Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 November 1

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
< 31 October 2 November >

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 redirect to Sleepover. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:38, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Slumber Party

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

Non-notable band, fails

WP:GNG. TheKaphox T 23:43, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:45, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:45, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect to sleepover - The band isn't notable however the term is so it's better off to delete and redirect (IMHO deletion is best so that an ex band member/associate can't recreate this article). –Davey2010Talk 00:08, 9 November 2016 (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. Though further discussion and improvements needed Sam Walton (talk) 10:50, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

LGBT characters in video games

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

Yes, this is a case where deletion is cleanup. Why? To the extent this is not a

WP:CFORK of LGBT themes in video games
, it is fancruft and an increasingly unmaintainable list.

As elsewhere in popular culture, LGBT representation (particularly romance) in video games is increasing to the extent that it is now more remarkable if a recent Western game that includes romance options does not allow for LGB romance - and this trend is, if anything, set to increase. This makes the list unfeasible to maintain after about the 2010s, as can be seen from the amount of (mostly unsourced and trivial) content listed for the most recent years. There has been an OR tag on the list since 2013, which indicates that there are not enough people interested in the topic to maintain the list in anything approaching reasonable quality.

The synoptic approach to the topic in

WP:OR speculation (e.g., from the article: "In Dead Rising 2, it's hinted that two minor villains are in an incestuous lesbian relationship"). This list should be redirected to LGBT themes in video games, and perhaps some content (mostly about early examples and firsts) can be merged to there or to the individual game articles. Perhaps a more focused list such as of transgender characters could be feasible. But as it is I don't see this list as particularly useful.  Sandstein  23:32, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

(edit conflict) BTW I *have* been regularly performing maintenance on this article, including the detailed structuring per year and adding some topic-defining references, but that's obviously not enough effort for Sandstein. May I suggest that you could participate and do some cleanup yourself, instead of posting a menacing "clean it up NOW, or else" AfD? Diego (talk) 13:35, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I didn't see that discussion you mention. I noticed this list in a "see also" link in a related article. As concerns WP:IMPERFECT, no article must be perfect at all times, but if an article looks so bad for so long, it's clear that there is not enough interest among editors to maintain it in a decent shape. In such cases, we're better off with no article (for the time being) rather than an embarrassingly crappy one.  Sandstein  13:32, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, you go posting deletion discussions in articles without first checking what discussion is going on at their talk pages? I know my posts above are harsh, but may I request that you retract this AfD and discuss it there? I do NOT believe that removing access to the current list of characters and references, which is what would come from a deletion, will do any good in helping build a better article. (Oh wait you're an admin, right? Deleting content doesn't affect you as it does us mere mortals with standard edit rights). Diego (talk) 13:38, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I know the idea that "this is useful information" doesn't get much traction among most Wikipedians, but by the same token the argument that "this is not useful" should never be the basis for deletion. This list *is* valuable, and contains a large number of verifiable LGBT characters that could or are already sourced as such; removing those low quality entries that can't be made verifiable is possible, but this is not the venue to do it.
There is a reason why the policy accepted by the community explicitly warns against using AfD instead of proper content maintenance for legitimate topics, and I see no arguments in the delete comments that would support following a different approach this time. Nobody has ever tried to perform a systematic cleanup, so deciding in advance without ever trying that it can't possibly be done is a large stretch IMHO. It is certainly hard work, and I found it daunting to do it alone on my own, that's why it never got made; but now that we have the attention, maybe the editors here may volunteer to get the thing in better shape, rather than sweeping everything under the rug? Diego (talk) 15:00, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • My thoughts were not properly displayed through policy and, well, I don't know what to do with this. I just hope it gets either improved or deleted soon because, as I said, this list is downright dangerous >.> But yeah, neutral, I guess. ~Mable (chat) 18:14, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indeed. I've already started trimming out some of the worst examples, and I've started up a discussion on inclusion criteria here. Anyone feel free to contribute there too. Sergecross73 msg me 18:56, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • What I don't see much discussion of here is that the list is quickly becoming unmaintainably large even if much of it could be sourced. As LGB characters become increasingly common (T probably not so much), to say nothing of homo-erotic innuendo etc., this list is increasingly
    WP:IINFO, just as much as a "list of male video game characters" would be. I agree we should cover significant LGBT characters, particularly early and pioneering examples, as part of a discussion of how video games as a cultural medium address LGBT issues, but just making a flat list seems ... intellectually undisciplined, and completely unreflective of how significant (or not) any individual character may be.  Sandstein  15:32, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
(edit conflict)That's because deletion discussion is not the place to discuss inclusion criteria for notable lists. Up until recently the total amount of these characters was noticiably low, much like female protagonists not too far ago. Now that it's a more visible topic, it's time to define and enforce a more strict criterion. Again, none of this should be the focus of an AfD discussion that should be about the relevancy of the topic as a whole, not the current status of the page. This is the wrong venue for this case, until AfD is definitely changed to "Articles for Discussion". Diego (talk) 15:54, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • (
    WP:LISTN, can be draft to help aid with managing the list contents. But this isn't where we should be discussing cleanup. -- ferret (talk) 15:54, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. North America1000 17:43, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. North America1000 17:43, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That was exactly what I was worried about, though I am already pretty happy with the improvements this article did get. If the article gets improved in this manner every time it gets nominated for deletion, it may become an FL by the time it is nominated for the first time :p A girl can hope. ~Mable (chat) 10:09, 8 November 2016 (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. Salting can be requested at

WP:RFPP Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:39, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Game Power 7

Game Power 7 (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)

advertising, fails

WP:GNG The Banner talk 22:33, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:41, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:41, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Salt given the past deletion of which yielded no actual better signs of an article therefore not serving any beneficial time, I'll also note this is such a blatant advertisement it honestly needs G11, and there's nothing else to suggest seriously better, especially given the severity of advertisement, delete by all means. Looking at the history again, I see not only the fact of an advertising-only account focusing with it, but the fact they started this article as a in-mainspace sandbox. SwisterTwister talk 05:32, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as corporate spam. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:54, 8 November 2016 (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:39, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

World records in International cricket

World records in International cricket (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 per the

WP:CRIC and, realistically, will not be maintained. Pointless. Jack | talk page 21:10, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. StAnselm (talk) 06:49, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unsourced and arbitrary use of statistics. My personal favourite is "First player score a century in a birthday". Jevansen (talk) 03:35, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:29, 5 November 2016 (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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 10:16, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Laughing Colors

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

Subject lacks coverage in reliable sources. Meatsgains (talk) 18:57, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 03:05, 2 November 2016 (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:40, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tomahawks For Targets

Tomahawks For Targets (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)

Multiple issues (outdated, COI, SPA, promotional.....) but most pertinent is failing of

WP:GNG. A couple of links (e.g. BBC) by virtue of a Leeds/Reading booking in 2011. Few of the links are live (e.g. nme) so all we're really left with is a tumblr post and some photos hosted on BBC Rayman60 (talk) 18:34, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 03:05, 2 November 2016 (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:40, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2016 Baltimore shooting

2016 Baltimore shooting (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)

While this was covered in the news, this would be an example of

WP:NOTNEWS. This was an event that has no lasting impact, unlike the Dawson murder case that happened in Baltimore. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:47, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - According to The Baltimore Sun, there were 31 homicides in the last month (mostly shootings). This article fails
whisper in my ear 23:39, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Delete Unfortunately, as said above, this incident is not notable enough in a long-term context. South Nashua (talk) 00:40, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Per NOTNEWS. No fatalities, no reason to believe this is anything more than an ephemeral gun violence incident. Carrite (talk) 01:00, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:09, 5 November 2016 (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:40, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ashovania's Demon

Ashovania's Demon (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 self-published book. Book was just released. This appears to be the first book by the author. Fails

WP:NBOOK. Prod was removed. Bgwhite (talk) 17:35, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:38, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Createspace is a service for self-publishing without regard to literary merit (createspace.com).From
    Wikipedia:NBOOK: "Self-publication and/or publication by a vanity press do not correlate with notability". Thuresson (talk) 22:03, 8 November 2016 (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. Sam Walton (talk) 10:56, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Turkic people of Iran

Turkic people of Iran (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)

Procedural nomination for IP editor 112.120.188.231 (talk) and I am neutral on the outcome. Reason left on the talk page was: This is a redundant article. Its content copy-pasted from other articles like List of ethnic groups known as "Iranian Turks" (same article), Iranian Azerbaijanis, Khorasani Turks, Ethnicities in Iran, Demographics of Iran and etc. Either should be deleted or merged with List of ethnic groups known as "Iranian Turks" TonyBallioni (talk) 17:33, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 03:04, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 03:04, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Please do not bring your taboos in wikipedia without logical reasons. Wikipedia is not a good place for biased mindes. I think you may have personal problems with Turkic people and you want to censor the reality about them. The article
List of ethnic groups known as "Iranian Turks" is only a list that reflects the name Iranian Turks. In overall Wikipedia Turk means citizen of Tukey but Turkic has total another meaning. We need this article in Wikipedia which is about more than 30 million people. Turkic peaple of Iran is a neutral article and reflecs the reality of Turkic people who live in Iran. This article is steadily under extension. Matreeks (talk) 09:38, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
you say they are not true ethnic Turkic groups?! We are not more in Nazi Germany! pleas do not forgot it! Faanee (talk) 10:41, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What constitutes a people aside from a shared language and culture? Azeri Turks do indeed fall under the Turkic category; there are reasons to delete this article but Azerbaijanis "not being a true ethnic Turkic group" is not one of them. Yilangren (talk) 20:59, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
DNA investigations indicate they have a different origin - the genetically Turkic groups are descendants of incomers, the bulk of Azeri Turks came from native populations who became Turkified. "Iranian Azerbaijanis, also known as Azerbaijani Turks, are a Turkic-speaking people of mixed Caucasian, Iranian and Turkic origin" - (sourced content from Azerbaijan (Iran)). Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 03:10, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep - This article is a good article about Turkic people of Iran with sources. I can not understand why it is nominated for deletion! Apparently many Turkic people live in Iran (some resources claim it as tens of millions). We have now many such parallel articles in Wikipedia. Faanee (talk) 10:41, 6 November 2016 (UTC)— Faanee (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Possible
talk
)
Confirmed as being sock of Matreeks [2] who has already given an opinion here, so I have struck out this keep opinion. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:32, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- Per IP's comment. This is overkill. There's already an article about them. --
    talk) 16:16, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to

non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 00:28, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Protocol Recordings

Protocol Recordings (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 vanity label owned by the DJ

reliable sources. The article list the non-reliable Beatport chart. The number of artists appears inflated. I checked the Kelis discography and see no mention of the label. She might have appeared on one of the singles that was released through the label, but that hardly warrants listing her as signed to the roster. Karst (talk) 17:12, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:26, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:26, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:26, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: fails
    WP:NSONG as well. Richard3120 (talk) 13:25, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Merge and redirect to Nicky Romero#Protocol Recordings. Given that he's notable, his owning a label that has released material by other notable artists is itself encyclopedic. There may actually be nothing to merge but the redirect is still appropriate rather than deletion. Andrewa (talk) 19:01, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Nicky Romero#Protocol Recordings; anything useful can be picked up from the article history, although it's probably not needed. But a redirect may be useful. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:30, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect - This looked notable on its surface due to the artists listed. However, many of these are just collaborations and not signed to the label. Very misleading. I was unable to find anything to satisfy
    WP:CORPDEPTH and at this point would recommend it be merged into the person article for Nikcy Romero.--CNMall41 (talk) 04:59, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy close. It is indeed but Afd is the wrong forum for a redirect. I've nominated it for speedy deletion per

talk) 16:29, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Mdamfasmsmg

Mdamfasmsmg (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 appears to be a pointless/nonsensical redirect page, so I propose deleting it. Archon 2488 (talk) 16:11, 1 November 2016 (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. Sam Walton (talk) 11:01, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Murda Beatz

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

It lacks

WP:REFERENCE. Only relates to WP:Trivial mentions. No official evidence to prove his contributions, whatsoever. DBrown SPS (talk) 15:56, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 16:55, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 16:55, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
— Note to closing admin:
XfD
.
  • Keep this appears to be significant independent coverage, as does this, this, and of course this. Meets GNG. You'll note that I list several of the same pieces as Magnolia677. The four sources I've listed are: notable publications
    talk) 20:58, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
WP:BASIC states that "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources
." Interviews with the subject of the biography are not secondary sources, they are primary sources. Regarding the links mentioned above:
  • [6] - An interview.
  • [7] - Four paragraphs of vacuous, intelligence-numbing filler.
  • [8] - Two paragraphs of...nothing.
  • [9] - Another interview. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:18, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
My read of Wikipedia:No original research is a bit different, as it says in multiple places that interviews are primary sources. Anyway, there is next to nothing published about this person (secondary sources), other than what this person has said about himself. I went looking for some article about this person, but anything not published as an interview seems to be just rapper magazine mush. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:21, 1 November 2016 (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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 10:11, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Explore: The Journal of Science & Healing

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

This is a low-impact crank journal run by people like Dean Radin and specialising in promotion of alternatives-to-medicine; it's widely mocked for its publication of outrageous nonsense but not, as far as I can tell, actually discussed in any meaningful way by reliable independent sources. I looked long and hard for any reality-based commentary and found only blogs. Oh, and RationalWiki, which is scathing of course. Guy (Help!) 15:46, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
(talk) 15:54, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
(talk) 15:55, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep: Satisfies

WP:JOURNALCRIT criterion C1 by having a JCI impact factor, which I assume it does as one is listed in the article. The content might be of little value, I don't deny, but the inclusion criteria for a WP article are clear on journals with impact factors. It is unfortunate that we are unable to include the view of such journals when it is well known within the academic community that they are publishers of nonsense and a home for cranks, but only as common knowledge and not as the sort of RS we'd need to comment in the article. EdChem (talk) 16:03, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

But simply having an impact factor does not remove the need for reliable independent sources. That's the problem with subject-specific guidelines, they are great for creating a directory, but
Wikipedia is not a directory, of journals or anything else. I cannot substantiate anything beyond mere existence from reliable independent sources. That's unlikely to change given that this journal does not publish anything that is useful in developing new insights. Guy (Help!) 16:10, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Not having secondary sources discussing journals is often the case, as the guideline notes. As I understand it, the accepted practice has been an IF is sufficient. Changing that practice is a different discussion, but I anticipate the standard approach will be applied here. I'm not saying the practice is a good one, nor that the journal is worth the electrons inconvenienced to display its website, I'm just saying that it is standard and applied dispassionately that means keep is the appropriate outcome. EdChem (talk) 16:18, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Sandra discography#Compilation albums. Sam Walton (talk) 11:02, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Very Best Of Sandra

The Very Best Of Sandra (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)

Unremarkable recording. Just another 'best of compilation. TheLongTone (talk) 15:24, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 16:27, 1 November 2016 (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:43, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hill View Park

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

Just another park. Imo there are probably many 'hill view parks, so not a suitable candidate for redirecting to the place where it way be found. Whose article is a ghastly lump of tourist brochure cliché that, were I feeling more ill-tempered, I would copyedit the living daylights out of. TheLongTone (talk) 15:04, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete If this page was to be kept, it would need to be complete re-written from scratch and sourced. Outside that, there's not a sign of notability of the park in itself. RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:20, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 16:20, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 16:20, 1 November 2016 (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:44, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Safronoff

Aaron Safronoff (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)

honestly, it's extremely rude to put that wiki for deletion without sending me a message about that award problem, or you could at least edit the wiki in order to remove that award thing and explain the reason why.

sincerly yours Allaze-eroler (talk) 00:31, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notability. imo there is a slim claim of notability for his first novel Spire (novel) since it has won an award. I know nothing of such things, but imagine that if this award is substantial to confer notability there woul be a list of winners or the like on wp. There does not seem to be. TheLongTone (talk) 14:44, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete The award Safronoff won, the IndieReader Discovery Award is a vanity award given to self-published author. There's not a claim of notability to this award, and in addition the coverage I have seen of the author have come from press releases. RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:14, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 16:23, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 16:23, 1 November 2016 (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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 10:08, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Akaki Tsilosani

Akaki Tsilosani (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. Yes the article is referenced; no, none of the references are substantial. TheLongTone (talk) 14:38, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 16:21, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 16:21, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
]


Notable. Prof. Akaki Tsilosani is a prominent Georgian transplant surgeon, founder of TALIZI Clinic. He is recognized worldwide among fellow surgeons worldwide as one of the leading surgeons. He is a member and expert of International Society of Hair Restoration Surgery (ISHRS), American Academy of Aesthetic Medicine (AAAM) and Asian Association of Hair Restoration Surgery. There lots of web sources in different languages about him and his achievements, which clearly meets the Wikipedia criterias. There surely should be an article about A. Tsilosani in English Wikipedia too. If an article needs some modification please let me know exactly how to improve it. Thanks Zetalion (talk) 2 May 2024

  • delete fails GNG and was a copy/paste job from https://www.ishrs.org/users/akaki. Just tagged it for copyvio. Jytdog (talk) 03:19, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete as the article is a copyvio from the website stated above. Also, no one noticed that I already tagged under CSD G12 which was removed by the author (diff). Ayub407talk 17:24, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
so you did. hm. Jytdog (talk) 18:35, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I love Wikipedia and work almost 10 years! I highly respect all contributors and admins. But please explain how the titles/descriptions of the books/publications may be copyright violation??? International Society of Hair Restoration Surgery (ISHRS) just copied the list of Doctor A. Tsilosani's list of publications on their website. Titles can't be copy violation at all. Otherwise should the titles on the original publication be renamed??? Thank you in advance! Zetalion (talk) 2 May 2024
You copied everything from that page, even down to the line breaks. Jytdog (talk) 18:28, 4 November 2016 (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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 10:05, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lord Alan Spencer-Churchill

Lord Alan Spencer-Churchill (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)

Thoroughly unremarkable footnote in Debretts. Strictly one for @aristocracy' fetishists. TheLongTone (talk) 14:32, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 16:20, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 16:20, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 16:20, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 16:20, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Interesting how a third son has to find his own way in the world. This one married for love, so no money there and became an early capitalist in the tourism industry, though there was no such concept at the time. He was therefore more 'Upper Middle Class' than 'Aristocrat', all through an accident of birth order, so no discernible fetishism there. I agree the stripy shirt in Ireland is fun --Po Kadzieli (talk) 22:06, 2 November 2016 (UTC) He may only be a "footnote" in the categories you have put up so far, but he had an entrepreneurial focus that would have been despised by his family and he did not look to be slotted into a safe conservative seat. Do you not think it admirable that he did not apparently seek to be photographed by a society photographer? In my view he is notable if only for trying to earn his living. Have a look again, I've added pics. --Po Kadzieli (talk) 13:59, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete if only because I would not be caught dead in that shirt. More seriously, (and responding to Po), the images add nothing to show notability in the article. Not notable as an aristo. If his notability depends on his role as an entrepreneur, it is not shown in the article. I would change my contribution if the article were edited to show his notability in that regard, though. --Lineagegeek (talk) 23:47, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm withdrawing my Delete vote based on the remarks below about his possible notability as a "different" 19th Century businessman. I don't know enough specifically about aristos not getting their hands dirty like tradesmen in the era, though, to convert my vote to a Keep. So, I still think it needs work to demonstrate notability. --Lineagegeek (talk) 23:49, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Lineagegeek makes a good point about the business angle. As a toff, I agree, Alan has not much to brag about, but getting into ships and Argentinian beef is kind of notable. There are loads of references to him in the press in relation to businesses contracts etc. Unfortunately, a lot of them are now tied up in subscriptions, so the only alternative is hours in libraries. I bet many of you will not hang about for that and that would be a shame for a chap cut off in his prime. --Po Kadzieli (talk) 14:23, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Appears notable as a 19th century British businessman and philanthropist. I suspect that better sources are available and article can be improved.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:27, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Potential keep but I would like to know a good deal more of his business interests before being sure. If he was notable, it was probably for that. His title only indicates that his father was a duke. He was not himself a peer. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:29, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as businessman, and an unusual one for the time, with his background. Johnbod (talk) 13:02, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep passes
    Pocketed 13:31, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Thank you,
Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi! Another source of notability is that after Alan died, his widow married a Mr. Caulfield, but she kept the name, 'Lady Alan Spencer-Churchill'. In fact, her own death in 1888 was announced in that name. So that speaks for itself, no? --Po Kadzieli (talk) 15:36, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
No. We have
notability criteria. Please read them. What you're talking about isn't listed and therefore we don't consider the subject notable. This is not a subjective thing. We're assessing if the subject meets out objective criteria. If you're going to be a partisan about this you're going to have a bad time. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:48, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Thanks Chris. I have read the criteria. I am not sure who the 'we' are to whom you refer. As for the threat of 'a bad time' comes across as very unpleasant indeed in the context of a soit disant cultural organisation. If that is the case, I'm out of here. --Po Kadzieli (talk) 16:03, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@
!voting. Wikipedia becomes a difficult place when we can't cooperate and cooperation becomes impossible when we either don't agree to the same rules or try to reinterpret what prior consensus has already agreed upon. Wikipedia is easy and enjoyable when we make our determinations dispassionately based on objective criteria. Whenever editors veer from that norm we get into all kinds of hurtful arguments and everyone loses. You seem to be imagining the word "notability" to mean whatever you want that to mean. My warning is that this approach is going to take you against the grain and you might think we're out to get you or that we don't value you as an editor. Please return to our objective criteria and forget any perceived ownership or investment in the article. None of this discussion is personal in nature or driven by grudges or politics. If you start to make these mental gymnastics to push to keep the article you'll find yourself sore as a result. I hope that makes sense. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:27, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Keep While not notable as a military person, passes
    WP:GNG as an early businessman. I hope that more information can be added, as what is there is quite interesting. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:56, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep - I agree that this person seems to meet gng.
    WP:MILPEOPLE (which is an essay not a guideline) writes, "If, for instance, there is enough information in reliable sources to include details about a person's birth, personal life, education and military career, then they most likely warrant a stand alone article." I agree that this is not a very high bar and it can be argued that routine coverage can provide these details. However, I think this quote is supported by gng, Significant coverage is coverage that "addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content". Significant does not, here, mean that the coverage should be a long article. So in an article like this one which is arguably a collection of short mentions about a subject from a variety of sources, I think the important question is, "Is it original research to connect these sources to the subject of the article?" In a biography, this often depends on the subjects identity being clear in each source. In an instance like this, the subject has a fairly unique name (Alan Spencer-Churchill), a frequently used title (lord, military officer), known occupations (soldier, merchant, investor), and a life story with enough detail that each source clearly fits with the others to describe the same individual. Thus, I do believe that connecting the sources is not original research and the subject meets gng. Smmurphy(Talk) 18:34, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. (withdrawn by nominator) (

non-admin closure) — Yellow Dingo (talk) 06:55, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Kate Slattery

Kate Slattery (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)
  • Withdraw she just barely passed WP:N, despite my claims to the contrary. Hairhorn (talk) 15:32, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Figure skater that clearly fails the criteria at Wikipedia:Notability_(sports)#Figure_skating, with no other claim to notability offered. Minimal coverage, fails GNG. Declined PROD. Hairhorn (talk) 13:50, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:26, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:26, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:26, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Slattery actually does meet Wikipedia:Notability_(sports)#Figure_skating, specifically item #4: "Competed at a Grand Prix of Figure Skating event (Skate America, Skate Canada International, Trophee Eric Bompard, Cup of China, Cup of Russia, NHK Trophy, Bofrost Cup on Ice)"(Bofrost Cup on Ice bolded for emphasis). Seeing as she competed at the 2004 Bofrost Cup on Ice, even with placing 7th, this would satisfy this area of notability. RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:26, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm... I missed this one, sorry about that. She was under the wire for almost everything. Hairhorn (talk) 15:31, 1 November 2016 (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:44, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Light Bulb model

The Light Bulb model (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 remotely suitable as a Wikipedia article. It looks sort of like a text book example to illustrate a mathematical method, except that it is too incoherent to belong in any decent textbook. We don't have articles that just give textbook examples, and also there is no sourcing for it, so no evidence whatever of notability. A

talk) 13:39, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:30, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:30, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This reads more like an essay or a paper for a math class. The only source in the article is to a Wikipedia article, which in itself is a red flag. RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:31, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unadulterated essay. Unrelated, but what bothers me more is that it calls itself a "model" while describing a literal scenario. Where's the metaphor, man? (This is because it should actually be called "Modelling a system of lightbulbs" and be posted somewhere besides Wikipedia) 157.235.66.80 (talk) 17:29, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unsuitable for Wikipedia. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:36, 1 November 2016 (UTC).[reply]
  • Question: Specifically what is the counterintuitive result? Michael Hardy (talk) 18:14, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Contrary to the claim of the author, this article is not similar to "Ant on a rubber rope". The latter fits the categories "Puzzles" and "Recreational mathematics"; the former does not. No counterintuitive result. Boris Tsirelson (talk) 19:24, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable. The article makes no claim of notability, and the lack of sourcing suggests that the topic is not notable. Ozob (talk) 19:40, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: not even coherent enough to be entirely sure it's not some kind of (time-consuming) prank. — Gamall Wednesday Ida (t · c) 05:56, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to

non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 00:30, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

An Empty Flight (band)

An Empty Flight (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)

I've declined a speedy for copyvio as the other site states that is a copy of this article. I also declined a speedy for spam as I didn't thing it promo enough for that. However, despite the presence of one member of the group with his own article, I am uncertain about whether this group is notable enough for an article of its own (and slightly suspicious because a mention of a possible early 2017 reunion...). Not an easy name to Google - I used -"scared of horses" and -"eddie lin" to eliminate two irrelevancies, but still found a lot of stuff that referred to empty aircraft rather than a band. Peridon (talk) 12:47, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. I didn't notice that, and went by the wording. But the intention obviously was that it become the WP article as they were including the attribution in advance - I don't think I've come across that before. Peridon (talk) 23:24, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, the article itself makes the case that the band is not notable. Hairhorn (talk) 14:14, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 14:11, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 14:11, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Not a bad idea. There is only a passing mention there, though. Peridon (talk) 13:01, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (As the dab/surname page) Sam Walton (talk) 21:20, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Balhara

Balhara (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 page belongs to

talk • mail) 04:51, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk • mail) 04:51, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk • mail) 04:51, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
  • You are quoting Raj sources - we do not use them, per
    WP:RSN, the info at User:Sitush/CasteSources, etc. And it is plain daft to cite the description on a dab page in support of it being a clan - the dab only exists because of the article. No need to add "(surname)" to the title if it is the only article using the name: plenty of examples of recent conversions by other people that follow this example & the parenthetical dab word content is redundant. - Sitush (talk) 07:18, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  10:03, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So no sources considered "Raj" are acceptable at all under any circumstances?
I am not a fan of parenthetical disambiguation, but it does sometimes have a use, and I mentioned that be cause many, many set index article (lists) do use it and "plenty of examples of recent conversions by other people" doesn't necessarily mean a lot. Would this reference, or this one, be considered reliable to support content. Otr500 (talk) 12:01, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As there's no
WP:DABNAME. In fact, according to WP:DABNAME, Balhara (disambiguation) should be redirected to Balhara. - NitinMlk (talk) 21:24, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Comment it complicates matters when people do such drastic edits on a page in the middle of an AfD process. "Convert to dab page" as a !vote would be clearer: let the AfD discuss an article which has at least some resemblance to the page as nominated. PamD 11:44, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Had the nominator followed
WP:BEFORE, it would've saved the time of many good-faith users here. In any case, you can't blame others for doing the obvious thing. - NitinMlk (talk) 15:51, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 12:22, 1 November 2016 (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:45, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Amar Prasad Reddy

Amar Prasad Reddy (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)

Well, first of all this is an unsourced BLP, but obviously it's not that simple. It contains a big list of references, many of which mention the subject. Furthermore, searching for his name brings up many more. The problem is that I can't find sustained in-depth coverage for him. His name pops up in a number of news reports giving interviews and soundbites as a spokesman on behalf of his various employers (notably National Cyber Safety and Security Standards), there are links to videos of him giving speeches, but I'm really struggling to find anything about the person themselves. I'm unconvinced that he's independently notable. Black Kite (talk) 12:17, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 14:16, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 14:16, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 14:17, 1 November 2016 (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. Sam Walton (talk) 16:38, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Anything but Khamosh

Anything but Khamosh (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 book, getting trivial coverage from association.

WP:NOTINHERITED §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 04:43, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 04:44, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 05:29, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: It probably meets
    BOOKCRIT#1
    which states, A book is notable if, The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself.
Sources: Outlook India, Hindustan Times, Hindustan Times-2, Telegraph India, Telegraph India-2, Firstpost, Free Press Journal. For more, click here or do a simple Google search.
Anup [Talk] 06:01, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Extracts, excerpts and newsbites are different from book reviews. Which of this is a review? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 06:52, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hindustan Times-2. Anyway, the guideline says nothing about "book-review", it says, "subject of two or more non-trivial published works".
    Anup [Talk] 07:02, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
HT's review is just paraphrashing of book, an non-lazy form of quotefarming but not review. A Bollywood film portal is not a suitable reviewer of literature. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 10:00, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Read HT review carefully. Does the 2nd and the last para look like mere paraphrasing. --Skr15081997 (talk) 10:25, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting. These two paras of the ten paras of article that you mention have two common repetitive points: that the book is well-researched and it has lotsa gossips and trivia. Makes the book more notable now! §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 10:59, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • You still feel that the 2 required sources for meeting
    WP:NBOOKS should be reviews? --Skr15081997 (talk) 11:11, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Again asking for my feelings/thought? Ready to be offended again? The two or more sources should be non-trivial as NBOOK says and all lengthy sources that simply copy-paste book's content do not count. Also, they have to be about the book. This should exclude press coverage of book release and actual life of Sinha. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 11:21, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You can express yourself without offending others. --Skr15081997 (talk) 11:35, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I do not see any justification for a "standalone" piece for this topic. This one-line article on book is already covered in author's article. If and when more target article is edited to add more verifiable contents and it becomes a possibility that holding contents on this book in here, might make navigation difficult, we can do a split.
Anup [Talk] 07:53, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
NBOOK also says This is not an absolute guarantee that there will necessarily be a separate, stand-alone article entirely dedicated to that book. Editors may use their discretion to merge or group two or more related topics into a single article. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 10:33, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, among many other things. Are you suggesting a 'merge', therefore? I think, that could be discussed given the size of existing article.
Anup [Talk] 15:02, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Sorry I was under the impression that it's an autobiography but it is not. Looks like author is also not notable. - Vivvt (Talk) 04:38, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@
Anup [Talk] 07:53, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Author of this book is Bharathi S. Pradhan. It could have been an autobiography if Sinha himself had been the writer. - Vivvt (Talk) 09:11, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Does not seem to be any evidence at all that the book is notable--just routine coverage. No suitable merge. DGG ( talk ) 01:46, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @DGG: I have a little query after reading your opinion. If the given sources merely indicate routine coverage, then what kind of coverage proves notability? Just a small query. Thanks, --Skr15081997 (talk) 10:25, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
the references are about the subject of the book, not the book. It can be an unclear distinction, and if a book is really important over time we could make a separate article. As an example, Even for famous people, most bios are just listed in the Additional Reading--the most famous bios only get a separate article, and the usual distinction is a major prize in the books own right. DGG ( talk ) 16:30, 2 November 2016 (UTC) .[reply]
I do think the references are talking about the book, see about the book, again about the book, book review, about the book and many others, try a google search. Since the book is a biography, a news article talking about the book will talk about the actor because the whole book is about him. I don't know what is done with other bios, I believe you in good faith if you say so, but according to my knowledge there is no such guideline. What I do know is the notability guidelines for books (factors which determine whether a book is notable or not) are listed at
WP:BOOKCRIT and the subject clearly passes the 1st point of BOOKCRIT, which makes it notable enough to have a separate article. Pratyush (talk) 17:04, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
The three "about the book" refs are literally quote farms and "the review" is paraphrasing of quotes! §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 19:05, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 22:56, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You very well will fluff it with trivia, add all names of celebrities who know nothing about writing and came to the inaugural ceremony and blabbered their hearts out, you will then go on and write book review written by film critics who are unsuitable for doing that, you will write what fellow-politicians tweeted about the book content and then you will select few quotes from the book and increase the article length; nothing of it amounting to stand-alone notability and failing
WP:AVOIDSPLIT. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 06:27, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Your past track record. Re-read all comments so far. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 11:06, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please avoid personal attacks. Try to keep the comments related to the subject. Pratyush (talk) 17:15, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
My thought was asked and here it is. If you can't digest it, you are free to not talk to me. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 18:59, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I might be wrong but your 3 comments above indicate that you are a bit angry with me or this whole discussion. Remember my friend Dharma that if the concerned parties keep a cool head then results might be produced easily. But in the end we are free to disagree. You have stated your viewpoint very clearly. I myself don’t know about any politician’s tweet regarding this book and if this becomes a reason for disagreement, it can be solved at the concerned article’s talk page. You have mentioned my past track record Dharma, but as far as I can remember I never added someone’s irrelevant blabbering or random tweet to an article. I’ll glad if you show me the diffs to any such edit. The author is a well known film journalist and columnist and based on the provided sources, the stub can be expanded into a decent size start-class article. Thanks for the time you are putting in deletion discussions. We need more editors like you. Thanks again. --Skr15081997 (talk) 05:58, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Btw, NBOOK also says "This is not an absolute guarantee that there will necessarily be a separate, stand-alone article entirely dedicated to that book." Why aren't you taking all your sources and writing a small para about this biography in Sinha's biography itself? If author is notable, you are welcome to work on Draft:Bharathi S. Pradhan. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 11:29, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Try having a look at
WP:BOOKCRIT, specially the 1st point. Pratyush (talk) 17:15, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 12:08, 1 November 2016 (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.

non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 00:31, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

David Andjelić

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 rugby league player who is yet to play at pro level. Pretty much all his coverage is due to featuring on a reality TV show, which isn't sufficient to meet the GNG per

WP:FAME. J Mo 101 (talk) 18:56, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Made his international debut in the WC Qualifying match against Wales.Fleets (talk) 10:51, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:23, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:23, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:28, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - non-notable in the field of rugby and hasn't done enough in reality TV to warrant an article for that either Spiderone 12:41, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
He may well be in rugby, but he is a rugby league player who has played representative rugby league for his country of birth in World Cup Qualifiers against Wales and Italy.Fleets (talk) 14:43, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 12:00, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Perhaps the article could be expanded with the reality TV information. Orthogonal1 (talk) 12:12, 4 November 2016 (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. Been up 4 weeks and not much discussion has occurred, I would say consensus is more or less a keep however they're only weak keeps so I have no objections to speedy renomination if wanted however the title issues/dabs should probably be discussed on the talkpage, (

non-admin closure) –Davey2010Talk 00:15, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Dawson's

Dawson's (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 just a list of

WP:PTMs, and not useful as "Dawson's" is not a title for any of these entries. You'd need prior context to clarify what you are referring to. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 07:59, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 09:12, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  18:15, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep there's one or two plausible (non-primary) topics, plus agreed many

WP:TWODABS, moved PTM -> see also. A search may find more so leaving for now. Widefox; talk 15:36, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:29, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 11:59, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep or merge with Dawson. Clearly TWODABs, but also a partial title problem. Montanabw(talk) 08:08, 4 November 2016 (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. Sam Walton (talk) 21:25, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Koch

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

This article is autobiographical, was dictated by Koch to a friend to write for self promotion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sofiaevery (talk • contribs) 08:19, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Koch himself wrote this article and dictated it to a friend so it could be created for his own self promotion and advertising. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Assis1971 (talk • contribs) 08:50, 13 October 2016 (UTC) — Assis1971 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  • WP:SPI or whatever. If an editor is misbehaving, seek sanctions at the appropriate noticeboard. The topic either meets the criteria or it doesn't, regardless of who is making the arguments. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:56, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 23:14, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 11:54, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 16:35, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 16:35, 1 November 2016 (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) Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ Talk 00:06, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Townville Elementary School shooting

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

WP:NOTNEWS. John from Idegon (talk) 02:13, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:31, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:31, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:01, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:01, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As per extensive coverage, plus the fact that the perp survived and there is 14 years old means that there is already geographically extensive coverage of the question of whether he will be tried as an adult (coverage of perp here:[21]) Certainly, if not kept it should be

WP:GNG, and it is preferable to keep an event about a crime, than to create a separate article about the perp (whose age has already generated an unusual amount of coverage).E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:16, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Keep, if WP:NOTNEWS, then why bother creating and updating election news in Wikipedia (for example, the plethora of information on the 2016 USA Presidential election) as it happens? Why not wait until it has been settled, and then create a (much more concise) article about it?
Also, according to wikipedia guidelines, space is not an issue.
Also, a main road is now being named after the youngest murder victim.
Of course, given the sheer number of school shootings in the USA, perhaps this is indeed a non-notable event. :/ --98.122.20.56 (talk) 03:24, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, NOTNEWS is irrelevant to extensive coverage and media attention. rationales are the main issue.BabbaQ (talk) 19:19, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 23:15, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 11:53, 1 November 2016 (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. Doesn't seem like a likely search term to bother with a redirect. Sam Walton (talk) 11:06, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Hugh Mungus Incident

The Hugh Mungus Incident (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 Kleuske (talk) 23:18, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk • mail) 02:11, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Maybe Redirect to Rudy Pantoja? this person has received quite a bit of coverage.JohnTombs48 (talk) 06:05, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Might be a solution, but that, in turn, redirects to gag name. The incident is mentioned, though. Kleuske (talk) 13:21, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Or redirect to "Trigger feminist" or "Cult of outrage" - but they don't exist either ...yet. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 15:48, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 19:12, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 19:12, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Redirect to gag name, as suggested by JohnTombs48. Merge the content to that article in summary form (a couple of sentences). This incident gained a lot of attention on the web, but it fails Wikipedia:Notability (events) guidelines. utcursch | talk 20:01, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. trivial meme; and NOT NEWS. Not importantenough even to be used as an element in Gag name. DGG ( talk ) 05:46, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- barely literate prose & minor incident. Wikipedia is not a tabloid. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:19, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 11:51, 1 November 2016 (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:45, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Christoph Wilhelm Dedekind

Christoph Wilhelm Dedekind (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)

A7 speedy contested; subsequently, claim of significance placed. Prod removed after that, and an unreliable source added. I've not been able to find any reliable sources to support GNG/SNG. My suggestion is to delete this article. Would look forward to hearing comments from other editors. Lourdes 11:40, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support deletion; as aforementioned, GNG/SNG is in effect here - adding to this, following the links within the given source reveals a probable
copyright violation, as the two texts are remarkably similar. 1Samario1 (talk) 11:54, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:33, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:33, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:33, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete appears to be a Genealogy article with no claim to notability and no reliable sources.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:26, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. The article in effect says that he was born, lived, and died. I cannot see any notability here. Nothing in German Wiki. Narky Blert (talk) 23:32, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • With some regret, DElete unless there is major improvement to create a narrative text, not a series of notes, and to provide details of his ministry and achievements, currently largely lacking. I cannot judge the merits of the source, but the article fails to prove notability. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:04, 6 November 2016 (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:45, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dr Bodh Narayan Jha

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

No evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability standards. The article is sourced only to (1) a one-sentence Facebook page, and (2) a web page hosted on the web hosting site

talk) 11:14, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

(Note: A PROD was removed by the creator of the article. A speedy deletion tag added by

talk) 11:16, 1 November 2016 (UTC))[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:06, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: seemingly fails
    Anup [Talk] 14:25, 7 November 2016 (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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 09:58, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Abbey Resort

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

This article appears on its face to fail WP:GNG. It looks to be a WP:COOKIE resort. Dolotta (talk) 23:45, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 20:14, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. North America1000 20:14, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:23, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 04:07, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- no indications of notability or significance. The only attempt at a notability claim ("Abbey has the world's tallest wooden A-frame") is uncited. Copy is promotional including news on the "$40M renovation" and the footage of its meeting place. Wikipedia is not a planning guide for corporate meeting planners. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:00, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:01, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 10:41, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Offers virtually nothing of historical or architectural interest, one link doesn't work, the other is to its own webpage. Nothing but an ad. — Preceding unsigned comment added by J. M. Pearson (talk • contribs) 17:04, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails
    WP:AUD. Hut 8.5 14:07, 5 November 2016 (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. Minimal debate, even after several weeks, so calling this

WP:SOFTDELETE -- RoySmith (talk) 18:45, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Motel Motel

Motel Motel (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 band that has released one EP and two albums that did not trouble chart. The international tour appear to be a cultural exchange with Egypt and a number of festival dates in the UK. Fails the

WP:MUSIC criteria. Karst (talk) 10:45, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America1000 21:20, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. North America1000 21:20, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 10:38, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not finding coverage in reliable sources. Sam Walton (talk) 11:13, 9 November 2016 (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. SpinningSpark 11:59, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bednash v Hearsey

Bednash v Hearsey (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: BEFORE did not produce any demonstrably independent and reliable sources offering significant coverage. —swpbT 12:28, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Added comment to talk page. Hope this helps. But the user above is uninformed: the Court of Appeal case is always significant, and in this case it sets an important precedent. Wikidea 13:29, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
First, it must be noted that the above comment is from the page creator. Second, it is wrong. We have no guideline suggesting that such cases are "always sigificant"; the closest thing is
WP:GNG, for which there is currently no evidence of being met. —swpbT 16:19, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. —swpbT 12:30, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. —swpbT 12:30, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. Wikidea is correct on both counts. --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:25, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please identify the guideline that supports this. There is none. Without a specific guideline identified, your comment should be struck from consideration as completely unsupported. —swpbT 17:27, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
WP:Badgering, please, and accept that others have a different view from yours. --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:31, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Try reading GNG, then reading
WP:OTHERSTUFF. GNG asks for reliable independent sources, of which we have zero, and OTHERSTUFF points out that the existence of similar articles is not a valid argument. Taking apart flawed arguments isn't "badgering" (another page it doesn't appear you've read), it's exactly how AfDs are supposed to work. Make a valid case to keep if you can, but falsifying policies and guidelines isn't going to fly here. —swpbT 17:36, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Zzzz. The article asserts the notability of the case. Additional references would always be welcome, but AGF the existing reference is more than enough. Really, swpb, you don't make your case haggling like this. The article is keep. That will be the result. Deal with it. --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:43, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
How many blatantly incorrect statements can you make? 1) An assertion of notability alone is worthless; GNG requires sources. 2)
WP:AGF is a guideline governing editor behavior; it has zero relevance to the question of whether an article meets a notability guideline. Anything else you want to throw at the wall? —swpbT 17:47, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
I'm assuming the good faith of the person who added the reference which I cannot read (it's behind a paywall). So we have an assertion of notability. We have a source. And we have you being uncivil and abusive in a rattle-out-of-pram sort of a way. 2 out of 3 ain't bad. --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:50, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The editor who added that source made no statement to the effect that it offered significant coverage of the subject; the only implicit statement that can be assumed is that it supports something in the article (we don't even know what, since there's no inline citation). The source could mention this subject in the most trivial way, and still be added in good faith. There is nothing to AGF about regarding notability. Abusive? For not letting you have the last, wrong, word? Good luck with that.
WP:HARASSMENT, which you linked to, makes it clear that false accusations are themselves personal attacks, so you might want to stop digging approximately now. —swpbT 17:53, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
I'm unimpressed with your continued
WP:Badgering. As I asked earlier, please accept that others have a different view from yours. --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:00, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Again, that's not what WP:Badgering says. At all. Have any opinion you want about this article, but do not lie about guidelines and expect it to go unanswered. —swpbT 18:01, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have the opinion that you have been hectoring me to change my opinion. That amount to harrassment, especially when you were asked many rounds ago to desist. But I would not expect a bully to admit bullying, so I'll not look for any insight from you. --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:04, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America1000 21:17, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 10:38, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - based on Wikipedia policy, article is not notable without 3rd party reliable sources,

WP:RS. Cotton2 (talk) 12:16, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Such as its entry in Vulnerable Transactions in Corporate Insolvency [22] or Directors’ Decisions and the Law: Promoting Success [23], [24]. It's fairly specialised law, but the RS exist, and afaik there is no deadline. --Tagishsimon (talk) 15:42, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not one of those demonstrates significant coverage. Try your searches with quotes around them. Your first source mentions the case exactly once, in a footnote, and says nothing about it. As I hope you know, trivial mentions don't count toward GNG. The second source may offer significant coverage, but that would need to be confirmed, and the links you provided can't do that—searches for various forms of the case name turn up nothing. I have to wonder, did you not expect anyone to look at the links you posted? —swpbT 18:09, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I did expect people to look, yes, but I also expected them to have a fucking clue. The first reference mentions all of its cases as footnotes. That is how it is structured. A narrative text with footnotes to supporting cases. Quite a conventional model for a law book. You can probably spare me your counter-opinion, but I guess you won't. --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:24, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
See again: trivial mentions don't count toward GNG. Period. Are we supposed to imagine that the footnoted case is the source of the legal doctrine in the body text, or just an example of it? It doesn't say, and so we can't assume. Then try on Wikipedia:Civility. The closer will weigh arguments by their soundness, not by their volume, or their level of rage. —swpbT 18:28, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I pity the poor closer, having to read through this crap. You affect to not having a clue about the way in which common law works: cases informing specific and often very narrow and technical points of law; caselaw being described and referenced to narrative by footnotes. In your estimation, Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co would be 'trivial' because Treitel on The Law of Contract has only a single footnote to it. --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:37, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"specific and often very narrow and technical points of law" does not notability make: shall I point you to our notability guidelines again? Of course a narrow legal precedent can be notable, and many are, but there is absolutely nothing to show that this one is. If that other case had the complete lack of reliable, significant sourcing this one has, it would be non-notable; but that clearly isn't the case. For your notes on fallacies to avoid, add
WP:WHATABOUTX. —swpbT 18:41, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Equally, "specific and often very narrow and technical points of law" does not notability deny. Indeed its specificity, narrowness and technical nature does not speak at all to its notability, as any rational inspection of WP:N would ascertain. We have multiple RS in the areas of insolvency / duties of directors pointing to this case, which amounts to significant coverage sufficient to "address the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content." Our sources are reliable. Our sources are secondary. Our sources are independent of the subject. But hey, I'm here all night. Entertain me. Point me to this unicorn policy which equates specificity with non-notability, if that's the best you have. --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:57, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"its specificity, narrowness and technical nature does not speak at all to its notability" I couldn't agree more. Of course, a "keep" argument requires positive evidence of notability; there's no converse condition where the "delete" argument is expected to prove a negative. As to sources being reliable, independent, and secondary, that's fine, but you conspicuously leave out that other word in GNG: significant. —swpbT 19:02, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
well yes, if you ignore the bit where I said We have multiple RS in the areas of insolvency / duties of directors pointing to this case, which amounts to significant coverage sufficient to "address the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content." --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:04, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And that's your case all over: fingers in ears saying "la la la can't hear you". --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:05, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Significance" is a per-source property: you don't get to "significant coverage" by adding up trivial mentions, no matter how many you have. This is how GNG has always worked. If you don't like that, you need to take it up on the guideline talk page. —swpbT 19:19, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Neither do you obviate significant coverage by dismissing it as trivial. What are you holding out for? A complete book dedicated to this one case? Do I need to take you through it again. Enough reliable coverage to write an article without independent research. See above. --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:24, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Enough reliable coverage" is simply false, by all standards but yours. I already explained why your two new sources don't demonstrate GNG, and that seems to be all you've got. —swpbT 19:39, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"by all standards but yours". As if anyone but you has actually opined on the matter. I get that you don't find any of the three sources compelling, but you don't seem to be able to articulate what would suffice: and I very much think that you're sufficiently wedded to this Quixotic AfD that nothing'll move you. --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:49, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Two. Three links, but two sources. I guess you were hoping I'd miss that. And there is, of course, no basis for the attack that nothing would "move" me; you just haven't found anything that does. —swpbT 20:20, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You'd be 'forgetting' the reference in the article. --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:28, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tagishsimon, according to the Vulnerable Transactions in Corporate Insolvency book, it looks like this case was unreported. In most American jurisdictions, unreported cases don't have precedential value. Did this case set a precedent that affected the outcome of other cases? If yes, can you cite two or three cases that rely upon Bednash v Hearsey? If this case did affect the outcome of other cases, then my vote will be to keep. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 20:04, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have access to a database which would enable me to find such things, NCFF. But my logic is: if the case is of no precedential value, why is it listed & discussed in books of insolvency / directoral duties? --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:28, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In legal academia (and sometimes in court cases), jurists and scholars will occasionally cite unpublished or unreported cases (i.e. cases without precedential value) if the case involved a unique or interesting facts, or if the case applied legal rules in an interesting manner. I only have access to databases that list cases from the United States, and it doesn't look like this case has had any impact over here. I checked HeinOnline's database of law journals, but that also doesn't show much discussion about this case. The Belcher piece (cited in this article) may say something about this cases' impact, but the article is behind a paywall and I can't access it. Does it say anything about this case's lasting impact? -- Notecardforfree (talk) 22:48, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So, fwiw, here's more info on the reference in the article pointing to Legal Studies, Vol. 28 No. 1, March 2008, pp. 46–67 DOI: 10.1111/j.1748-121X.2007.00072.x ‘Something distinctly not of this character’: how Knightian uncertainty is relevant to corporate governance. The paragraph pointing to this case reads:

Insolvency law is another area where directors are expected to consider both probability and risk. Under s 214(2)(b) of the Insolvency Act 1986 directors can become liable for wrongful trading if the company continues to trade and ‘. . . at some time before the commencement of the winding up of the company, [a director] knew or ought to have concluded that there was no reasonable prospect that the company would avoid going into insolvent liquidation’. Personal liability and disqualification are possible consequences of wrongful trading. In several disqualification cases arising out of wrongful trading the courts have held directors to be unfit on the ground that they took unwarranted risks with creditors’ money. [55]

and the citation in the paper is 55. Re Living Images Ltd [1996] BCC 112, Secretary of State for Trade and Industry v Ashcroft (No 2) 2000 WL 877739, Re Richborough Furniture Ltd [1996] 1 BCLC 507, Re DGA (UK) Ltd 2001 WL 482928. --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:18, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: Per Tagishsimon and other relevant assessment. I do not have the access to UK databases or Westlaw, but it is an appellate-level decision that appears to have value as precedent. I'd suggest posting at WP:Law and see if there are folks who have better access to UK source material. Montanabw(talk) 19:56, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I'm not an expert on this subject, but I think any court case that can reasonably set a significant legal precedent is notable. South Nashua (talk) 12:56, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - an important legal issue resolved, in a major appellate court. Bearian (talk) 16:34, 15 November 2016 (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:46, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Videolink2.me

Videolink2.me (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 directory-like

WP:PROMO page on an unremarkable video chat service; significant RS coverage cannot be found. Created by Special:Contributions/Lina_Dunaievska with no other contributions. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:40, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:41, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:41, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:59, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – Not finding any significant coverage in reliable sources at this time; fails
    WP:N. North America1000 10:26, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 10:36, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Non-notable. I'm not finding any independent coverage - just catalog listings and a couple of company tutorials. Kolbasz (talk) 11:06, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I was unable to find any potential referencing through news, books, scholar, HighBeam, Google, etc. Anarchyte (work | talk) 07:32, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to

non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 00:33, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

AFTR:HRS

AFTR:HRS (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 sub-label associated with the DJ Tiesto. One Billboard article that that hints at possible notability, but this is

WP:COMPANY. Notability is not inherited. Karst (talk) 10:22, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Revert back to the original edits to the article as a redirect to Tiësto. -- GB fan 12:09, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:03, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:03, 5 November 2016 (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. Sam Walton (talk) 11:14, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mesg

Mesg (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 prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing

Lp (Unix), the latter following Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lp (Unix). I hope we can agree on where to redirect this and similar entries on non-notable Unix commands in a spirit of mutual cooperation. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:24, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

AfD is not a "guilty until proven innocent" system. No admin in their right mind is going to entertain the idea of you holding out your "vote" until someone does your due-diligence research for you. 157.235.66.80 (talk) 20:00, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:54, 5 November 2016 (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:46, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Monetary Morphogenesis

Monetary Morphogenesis (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 concept. Zero coverage in independent sources. Kolbasz (talk) 09:08, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Kolbasz (talk) 09:10, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to

non-admin closure) –Davey2010Talk 00:16, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Women's Defence Forces

Women's Defence Forces (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 to demonstrate Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). Merge with Kurdistan Free Life Party. Pahlevun (talk) 08:50, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep sources from a quick Google search include [25], [26], [27].
    flyer 10:08, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Note: This debate has been included in the
flyer 10:09, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
flyer 10:09, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
flyer 10:09, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
flyer 10:09, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
flyer 10:09, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
flyer 10:09, 1 November 2016 (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. There is clear consensus to keep this page. (

non-admin closure) Anarchyte (work | talk) 07:43, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Library system

Library system (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 useful article: a "library system" is either the library service of a university, local authority etc, or it's an Integrated library system (Library Management System in UK), the issue, catalogue etc system. This article doesn't improve the encyclopedia. PamD 07:43, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. I think we have a number of librarians who can comment on this better then I can. I think the article refers to the concept of "main library with branches". It may be notable... or not. I did find University of California. Library Systems Development Program (1971). Library System Definition: Functions and Interfaces. so at the very least this merits a closer look at sources and usage. Could be just redirected and merged to library, perhaps? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:14, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 14:14, 1 November 2016 (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:46, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Flesh Hunter

Flesh Hunter (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 directory-like page on an unremarkable film series that does not list any independent secondary sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail. No significant RS coverage can be found.

The page lists several awards. The awards (even if not PR driven, of which I'm not convinced), do not overcome the lack of RS per

WP:WHYN
. For closed AfDs on comparable articles, please see:

K.e.coffman (talk) 23:56, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:57, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly
    Talk to my owner:Online 00:11, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:43, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
flyer 07:21, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:08, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  Sandstein  18:45, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Som Chand Gupta

Som Chand Gupta (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 prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing

WP:POLITICIAN". However, unless the article is simply badly worded, it seems that the subject was never elected - he served as an unelected party official (secretary) and failed at a local election, neither of which makes him notable in light of the cited guidelines. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:48, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:45, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:45, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:45, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Fails
    Anup [Talk] 13:14, 7 November 2016 (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:47, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rockerrazzi

Rockerrazzi (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)

lot of sources but most are primary, used over and over again. Others are about other people with some not even mentioning this company. duffbeerforme (talk) 04:47, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:21, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:21, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as simply an advertisement and the information and sources yield nothing else actually better therefore there's honestly nothing to suggest both notability and substance. SwisterTwister talk 05:31, 7 November 2016 (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. czar 05:30, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Space (Connecticut)

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

No indication of importance, only one independent source. Just another music-poetry venue, like the thousands in the surrounding cities. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 04:14, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:11, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:11, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:11, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:11, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:12, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- an unremarkable event venue; no indications of notability or significance. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:13, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Can't find any reliable sources about this venue. Sam Walton (talk) 21:29, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  Sandstein  18:44, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Harad (toponymy)

Harad (toponymy) (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 such word is Slavic languages. Someone not well-versed in slav ling "back-formed" it from diminutive haradok, which is actually for horad.

talk) 03:50, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 04:46, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 04:46, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belarus-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 04:47, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This article covers, according to its own description, the same topic as Gord (archaeology). That makes it NOTDICT at best. If it's not an actual word, it's not even that. Cnilep (talk) 03:33, 4 November 2016 (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/speedy delete as

(｡◕‿◕｡) 08:02, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Faraz Fazlet

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

PROD deleted by creator. This article smells very promotional, and I was unable to find secondary source coverage of the subject to meet GNG. agtx 03:48, 1 November 2016 (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:48, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A Day In Nilgiri Biosphere Reserve - A Lifescape To Experience

A Day In Nilgiri Biosphere Reserve - A Lifescape To Experience (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 page has no context. Apparently is about a film but absolutely

WP:TOOSOON. Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 03:46, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 04:48, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 04:48, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Well... it technically can be speedied as just being an infobox, but in the defense of the article creator they'd only just created the page minutes before people started tagging it for various types of deletion.
    (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:07, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete as TOOSOON, but if speedy is available we might as well get on with it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:15, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The "no context" speedy deletion was added 20 minutes after the article was created -- sufficient time for the author to have written at least one sentence about this film, which turns out to be a fairly well produced amateur film released directly to YouTube. Nicely done, but not notable in any way. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 12:18, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment: Why are we even discussing it? This discussion can easily be challenged via deletion-review (content/sources different from previous deleted one). I'll restore the speedy tag. They are welcome to re-create it with more content and possible sources that might exist (

Anup [Talk] 23:48, 2 November 2016 (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. (For some reason, it didn't close before) Redirects can be created at editorial discretion. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:32, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2016 Tennessee vs. Georgia football game

2016 Tennessee vs. Georgia football game (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 game had a thrilling ending, but nothing extraordinary. It was just another hail mary. At least a half-dozen games every season end on a hail mary pass. The article was created a mere three days after the game ended, so long-term historical significance could not have been taken into account. On that note, the game will probably never have much historical significance since both teams are now largely irrelevant this season after losing several games. Lizard (talk) 03:21, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Yes it was an exciting ending, but this game doesn't mean much in the scheme of either team's histories. Tennessee isn't going to go undefeated and be a surprise national champion, and Georgia isn't going to come off the rails into a dark time in program history. If both or either of those happened following this game, it would hold legitimate significance as turning points in these programs. But as the nominator said, a thrilling yet non-extraordinary ending. Jrcla2 (talk) 00:41, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Georgia–Tennessee_football_rivalry#Notable_games, which has about as much detail as is needed. ansh666 19:08, 4 November 2016 (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. Sam Walton (talk) 21:32, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Hofschröer

Peter Hofschröer (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)

Request for deletion at

WP:BLPN here Meatsgains (talk) 02:31, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 02:35, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 02:35, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 02:35, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Userfy per
    WP:REALPROBLEM
    .
So I used to live in Los Angeles and...

I attended edit-a-thons where we'd get potential new editors. These wannabe-Hollywood types, when they weren't name-dropping who they worked with or talked to, tried to convince me to help them "have an article on Wikipedia" for ego and promotional purposes. With only one exception I refused them and I explained that they don't want Wikipedia to have an article about them for exactly this situation. Notability is not temporary and you can't turn around and ask us to delete the article about you because it doesn't read the way you want it to. Too bad for Mr. Hofschröer and his apparent bad behavior. My undergrad is in history and I have a soft spot for historians.

The subject is notable under

WP:REALPROBLEM. I'll cut Hofschröer a break and ask the closing admin to move this into my userspace and salt the mainspace entry until time goes by and I can write a fair and well-written article. Chris Troutman (talk) 03:16, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 14:11, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
I lean to delete because (a) this person genuinely is only marginally notable (and that mainly for being something of a thug) and (b) it's more trouble than it's worth. I have sympathy to those who are impatient with a person who used Wikipedia for self-promotion only to demand deletion when the hens come home to roost, but equally we should show some class and allow people to exit with at least some dignity. Guy (Help!) 14:14, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (the Talk Page) as it is being abused by Tirailleur to push his own particular agenda, including libellous claims against others (myself), an agenda he is also pushing on an external website. He does seem to be a little too obsessed. The Article page is worthy of retention, as the subject has produced a large quantity of material about the Prussian Army of the Napoleonic Wars, so it is a reference point for anyone interested in that subject and the background to the more contentious issues related specifically to the battle of Waterloo. His more recent activities should just be left as mere statements of fact from the media - anyone going for major rants about them is really trying to exploit the current climate in the UK about these matters to push an agenda about a battle, which took place 200 years ago. DaveHMBA (talk) 19:15, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete -- The books look low level ones for fans. He is explicitly an amateur historian. I get the feeling that there are some COATHANGER issues here too. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:22, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Hofschroer is notably mainly for being a convicted paedophile. As a historian, he is mainly known for making a nuisance of himself by libelling historian who debunk his books, usually for abuse and misrepresentation of sources material. Most importantly, though, the page about him is being repeatedly defaced by vandals who use it to repeat his conspiracy theories and the smears against the police, his family and the social services that the judge at his criminal trial dismissed. Left like that it brings Wikipedia into severe disrepute. Tirailleur (talk) 23:07, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I think you can make a reasonable case that the subject is notable. Certainly his work has been the subject of reviews in reliable sources (e.g. [28] and some of Chris Troutman's links above). However it is going to be rather difficult to cover him while remaining compliant with
    WP:BLP given his conviction for possessing indecent images of children [29] and the large number of people trying to insert poorly sourced content claiming there has been a campaign of harassment against him. Given that his notability is somewhat borderline I think think it's worth trying to do this. Hut 8.5 13:59, 10 November 2016 (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. Randykitty (talk) 16:43, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rock Candy Funk Party

Rock Candy Funk Party (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)
talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats
)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
We Want Groove (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)
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 all. Minimally sourced article about a band which makes no claim to passing

WP:NMUSIC for anything -- this quite literally consists of a single sentence asserting that they exist, followed by bulletpointed lists of member and session musicians and the titles of their albums, and says nothing else substantive about them that can even be measured for whether it passes an NMUSIC criterion or not. And the only referencing here is to AllMusic -- but having a profile on AllMusic is not an automatic inclusion pass on Wikipedia in and of itself. AllMusic is a database where the only inclusion criterion is that the musician exists -- whereas our inclusion criteria require that a musician has garnered certain specific levels of media coverage for attaining certain specific levels of concrete and quantifiable achievement besides just existing. So AllMusic is acceptable as one source amid a diversity of sources, but it is not a source that can singlehandedly carry a band over NMUSIC or GNG as the article's only source. Also batching their three albums, as those will have to be automatically deleted A9 if the band article goes. Bearcat (talk) 20:33, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:38, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No independent third party coverage that conveys notability. Seems to be making a claim that existence = notability. ShelbyMarion (talk) 12:35, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Too groooovy to delete. Multiple independently notable members,
    WP:NMUSIC
    #6. International coverage
"Albums of the Week", Liverpool Echo, 14 August 2015
"ROCK CANDY FUNK PARTY We Want Groove (Provogue)", Sunday Mercury, 10 February 2013
"Listening Post", Buffalo News, 2 March 2014
Miers, Jeff (18 January 2013), "Discs: Patricia Barber, Dopapod, Rock Candy Funk Party, Matt Herskowitz", Buffalo News
First two are from England. Jazz Times review [30]. Also [31]. Not the
greatest site but Glenn Astarita is a professional music journalist. Just enough to satistfy WP:NMUSIC#1. duffbeerforme (talk) 08:03, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:19, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:19, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:19, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Nightfury 07:49, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:11, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It is the side project of Joe Bonamassa and backup band for him, period, full stop. I hate his music, but he, and this band, can literally fill a stadium and play on PBS during their endless begging periods. There is no other band in this genre that is as big. Ask your parental units. Bearian (talk) 22:40, 19 November 2016 (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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 11:52, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

RightNetwork

RightNetwork (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:ORG/WP:MEDIA. jps (talk) 19:58, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. clpo13(talk) 23:09, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. clpo13(talk) 23:09, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. clpo13(talk) 23:09, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:03, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wrong. this article is not "advertising" anything. This short-lived attempt to establish a news network [32] happened. Recording that fact is an appropriate role for an encyclopedia.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:02, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't really see how this can be considered advertising when it's for a channel that no longer exists and hasn't for more than 5 years. Even their website is permanently down. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 04:11, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the article certainly has its problems, attempting to use Youtube as a source(!) not once but twice! (What the-?) That said it's clear that substantial mainsteam reliable source coverage exists, even if the channel itself was short-lived. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 04:06, 15 November 2016 (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. postdlf (talk) 15:13, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of disappearing gun installations

AfDs for this article:
List of disappearing gun installations (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 duplicates almost completely the list of significant installations in the Disappearing gun article. I still- I nominated this for deletion once before - do not see this as adding anything to Wikipedia except bytes. Anmccaff (talk) 20:13, 25 October 2016 (UTC) Anmccaff (talk) 20:13, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. clpo13(talk) 23:07, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. clpo13(talk) 23:07, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:01, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why have a separate page for a list already on another article? If this list has some additional info then why not just merge it? if not, then delete it. It has the appearance of an ego standoff to keep it separate when merging makes so much sense. I've decided to retract that opinion due to my inexperience in Wiki.Thanks.--J. M. Pearson (talk) 13:27, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:24, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per
    WP:SPINOUT. This list is redundant only because the content was not removed from the initial page, which should have been done. The article about disappearing guns is long enough already. Move the applicable content to the list and keep the two separate. This was the conclusion from the previous AfD and it should be the conclusion yet again. Editors should boldly clean the mess rather than nominate for deletion. Chris Troutman (talk) 02:10, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
No, the list in the article is of significant installations. They would have to remain, although perhaps not in list form, of course. This list is apparently a substitute for a tag; if actually populated, it would have several thousand entries...more, depending on how far the idea of "installation" was taken. This was the dominant form of heavy fixed gun for several decades in all developed countries, and for longer still in the US. Anmccaff (talk) 04:18, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Chris: I tend to agree that this would work better as a separate article rather than a section of the disappearing gun article. Nick-D (talk) 02:14, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Chris. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 12:01, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The same guy who nominated it for deletion months ago, with everyone saying keep, nominates it again. Don't keep repeating an AFD hoping to get the results you want. Anyway, its too long to fit everything in the other list. Plenty of valid entries here, they all seem to link to forts notable enough to have their own articles that also have pictures of these guns there. Dream Focus 20:45, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
...and note in the meantime, articles have been added at a rate that suggest the list will be half-populated sometime about two hundred years from now. We no more now need a list of every installation than we need a List of Pintos by VIN, and the glacial pace of additions accurately reflects that.. Anmccaff (talk) 22:50, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Fortunately Wikipedia is
WP:NOTFINISHED. Nick-D (talk) 07:55, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
How so? Most of the installations here are germane to the main page, and should not be removed from there -although, as I've said, they need not be kept in a list form. Simply removing them would not improve the article. Anmccaff (talk) 22:50, 1 November 2016 (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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 09:50, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

AlefBase

AlefBase (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)

Here is an odd one. An album for a red-linked artist (Gevolt), so could technically qualify for speedy delete, but it was declined back in 2011. I fail to see how a self-published album (℗ Gevolt Productions) notable. Renata (talk) 03:43, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. North America1000 21:27, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. North America1000 21:27, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The page for the band was created, so the band is not a red-linked now:) - KremBrule (talk) 14:48, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I see nothing in the article that makes me think it meets the criteria of
    WP:NALBUM. I would say move the relevant info to the band's page and delete this one. - GalatzTalk 17:09, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep: It meets the criteria of
    WP:NALBUM at least paragraph number 1. - KremBrule (talk) 14:49, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:46, 1 November 2016 (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. This looks to me like a "List of X of Y," so per

WP:LISTN there is no recognized way of determining notability. We have to base inclusion on whether or not it is useful, and I don't see agreement on that. Cerebellum (talk) 15:28, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

List of minor sports teams in the United States by city

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:LISTCRUFT with no sources and vaguely related to the Minor league but without any real definition or significance (and also covered thoroughly in List of professional sports teams in the United States and Canada with the addition of Major teams). I attempted to add some definition by making it about top level organizations and was reverted. This page either is too vague for significance or needs to be more defined and/or completed with all minor league teams (although that is already covered in the aforementioned list. Yosemiter (talk) 15:31, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
(talk) 15:39, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
(talk) 15:40, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
@
WP:LISTN, this is a "List of X of Y" with no determined notability criteria and must demonstrate its own notability. Since I believe the intent was show United States cities associated with minor league teams, which there isn't even an article about, I still fail to to see the notability of this article without making it more defined. Yosemiter (talk) 13:27, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:52, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. North America1000 03:53, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. North America1000 03:53, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@
WP:TOOBIG (75/100 KB). I'd imagine it would be split along the lines of Major vs Minor league teams.--Prisencolin (talk) 17:20, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
@
WP:TOOBIG. The only way to reduce that list would be to break it by sport (such as List of Minor League Baseball leagues and teams and List of professional baseball teams in the United States by city). But in regards to the list nominated for deletion, does it make sense to keep it as is, or delete it and replace with something more specific (such as the one I linked for baseball)? Please note, that keeping it as currently defined, it would need to list every team from the 45+ minor leagues listed on the list of professional teams. Yosemiter (talk) 17:30, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:44, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Meets
    WP:GNG. Agree with above that the split is good. Smartyllama (talk) 16:06, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
@
WP:LISTN which has no inherent notability guidelines and is usually only accepted if there is an actual subject page for such a list to be attached to.) Yosemiter (talk) 16:11, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
As an added note here, I'm not sure
WP:LISTNAME, where I think the strongest argument for deletion is that this list is "too general or too broad in scope", and therefore has little value. It has already been split into lists for each league and for each city as noted above. Happy to talk more about this with those who disagree! Ajpolino (talk) 05:02, 21 November 2016 (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. SpinningSpark 12:56, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Shobhita Rana

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

Non-notable actress/model and reads like a vanity page Meatsgains (talk) 02:28, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America1000 07:44, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America1000 07:44, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America1000 07:44, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 04:01, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the
flyer 12:36, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:44, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per
    WP:NOTPROMO. This is pretty much promotion going on for a non-notable model. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:50, 8 November 2016 (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. -- RoySmith (talk) 03:12, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Real estate in Puerto Rico

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

This article was nominated for deletion three years ago and passed with a "keep". However, since then, the main improvements to the article have only been that large portions of irrelevant and/or Spanish-language content were removed or translated into English. The article still contains significant portions in untranslated Spanish, and even if it were translated 100% into English, it would still be just a group of disjointed topics rather than a quality encyclopedia article. Part of the problem may be that we don't necessarily have a clear concept as to what ought to appear in a "real estate by location" article; there are only a few articles whose titles begin with "Real estate in..." and none of them are currently rated as better than Start-Class or Stub-Class. So I would like to suggest that this article be deleted. Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:12, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America1000 21:26, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. North America1000 21:26, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:41, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notable topic. Everyking (talk) 05:39, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but possibly stubbify as an alternative to deletion. A notable part of the economy. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:19, 11 November 2016 (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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 15:37, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Qwan Ki Do

AfDs for this article:
Qwan Ki Do (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 deletion, and previously deleted via AfD, there are no reliable sources for this, and none that immediately present themselves via Google. Guy (Help!) 22:48, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: insufficiently sourced; COI/OR-ridden hagiography. Quis separabit? 23:42, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi. It can't be a hagiography because it's not a biography. I've also added scholarly sources and removed the uncited material. Tell me whether it works for you. Lourdes 09:35, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:08, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:08, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:08, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:44, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (Changed !vote to delete; see discussion below. Lourdes) Keep Because Guy has nominated this, I'll only comment that contrary to the nomination statement, there seem to be considerable scholarly material and Google News sources available to support the article's existence. If the material currently contained is promotional, that should be deleted en masse and only minimal contextual encyclopedic material may be retained. The subject is of considerable interest and has been researched reliably. Lourdes 07:10, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You make a good case for
WP:TNT. Guy (Help!) 08:35, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
My point was that contrary to your nomination statement, there were quite a few reliable sources. You could perhaps consider striking/changing/withdrawing your nom statement (but of course I'll defer to your judgment on that). I've taken your suggestion and nuked all uncited and promo material. I've now quoted six scholarly research material on the subject within the article. In case the article is kept, interested editors can work on it to expand the same from the sources I've provided and from the many other reliable scholarly and news sources available online. Thanks. Lourdes 09:04, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I was sitting on the fence with the article in the form it was when the AfD was proposed primarily because the references were so poor - my main question is Is the art notable? I don't particularly think that the new references address that but they sure are better than what was there before. The art itself (despite the references) is pretty obscure. I do think that Lourdes took a cleaver to the article where a kitchen knife would do based on what is in other articles of this type but it did need some paring down. OK so I am still sitting and hoping for references that talk about the art specifically not just passing mentions.Peter Rehse (talk) 09:58, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hello PRehse. Thanks for the points. I'm confused with two of your statements: "The art itself (despite the references) is pretty obscure" and "hoping for references that talk about the art specifically not just passing mentions". If you go through the references "Cojocariu, A. (2011). Measurement of reaction time in Qwan Ki Do. Biology of Sport, 28(2), 139" or "Adrian, C., Bogdan, U., & Alexandru, O. (2015). Evaluation of Anaerobic Lactacid capacity in elite Qwan Ki Do athletes. Gymnasium, 16(1), 85.Chicago" or "Cojocariu, A., Ungurean, B., & Oprean, A. (2013). Improvement of the endurance motor skill in elite Qwan Ki Do athletes. Sport & Society/Sport si Societate, 13(2)", these are full scholarly research reports on the art. Why would you consider these passing mentions? Lourdes 10:09, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Lourdes Passing mentions is a relative term I guess. Those articles really don't talk about the art itself but just use the art as a benchmark in various studies (ie. the art exists). I have a few other issues on the references themselves, I don't think they are peer reviewed and my flags go up when, as I said, a relatively obscure art, is used as a basis - but I think they are acceptable for wikipedia's purposes. Now I say obscure based on my knowledge but then my opinion should not count and references do. I just would like to see more references that talk specifically about the art.Peter Rehse (talk) 10:27, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
PRehse thanks for the detailed clarification. "Those articles really don't talk about the art itself but just use the art as a benchmark in various studies (ie. the art exists)" I absolutely disagree. The literature review in each of these references is more than detailed about the art. These are scholarly researches, not research reports. Scholarly researches like these give an introduction, an exhaustive literature review of the field, the hypothesis being developed, the experiment to test the hypothesis, the results, interpretation and conclusion. I'm not sure if you've gone through these references as they are not easily available (and I have to thank Wikipedia for giving me access to various libraries).
Actually most are downloadable in their entirety and the others the abstract. Most refer to one group in Romania that were used in a study - and that is the only detail there. Nothing on how wide spread the art is, how notable, its origins, nothing but that it exists. The art was chosen for the study based on availability not on it being exceptional in any way. The question remains do the references establish notability.Peter Rehse (talk) 11:20, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I disagree with your view that the researches are not peer reviewed. For example, quoting the Biology of Sport website, "Biology of Sport is the official journal of the Institute of Sport National Research Institute, located in Warsaw, Poland, published since 1984. Biology of Sport is an international scientific peer-reviewed journal..."
Other than that, the discussion about the detailing of material from the reference should take place on the talk page of the said article, and I'll look forward to discussions there. Thanks once more for your detailed response. Lourdes 10:38, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:41, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Requesting PRehse and other editors to take a quick look at the book sources that I've added subsequently. Lourdes 02:07, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Although I'm leaning towards delete, I'd like to see some other editor's comments. I don't see what I would call significant independent coverage of this art, but others may disagree. Being mentioned in a book consisting of WP articles does not support notability. Coverage seems to consist predominantly of reports on tests that were done with students of this art. I don't think that is sufficient to show that art is notable. I'm more inclined to see this as passing mentions as these tests could probably have been done on students of any martial art. Papaursa (talk) 11:46, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hello Papaursa, I may be wrong but these two books which I have added as source[33][34] do not seem to be compilation of WP articles. They seem to be authentic content driven books. Do tell me how they appeal to you. Thanks. Lourdes 08:35, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You're right that those books are not a compilation of WP articles. However, the fact that this art gets a few sentences in a 900 page book that claims to be a complete encyclopedia of all the world's martial arts does not strike me as significant coverage. The issue isn't whether or not the art exists, but whether or not it is notable. Papaursa (talk) 04:32, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the reply Papaursa. I realize the growing consensus is that the sources do not sum up for notability of this martial art. I see sense in the comments of the editors who have taken time to reply to my queries. Phew... I tried though to churn up some sources. Am changing my !vote to delete too given the logic forwarded by other editors. Lourdes 09:36, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Despite the efforts of Lourdes, I do not believe that this art has the significant independent coverage required to meet
    WP:MANOTE. This is based both on my own search and the sources already presented. Papaursa (talk) 04:32, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep as a week has not suggested anything else (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 20:15, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Usama Fayyad

Usama Fayyad (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 corporate officer and scientist. The position Chief Data Officer at Yahoo and Barclays is not intrinsically notable. The references for notability consist basically of minor notices--and his own publications Tu Che Di Gel Sei Cinta (talk) 22:19, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly
    Talk to my owner:Online 22:31, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:45, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:45, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:45, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar 00:40, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 16:50, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The subject is an ACM Fellow. Let me have a look at the Google scholar cites in the meantime. The article needs a trim though. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 16:54, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just searched for "UM Fayyad" on Google Scholar. Lots of cites (even if I take into fact that Computer Science is highly cited field). --Lemongirl942 (talk) 16:56, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  Sandstein  10:28, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Getzels

Peter Getzels (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 from the tail end of the unreviewed articles. I have no idea whether this will be considered notable or not. DGG ( talk ) 03:35, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:11, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - documentary director of PBS specials. Bearian (talk) 22:40, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:51, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning Keep -- has some notable credits as director and co-director. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:55, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as they are still in fact trivial and there's not enough motivating substance for his own notability; there's not a lot listed here and there's no inherited notability from other films. SwisterTwister talk 04:18, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar 00:29, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete on second thoughts, as no new sources have materialised at this AfD. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:58, 8 November 2016 (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. Parent article was PROD'd, so no merge target. czar 02:31, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Whom Shall I Fear

Whom Shall I Fear (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 referenced nor notable Rathfelder (talk) 22:55, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:45, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:45, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:58, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of significant media coverage. Hasn't charted anywhere; fails

WP:NALBUM. —SomeoneNamedDerek (talk) 22:57, 6 November 2016 (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. (

No prejudice against speedy renomination per relatively low participation herein.) North America1000 20:24, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Pouya Saraei

Pouya Saraei (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)

Per

WP:BLP Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 23:06, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. clpo13(talk) 23:08, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Hi Thanks for reviewing my article with subject of (Pouya Saraei)... but it`s a question for me that why you voted for nomination of deletion? what was my fault? my article was about a famous persian instrumentalist that have persian wikipedia(https://fa.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D9%BE%D9%88%DB%8C%D8%A7_%D8%B3%D8%B1%D8%A7%DB%8C%DB%8C) and you can ckeck it... for example he is the first instrumentalist that played in the first persian traditional track that was about santour with oerchestra in modern music genre... it was published by Navona Records... you can check it or he has albums in iTunes and Amazon.com what can i do that my article become acceptable? thanks you for helping... best regards -- Arassaeedian (talk • contribs) 12:11, 29 October 2016 (UTC)" Optakeover(U)(T)(C) 16:27, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The creator of the article left a comment on the talk page of this deletion debate that probably should be checked
Talk 16:57, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
That message is now here. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 21:48, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 21:50, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:18, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Smegma. Sam Walton (talk) 11:17, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dick cheese

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

Don't really know what formal rationale to use here. Originally created as this [36] in 2004 and promptly created into a redirect to smegma. Changed to a disambiguation page in 2006 for Richard Cheese (who I now know is a cover band and comedy act making a pun). Since then it seems to have only been the target of vandalism and not much more. Can't really see how having it adds value to the encyclopedia. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:16, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 00:25, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Salt seems like a good idea here, I agree. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:30, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Smegma. More than 20 views a day, [37], often quite a lot more, indicating readers are typing it in and we should help them find what they are looking for. Boleyn (talk) 10:14, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You do have a point. Modifying my !vote - definitely want to prevent it being edited, so full protection is really a must. Montanabw(talk) 03:22, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per Boleyn. Maybe the redirect would benefit from full protection once done? Mjroots (talk) 19:08, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Unopposed.  Sandstein  18:44, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of number-one singles of 2016 in English-speaking countries

List of number-one singles of 2016 in English-speaking countries (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
List of number-one singles of 2014 in English-speaking countries (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of number-one singles of 2015 in English-speaking countries (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Totally unnecessary amalgamation of other existing list articles on the exact topics. As all the lists are independently compiled and the only unifying factor is that they come from the "English-speaking world". StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 23:35, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 21:47, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 21:47, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: doesn't include all charts from countries where English is an official language (South Africa?) and no indication as to why comparing charts between English-speaking countries is notable or important. Richard3120 (talk) 01:27, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: the article was created by the editor Neegzistuoja and I'm a bit worried about his/her edits in general – some of them appear to be uploading images of politicians or other important world figures, but from Flickr accounts on the internet, so it is possible that we have a whole load of non-free image violations. I've left a message on the editor's talk page. Richard3120 (talk) 01:27, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:15, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I thought this article could list multiple charts to show which songs are most popular in a slightly more global sense, not just in individual countries, since there are often, but not always, similar successful songs in countries where the same language is spoken. South Africa should probably be included, good point. I can definitely see why this might not be notable enough, so I'm happy for it to be removed if that consensus is reached. Neegzistuoja (talk) 03:48, 1 November 2016 (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. Sam Walton (talk) 11:18, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Krishnan Ganesh

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

Wikipedia as usual used by such people to create their profile and promote themselves. What so important and significant about such Biography is highly doubtful. Even doubtful who even Knows these couples? Is it really an encyclopedia material we are creating here. Non-Notable to read or even know about. Atleast in the present situation. Later they can also make article if become notable by public view. Light2021 (talk) 00:06, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@
❯❯❯ Vanguard 10:54, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:16, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:16, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as I still confirm my PROD which listed all of the concerns. SwisterTwister talk 05:54, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete-Currently Non-notable!
    ❯❯❯ Vanguard 10:54, 9 November 2016 (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 Deleted per Copyvio. (

non-admin closure) Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ Talk 00:41, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Meena Ganesh

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

Wikipedia as usual used by such people to create their profile and promote themselves. What so important and significant about such Biography is highly doubtful. Even doubtful who even Knows these couples? Is it really an encyclopedia material we are creating here. Non-Notable to read or even know about. Atleast in the present situation. Later they can also make article if become notable by public view. Light2021 (talk) 00:05, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —MRD2014 (Happy Halloween!) 01:35, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. —MRD2014 (Happy Halloween!) 01:35, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —MRD2014 (Happy Halloween!) 01:35, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable individual. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 02:28, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the
flyer 09:58, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
I read them, typical Q/A answer are given by none other than those couple. How such things make anything Encyclopedic Notable, that is exact question and how many media references you can quote or who covered a script. How much they help in making a history or creating greater impact? Notability with impact that is what lacks in all those media coverage. Their company has already Speedy Deleted from Wikipedia. On what ground these founders have credibility to even Wikipedia material? Light2021 (talk) 05:13, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You answered an unasked question! I was just saying they are not that relatively unknown couple as you interpreted in your nomination rationale (and that might be because you did not perform BEFORE). That's just it. I didn't argue for anything.
Anup [Talk] 14:38, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Happening to look at these sources, I see the exact blatancy I noted below with my own comments, noting that not only are these articles parallel with saying the same advertising-focused words, but they are interviews so they are founded with the same person who is both the advertiser and the advertisee. Therefore noting that they are news therefore they must be acceptable, is not the same thing if they are all sugarcoated with advertising, and we'll never compromise with that.
  • Delete -- promotion only; should be deleted same as Portea Medical. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:33, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The subject of the article passes GNG. Clicking on HighBeam, there is a 2012 article from India Today which is a full profile on her, and a 2012 article which discusses her in part in the Hindustan Times. If you search for her name in conjunction with Times of India, you get: 2016 article about her and several articles about her and her husband who she works with and her name pops up in several books on Google book search. She's mentioned in a ton of other articles, too. Some of these were already listed in the article as sources. The article itself is pretty bare, and I don't see how it's "promotional" in tone just because she's notable for being in business. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:58, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as clearly advertising everything there is to advertise about her and her businesses, and one note we have to always note as it is, is the fact Indian news is notoriously paid for and with advertising motivations at that, therefore we cannot barely take it as an acceptable news source at that alone, and looking closely shows this to be the case, therefore especially with such advertising blatancy, delete. Let me note that, to make it clearer, "a full profile" in an Indian news website makes it heavier to in fact be a paid advertisement, therefore we cannot begin to say it's acceptable.
The sole basis of "she's mentioned at other articles and some are listed here" is also not a convincing for keeping this, again especially considering the fact this sole article exists as an advertisement and (1) the fact this was never touched again but also the fact the account only focused with such advertising. Also, as a clear note, it also emphasizes the concerns when all newspapers care to focus with the same lines of "fluffpuff" so that's especially advertising-motivated. SwisterTwister talk 19:25, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment-@
❯❯❯ Vanguard 10:39, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Weak Delete Not enough independent coverage on the subject. South Nashua (talk) 18:28, 13 November 2016 (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/2016_November_1&oldid=1142621248"