 18:18, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:07, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:07, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ecuador-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:07, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for now maybe simply because I found no coverage unless it's not easy to find such as at local sources. SwisterTwister talk 06:27, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Difficult to find English sources, yes. But this painter appears to be very well known in Ecuador as well as other Latin American countries, with multiple articles about him appearing in reliable secondary sources (i.e. newspapers, etc.) in Spanish. He also received recognition from the president of Ecuador for his work that hangs in a permanent exhibit in the Argentine presidential palace. "Presidente Rafael Correa reconoció labor artística de pintor ecuatoriano Jaime Zapata. Correa Delgado reconoció el trabajo de Zapata, pintor ecuatoriano radicado en Francia, quien participó con sus obras en la inauguración de la Galería de los Patriotas Latinoamericanos, que se encuentra ubicada en el Salón Héroes del Bicentenario, de la Casa Rosada argentina." I would say he definitely passes Wikipedia notability standards. Perhaps this Afd could also be relisted in South America -related deletion discussions for other opinions. ABF99 (talk) 02:41, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 03:17, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 16:38, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles (talk) 21:09, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 23:02, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Galleria, Al Maryah Island

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

Non-notable shopping mall,about 1/3 the size of those we usually keep. None of the references are reliable: "Gulf related" is the developer; "Mubadala.ae is the web site for the development in which it is located;" the other is essentially a press release. DGG ( talk ) 18:46, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Probably delete for now as I see no better signs of coverage and improvement and it would be best mentioned elsewhere. SwisterTwister talk 06:12, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 16:39, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:54, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:54, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:54, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Before we delete, what about the merge idea? Anything worth saving? Courcelles (talk) 21:08, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles (talk) 21:08, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete lacking quality sources. LibStar (talk) 19:03, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. North America1000 03:44, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tadpoles (band)

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

No reliable references to establish notability per

WP:MUSIC. Kelly hi! 21:27, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

I am curious, what coverage are you refering to? All the article lists are external links to related sites, myspace, facebook, Youtube and a directory. That constitutes no coverage. Please read Wikipedia:Reliable sources. --Bejnar (talk) 21:15, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I used Google. What's in the article isn't solely what we judge it on. Do you seriously think I've been here for 10 years, made tens of thousdands of edits and been given admin rights without reading Wikipedia:Reliable sources? --Michig (talk) 21:19, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It was trivially easy to find a biography and five album reviews from Allmusic, coverage from Factsheet Five, an extensive album review from Pitchfork Media, as well as other news articles covering the band to some extent. Considering that most of the band's activities were pre-internet that's a pretty good indication of notability, and that in addition to this more print coverage is likely to exist. --Michig (talk) 21:51, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:30, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:30, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —
Talk 05:50, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 16:45, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep: A very weak keep. I looked into some of the sources that Michig brought up above and was able to find some. There's an in-depth Pitchfork review ([14]) and a mention of the Factsheet Five article in an unreliable user-made website (I'm sure it exists in print sources somewhere). There's a passing mention of them in a book about psychedelic rock ([15]). Overall, I'm inclined to keep but barely. Nomader (talk) 17:40, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles (talk) 21:03, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for now and restart later if better as I simply found nothing convincingly good. SwisterTwister talk 05:46, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 23:03, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Sublunar Society

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

Non-notable music label, fails

WP:CORP. This appears to be part of an exercise in promotion; other articles affected apparently include Allan Gutheim, Armand Gutheim, Jeff Stonehouse and Samsæri, the other artists signed to this label; and Dr. Shinto, with whom a member of the last group has worked. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:55, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:43, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:43, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:43, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for now as there isn't even a Swedish Wiki article and there usually is with overseas subjects and my searches fond absolutely nothing good. SwisterTwister talk 05:44, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: lacks significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. -- Sam Sailor Talk! 07:16, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete Despite the Facebook campaign, no policy-based rationales for keeping the article have been presented. Consensus in favor of deletion is clear. Huon (talk) 21:49, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth South (singer)

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

Most sources in the article are either affiliated with her or too brief to count as non-trivial.

The article from The News&Observer is probably okay as a source, but the contents of it seems to indicate that this was her 15 minutes of fame. As far as I can tell she has not had significant coverage outside the contest she won, so this seems to fall in under

WP:BLP1E. Bjelleklang - talk 20:51, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:27, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:27, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:27, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:27, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles (talk) 20:53, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - This artist has had more than 15 minutes of fame. More legitimate news sources have been added such as ABC news and Ryan Seacrest news, N& O, and various blogs. The amount of fame is not a reason for deletion anyway and that is a shallow criticism because this artist continues to be a significant person with over 11 million views currently on a more recent video released by Ryan Seacrest and ABC news. Not to mention the fact that whoever Won the best cover of "Let It Go" in a Ryan Seacrest contest should go down in history as significant always as that is a significant accomplishment by this artist that no other artist will ever attain. Also, this artist wrote a song "I Love You" that the greatest country star Emmy winner Vince Gill sang a duet with her and a music video on. This also makes her significant and much more than "15 minutes of fame" person. Let's not give into vain thought as to what makes a person significant and worthy in this world. This artist has done more than many artists whose pages are now on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dehrji45mx (talk • contribs) 01:41, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, this will still need better sourcing (preferably third-party) about her and there's simply not enough with the iTunes links and such taking almost half of it (I know, I know, it's to mention her discography but it's still not third-party coverage). SwisterTwister talk 05:19, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This page has more than enough third party and news sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dehrji45mx (talk • contribs) 12:01, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Previous post moved as to not break up the header of this page. Bjelleklang - talk 12:46, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
First of all; of the 31 links currently in the article, the overwhelming majority are related to her:
  • Her own site
  • iTunes
  • Her employers website
  • Facebook and other social media
  • Reviews or brief mentions; mostly of her video with multiple princesses or of her winning the competition.
All of these fail the requirement on having
WP:BLP1E
exists for a good reason, and there is nothing here that seems to suggest that doesn't fall outside that rule. She has made some music albums as well as other videos, but the only reason she seems to be getting attention is because she won a contest she didn't even enter.
And please avoid attacking people. SwisterTwister does a great job keeping AfDs in system, and if you should be mad at anyone it should be me as I nominated this page in the first place. Accusations such as the one you made have a tendency to
be civil. Bjelleklang - talk 12:46, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
JamesBWatson, one of my favorite longtime colleagues, for tagging a warning.) SwisterTwister talk 19:00, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Again, there are several news articles and blogs well sourced on the page. She falls into the requirement for being notable on Wikipedia and that is having aired on TV and she has. People do not have to be "Superstars" to be considered notable. That is like saying only the really famous are worthy people. We must put a stop to this shallow and pressurized thinking in our society. It's a poison plain and simple to feel that pressure of having to be Superstars. There is plenty of room for people like Elizabeth South who has touched so many hearts with her music to be on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dehrji45mx (talk • contribs) 21:41, 1 October 2015 (UTC) This is an artist and artists have youtube pages and iTunes. Also, there are lots of sources aside from her website. There is no link that does not mention her on here. And there are entire full articles written on her - not briefly. It seems you have not looked at the links. There are many other artists on Wikipedia who have only one resource and less famous than her and they are accepted. If you believe that someone has to be a "superstar" to be on Wikipedia? Wikipedia clearly states that if an artist has been on National TV, they qualify as notable. This artist ran in rotation on a National Music television station for a good amount of time. She played on the same station as other notable artists - alongside and with Vince Gill, one of the most famous musicians of all time. Not only did she air on Music TV, but she was featured several times on one of the top TV shows in Nashville, TN. This article has MORE than enough News articles and resources. ABC NEWS, N & O, blogs, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dehrji45mx (talk • contribs) [reply]

Previous post moved from the top of the page. Bjelleklang - talk 21:34, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Again; take a look at
the section for people only known for a single event. Bjelleklang - talk 21:34, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

I think people need to grow up and stop being petty. Elizabeth South is a genuine person, and she's a awesome singer with many accolades. She is deserving of a Wikipedia page because of the sources in which relate to her. She's amazing and she's going to one day smash it really big! Keep Elizabeth South on Wikipedia!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxrobbo90 (talk • contribs)— Maxrobbo90 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 22:07, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep.Elizabeth South is a singer, teacher, and musician. Many albums on iTunes. A duet with Vince Gill. A teacher of Elementary School music. 11 million plus You Tube views. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.98.182.70 (talk) 22:22, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure i have this in the right place but I am not sure why this is even up gor deletion. The information in here is accurate and worthy to be listed in Wikipedia. I really hope you reconsider your actions. Elizabeth definitely belongs in here and personally has moved my spirit and keeping it here will definitely help others! Paul — Preceding unsigned comment added by Selectman13 (talk • contribs)— Selectman13 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 22:29, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You seriously need to get a life!! It is truly pathetic that you have such a thing against Elizabeth that you would campaign just to delete her Wikipedia page. I've got news for you buddy, you are the ONLY one who doesn't think what you're doing is completely ridiculous! You don't like her music? Fine. You don't like her voice? Fine. There are many artists I don't like, but I don't try to delete their Wikipedia page! Also, the reasons you have given for deleting this page are some of the worst I have ever seen! You say she hasn't had enough coverage to deserve a Wikipedia page? Well I beg to differ. Search "Elizabeth South" in Google. If you don't think any of that counts as coverage, then I don't know how you graduated Primary School And you say she isn't "famous enough" to have a Wiki page? 1) Fame doesn't decide whether you have a Wikipedia page. If someone thinks you have earned a Wikipedia page, they will create you a Wikipedia page. It doesn't matter if you are known world wide, or have a small fan base in one country, if you deserve a Wikipedia page, you get a Wikipedia page. 2) I think having numerous reliable sources write articles on you, appearing on Zuus TV, winning a national competition, having over 15million hits between two videos on YouTube, realising 12 CD's and singles, having 22k Twitter followers, 26k Facebook followers and 77k YouTube subscribers can put you in the class of "fame" Elizabeth has so many accolades they're hard to count! She was worked her heart and soul out for her music. And most importantly she has touched thousands, if not, millions of hearts with her beautiful music, majestic voice and kind and caring personality, and yet she remains humble and never puts anyone else down with her success! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tombaker97 (talk • contribs)— Tombaker97 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 22:50, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - no sufficiently robust sources. The addition of so many trivial sources may have dulled my judgement but I don't see notability here.  Velella  Velella Talk   22:57, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just a comment to everyone coming here after seeing the discussions on her Facebook page: Please take a minute before posting to familiarize yourself with Wikipedia requirements, and contribute to the article if you have any reliable sources to add. Arguing against deletion without posting links or other evidence that isn't
    another directory of no importance at all. Bjelleklang - talk 10:42, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]

There is too much evidence to post here proving Elizabeth belongs here! As I said before, just Google her name, there are numerous articles about her. Anyway, I shouldn't even need to provide any further evidence that Elizabeth deserves her Wikipedia page for two reasons. 1) It doesn't matter how many sources you have writing articles on you. If someone thinks you have earned a Wikipedia page, they will create you a Wikipedia page, no matter how many articles have been written about you. 2) Elizabeth has had numerous articles written about her, if you want me to link them all here, fine I will but it would take me a hell of a long time. Just because not every article has been inculded in the Wikipedia page doesn't instantly mean she doesn't deserve to be on Wikipedia. All it means is that whoever made the page for Elizabeth just didn't include every article written about her. You can argue all you want about Elizabeth not deserving this Wikipedia page, but the fact is, no matter what you say she deserves to be on Wikipedia. You haven't even got a genuine arguement. The only reason you say she doesn't deserve to be on Wiki is because you aren't a fan of hers, which is the worst excuse to delete a Wikipedia page I have ever seen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tombaker97 (talk • contribs) 11:14, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per poor claim to notability and sources. James' assessment of ref-bombing seems accurate. Agricola44 (talk) 15:23, 2 October 2015 (UTC).[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 23:04, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

6S Marketing Inc

6S Marketing Inc (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 company is only notable for some PR they generated due to the

iPhone 6S having a similar name to them. Other than that this is the only coverage and it is local and trivial. SmartSE (talk) 20:45, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:49, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the
list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:49, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:38, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 23:04, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Breikss

Chris Breikss (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 internet marketer - I can't find any substantial coverage in RS as is required to meet

WP:BIO. (Clean up of paid editor Trident13). SmartSE (talk) 20:42, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:53, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:53, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the
list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:53, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:53, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as although I found links at News, Books and browser, there's nothing to suggest better but feel free to draft and userfy if needed. SwisterTwister talk 05:54, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Promotional and badly sourced, without evidence of passing either
    WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:47, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 23:04, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alexandru Balanici

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

Seems entirely non-notable, and all of the content likely machine-translated from Moldovan or Romanian or what-have-you, as seen in section headings like "Steps" which makes no sense compared to a job title like "Rector of Academic" which sounds like someone who doesn't speak English. I don't doubt he exists and everything understandable on this page is true, just not encyclopedic. JesseRafe (talk) 20:39, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as failing
    mid-level manager at a small college. Bearian (talk) 16:21, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:04, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Moldova-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:04, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:04, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for now and restart later if better as I found nothing better than a few News and browser links and the overseas Wikis are no better of course. SwisterTwister talk 05:48, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 23:04, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Edmund Keli’i Silva Jr.

AfDs for this article:
Edmund Keli’i Silva Jr. (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)

Biographical article about (living) claimant to Hawai'ian Throne. May not be irreparably propagandist (article is in support of his claim), if somebody wants to put in many hours of work on tone, and can find quality sources to back up our information. All supporting sources seem to be self-published, either by the subject or his partisans. Without any outside sources, notability is also a matter of question. Chamberlian (talk) 20:04, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hawaii-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:01, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:01, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for now as I found some links at Books, News and browser but this is best restarted later when better. SwisterTwister talk 05:58, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 23:04, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

IBZL

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

Article about a "thought experiment" on Internet bandwith, with unclear notability. The article has a few sources, but #1 is SPS, #2-5 source the NGA background (which is a separate topic), and #6-7 seem to focus not directly on IBZL, but on succeeding related topics and applications that may use results from IBZL workshops. Concerns about notability have been raised on the talkpage 2 years ago, but haven't been addressed. Disclaimer: I am no scientist, so this should have a close and thorough look by topic experts. But without additional sources the topic seems to fail

WP:GNG. See also the closely related article Triple Task Method, that has been created by the same SPA editor. Google search has a few more hits compared with TTM, but nothing in-depth - and the search is conflated with other IBZL abbrevations. GermanJoe (talk) 19:37, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:58, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:58, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 23:04, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Free Anonymous Internet Φ

Free Anonymous Internet Φ (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 doesn't meet WP:GNG --  Kethrus |talk to me  19:31, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - the idea of anonymous Internet browsing using the same technology as bitcoins is intriguing, but most of the current sources talk only about further uses for blockchain technology without being explicitly about the subject of this article. There are only two references directly related to this software, both of which are
    WP:GNG. clpo13(talk) 08:06, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:57, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:57, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for now' as I simply found nothing better than some browser links. SwisterTwister talk 06:02, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 23:05, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sajib Kumar Mitra

Sajib Kumar Mitra (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 general notability. Autobiography with zero secondary coverage. Blackguard 19:25, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 00:55, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 00:55, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:55, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 23:06, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Triple Task Method

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

Article about research method solely based on book sources of the two original researchers. Without any 3rd party sources this looks like a self-presentation of this research approach from a possible COI-editor (SPA). Google search revealed no in-depth coverage. Disclaimer: I am no scientist, so this should have a close and thorough look by topic expert. But without additional sources the topic plainly fails

WP:PROMO). See also the closely related article IBZL in a separate nomination. GermanJoe (talk) 19:23, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:54, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:54, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I suppose although I would explore the chance of mentioning this at Stephen P. Morse's article and the best links I found were some at Books and browser. SwisterTwister talk 06:00, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 23:06, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sonny Ayon

Sonny Ayon (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 matches found for "Sonny Ayon" and "Sonny Valens" on Google News and Books. There's a filmography page on NYTimes.com, but all of his credits are minor ones. Even the video song appearance is minor. Fails

WP:ENTERTAINER. Skr15081997 (talk) 16:40, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Skr15081997 (talk) 16:42, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Skr15081997 (talk) 16:42, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Skr15081997 (talk) 16:43, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 17:29, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Luca del Bono

Luca del Bono (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 hotel manager. References are almost all dead links, aside from one primary source (the subject's purported company website) and two mentions in gossip-type columns that contain the subject's name only once, in articles that only tangentially mention him. Google Trends search[16] turns up "Not enough search volume to show results." Searching for subject mentions, I found only one additional reliable secondary source hit, a fluff piece promoting a new club in a hotel he was managing, in Travel and Leisure Online. I don't believe this rises to any level of notability. Rockypedia (talk) 17:22, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. He's an entrepreneur not a "hotel manager." He's interviewed in the Italian business newspaper
    talk) 14:52, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Response: I take issue with calling him an "entrepreneur" - I know that whoever wrote this article called him that, but not one source calls him that. He's ID'd as either a "manager" or "advisor" to hotel management. At best you could make an argument that he's a consultant in the hospitality business. Just my two cents, on that term only. Rockypedia (talk) 17:43, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete or TNT See comment below. There is virtually nothing salvable in the article, although the sources found by
    Samuel J. Howard give a glimmer of notability. I find no mention of him in the list of "references" -- in fact, some of the links there are so irrelevant that I have no idea what was intended. If someone wants to completely re-do the article, it could be saved. But if it is in its current state at the end of the AfD process, my vote is Delete. LaMona (talk) 16:35, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
"I find no mention of him in the list of 'references'" Yeah, he's definitely there if you work through the list of sources. If you're concerned about the state of the article, you should improve it rather than blow it up. --
talk) 20:46, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Yes, as I stated in the initial nomination - he's definitely there in exactly two of the sources - and in both of them, he's mentioned only briefly, and he's not even close to being the subject of the article. Hence the nomination. Rockypedia (talk) 00:02, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps @
talk) 16:37, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:15, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:15, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:15, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor Talk! 16:31, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per
    computer 17:08, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
@
talk) 17:37, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
@
computer 17:46, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

It looks like some of the information cited is tenuous, and this article needs revision, not deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Silvester53 (talk • contribs) 18:58, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment @
    Rubbish computer: What do you think about rewriting this article? I am going to research some sources online. Silvester53 (talk) 18:02, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
@
computer 19:00, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
@
talk) 17:26, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Yes, they were my own searches and browser is Google browser. SwisterTwister talk 17:35, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Can't see any real notability. Just a relatively young businessman. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:25, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (1) no claim to notability (2) for lack of significant coverage. Fails
    WP:BLPNOTE. Better than most of the bios that come here, at he has a start on substantive coverage, but only that. --Bejnar (talk) 15:03, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to

Yash! 01:52, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Skellington (band)

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

This is Britt Daniel's first band. Normally I'd redirect there, but the "(band)" disambiguator means its an unlikely search term. A brief mention on the band could be made in Daniel's article (and indeed there is already), but nothing else. We don't have articles on Mable Greer's Toyshop or The Empty Vessels so there would seem to be precedent not to include early bands of musicians who later became notable without independent sourcing. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:47, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I agree ths band would need to independently notable to merit an article, though coverage of the band included in Spoon articles could count. I've considered writing The Dancing Hoods before, but its luckily already covered at Mark_Linkous#Dancing_Hoods. So, even if merged somewhere, I'd rather the content be kept than removed.--Milowent • hasspoken 13:28, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor Talk! 16:44, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:29, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:29, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Britt Daniel where although this is briefly mentioned, there could be a better section and I'm willing or to look into this later. My first searches at News and Books found some links but nothing to suggest better improvement. SwisterTwister talk 21:57, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor Talk! 16:28, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. Agreed with SwisterTwister: This info would fit well with the Britt Daniel article and it's interesting information that isn't there already, but doesn't necessarily need its own article. Fuzchia (talk) 17:29, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per SisterTwister. --
    computer 18:05, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 23:07, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sunny Channel

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

Notability not established Action Hero Shoot! 06:49, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 09:38, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 09:38, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete likely if this can't be improved as I found nothing to suggest improvement. SwisterTwister talk 07:49, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor Talk! 16:17, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor Talk! 16:26, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above points, little if any indication of notability. --
    computer 18:06, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 23:07, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lawson's Cup

Lawson's Cup (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. Drewziii (talk) 06:39, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 09:37, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 09:37, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 09:37, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Very clearly fails
    WP:GNG. — Jkudlick tcs 16:53, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick tcs 09:48, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick tcs 09:49, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor Talk! 16:16, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor Talk! 16:26, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above points. --
    computer 18:07, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 23:08, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sheila Dewey

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

I can't find sources for most of the big claims in this article or any sources at all for that matter. Article has been practically unsourced since 2006. Brustopher (talk) 16:16, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete although I would be glad to keep if someone can find better sources. I can find a few mentions, and one possible review (London theatre record), but not more. However, if someone in the UK has access to 70's theatre magazines, there might well be more. LaMona (talk) 17:12, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:04, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:04, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor Talk! 16:25, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 23:08, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

News World@ 11

News World@ 11 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

My searches simply found nothing and much less something to suggest mentioning at MediaCorp Channel U's article, there's simply nothing to suggest keeping this sparsely edited article that has existed since September 2006. SwisterTwister talk 06:13, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:15, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:15, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:15, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Completely unsourced and, even if it were to be sourced, there is no claim to notability. NewYorkActuary (talk) 23:19, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor Talk! 16:15, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor Talk! 16:25, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above points. --
    computer 18:08, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 17:31, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Talia Lavin

Talia Lavin (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)

Only notable for one event, and as such does not appear to meet the notability guidelines. Article is mostly a play-by-play of her Jeopardy! game. Perhaps deserves a mention on the corresponding Celebrity Jeopardy! page, but nothing more. Oneforfortytwo (talk) 15:21, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

*Weak keep - The fact that she was a Fulbright fellow may make her notable. Gparyani (talk) 02:46, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect or simply delete as I watched this as I usually watch Jeopardy! but I'm split if this should be a separate article simply because of an attempt at humor. SwisterTwister talk 06:18, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor Talk! 16:24, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 23:08, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Faculty of Science and Technology, Aarhus University

Faculty of Science and Technology, Aarhus University (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 university faculty. I have doubts about the value of redirects in cases like this. TheLongTone (talk) 14:38, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor Talk! 16:23, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as I found some links at Books and browser but nothing to suggest better at this time. SwisterTwister talk 06:17, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was No Consensus. The editors calling for deletion make the powerful argument that independent, reliable sources are lacking. Those opining for "Keep" counter with subjective claims of importance and concerns about systematic bias. Though such claims are tenuous without at least a some sourcing to back them up they cannot be completely discounted and at least a couple of mentions have been adduced. Given the tenor of the discussion, therefor cannot see that a consensus for deletion has been established at the present time. Eluchil404 (talk) 03:17, 8 October 2015 (UTC) [reply]

The Burning Bush

The Burning Bush (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 PRODded with reason: "Non-notable journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet

WP:GNG." DePRODded by article creator with reason "it is the only reformed theological journal in singapore", which does not show notability. PROD reason still stands, hence: Delete. Randykitty (talk) 09:06, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

it is in the Christian periodical index http://cpi.acl.org/cpititles.html
WP:NJournals
has the provisions:
  • "Note that as this is a guideline and not a rule; exceptions may well exist. Some journals may not meet any of these criteria, but may still be notable for the work they have published. It is important to note that it is very difficult to make clear requirements in terms of quality of publications: The criteria, in practice, vary greatly by field. Also, this proposal sets the bar fairly low, which is natural: To a degree, journals are the sources upon which much of Wikipedia's contents are built. It is natural that successful ones should be considered notable."
Considering its worldwide circulation, 20 year history, and 1 of the 2 theological journals in Singapore, out of over a dozen institutions, I'd say it's pretty successful. Further, it contains a ton of historically and ecclesiastically valuable content such as a primer on the doctrine of preservation, festschrifts, memoirs, chronological milestones, legal exchanges (with reference to Singapore Judiciary), and annotated critiques of academics' works in universities and seminaries.
  • "It is possible for a journal to be notable according to this standard and yet not be an appropriate topic for an article in Wikipedia because of a lack of reliable, independent sources on the subject. Every topic on Wikipedia must be one for which sources exist (see Wikipedia:Verifiability); however, most journals nowadays have home pages which may be used as sources for uncontroversial information. Often, this will be sufficient to create a stub on a particular journal, even in the absence of other sources."
for these reasons, I propose KEEP Bpc.sg (talk) 17:17, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment:
    independent reliable sources remark on the content (whether in a positive or a negative way). The second point you quote from NJournals is irrelevant if the journal is not notable (it just says that the journal's homepage can be used as a source for non-controversial info if the journal is notable). --Randykitty (talk) 17:40, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Ah ok I get your point on the
independent reliable sources now. Actually it is very hard to find them because there are no independent historians at the moment. Everything, usually positive contributions, is usually done under the auspices of the church, college or denomination. More often than not, it is only when there are negative remarks that such sources surface. Have added in. Bpc.sg (talk) 02:47, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
(talk) 22:27, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
I see. Interesting list there. Perhaps, the publication, given its representation of the college and prodigious output on VPP, could have some "imputed" notability? Bpc.sg (talk) 02:53, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Far Eastern Bible College.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:42, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- This has the feel of a minor (but regionally significant) theological journal. Theology being something of a niche subject cannot be expected to appear in general arts citation indices, which are in any event much less well developed than scientific ones. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:16, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Notable theology journals aqre routinely included in, for example,
    ATLA Religion Database, which contains many small theology journals and is specialized in this "niche subject". This journal is in none of these databases, not even the ATLA one. --Randykitty (talk) 07:44, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor Talk! 16:21, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm sorry, but I don't see any "independent sources" that you mention above in the article. The list of articles that appeared in BB does not prove anything either. GScholar (which does include even minor theological journals, because it strives to be complete) does not show any evidence that any of these articles have been noted outside of the BB itself. --Randykitty (talk) 07:54, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I had not been aware of this journal until I found a notice that this article was nominated for deletion. I find the journal to be a distinctive and significant voice for a specific theological circle. I have already cited journal in a Wikipedia article and expect to cite the journal again. It is linked to a number of other articles here. I may not agree with all of it, but I think it deserves a place here in Wikipedia. Pete unseth (talk) 22:00, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would you by any chance have any policy-based reason to keep this article, apart from the fact that
    you like it? --Randykitty (talk) 07:51, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Wile I sympathize with this sentiment, it makes deciding which journals to keep and which ones not a very difficult and subjective one: all one needs to do is create some references here and there on WP and, presto! A notable journal is born. In the present case, I think some of today's edits argue that this is merely the house journal of a (small) seminary. --Randykitty (talk) 15:10, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Peterkingiron, (talk), Pete unseth, and Carrite for your appraisal. I think there is no question on the historical and ecclesiastical value. To build on Carrite's point, I think Wikipedia does allow for subjective appraisal since a given set of "objective" rules cannot be all-encompassing. What Carrite said echoes the expert opinion of professional archivists I've spoken to in real life. Because appraisal is both an art and a science, a checklist, while it is good, can only provide a guideline. It is ultimately up to humans to make the call. I applaud Randykitty's call to stay objective but not everyone is as objective as you are. For example, Calvary Baptist Church in Bucyrus, Ohio [22] chose to link to [23] instead of [24]. The same goes for [25] (p3) (it's reproduced).

[26] does link to them on at least 4 items under on the left navigation menu: Dr Jeffrey Khoo, Divine Inspiration, Divine Preservation, Divine Identification. [27] (p5) is not listed in any citation count. Also, [28], [29] (p349), [30] (p116)

I think this journal is quite influential in the subject area of verbal plenary preservation, given the prodigious output on the topic so much so that it has been criticized. With regards to the articles, topics relating to John Sung, Calvin [31] (from Calvin Seminary!), confessionalism and revivalism in the BPC by third party (http://www.febc.edu.sg/assets/pdfs/bbush/The%20Burning%20Bush%20Vol%203%20No%202.pdf), as well as timelines in http://www.febc.edu.sg/assets/pdfs/bbush/TheBurningBushVol18No2.pdf all have rich historical value to Singapore church history and ecclesiastical importance to Calvinist and reformed circles in the region.

Since under

WP:NJournals
, only one criteria needs to be met:

  • The journal is considered by reliable sources to be influential in its subject area.
  • The journal is frequently cited by other reliable sources.
  • The journal has an historic purpose or a significant history.

Based on the aforementioned reasons, I would say it pretty much hits 1 and 3: influential in VPP subject, serves a historical purpose to Singapore church history.

Bpc.sg (talk) 17:16, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sorry Bpc.sg, but given there is only a handful of citations and such, I cannot consider this influential and even less historical. It's as wide a miss of NJournals as can be, not to mention GNG. --Randykitty (talk) 17:47, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The policy regarding
WP:NJournals mentions being "influential in its subject area". If we use metrics that focus on theology in North America and Europe, it will rank lower. But I believe it is influential and authoritative in documenting a stream of churches and theology in Singapore. I have argued elsewhere for a greater number of articles on non-North American topics. By these, and other criteria, I believe the article on The Burning Bush should be retained. There are not many voices on this page, but the number of people calling for deletion are not overwhelming. I vote to keep it Pete unseth (talk) 19:33, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Delete would be my recommendation, I would have expected some decent coverage after twenty years. I reject the non-standard approach that the keepers are trying to apply. Yes, there can be exceptions in exceptional cases, I don't see any evidence that this is one of them. --Bejnar (talk) 02:57, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 23:11, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keith Fitchett

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

Article about a non-notable local councillor, who fails

WP:POLITICIAN and also mean that there is no clear possible redirect target. Valenciano (talk) 15:17, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:35, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:21, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 23:11, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of devices supported by CyanogenMod

List of devices supported by CyanogenMod (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)

Completely un-referenced list of un-encyclopedic information. If this list were referenced, the references would likely come from the CyanogenMod project, and all be on their website. That's the more appropriate place for this list, where it can be maintained and kept completely current. A list of compatible devices for any software product doesn't belong on Wikipedia. The list can be distilled to "CyanogenMod is compatible with <number> devices from <number> vendors", given a link to this information back at the project website, and updated every once in a while. Mikeblas (talk) 14:43, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:33, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:33, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:33, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as I'm not seeing much of a need for a separate article. SwisterTwister talk 06:19, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It is a shame that there are people that want useful information removed from Wikipedia. I do not know how do you expect for people to want to support Wikipedia. The original article is already too big and Wikipedia suggests making a separate article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.44.115.94 (talk) 09:34, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Well, first of all, it's not unreferenced. As the template right under the afd notice says, there are refs but it primarily uses a list instead of in-line citations. If you scroll down to the bottom of the page, you see it right there. As the list history shows, these were formatted as a list of refs in advance of this deletion discussion.
As you suggested, the entirely of the refs are from the Cyanogen official site. Logically this would be the only reliable source for this info. This usage of a primary source to provide support for statements of fact would be acceptable and in line with
WP:FL (e.g. List of Nintendo 64 games and List of WWE Intercontinental Champions
) use official, first party sources as their main line of info.
I had previously removed the notability template because a list of supported devices is necessary information. This point stands. This is not merely a catalog of items. One of defining characteristics of Cyanogenmod is the multitude of devices it supports across versions, so a list of supported devices is essential information. --Jtalledo (talk) 19:15, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per reasons outlined by the nominator and
    WP:NOTCATALOG. This list is basically a hard-to-maintain mirror of download.cyanogenmod.org without the direct download links. --Dodi 8238 (talk) 19:37, 5 October 2015 (UTC) [edited 19:55, 5 October 2015 (UTC)][reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 23:12, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Love story majhi anni tichi

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

Unsourced article about a future film. No evidence of

WP:GNG notability. - MrX 14:17, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:25, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:25, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Alts:
Alt:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Alt:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Director:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Screenwriter:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Studio:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Lead:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Lead:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Lead:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
WP:INDAFD: "Love Story Majhi Snni Tichi" "Majid Parvez" "Nilesh Kasbe" "Whispering Souls" "Yatin Karyekar" "Trupti Shinde" "Vikas Patil"
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep as geographic places such as villages are almost always kept so unless this has further issues needing attention, it can be mentioned later but this seems acceptable for now. (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 06:26, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sivasailam

Sivasailam (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 article has no valid source and no EV AntanO 14:08, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: It is unclear whether this article is meant to be about a village or a temple. It does not establish the notability of either. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 00:34, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep villages are inherently notable per
    WP:GEOLAND. The simplest Google search shows a map, a postal code, "Sivasailam, Tamil Nadu 627412, India", and more about the village. It exists so passes the threshold, the above folks fail utterly to understand policy here and haven't even bothered to look before they leaped. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:36, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
WP:GEOLAND says, "legally recognized places are typically considered notable". But are we sure this is a legally recognized place? According to this page, the Sivasailam post office is just one of 5 post offices which share the postal code you've mentioned above. Further, it suggests that it is within the legal municipality (Town/Taluk) of Tirunelveli. On the other hand, our article says it is within the Ambasamudram Taluk. I've got no idea whether this page
is reliable, but it says it is within Kadayam Taluk. Some other pages say that also.
So could this village fall into the second category of "Populated places without legal recognition"? AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 00:59, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you look at
Taluk redirects, you'll see that Taluk is an administrative subdivision that contains cities, towns, villages. As would be a county in the United States or a kreis in Germany. That doesn't bear upon whether anything is legally recognized. The fact that the postal service of India determined that a postal code is useable by more than one location, doesn't deny that the postal service (an official organ of the Indian government) recognizes this place as "real" such that mail addressed to it will (presumably) be deliverable. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:31, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Moreover, if you look at the Indian census bureau plugging in the state of Tamil Nadu, the district of Tirunelveli, the subdistrict=taluk of Ambasamudran and hit enter, you'll get a list of the villages recognized by the Indian government for census purposes (similar to US's
    Census designated places probably). In any event, at unique village code 642940 you find Sivasaailam, undoubtedly the same place with a spelling variation. If we need to move the article to the official English-language spelling (which I gather is transliterated from Hindi, rather than the state language of Tamil) then do so, but in no event delete this real place. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:38, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:07, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Settlements are notable, the census reference in the article checks out and a search for the usual sources for Indian villages confirm its existence. • Gene93k (talk) 03:19, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Now the article has been modified as EV and it seems to me notable work. --AntanO 04:10, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 23:13, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alana Locke

Alana Locke (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 girl appeared in just 2 films and made 1 minor TV appearance. She hasn't received extensive coverage in multiple, reliable and independent sources. Fails

WP:NACTOR. Skr15081997 (talk) 13:49, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Skr15081997 (talk) 13:49, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Skr15081997 (talk) 13:49, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Skr15081997 (talk) 13:49, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Skr15081997 (talk) 13:49, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There's no reliable independent sourcing at all, which isn't acceptable for a BLP. The small number of small roles listed in the article, and the subject's IMDb page, are very far from WP:NACTOR's "significant roles in multiple notable films". -- Finlay McWalterᚠTalk 13:59, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for now as there's almost nothing here and nothing to suggest keeping. SwisterTwister talk 23:45, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment She's not a 'girl.' Please use appropriate language in AfD. Thank you.Megalibrarygirl (talk) 03:03, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm so sorry for the above comment. I made a mistake and spoke wrongly. I did have a different thread in mind when I wrote. Comment struck, carry on.Megalibrarygirl (talk) 12:16, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep: Better to invest time in other things. (Non-admin closure). §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 04:38, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Singh Is Bliing

Singh Is Bliing (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)

Unreleased Bollywood film with no explanation of notability. AfD per

WP:NFF samtar (msg) 12:11, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. samtar (msg) 12:12, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: A nonsense attempt to delete the page. Yet it has significant coverage DerevationGive Me Five 13:25, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NFF. samtar (msg) 14:44, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
I advise you re-read
WP:NFF and explain your reasoning as to how this film passes "Additionally, films that have already begun shooting, but have not yet been publicly released (theatres or video), should generally not have their own articles unless the production itself is notable per the notability guidelines." Thanks! samtar (msg) 15:42, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
No comment on the outcome of this AFD per se, but it strikes me as requiring an overly pedantic reading of the rules to take a film article to AFD for being a "future release" when its advertised release date is prior to the conclusion of the AFD listing period... Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:52, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Admittedly yes - however if/when it does get released, I strongly doubt it'll become any more notable. samtar (msg) 15:58, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Also, how does uploading a video to YouTube make something notable? Anyone can upload (almost) anything. Please see the guidelines relating to using
YouTube videos as references. samtar (msg) 15:49, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
The guideline says Additionally, films that have already begun shooting, but have not yet been publicly released (theatres or video), should generally not have their own articles unless the production itself is notable per the notability guidelines. In this case, the production is clearly notable. Coming to YouTube, the relevant essay says There are channels for videos uploaded by agencies and organizations generally considered reliable such as that of the Associated Press on YouTube. As for this film, the trailer was uploaded by a channel owned by the production company itself. The prod. house seems to have an article over here (GA). —Vensatry (ping) 17:53, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —SpacemanSpiff 08:17, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Checking
WP:INDAFD: "Singh Is Bliing"
  • STRONG Keep per meeting applicable
    WP:CBALL, but that policy does not say we cannot have forward-looking articles, and it instructs that they must be well and properly sourced and avoid unverifiable statements: "All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable, and the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred. It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced." Schmidt, Michael Q. 21:02, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
...and @
WP:ARTN. Thanks and cheers, Schmidt, Michael Q. 00:32, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. —SpacemanSpiff 07:09, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sir Shah Sulaiman Hall

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

A non-notable hostel within Aligarh Muslim University. Can't find anything other than passing mentions, similar to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Indira Gandhi Hall. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 11:17, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 11:20, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 11:20, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 11:20, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It is a historical building built in the colonial era. Arifjwadder (talk) 22:13, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
How many of those are published by AMU and other non-independent publishers? And how many of those left out discuss the building in depth? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 09:41, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for lack of significant coverage. It fails the building guidelines at
    WP:GEOFEAT. No need for a redirect, it is mentioned in the Shah Sulaiman article, which one should get to before typing in "Hall". --Bejnar (talk) 03:01, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 23:14, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Chae Soo-bin

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

Fails

WP:NACTOR, largely empty article with a reference to only two appearances. No indication of any notability. Karst (talk) 09:48, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:56, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:56, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Seemingly easy case here and there's no improvement. SwisterTwister talk 06:31, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deleteper - Im live in korea now , but i don't know her and her name, too. Wikipedia is the best widely encyclopedia. so we will filter something out

the more important data than her. Unfortunately she is not correct in wikipedia not yet. Jeje1991 (talk) 13:04, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was : Speedily deleted for a lack of any

claim of notability, and as a borderline hoax. The references are completely unrelated, and with misleading descriptions. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 18:17, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Zach Boyle

Zach Boyle (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)

At best a non-notable MMA fighter but I am calling hoax. The article is a recreation of a PROD for the same issues so a simple Db-hoax wont do. All of the references cited have no bearing on the subject with the fighter specific links being to a different fighter. Normally I would be patient, delete the errors, and give the article a bit of time to show notability but in this case I think the errors are deliberate. Peter Rehse (talk) 09:37, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 09:37, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 23:14, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kurd State

Kurd State (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)

Violates

talk
 · contribs · email) 08:55, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete : No source no fact. Only editor's opinion. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 06:48, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:55, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:55, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:55, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Userfy to User:Tokyogirl79/Money (2016 film).. Randykitty (talk) 17:21, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Money (2016 film)

Money (2016 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article on a yet to be release film, under production. Notability under WP:GNG and WP:FILM may be weak for things that do not exist yet. Has two decent sources that refer to it being under production. Suggest we delete now and wait to see if film gets any coverage once it is actually made. New Media Theorist (talk) 16:29, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete It's in production, and not a major film. Not notable yet. Can't find the movie (even searching for "Martin Rosete") in The Hollywood Reporter.
    WP:CRYSTAL applies. John Nagle (talk) 18:32, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:08, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:08, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Alts:
filmmaker:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
producer:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
lead:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
lead:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
lead:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
lead:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
production:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
production:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor Talk! 07:28, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy: do not delete, unless it isn't real, but also not keep, this article is earlier. 333-blue 10:21, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Userfied as this is an autobiography. Guy (Help!) 08:27, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Mc Kevitt

Paul Mc Kevitt (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 academic -- the list of references shows no indication of secondary sources. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:13, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete per proposer. Might be possible to stubify this autobiography if notability is established. -Roxy the dog™ (Resonate) 07:39, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Subject of article is clearly very green, and unaware of wikipedia policy and process. He has engaged on his Talk page, and I'll try to explain. Have withdrawn my vote. (It appears that I have slightly messed with the formatting of this page. If you are competent, please feel free to correct!) -Roxy the dog™ (Resonate) 14:58, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If this had come through AfC I would have had an embarasse de richesse in sending it back for more editing: large sections are un-referenced; it contains a lot of extraneous information (his former students); it doesn't demonstrate
    wp:rs to know that a LinkedIn page and the subject's own writings are not RS; and reads like a CV, not a WP article. Add to that that one of the authors is the subject himself, and others have admitted to COI here: COI:Paul Mc Kevitt. In terms of notability, he may be marginal -- his work is cited, but I don't see evidence of the kinds of significant awards or illustrious positions that would make that obvious. LaMona (talk) 18:59, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Notable-academic (Professor Test

wp:academics
Professor Test for notability; the article clearly demonstrates
wp:academics
under "Criteria" for notability on a number of fronts (conditions) and only one is required (QUOTE: ″Academics/professors meeting any one of the following conditions, as substantiated through reliable sources, are notable″....); in fact, the subject matches MOST of the 9 conditions for notability, not just one; Secondary sources which discuss the subject's academic work as a primary focal topic are included in the list of references such as e.g. the University homepage: http://www.ulster.ac.uk/staff/p.mckevitt.html http://academy.bcs.org/content/distinguished-dissertations-2013 (British Computer Society) (BCS) and recent newspaper article (Irish Times) http://www.irishtimes.com/sponsored/blis-where-imagination-meets-engineering-1.2340485 and University Convocation Executive: http://www.ulster.ac.uk/secretary/secretariat/convocation/convocationmembers.html; more are included under "Interviews"; even more are being added --c.f. a simple Google search on "Paul Mc Kevitt"

Notable-academic (Professor Test

wp:academics
): A reference link to Google scholar http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=U5bPoGgAAAAJ&hl=en (independent source by Google) has been added showing a list of ~200 peer-reviewed publications in international academic journals, conferences and books with associated citations: Google Scholar Citation indices All Since 2010; Citations 1744 1243; h-index 17 10; i10-index 34 11

Notable-academic (Professor Test

wp:academics
): More references are being added to ALL sections; the Research work of a Full Professor with his/her Ph.D. students is very relevant (NOT extraneous), particularly in the field of Computer Science; and if you care to look at/study other notable biographies (particularly in Computer Science) you will see that they ALL include research work with former Ph.D. students; how could one possibly be Editor-in-Chief of a key academic journal in the field (Artificial Intelligence Review, Springer) for 12 years (1996-2008) and publish 7 peer-reviewed books with key academic publishers (John Benjamins; Springer) and over 200 peer-reviewed publications in international academic journals, conferences and books and organise the key British (10th Anniversary AISB-1995) and Irish (AICS-97) conferences and 2 workshops at the main USA conference (AAAI-94) and the key international contest (23rd International Loebner Prize Contest, 2013) together with international invited keynote lectures in the field and international education & appointments (Ireland, USA, England, Denmark, France) and research paper, ″Digital image steganography: Survey and analysis of current methods″, ranking as second most downloaded article in the International Journal, ″Signal Processing″ (Elsevier) otherwise; link to LinkedIn page and social network pages are allowed if referring to the subject; --the creators have studied
wp:rs
and know that a LinkedIn page and the subject's own academic peer-reviewed writings are RS when backed-up with many other RS citations, patents, newspaper articles, press releases, interviews in relation to the subject's work described as a primary focal topic; the vast majority of the 57 Reference citations given in the article conform to
wp:rs
; how does it read like a CV any more than others' biographies ? --over 200 peer-reviewed academic publications and 3 peer-reviewed patents with RS citations is clearly NOT marginal nor is Google scholar: Citation indices All Since 2010; Citations 1744 1243; h-index 17 10; i10-index 34 11; as for significant awards/illustrious positions, these are also listed on the page:

Whilst at University of Sheffield, Mc Kevitt was awarded one of two 5-year

EPSRC Advanced Fellowships in Information Technology (1994), the other being awarded to Jon Oberlander at University of Edinburgh, Scotland
. The focus of the fellowship was research on integration of natural language, speech and vision processing.

--this is a significant award !

New Mexico State University Centennial Researcher Award (1988); New Mexico Legislature Research Fellowship (1986-1988)

--this are also awards ! Also, this too:

He was awarded (with Dr. Abbas Cheddad, Dr. Kevin Curran & Dr. Joan Condell) the

Northern Ireland Science Park
(NISP) 25K Awards, Hi-Tech category award (2009) for Steganoflage (SDW digital watermarking), [24] a demo of which can be seen here: Steganoflage

The article and its reliable sources clearly demonstrate the notability of the subject's academic work as well as the subject himself and, more importantly, subject as notable as 100s of Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons already existing in Wikipedia -- Wikipedia must strive for a level playing field and equitability if it is to be considered a fair encyclopedic knowledge representation without prejudice...

REMINDER: Subject clearly satisfies the

wp:academics
Professor Test for notability; (QUOTE from
wp:academics
under ″Criteria″ for notability: ″Academics/professors meeting any one of the following conditions, as substantiated through reliable sources, are notable″....); in fact, the subject satisfies MOST of the 9 conditions for notability, not just one !! :)

Paulmckevitt (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:30, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Sorry Professor, I just spent a goodly amount of time browsing for sources and looking into the sources that are presented. While there are some reliable sources, these sources do not discuss the subject as a primary focal topic. University statements and releases that don't cover the person as a significant topic are even less an indicator of notability.
There's a lot of, for want of a better word, "
stuff
" that while academically interesting does not explain why he is notable.
Presenting awards does not make one notable. Simply receiving awards also does not confer notability unless the award is of significant notability that it receives substantial press outside of the field. There is no indicator as to why the awards received are of significance, except within the field of study. Without that sort of indicator, how can we assess notability?
The academic contribution section again doesn't impart notability unless the research has made some impact on the field.
Some looking about for Artificial Intelligence review reveals that the journal impact factor is on average fairly low when compared to, say,the Journal of Artificial Intelligence which has a consistent impact factor. In all, I just can't see how this article and its sources clearly demonstrate the notability of the subject. Blackmane (talk) 03:11, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 09:30, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Felicia (pharmacy)

AfDs for this article:
Felicia (pharmacy) (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: small pharmacy chain. Seems like promo/advert. to me. Quis separabit? 15:37, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Moldova-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:52, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:52, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:52, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:52, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 06:54, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (

non-admin closure) –Davey2010Talk 00:06, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Allen Johnson (activist)

Allen Johnson (activist) (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 a single one of the references is significantly about him; some, like the first, barely mention him. DGG ( talk ) 05:32, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep He is mentioned by several sources in very historically significant events. The first source is when the US Congress honored him. I believe the article is worth having to allow readers to know about his significant life and role in the African American Civil rights movement.--JumpLike23 (talk) 05:40, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I would like to make it known that @ DGG has proposed half a dozen of my articles for deletion (several unsuccessfully) and is attacking my writing as promotional. Please help; this experience with this user is my first very negative experience on wikipedia.--JumpLike23 (talk) 05:43, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It is a well written article, with sources. Wayne Jayes (talk) 13:05, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Reliable sources are included that prove this person notable in the Civil Rights movement. Other sources such as this one can also be found with a quick search of Google Books. ABF99 (talk) 13:30, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mississippi-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Excellent, sourced article on a lesser-known black civil rights activist. Passes GNG from sources showing. Preservation and digitization of Mississippi newspapers is notoriously bad, by the way, I have no doubt that sources showing are not exhaustive... Carrite (talk) 12:44, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Comment Having a member of congress read some remarks into the Congressional Record, is not a honor that shows notability, but a purely trivial compliment to a constituent. "Mentions" by significant sources or elsewhere are not references providing substantial coverage. The Google books source listed above is an excellent example of such a mention, where he is specified as being a friend of someone actually famous. Hosted a conference where notable people attended, all of which are listed and linked, is linkspam. That's not exactly promotionalism , and I didn ot usethe word here, but it is certainly a promotional technique. I do not consider it a good idea to make articles on such weak foundations. I of course recognize the difficulties of finding criteria for activists--essentially one needs, just as the GNG says, a significant work about them, and that is fairly uncommon. I I recognize the good fiath in making the article, and the importance of covering this area, but I do not agree with making an article on the basis of someone we would like to consider notable. DGG ( talk ) 13:19, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
calling him a friend of others based on the sources is inaccurate. He was a leader in the civil rights movement and that is clear based on the sources.--JumpLike23 (talk) 15:01, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - From the sources listed and others available online, Johnson appears to be notable not for who he was friends with, but for what he actually did during the Civil rights movement, which included: organizing political campaigns, relief programs, and marches. and speaking out after receiving beatings for his activism. The KKK bombing of the parsonage where his family slept received national coverage in several newspapers at that time, as found here here, here, here and here, which supports
    WP:GNG. Here there is quite a bit of information with citations on what effect the bombing had on both Johnson and the Civil Rights movement, which included a march and resolution, as well as more detailed information on Johnson himself. Although i agree that Johnson did not achieve the level of notability of many of the other people mentioned here, when taken together, the sources for him are not trivial and provide enough justification and detail for a Wiki article. ABF99 (talk) 15:41, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Comment wow, that is excellent research. Thank you, @ABF99. IF you feel comfortable adding those sources to the article, please do. If not, I will do it soon. Thanks again. --JumpLike23 (talk) 03:32, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 23:18, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

LearnDiscovery – mindmap of Wikipedia (software)

LearnDiscovery – mindmap of Wikipedia (software) (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)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No coverage whatsoever can be found in reliable sources. GNG is clearly not met and the sources present in the article (none of which are reliable) don't even mention LearnDiscovery itself. Satellizer (´ ･ ω ･ `) 04:11, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Satellizer (´ ･ ω ･ `) 04:12, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Only one independent hit that is in a language I can't read [32], and that it is not in the title it is probably too passing a mention to matter the notability. 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 04:37, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't Delete Tried to checked with "LearnDiscovery" or "Learn Discovery". Found results in English.
Google: web: [1] - images
[2].
Also one word (no white space) bring pertinent results [3]
Bing: [4] or [5]
Found videos with [6]
However the word "software" can be misleading: the item is a mobile app.
Googling with keyword "software" does not lead to matching results, while with the keyword "app" it does.
About source not mentioning LearnDiscovery itself: edited article with app producer.
Article is modeled with "Discovr" article as mockup.

References

  1. ^ https://www.google.com/search?q=%22learn%20discovery%22&oq=%22learn%20discovery%22
  2. ^ https://www.google.com/search?q=%22learn+discovery+wikipedia%22&num=100&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=
  3. ^ https://www.google.com/search?num=100&espv=2&q=learndiscovery
  4. ^ http://www.bing.com/search?q=learn+discovery
  5. ^ http://www.bing.com/search?q=learndiscovery
  6. ^ https://www.google.com/search?q=LearnDiscovery+%E2%80%93+mindmap+of+Wikipedia+(software)&num=100&biw=1151&bih=588&tbm=vid&source=lnms&sa=X&ved=
Gg4u (talk) 12:52, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
None of the pages you linked to are
reliable sources. Satellizer (´ ･ ω ･ `) 01:37, 29 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) 23:18, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wedholms AB

Wedholms AB (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)

Swedish manufacturer of milk cooling tanks - probably a non-notable specialized company (SPA-created article). No independent sources (in en-Wiki and sv-Wiki), and Google-search revealed only a few passing mentions and catalogue entries. A fish restaurant named "Wedholms Fisk" and a person with the same name are taking up a lot of the Google hits. GermanJoe (talk) 20:57, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete for now unless it can be actually be improved as I found nothing better than listings at Books and it would seem likely notable given its age but this will need familiar attention. SwisterTwister talk 06:21, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:21, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:21, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:21, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 16:40, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:15, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - searches turned up nothing to show it meets either
    WP:NCORP. Onel5969 TT me 13:26, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Consensus herein is that this software presently does not meet notability guidelines to qualify for an article. North America1000 18:30, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Concerto Projects

Concerto Projects (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:GNG. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 20:27, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep - This is specialized software solution created for use in the United Kingdom as an asset management and ticketing system used by many local government agencies and educational institutions. As this is used by many government agencies in the UK and elsewhere It is important to keep material such as this so that the public can research and be informed on the software and services their money helps pay for. As such I respectfully disagree with Rhododendrites and feel that upon rereading

WP:GNG that this article meets the 5 requirements. Andrdema (talk) 07:47, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 20:27, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 20:27, 20 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) 03:11, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 02:52, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

James DuMont

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

Delete: as

non-notable actor. Quis separabit? 17:58, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:47, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:47, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for now as although he's certainly accumulated roles, they're aren't any outstanding and break-through ones and the one award IMDb lists is a Shriekfest and seems non-significant. SwisterTwister talk 06:48, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles (talk) 22:05, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:10, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Courcelles (talk) 23:20, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Thomas (motivational speaker)

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

promotional article on a motivational speaker.There is no notability here in the first place--the references are almost entirely local. There are no publications or other accomplishments.The promotional element is seen most clear in the section on quotes; what has this individual said or done so important that an encycopedia should include them? DGG ( talk ) 02:22, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
(talk) 03:47, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Comment: I would like to make it known that @ DGG has proposed half a dozen of my articles for deletion (several unsuccessfully) and is attacking my writing as promotional. Please help; this experience with this user is my first very negative experience on wikipedia.--JumpLike23 (talk) 05:43, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
see the coi noticeboard at [33] Not that all of these are necessarily coi, but I can;t find a better place, and they all have similar problems. I'd use the BLPN, except they are not all bios. DGG ( talk ) 05:51, 28 September 2015 (UTC).[reply]
  • If Wikipedia was only about reporting "almost entirely global" information, that would probably save 90% of disc space ;). Motivation is nothing local. That's something that need to be shared across cultures, continents.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:02, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:02, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:02, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for clear reasons given by DGG. Promotional puffery. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:30, 2 October 2015 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep - Easily passes GNG based on he sources already showing in the footnotes, including a feature article on mlive.com, which is the website of a group of very, very mainstream Michigan newspapers. If here is puffery in the tone, that is an editing matter — but this is a very, very clear keep under our General Notability Guideline, which calls for multiple examples of substantial coverage in independently published sources of presumed reliability. We see these here. Carrite (talk) 12:38, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now I suppose as although the article could be better, I found links at Books, News, browser and Highbeam the current article at least seems acceptable for now. SwisterTwister talk 06:50, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Np prejudice against recreation if the references demonstrating

reliable and demonstrate notability.--Ymblanter (talk) 02:50, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Nestan Bagration-Davitashvili

Nestan Bagration-Davitashvili (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 Google test. Has {{notability}} tag. I dream of horses (T) @ 01:45, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (T) @ 01:45, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (T) @ 01:46, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Withdrawn and no outstanding delete votes Non-Admin Closure. - McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 12:58, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wild Field

Wild Field (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)

Unreferenced article about a Russian film which does not seem to meet

WP:MOVIE. My searches bring up zero reliable hits. - McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 00:39, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. - McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 00:40, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. - McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 00:40, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, a major award-winning film from the great Lutsik-Samoryadov tandem. It has been reviewed by every major Russian-language media outlet. --Ghirla-трёп- 07:19, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Original title:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
director:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
  • Keep award-winning Russian language film. Lacking sources when nominated is a reason
    to look and add them (even if non-English) (thanks for doing so Oakshade), not delete simply because they were lacking. Schmidt, Michael Q. 07:33, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
I'm glad you read my rationale through, as I had said I couldn't find any reliable sources, which means I did look. As I see others had better luck and this article now meets all inclusion criterias I WITHDRAW the nomination and will close this as such if not done by the time I get to an actual computer.- McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 12:18, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2015_September_28&oldid=1142624061"