Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 December 4

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 3 December	5 December >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:32, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of South African footballers who played for Liverpool F.C.[edit]

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

Trivial intersection of information/listcruft. The only thing that these players have in common is their nationality (at some point) and the club they played for (at some point). There's nothing otherwise noteworthy. MSJapan (talk) 23:34, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Why South African players? Why Liverpool? Entirely non-notable listcruft. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 07:27, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SALAT. I can hardly wait for list of one-eyed horse thieves from Montana who played for Liverpool F.C. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:33, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:04, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:04, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 09:48, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG, WP:LISTCRUFT amongst others. This is not something that has gained particular coverage. Wikipedia is not a place for such niche topics. Spiderone 09:50, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - utter LISTCRUFT. Giant Snowman 09:50, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:00, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - trivial intersection of no significance -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:02, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - As the author of the page I'll save you all the time and give the go ahead for the removal of the page. I see the error in my ways. For future reference though it would be appreciated if discussions such as these were done more respectfully. The creation of the page was a genuine attempt so some of the snarky remarks are somewhat insulting. -- Liam E. Bekker (talk) 12:05, 8 December 2015 (GMT)

Guilty as charged. My apologies. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:20, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:33, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Atlético de Kolkata Fans Fraternity[edit]

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

PROD contested as the author believed that the page passed WP:GNG due to mention in the telegraph (India) and firstpost (sportswiki does not count). I disagree and I believe that user needs to check up on WP:GNG to grasp what it means. This page is still not notable. ArsenalFan700 (talk) 23:07, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 00:20, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 00:21, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 00:21, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 00:21, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Telegraph (India)and Firstpost...Both sources are considered very authentic. I don't get any reason to contest it for deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Suman420 (talk • contribs) 06:49, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I completely agree with Suman420. I too don't get any valid or relevant reason for its deletion. To me, nominating this article for deletion is nothing more than wastage of precious time. — Swastik Chakraborty (User talk) 08:36, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Read the rules on GNG. Mentions in those papers mean nothing, otherwise the I-League 2nd Division and other state leagues would be considered good enough to have player pages made for those who play in those leagues. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 09:29, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Your reason is invalid here. Player page is also considered as the biographical article about living person. That's why Wiki allows player's profile who plays in the top league (of their respective country).Suman420 (talk) 09:36, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how it is. GNG trumps everything. Please actually look at it. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 09:53, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is what GNG tells: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." As far as significant coverage in reliable sources are concerned, this article passes GNG. Suman420 (talk) 10:04, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know what significant coverage means... this needs a lot more coverage in independent pages than just the 2-3 articles it is in. Google search this and the majority of it is from facebook and twitter! It is just not notable. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 10:26, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Two authentic sources are enough to be significant. Suman420 (talk) 10:50, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, it really isn't. Not even close. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 15:09, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG. It deserves a mention in the main article perhaps but there is no need for a separate article on this fan club. Spiderone 11:00, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - IMO 1 or 2 random articles are not enough to keep this. There definitely has been no significant coverage (I suspect the subjective "significant here points to a big event such as an Earthquake for example) and as a result fails WP:GNG.The real AG (talk) 05:01, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm simply not seeing how this fan club is solidly independently notable. SwisterTwister talk 07:01, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 08:52, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 02:29, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Assassin (2015 film)[edit]

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

I prodded this a couple of weeks ago with the following rationale: "While difficult to research because of the commonality of the name, could find nothing on any of the search engines which shows this film passes WP:NFILM or WP:GNG. There is a film by this name which came out in 2015, but it is not this film."

The prod was removed with the following rationale: "I have no relationship with this film other than having seen it. But a film made by a filmmaker who has made other films and if there are actors in the film that have been in other films -- to me, that makes this notable. It's very dissimilar to a case of, let's say, me making a home video with a few friends of mine and saying that even though it went straight to DVD and didn't hit the theaters, that it's notable. I mean, the fact that one can find references to the film online (which are included in the article) demonstrates to me that this has met the notability requirements of Wikipedia."

Regardless of the deprodding rationale - film still does not pass notability criteria. Direct to video, nothing I could find on search engines to show this particular film is notable. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:02, 4 December 2015 (UTC) Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:02, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 09:02, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 09:02, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as News and browsers found some links but it seems it was not noticeably attention-grabbing so there may not be much to better improve this. SwisterTwister talk 09:03, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Save - film easily and objectively passes notability criteria, and the film can be substantiated as notable with a simple Google search. Proposed deletion is merely a poor attempt at solving the issue of a poorly constructed article by those who'd rather complain about the article's deficiencies instead of being bold and making it better. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 18:48, 6 December 2015 (UTC) Please note that this editor is the article's creator. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:36, 6 December 2015 (UTC) [reply]
- Comment - Not sure why you had to make it personal. You created the article over 5 months ago, with no visible signs of improvement during that time. The citations which you have recently added are tangential mentions about the film, or from non-WP:RS (the two "reviews" are from a podcast and a website which accepts submissions with virtually no editorial oversight). I have no problem with withdrawing the nomination if you can provide enough in-depth coverage from reliable, independent sources. But I'm pretty sure that's going to be difficult to do about a direct to video film by a non-notable director. And I certainly have no issue with being bold and improving an article, as long as the article appears noteworthy, which this one doesn't come close to. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:36, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  
  Response to Comment - And I'm not sure what this is all about. Articles have to be about subjects that are notable in their fields. This film was produced by two individuals who have done other work, stars actors who have done other work, etc. In the chronicles of Danny Dyer's life, this is a notable stepping stone, as it is in the life of the two directors, both of whom are notable. The fact that it was a terrible movie, or at least one that was derided by critics, doesn't really speak to the notability here. Again, it's not like I made a movie and am saying that it is notable even though it didn't make it to the theaters. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 02:44, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well... part of the issue though is that notability is WP:NOTINHERITED by notable people that have worked in/with the movie. Sometimes if a person is particularly noteworthy their whole body of work can be considered noteworthy but that person has to be an extremely influential person like Edgar Allan Poe or Steven Spielberg. Even then it can be difficult to really assert that they've reached that level of notability. I don't really see where any of the people involved in the film have reached that level of notability, which is nearly impossible for any person (past or present) to achieve. Heck, I've seen people argue against the creation of an untitled Stephen King book and the article was successfully deleted. That's how hard it is to argue for inherited notability. Even Stephen King has trouble asserting inherited notability. Now that said, I am finding some things here and there, namely this review from Flickering Myth, which has been mentioned at AMC and used as a reference in this academic text. However I do have to say that arguing for notability via inherited notability just won't work in this case. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:55, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nerdly is also something that'd probably be considered a RS and it's one that I'd consider usable for the most part. It's not the strongest source, but its founder (Phil Wheat) has been listed as a RS in the past via his writings for Blogomatic3000. Nerdly has also been mentioned on Dread Central and Screen Daily. Now I will say that this review was a repost of something that was published on a personal blog, but by large Nerdly seems to have good editorial oversight. This one is sort of a toss up, which is why I rarely use it nowadays, but I'll run it through RS/N. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:02, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The coverage out there is insanely light, but I did find enough to pass guidelines. We have two reviews and some coverage that covers the film's announcement. It's not the best coverage and I will say in the defense of the nominator, not all of the sources that come up in a search are immediately identifiable as good RS, since places like Flickering Myth can be easily seen as a SPS. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:24, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Hi Tokyogirl79 - But the two reviews are both from non-RS sources (a blog and a website with no editorial oversight). As per WP:NFSOURCES, "If sources publish materials only online, then their publication process and/or the authority of the author should be scrutinized carefully." So I don't think it passes #1 of NFILM: "The film is widely distributed and has received full-length reviews by two or more nationally known critics." Thoughts? Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:13, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Read WP:NEWSBLOG, WP:USEBYOTHERS and WP:OEN. News-source blogs are acceptable, and while reviews by (subjective) "nationally known critics" are nice to have, they are not a guideline mandate. Under WP:NF we begin with WP:GNG, and if that is met we do not then look to non-mandated "attributes to consider". Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 21:07, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The general rule of thumb is that we can use any critic that is listed on RT's critic tomatometer. As for Flickering Myth, we can use stuff like that if they have editorial oversight and can be seen as a RS, which I think can be shown by it being listed as a RS in an academic text. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:10, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The cast easily makes it notable enough. We invariably keep films with casts as notable as this one. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:53, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't really agree with the idea that the cast makes it notable, but I added two more reviews. Also, according to this article, it got some publicity from offline sources. There was also a sort-of review at Radio Times that looks like it may either have been a botched upload or maybe they just didn't think it worth completing. You never really know with a direct-to-video Danny Dyer film. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:05, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per notability being established and the topic shown as meeting WP:NF. Being impatient with speed of improvement is not a deletion rationale, and while WP:BEFORE is encouraged, perhaps we should have training seminars in its application. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 07:10, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:34, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Novosexual[edit]

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

Internet neologism. This term appears in various social media, but I can't find any sources that meet the criteria spelled out in WP:RS Looie496 (talk) 22:10, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - via what Wikipedia is not WP:NAD, past references referred to misc sites like blogs and social media which aren't reliable. Adog104 ^{Talk to me} 00:36, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:37, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I concur with the above. Search results turn up nothing but social media, and I find it highly unlikely that this term is used in print media. It's way too soon for this neologism to have an article. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 10:26, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with the above as well; nothing more than a neologism online. Is seemingly coined by one person who seems to be attempting to sell the term. No references whatsoever. Almost no results in social media, none in print media. An attempt to derive from the Latin expression de novo which does not mean frequent change or anything dependent on mood etymologically. Also, the flag is a crudely drawn symbol created by one individual on a tumblr page. No official sign, website, or organization. Seems to be fair for deletion. It seems to be an attempt to convey an abstract idea with no substantiated source, nothing more. ^[1] Magic1551 (talk) 01:59, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the only sources that I could find are Urban Dictionary and blogs. Too soon. Bearian (talk) 16:29, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, neologism lacking reliable sources. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:08, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:34, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Elliott Bisnow[edit]

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

Non-notable businessman (still) failing WP:GNG (significant, reliable, and independent sources). This article was previously deleted in November 2014, in a purge of five highly-templated, promotional articles of businessmen related to the Summit Series. Was then immediately recreated by a single-edit WP:SPA of Special:Contributions/Antontha_gonzales. Defer to closing admin if WP:SALT is appropriate due to ongoing WP:NOTADVERTISING, WP:BASIC, WP:PROMO, and WP:NOTHERE issues surrounding the creation and recreation of these articles. The article's existing trivial and promotional mentions around the Summit Series and businesses, do not bestow notability to Bisnow, as was expressly noted by the prior closing admin. UW Dawgs (talk) 21:45, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment does WP:CSD#G4 apply here? QVVERTYVS (hm?) 22:04, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not enough reliable coverage. Vanamonde93 (talk) 04:46, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - interesting, but not yet notable. Perhaps too soon.--Rpclod (talk) 12:54, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Created "whole cloth" by an editor for whom this was their only edit on WP. There is one very long article in WaPo, but it's rather fluffy. If this person succeeds, then someone can come back with an article. LaMona (talk) 15:17, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:35, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kory Bard[edit]

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

No indication of notability per WP:MUSICBIO, and no significant coverage online from WP:RS. Was nominated for, but did not win, an award of unclear notability. "...expected to receive major press coverage...", but not there yet. Norvoid (talk) 20:39, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Norvoid (talk) 20:47, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I was on the fence on this one: as the nomination says, the artist appears to be on the cusp of notability even if they have not quite made it. However, something doesn't seem quite right - when you look at the indications of notability there are problems: the MTV one is run by Viacom and contains "content from artists, fans, and writers from around the internet" rather than reliable content - and, it seems, most of the other refs are to Viacom sites too. The most troubling is the claim that "He was listed as a rising star on Stokd Unltd.'s website", which struck me as interesting given that the article author is User:Stokd. Here is the article I presume is being referenced: [1], and here is another article on the site written by Kory Bard himself: [2]. There is clearly a COI here and I suspect this article is a marketing exercise which should be removed as spam. RichardOSmith (talk) 21:18, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: user removed the comment "He was listed as a rising star on Stokd Unltd.'s website" after I wrote the above here. RichardOSmith (talk) 22:13, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 18:38, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 18:38, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now at best as there are no better signs of a better notable article. SwisterTwister talk 06:38, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:37, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Sole[edit]

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

This cricketer has not played any First Class / List A / Twenty20 cricket. Hence he is not notable. Fenopy (talk) 20:25, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following articles for deletion because of the same reason given for the above article:

Related AFD discussion here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/K. K. Jiyas.... Fenopy (talk) 20:49, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all Fail WP:NCRIC and WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:04, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:04, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:04, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 04:27, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails notability guidelines for cricket players.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:06, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:01, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ross Williams (businessman)[edit]

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

While the businesses this person apparently founded appear to be possibly notable, I do not believe this person meets the notability criteria. The sources are highly suspect, being mostly his own website, linkedin profiles, websites of people associated with him and so forth. When other sources are cited they often do not mention the subject or are just his name being given awards of questionable notability themselves. Often they don't mention Williams at all, such as those in the Ross Williams today section. JCP541 (talk) 20:08, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I removed many of the non-RS sources so we could more easily assess the article (his own site, linkedin, prnewswire). Basically, there is some information about the company, but not about him. He definitely is not notable; the company itself may or may not be -- I didn't check those references in depth. LaMona (talk) 15:29, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – notability is not inherited. sst✈^(discuss) 17:08, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Note that he was 'shortlisted' but lost several awards, and the acclaim he has won has been strictly local. Bearian (talk) 16:31, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete - blatant use of Wikipedia as a free host on a ridiculous title. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 23:39, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mod=14willlh[edit]

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

This article appears to be a description of an original research project. I can't tell if the author is using Wikipedia as a webhost, in which case it could be deleted per WP:NOTWEBHOST, or if the author intends this as a method of publishing their research, in which case WP:NOR applies. ChemNerd (talk) 20:06, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:12, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTWEBHOST. This isn't even an attempt to write an encyclopedic article. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 22:07, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Qwertyus. There should be a WP:SPEEDY category for pages that are clearly not intended to be an encyclopedia article. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 22:12, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTAWEBHOST. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:33, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I left a note yesterday for the author to see if he might explain his intent, but received no reply. It isn't clear what this is. It looks like a hodgepodge with no clear associating topic. The title is opaque and appears to be nonsense. Of no encyclopedic value as is and no way to figure out what to do with it. Purge. —Largo Plazo (talk) 03:11, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 09:39, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Bunce[edit]

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

Delete: stub article (which has never been rehabbed) clearly does not indicate sufficient notability for standalone article. Quis separabit? 20:02, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Response: Being an unimproved stub is more a reason to work toward improving an article than it is for deleting it for being unimproved. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 02:23, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to Babar: The Movie, his only significant film/directing credit. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:45, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 15:24, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 15:24, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now more likely as I'm simply not seeing better future signs of better notability and improvement here despite my searches finding several passing mentions. SwisterTwister talk 06:23, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Cavarrone 19:32, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: A few statements above from Clarityfiend and SwisterTwister made me look in and do some work. And while a redirect somewhere could be suitable, this writer, director, artist directed three projects thought notable enough for Wikipedia... the movie The Wild Puffalumps in 1988, the film Babar: The Movie in 1989 and 65 episodes of the Beetlejuice television series in 1995. Added to the other verifiable works in his prolific career, this could have him be determined as meeting WP:CREATIVE even as a stub-needing-work. How important are artists to the animated films they create? Just sayin'. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 02:23, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Yes, but The Wild Puffalumps is a direct-to-video 22-minute cartoon, while Bunce is one of five co-directors in the sample of Beetlejuice episodes I checked. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:05, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:37, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not enough to the resume to show they pass the notability criteria. Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:21, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:04, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

PlutoIRC[edit]

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

Not encyclopedic. Wikipedia does not exist to mirror the help pages of other sites or applications. ubiquity (talk) 19:11, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Wikipedia is not an instruction manual. Altamel (talk) 21:43, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
delete wrong purpose for this page. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 01:20, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "Welcome to PlutoIRC's Wikipedia Help page, this page is intended for IRC help" clearly this has not been written as an encyclopedia article _└^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 20:01, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – currently an instruction manual, and WP:TNTing would be inappropriate since the topic fails WP:GNG. sst✈^(discuss) 17:13, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 09:21, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Neurotransmitter-stress syndrome[edit]

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

not in pub med Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:08, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A neurotransmitter is substance like dopamine or acetylcholine that helps trigger a neuron to fire. The idea that schizophrenia is related to "neurotransmitter stress" seems wrongheaded to me ---- I was taught that schizophrenia is an umbrella term for a family of conditions some of which are causally unrelated to others ---- so I checked the references in the article. The first one's a 404. The second one's a print source I don't have. The third one rests on a paper called "Dincin 1990". I presume this is Jerry Dincin (wow --- that's a redlink?), a man who's nowadays famous for being a right-to-die advocate but back when I was in university he was a prominent figure in the treatment of the severely mentally ill. What we need is to find his 1990 paper. (And write his biography. He's undoubtedly notable.)—S Marshall T/C 20:11, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Looie496. You're certainly right: that's not a strong enough source for a Wikipedia article. Redirect to Dopamine hypothesis of schizophrenia.—S Marshall T/C 22:45, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The term apparently originated in this article: Dincin, Jerry. "Speaking out." Psychosocial Rehabilitation Journal 14.2 (1990): 83. http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/prj/14/2/83/ That journal, like many Psychology journals, is not listed in PubMed. I don't believe this is a strong enough source to justify a Wikipedia article -- Google Scholar lists only 6 cites for the Dincin paper, and none of them are very meaningful. Looie496 (talk) 22:27, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:25, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:25, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Only two articles on Google Scholar that personally would like to see neurotransmitter/stress syndrome being used instead of either "shizophrenia", "manic depression" or "mental illness". I don't think a redirect as described above would cover these various terms. - HyperGaruda (talk) 19:19, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:04, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Rosenthal (businessman)[edit]

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

Non-notable businessman (still) failing WP:GNG. Article was previously deleted in November 2014, in a purge of five promotional articles of businessmen related to the Summit Series. Now has been recreated by a WP:SPA of Special:Contributions/JaredAskipoloma. Defer to closing admin if WP:SALT is appropriate due to ongoing WP:NOTADVERTISING, WP:BASIC, WP:PROMO, and WP:NOTHERE issues surrounding the creation and recreation of these articles. Note, not to be confused with notable Canadian statistician and author Jeff Rosenthal. UW Dawgs (talk) 18:36, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:G4 may apply. (H/T to @Qwertyus:) UW Dawgs (talk) 22:27, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not enough reliable coverage. Vanamonde93 (talk) 04:45, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a couple of PR releases and some other articles in which the subject is peripherally mentioned are not sufficient for notability.--Rpclod (talk) 12:49, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails due to lack of significant coverage. Notability is not inherited from your allies. Bearian (talk) 16:34, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:05, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Meredith Atwood[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. These references do not establish notability. ubiquity (talk) 16:50, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 16:52, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Looks like her hometown newspaper, The Augusta Chronicle, did a a brief interview, but that's about all I see. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 11:25, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to lack of sources about her -- nearly everything here is by her, or is a speaking engagement. Not surprisingly, the book appears to have a limited audience (based on library holdings), and I couldn't find any reviews. LaMona (talk) 15:37, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 08:09, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 08:09, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not even anything considerably better for general notability. SwisterTwister talk 08:09, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete - Over 222 reviews for book on Amazon ^[2]; Articles published for over a year in periodical, Triathlete Magazine. Online reference: ^[3]PS200 19:39, 8 December 2015 (UTC)~~PaigeSterling33~~

PaigeSterling33 -- We do not use amazon customer reviews when judging notability. Those are notoriously unreliable, and often written by friends or even the author him/herself. We only count professional reviews. (Note: PaigeSterling33 is the author of this article.) LaMona (talk) 03:47, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I'm really tempted to not close this, so I can !vote Merge with List of articles with absurdly long titles, but duty calls. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:09, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of actors who won the Academy, BAFTA, Critics’ Choice, Golden Globe, and SAG Award for a single performance in film[edit]

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

This is a meta-list article synthesizing other lists, but there's no indication that these lists (film awards for acting) should be combined at all. Unlike, say, EGOT, this meta-list has been given no basis off wikipedia. In fact, the reason it wasn't deleted last time (besides no consensus) was that a source gave it such a basis — but it didn't. This article is asserting that the five most prestigious acting awards are the Academy, Golden Globe, BAFTA, SAG, and Critics' Choice Awards. The source does not support this assertion. It does mentions seven awards— Academy, Golden Globe, BAFTA, Guild Awards, the National Board of Review award, Independent Spirit and assorted "Critics Awards". Guild Awards when applied to acting obviously means the SAG, and you can reasonably take out independent spirit by clarifying it's non-independent film. But conveniently ignoring the NBR is unjustified, in fact the source gives far more weight to the NBR than it does to the Critics Choice.

It mentioned the latter as one of several critics' awards— "The key groups in the US include the National Society of Film Critics, made up of 55 writers across the country, the LA Film Critics Association and the New York Film Critics Circle. The London Film Critics' Circle, comprising more than 80 members, issues awards recognizing British and international film talent. In recent years, the Broadcast Film Critics Association has aspired to usurp the status of the Golden Globes, with a televised ceremony of the unashamedly populist Critics' Choice Awards." If you interpret this text literally then the key groups in the US include NSFC, LAFC, and NYFCC. Then it mentions London as a key Critics' group out of the US. But it reserves a different clause for the Critics' Choice—separating it from other critics awards by noting its "unashamed populism" (critics awards are noted for not being populist and for being impartial to commercialism unlike academy-style awards) and saying it wants to usurp the golden globes. A more lenient interpretation is that all the groups are key Critics' groups— but therefore by the source there's no reason to just include the Critics' Choice and not all the groups it mentioned.

Now I didn't want to delete this article, so I changed it to conform to the source it used— I included the NBR and all the Critics' Awards it mentioned, and noted that those six awards were the more prestigious awards for contemporary English non-independent cinema, so as to not generalize unfairly. This change (and here's the most recent version of the page in the same vein by @Heisenberg0893:) was admittedly awkward but at least it was based on substance.

My edits got reverted. The reasons for reverting my edit was basically that, if I may quote comments on the talk page, it "overcomplicated [the page] and made [the page] too exclusive" and that "NBR isn't a significant award". That's all good and well, but we can't have a preconceived list of performances in our minds, pick criteria around our mind-list, and then say lists that happen to omit performances on our mind-list are "too exclusive". I understand the article's purpose- to note the most acclaimed performances in contemporary cinema with objective criteria, but the criteria isn't objective if it's selected subjectively. This feels like a cruft list, not to mention SYNTH. Time to ping those involved in the original deletion discussion. @Feedback: @Jaxsonjo: @SummerPhD: @Postdlf: @Edison:. I'll put in a request for comment on this on related wikiprojects as @Lapadite77: recommended. --Monochrome_Monitor 08:56, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As the nominator demonstrates, the grouping (and in particular, the selection of the Critics' Choice award over all other critics' awards) is subjective and arbitrary. Here's a source that lists the "three most prestigious critics groups" in this context and doesn't mention the Critics' Choice award at all.
I did in fact find some sources that mention specific actors/actresses as having won these five specific awards – quite possibly inspired by the existence of this article; namely this source and this source. But I'm not very convinced by these sources, and any treatment of these actors as a group is minimal. (By contrast, this source clearly treats actors who have won an Oscar, a Golden Globe and a Screen Actors Guild Award for the same performance as a group.)
List of directors who won the Academy, BAFTA, DGA, Golden Globe, and Critic's Choice Award for a single film, the twin of this article, should also be deleted. Sideways713 (talk) 22:59, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's a "cousin" of this page about television List of actors who won the Critics’ Choice, Golden Globe, Primetime Emmy, SAG, and TCA Award for a single performance in television. Anyway I also thought that New York Film Critics Circle and LA and National Society were more prestigious critics' awards, as your source says. --Monochrome_Monitor 23:22, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I get what this article is trying to do, but it would better just to have an article "list of film performances considered the best", which unlike this article would apply to each mention contemporaneously without being biased by selecting contemporary film awards.--Monochrome_Monitor 23:27, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's another thing I'm concerned about, I don't want wikipedia to create "facts on the ground". None of your sources mentioning those awards grouped together precede the article. --Monochrome_Monitor 23:31, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. sst✈^(discuss) 05:10, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:22, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This set of awards seems arbitrary. The EGOT is a notable concept. I don't understand the origin of this grouping of awards. Chunky Rice (talk) 17:44, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and above editors. This list is original research, and doesn't meet WP:NOTESAL. FuriouslySerene (talk) 14:49, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This set of awards seems arbitrary. There is no general linkage of these 'off-wiki', which makes this OR and a bit pointless. Pincrete (talk) 09:50, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - super duper arbitrary 166.137.96.95 (talk) 18:02, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, if this gets deleted (as Sideways pointed out) then so should List of directors who won the Academy, BAFTA, DGA, Golden Globe, and Critic's Choice Award for a single film and possibly this List of actors who won the Critics’ Choice, Golden Globe, Primetime Emmy, SAG, and TCA Award for a single performance in television (though the latter might need a new thread, but it's similarly arbitrary). --Monochrome_Monitor 16:27, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - EGOT is only combo of notable awards thus far —Мандичка^YO 😜 16:39, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Actors and directors get nominated in multiple award shows all the time, it's nothing new or worth noting. Blaze The Movie Fan (talk) 23:41, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with what all of you say, especially Blaze The Movie Fan post. Matt294069 is coming 19:50, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom and all above JayJay^{What did I do?} 22:50, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was snow close. The nominator has withdrawn and there is clearly no consensus to delete this article.—S Marshall T/C 01:06, 6 December 2015 (UTC) [reply]

Vape shop[edit]

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

Withdrawn, looks like a snow. AlbinoFerret 01:00, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Fails GNG, nothing that is notable has ever happened at a vape shop, and simply existing is not notable WP:EXISTENCE. Its references just show they exist. Simple listing per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. It is all about a type of store that is very WP:RECENT with nothing notable about it. It is the product mainly of a topic banned editor. AlbinoFerret 16:12, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Adding, the sources are mostly describing openings of vape shops. Different shops exist all over, open all over, all the time, its run of the mill.WP:ROTM AlbinoFerret 16:26, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. One of many types of retail store not notable on it's own.--TMCk (talk) 16:42, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Other examples please? Johnbod (talk) 17:08, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How about every retail store that doesn't have an article?--TMCk (talk) 17:11, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Many types of store rightly have articles, though usually they are not much good. Eg Confectionery store and shoe shop. Our coverage of most types of low-level commerce is very poor, but this is no reason for deletion. Johnbod (talk) 17:14, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, for the most I would say some rightly have an article while most rightly don't. How about lifting the article(s) out of it's misery by editing it to uncover this assumed notability? Maybe it does exist (somewhere) but not in the presented form (and that's what I go by in this discussion).--TMCk (talk) 17:43, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ I said it when it was created, there's no need for an article on a vape shop because it's just a shop that sells vape stuff, so the only unique information is or should be in the e-cig article. Was there a prevuiys AFD for this? SPACKlick (talk) 16:43, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not that I could find. You could be remembering one of the other articles like this that QuackGuru made. AlbinoFerret 18:04, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Changing to keep, some of the articles posed here as well as a few other sources show this likely does meet the criteria for a stub on shop genre. SPACKlick (talk) 20:40, 5 December 2015 (UTC) Keep though the current article is of course just Vape shops in the United States. They are an interesting subject, not least in terms of market share etc. Easily enough press and academic coverage, which supporters seem to be resolutely ignoring. Johnbod (talk) 17:08, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes GNG. For example, see Vape-Shop Owners Chart New Ground. See also tobacconist, head shop, confectionery store, &c. Andrew D. (talk) 17:18, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That really isnt notability, nothing happened other than the shops opening. The rest is simply WP:OSE. AlbinoFerret 18:05, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it really is notability. Here are two more sources: London's first e-cigarette coffee shop opens its doors to capital's 'vapers'; Ecigarette shops lead high streets’ transformation. My !vote stands. Andrew D. (talk) 18:30, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - definitely passes muster as a genre of store. Wikipedia has a long tradition of [even if just stubs, but] filling out complete catalogs of things like "furniture", "meals", and "clothing". I see no reason why a valid and obviously true and non-spam non-COI type of retail establishment should be excluded. JesseRafe (talk) 17:27, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I also think the article is overlinked with references, many of which are prima facie self-evident. I assume this was in response to a deletion nom, but when and if the article passes they could be trimmed down. Something like this does not need a litany of news articles to prove it is real. JesseRafe (talk) 17:32, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing has really been added since OCT 21st. There was a minor ref maintenance Nov 2, by a topic banned editor, but it didnt really add anything. The problem is that thats all this article is, proving a vape shop exists. That isnt notable in itself. AlbinoFerret 18:08, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There may potentially be scope for an article on economics of electronic cigarettes. An article on vape shop specifically is not appropriate.—S Marshall T/C 17:38, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's a new thing in the world. Cloudjpk (talk) 18:31, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article easily passes WP:GNG. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:55, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We don't have articles on "Shoe Stores" even though those exist in much, much greater number than vape shops. We do, however, have articles on Footlocker and Dick's Sporting Goods so when one vape retailer becomes notable enough for an article it should be covered similarly in that way.LesVegas (talk) 00:37, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Completely the wrong way round! As pointed out above, we do indeed have shoe shop, and should lose all the American chains before we lose that. Johnbod (talk) 03:37, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh my bad, Johnbod, I didn't realize we had a shoe shop, but not a shoe store, article. But, again, my other point remains: how many shoe stores do we have versus vape stores? Thousands and thousands of shoe stores versus a relative handful of vape shops. It's also not specific enough. I wouldn't mind seeing an article of vape bars, even though there's even less of those, because it's far more specific. Vape shop is both far too scanty and far too general and nonspecific for its own article, the worst of both worlds. LesVegas (talk) 03:46, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As of 2013, the United States contains 3,500 specialty vape shops, according to an industry publication.– Gilliam (talk) 01:21, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just because they exist, does not make them notable WP:ORGSIG. AlbinoFerret 03:54, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not the applicable policy for a type of retailer (any more than WP:RECENT is relevant here. Johnbod (talk) 04:07, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a thing nowadays, and there is sufficent data to pass WP:GNG on the subject itself. The nominator should remember that " nothing that is notable has ever happened at a vape shop" is a truly terrible argument to use for deletion - whether anything notable happened at one or not is entirely irrelevant to whether or not the topic itself is notable. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 12:22, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We do not generally have articles for types of shops. I checked Donut shop, Auto parts shop, Fabric shop, Dress shop ... we have articles about the items (donuts, textiles, automobiles, dresses) but not articles about the stores that sell them. There is an article for shoe shop but it's a stub. Vape shops are very new, and over the next few years may either be out of business or vapeware may be sold in non-speciality stores. I think it's worth waiting to see. LaMona (talk) 15:45, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting first choices! We do have draper and boutique, and no doubt others. But even if we didn't, what policy, if any, are you basing your "delete" on? Johnbod (talk) 16:05, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just because articles on shops exist, doesnt make them notable WP:INN. AlbinoFerret 16:16, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Explain an argument to delete this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tobacconist Making none, hard to justify the same here. Unless you want to define Electronic Cigarettes as Tobacco and then seek to move the content of Vape Shop under Tobaccoist. Are you? Mystery Wolff (talk) 18:14, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That is an example of WP:OSE and is a failed argument in deletion discussions. AlbinoFerret 20:34, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a thing. It is also a term that is called out in legislation within laws. It is used in the news. It is something that people see. It is something that people who use the internet may want to inquire upon. A quick not controversial encyclopedic entry is a benefit, without POV. I see above that requester is concerned that it has not been updated since Oct 21. Many entries and changes does not determine the value of an Article. Mystery Wolff (talk) 18:07, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep

With a count of 8 to 4 editors to keep, I would suggest https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Speedy_keep, I see no way there is going to be consensus to delete this page, given the well reasoned KEEPS from 8 editors. If a drawn out process goes on, I don't see the outcome of KEEP is going to change because of the processes and guides. Mystery Wolff (talk) 20:03, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are not counting my delete and S Marshall's comment that looks like a delete. 6 to 8 isnt speedy criteria. AlbinoFerret 20:31, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not exactly advocating deletion. I'm advocating changing the article title to economics of electronic cigarettes (which is what the better sources in this article are really about anyway). We'd move content about the business of electronic cigarette sales here. So it would expand in scope to include electronic cigarette manufacturers, wholesalers, marketing and product range as well as the retail outlets. Because of the way a page move works on Wikipedia, this is not a deletion. Vape shop would not be a redlink, the existing content would be ported over, and the history would not be deleted, so at a technical level what I'm advocating counts as a "keep" outcome, even though I don't believe that it's a particularly good idea to have an article specifically about vape shops on Wikipedia.—S Marshall T/C 23:57, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:06, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Loccit[edit]

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

Short lived company. Orphaned article appears to have been written as an advert by SPA. I can't find significant coverage in RS to show GNG. — Rod ^talk 15:52, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A WP:COI WP:SPA article on a now-defunct firm which won a start-up competition and has some associated coverage from the start-up incubator but little else that I can find, aside from a brief newspaper piece on a royal visit (Western Mail 2011 – via HighBeam (subscription required) ). Not enough to demonstrate encyclopaedic notability. AllyD (talk) 10:46, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:11, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as this seems exactly like the classic non-notable articles I've been finding and nominating for AfD myself, nothing to suggest keeping this at all. Notifying past taggers and users The Blade of the Northern Lights, Escape Orbit, Escape Orbit and PamD. SwisterTwister talk 06:50, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:50, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:16, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ananya Soni[edit]

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

Non-notable model. 2 trivial mentions on News, nothing on Newspapers. Some hits on Books, but again, mere mentions, shockingly nothing on Scholar, and zip on Highbeam. Her titles and runner-ups don't meet notability criteria. If kept, article would also need a large re-write for POV issues, non-encyclopedic tone, and lacking in-line citations. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:49, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Either Move back to Draft: from where it escaped far too soon, or delete if there is no obvious hope of finding sources that verify notability. The nominator's rationale is one I cannot add to. Fiddle Faddle 16:00, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I was going to move it back to draft, where it had been declined twice in AfC, but after researching it, couldn't really find anything to show they are notable. I have nothing against moving it back there, however, but if there aren't better sources out there which I couldn't find, that may be simply wasting time. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:03, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As mentioned, no significant coverage in Google Newspaper Archive, Google News (other than a one-paragraph blurb that doesn't pass the triviality threshold), Google Books, JSTOR, or Highbeam. Searching via the tools in WP:INDAFD doesn't reveal anything substantial. Interviews with the subject exist, but they are primary sources. There is a small amount of coverage here, but I feel it is not significant enough to meet WP:GNG. /wia /tlk 16:06, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable and written like an advertisement by a PR agency. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 16:37, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The cited sources do not meet WP:BASIC, and the only additional probably-reliable source I could find was the Fashion Weekly interview (already mentioned by Wikiisawesome). It's a primary source and not arms-length, as it's Soni talking about Soni with no independent analysis. The article could be draftified, but unless and until there's a major development in her career, I can't imagine it being approved at AfC, so deletion seems the kindest course of action. Worldbruce (talk) 19:09, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now and draft and userfy again later if needed, as I along with several other users (Wikiisawesome and Stabila711) attempted to help this user not resubmit immediately for review and instead add any more available sources for solid notability and acceptability.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 00:12, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 00:12, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 00:12, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:06, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

James A. Fite, Jr.[edit]

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

The notability of this person seems doubtful. It seems the subject fails WP:MILPEOPLE, unless his role in the USS Indianapolis incident could be considered important. His only role in that incident, according to the article and any sources I have seen, was to send a message written by his commanding officer to command. That seems like a fairly unimportant role to me. I can see no significant coverage of this person in multiple RSs. Books about the incident cover him very briefly if at all. Quasihuman (talk • contribs) 15:38, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. NN junior officer. No significant awards or activities barring his peripheral involvement in a single incident. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:47, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:47, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:47, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Junior officer with a minimal role in a historically insignificant rescue. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:56, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per not passing WP:MILPEOPLE, lack of WP:SIGCOV, and above comments. I would also suggest a redirect. Bearian (talk) 16:28, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A peripheral figure in a historical event, whose presence/actions were under the direction of others. Unless he has gotten significant coverage in more references than the one listed here, I say delete. ShelbyMarion (talk) 17:47, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:08, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nimbo (company)[edit]

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

Contested WP:PROD, sources are clearly based on press releases and are either trivial passing mentions or non-notable industry awards. This fails WP:GNG and sourcing guidelines. Guy (Help!) 15:31, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions.

Singh (talk) 16:31, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions.

Singh (talk) 16:32, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sources show that it is only one of many (with many being 250 in two cases). Of the few references, one fails verification, another is a press release. LaMona (talk) 15:53, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as my searches found nothing better and this is exactly speedy and PROD material. SwisterTwister talk 06:52, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:08, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Embrun Forestry Corporation[edit]

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

Speedy delete declined (reason: "it's just a stub article" - didn't know A7 doesn't apply in that case) so figured I'd nominate here instead. Article has been tagged as unreferenced since June 2008, and no references have been provided. Just because the company existed in the 19th century does not mean it is notable, and I can't tell if it actually existed because of the lack of sources. Nothing turned up when I searched myself. Fails notability guidelines. FuriouslySerene (talk) 15:19, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. FuriouslySerene (talk) 15:20, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. FuriouslySerene (talk) 15:20, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. FuriouslySerene (talk) 15:23, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as my searches noticeably found nothing better. Notifying tagger Rosiestep. SwisterTwister talk 06:56, 6 December 2015 (UTC)*[reply]
Delete as I've done an extensive search and can't find any mention of it. The only thing I could find is this 1950 snippet ("Eugene D'Aoust & Sons, Embrun, Ontario, who operate a general store, warehouse and lumber yard, lost $6,000 in negotiable bonds and $4,000 cash ...") but it doesn't establish the existence of the Embrun Forestry Corporation. Unfortunately, the article creator has not been active since 2006 so we can't check with him. --Rosiestep (talk) 16:36, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:37, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

K. K. Jiyas[edit]

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

This cricketer has not played any First Class / List A / Twenty20 cricket. Hence he is not notable. Fenopy (talk) 13:00, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because of the same reason stated above:

Fenopy (talk) 13:08, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fenopy (talk) 14:15, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. Many of the above have represented national under-19 teams, but there is a longstanding consensus at WP:CRICKET that such players are not inherently notable. For the others there is not even a claim to notability. Thanks for your work in finding these, Fenopy. IgnorantArmies (talk) 14:12, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Nine more articles were added after this vote. Fenopy (talk) 14:31, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete rationale extends to those articles and any further additions. IgnorantArmies (talk) 12:04, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all All fail WP:NCRIC and WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:27, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:03, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:03, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all Zander Muir has had a few other mentions in the press (some related to rugby-playing at school-level) although even then he doesn't yet appear to be meeting WP:GNG. Otherwise these articles all appear to have been created on the basis that these people have played cricket at an under-19 level of representation. As noted above, this isn't sufficient to demonstrate notability when measured against WP:NCRICKET. Drchriswilliams (talk) 05:28, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all fail to meet notability guidelines for cricket players.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:07, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:09, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Klemen Žumer[edit]

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

The notability of the living person, in addition the significance and accuracy of the provided information are questionable.

Delete. EP candidate who did not get elected. Sources do not constitute significant coverage. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 12:41, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:54, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Slovenia-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:54, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unelected candidates for political office do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates — if you cannot make a credible and properly sourced claim that they were already notable enough for an article before they became a candidate, then they do not become notable enough for an article until they win the election. But nothing here constitutes enough notability, and none of the sourcing is substantive enough to meet WP:GNG in lieu of failing WP:NPOL. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 18:03, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:10, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

VS Media[edit]

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

Promotional article relying on only self-published sources. Not notable per WP:COMPANY. Drm310 (talk) 15:38, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all,

I sincerely hope that anyone would like to share why this page should be deleted other than all the existing MCN wiki pages, I am willing to do amendment to fulfill the requirement but first I need to know which part I need to correct, thank you. I have made certain editing to avoid potential promotional elements. I have also added some of the Hong Kong local press talking about this company as references, there is not any promotional elements in the page. Thanks.-Patrickyu2014 (talk) 02:15, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not convinced. I found an exact word-for-word copy of the first citation on another site [3], which makes me suspect it's a company-authored press release. Take that out, along with all the self-published sources (which I removed from the "Content and Creators" section and external links), and the only reliable source is the Marketing Interactive one. That's not enough depth of coverage to satisfy the notability criteria for companies.

Delete or rewrite entirely. Article written by single-purpose account for promotional purposes. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising. The quality of the writing is that of a promotional release, not an encyclopedia article; there is very little encyclopedic content here and the notability of the company is not clear. If it can be demonstrated that the company meets the relevant notability criteria then the article should be rewritten as an NPOV encyclopedia article. If not then it should be deleted for now. Citobun (talk) 07:34, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 03:20, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:44, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:58, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Far too promotional, even if it meets GNG, which I am doubtful about. Vanamonde93 (talk) 11:42, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. If there is in-depth coverage in Chinese-language sources which demonstrate notability, these should be added to the article (editors here can't reasonably be expected to find those for themselves). In that case, [[[WP:TNT]] would then be the best way forward. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:58, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn. Blanked by nominator after creation. Sandstein 09:56, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gringolet[edit]

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

Neelix made up this nonsense compound word by taking the horse's English name, which is borrowed from French and derived from one of two similar Welsh words, one of which means "handsome and hardy". Legacypac (talk) 10:57, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) clpo13_(talk) 09:40, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notre Dame Broadcasting Corporation[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Only passing mentions found for the subject; no significant coverage. Sixth o f March 10:45, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - multiple award winning radio station with plenty of coverage online: search on "NDBC+award". Norvoid (talk) 13:37, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The citations added to the article came from three sources; one of which is a primary source and the other one seems to be a database of Philippine legislations, so the subject may not pass GNG. Citations should came from multiple relible sources, not only from The Philippine Star, and it should be independent of the subject. Sixth o f March 12:25, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:03, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:03, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:03, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep 6 broadcasting stations, plus details of this network can be sourced to independent news articles like [4].E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:19, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Other news sources cite it, MindaNews: [5].E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:22, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are lots of sources, just use better keywords: [6], [7], [8].E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:31, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Questioning the necessity of this nomination, after I - belatedly - looked at the AFD that Kept this article unanimously less than a twelvemonth ago.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:46, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Wow was my grammar really that bad in the other AFD? ... Anywho Keep per the sources found above, Meets GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 02:32, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 09:39, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dertogada[edit]

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

Like the current deletion nomination for the author, available here, the subject of this article appears to lack sufficient notability to warrant a standalone article. The first reference link no longer points to the article's subject, but when it did, it was probably a listing for purchase on the distributor's website. The second reference is also a void, and the entire domain has since closed down. Given the murky nature of the notability claim for the author, the fact that even on the Amharic Wikipedia the article on this subject has no references, and the otherwise unknown nature of its claim to notability, I think it probably needs to be deleted from the mainspace unless someone can produce some independent, reliable, non-trivial references in either English or Amharic. KDS4444^Talk 17:39, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:47, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As follow-up, the article on the author of this book, Yismake Worku, has now been deleted twice, once on July 26, 2012 under CSD A7 and once under regular deletion three years later. The author of the book has linked to this article through his Facebook page here. While it might appear from this or this that the book has been the subject of some independent scholarly work, the publisher of both pieces is Lambert Academic Publishing which specializes in reprinting Wikipedia articles and selling them. KDS4444^Talk 04:03, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm getting the idea that this article is a translation. This is another AfD which needs someone who knows this language! --MurderByDeadcopy^"bang!" 03:08, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:40, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethiopia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:41, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:08, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:38, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete It's clear there is a translator for this version so there may not be English language sources. The single source provided is not a reliable source and unfortunately there aren't any reliable sources I can find either. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:44, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. SpinningSpark 16:03, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Norby Roque Salonga[edit]

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

Notability not established, only states the subject's awards for his works as a youth leader. Has a tone of a personal profile page of the subject. Has COI issues.--Hariboneagle927 (talk) 02:01, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Hariboneagle927 (talk) 02:05, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Someone has WP:BOMBARDed this page to prevent it getting deleted, and many of the links are from social media sites, including LinkedIn, Facebook, and Youtube. My own searches turned up almost no mentions. Even if there is some trivial coverage, it looks to be entirely local and doesn't make the subject notable. FuriouslySerene (talk) 14:26, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

QueenOfTheGil posted this on the page's talk page:

May I respectfully ask for a reconsideration to deleting this page in view of the following reasons:

The person being cited on this page has significantly contributed to his sector of specializations, hence, his story may be considered as a public information
The person's information that are written on this page are all available on the net, hence, I, as a contributor just decided to put everything together in one article.
All references and citations are legitimate websites and credible pages, so I don't think, there's an intent to plagiarize or create information just for the purpose of creating a page
Kindly consider reviewing his story on the net and see how inspiring this person is not just to me but to the people he worked with or the audience he shared his thoughts with through workshops and seminars.
I'd also like ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I GOT TOO EXCITED SEEING MY CONTRIBUTION on the net through Wikipedia but i was not aware of some technicalities in using such, hence, i would appreciate your guidance on this.

With all these, i look forward to your kind consideration.

Posting this on behalf of the user.--Hariboneagle927 (talk) 04:39, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:20, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:13, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The WP:SPA article creator removed the AfD notice, which I've now reinstated. AllyD (talk) 07:57, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Highbeam has good coverage of Philippines media: it shows coverage in the Filipino Express, Filipino Reporter, Manila Times & Manila Bulletin of other people named Roque and Salonga, but nothing on this person. AllyD (talk) 08:02, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:35, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: the afd was once again removed. reinstated by a bot.--Hariboneagle927 (talk) 16:29, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I meant to return to this after my comment above. Despite the mass of references added to the article, they are a broth of social media, blogs and brief mentions of group student awards. Between that and the silence of the Highbeam-indexed Philippines media on this person, I do not think the notability criteria are met. AllyD (talk) 19:59, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - in spite of the WP:BOMBARD, searches do not turn up enough in-depth coverage to show that WP:GNG is met. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:03, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Despite the three relists, no definitive consensus has been reached, with policy arguments being made on both the keep and delete sides. (non-admin closure) Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:06, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As Friends Rust[edit]

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

It was prodded by User:Abovethestorm with the following rationale: " Lack of activity to remedy issues regarding lack of citations for eight years raises reasonable doubt as to the notability and necessity for this article.". I agree that The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (music) requirement. " It was deprodded by User:2a02:8070:7ac:5100:6d65:681d:ed77:ebcd, a disruptive deprodding blocked sock. Still, perhaps someone more interested and experienced in punk music may find a source we missed, so let's take this here. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:17, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:23, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:01, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the best I found were two links at Books but certainly not convincing enough. SwisterTwister talk 05:18, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seem significant enough, with quite a few albums released, coverage includes Allmusic bio and review and a few other items in Alt Press, CMJ, etc. Seems likely more print coverage exists. --Michig (talk) 20:12, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:13, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Merge as the only results that came up with an internet search resulted in a Japanese tour announcement [9], articles relating to Damien Moyal's band On Bodies [10][11][12][13] and Moyal's solo project [14] on Alternative Press. Also, CMJ turned up no results. At the very least, the article should be merged with Damien Moyal, as he seems to be the only "notable" factor in the band, and even that is questionable. Abovethestorm (talk) 21:13, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:34, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because of 1, 2. Vanamonde93 (talk) 11:52, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Vanamonde93: Could you elaborate on how those two pages satisfy NMUSIC? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:42, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Piotrus, as I understand it, those both satisfy #1 of NMUSIC; am I wrong? I don't spend too much time on music articles, and so I might be misunderstanding something. Vanamonde93 (talk) 04:59, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - I see. Could be, through I am no expert in this field either. Let's see if others consider those allmusic snippets (they are rather short) sufficient for NM1. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:38, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      - I personally would throw 1 out the window. It references the bands Culture and Morning Again in an attempt to establish notability by making reference to shared members when the notability of said persons has been called into question time and time again on both biographical pages and the bands themselves. From doing a bit of article-to-article hopping regarding the entire issue that user:HDS' articles seem to be having at the moment, it seems that the popularity and lasting notability of these bands is entirely inward rather than outward. Abovethestorm (talk) 08:53, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn. Was nominating a series of redirects pointed at this article, not the article. TW Legacypac (talk) 10:28, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Gagliano[edit]

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

Middle Last => First Last. Makes no sense. Neelix creation. Legacypac (talk) 09:56, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Unless I'm missing something, this isn't a redirect. Plus, shouldn't RfDs be posted to WP:RFD (mistake maybe)? (same as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bobby Frank Cherry Discant X 10:21, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:34, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hadith of closing the doors[edit]

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

Non notable event from the Life of the Prophet of Islam SAW. Do we create stand alone articles on every single event that has been narrated in the traditions? I am sure that meeting the general notability criteria is required, which this event does not. A simple structural alteration is a non event to be frank. Regards FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 05:13, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 07:55, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 07:55, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:GNG, unless a reliably sourced credible claim of significance is given. That is to say, significant coverage (WP:GNG) beyond "the hadith itself + authenticity value". Why would this hadith deserve to be on Wiki over the thousands of other hadiths? In its current state, the article seems to be about just another WP:Run-of-the-mill hadith. PS: "A simple structural alteration...", you made my day :D - HyperGaruda (talk) 17:31, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Hadith is notable and there are several reliable sources about it, for example: this and this.Saff V. (talk) 14:33, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

— Note to closing admin: Saff V. (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 13:23, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Then use those sources and make the article notable. - HyperGaruda (talk) 09:52, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article is written by the same editor who has produced other similarly purely Shia-propagandist articles which 1) create articles of non-notable things--as long as they can be misconstrued to aid in Shia one-upmanship. 2) Contain info that is dishonestly claimed to be in the supporting references. The info is purely the common arguments and beliefs elucidated on Shia chat forums; however, it is clothed with references in order to give a veneer of legitimacy. Basically, it's gaming the wiki system. 3) Misrepresent Sunni positions by claiming Sunnis even support the Shia position--therefore the Shia position must be correct. You will see these exact same tactics used by this editor in all the similar articles he has created on wiki. Other editors of his ilk have also used the same strategy, and i see a concerted effort here in spreading Shia propaganda--not encyclopedic content. Not only should this article be deleted but this editor's contributions should be thoroughly scrutinized to weed out the rubbish that only belongs on Shia chat forums.--58.106.229.229 (talk) 03:49, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:21, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:05, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:GNG.—azuki (talk · contribs · email) 09:52, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Arabic term appears to have significant coverage online (more than 7,500 searches for the exact phrase), plus English coverage and I didn't even look for Persian. OP clearly doesn't understand article as this is not about an EVENT as claimed. The editor who created the article has contributed 45 articles on Islam this year, through the AFC process, and only two were deleted, now OP has decided to mass nominate articles about which he does not understand. Article creator has no block log, no warnings ever posted to talk page, no SPI history and no mentions at ANI. Accusations from IP that editor is somehow problematic for creating articles about Shia Islam is troubling and needs supporting evidence ie proof anything is propagandist/misleading. —Мандичка^YO 😜 10:39, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Why don't you provide any RS discussing this in depth instead of extolling the virtues of creator. To be frank why is there even the need to defend the creator? Regards FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 11:10, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You should read up on WP:AGF if you seriously question why I would defend the article creator. The creator was attacked (suspiciously by an IP), but as I stated, nothing I can find backs those accusations up of user doing anything wrong. User is even going through AFC to create articles, so it's not like they're spamming articles. The article is well-sourced to begin with. Did you even research this topic? It seems you didn't since you twice refer to it as an "event," showing no knowledge of the Hadith or its significance. [15] —Мандичка^YO 😜 11:55, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is an AFD so if you want to defend the creator go to the SPI if there is any. As for your source. It is self published through lulu.com so kinda laughable as an RS, therefore the question still remains that if this is sooooooo notable, why not provide some RS? I have taken the time to go through the google results and almost all of them mention this as an off handed one or two line mention. Such trivial mentions do not count as "indepth" coverage. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 08:18, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. English Google search returns 15 (yes, FIFTEEN) hits, Arabic search returns 137 (!) hits. For a Hadith, it is negligible, and definitely suggestive of being non-notable for an English-language encyclopaedia. kashmiri ^TALK 23:42, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 22:06, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tobias Dossi[edit]

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

Subject of the article fails WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR. I can't find any evidence of notability. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 21:44, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This author's books, though currently out of print, are well known in Malawi. The book "Makangano a Zamoyo" was reprinted seven times between 1965 and 1998 and was on the school syllabus for a long time. The other one was also printed at least twice between 1953 and 1999. The article is also one of a series of articles on Malawian writers in the Chichewa language, and the series would be incomplete without it. Don't forget also that this article is a stub. It has been put here so that people who have access to further information can add to it. So please do not delete it! Kanjuzi (talk) 04:04, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 01:34, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 02:57, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 02:57, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now and draft and userfy if needed as the best I found was some links at Books but certainly nothing better. SwisterTwister talk 08:32, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:50, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Although there's not much publicly available information about this author, I feel that the notability qualifications for Malawian writers need to be less strict than for European or American ones. After all, there have been only 50 or so, or certainly less than 100, literary works written in the Chichewa (Chewa) language. These two books, which were reprinted several times over a period of 30 years, were on the school syllabus, and are well known in Malawi, are therefore notable by local standards. The internet has only been going here for a short time, so you can't expect a lot of coverage of an author who died some time ago. Notability is one Wikipedia policy, but another policy is to increase the coverage of parts of the world other than English-speaking countries. This second policy will fall at the first hurdle if you insist that everything mentioned should have been covered in media reports or academic books written by English-speakers. For this reason I think the article should stay. Kanjuzi (talk) 19:05, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We don't insist that they be covered in works "written by English-speakers" at all. What we do insist is that their notability should be verifiable. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:59, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:00, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not much to show this is notable. VegasCasinoKid (talk) 09:12, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Google Book search leads me to think that Dossi is mentioned, perhaps covered, perhaps not, in "Companion to African Literatures " by Killam and Rowe, but I can't verify that there or via Amazon. If Dossi has a full bio there, I'd find that evidence enough to support a keep, along with the couple other mentions I can find, e.g., [16]. --joe decker ^talk 16:52, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. WP:NPASR (non-admin closure) clpo13_(talk) 09:42, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vyavastha[edit]

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

The subject of the article does not meet the basic criteria for notability. No reliable sources exist. Pixarh (talk) 17:36, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:59, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:59, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Expanded searches:

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

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

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

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

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

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

AND looking with WP:INDAFD finds "Vyavastha" "Ritesh Shetty" "Naeem Ejaz" "Kranti Shanbhag" "Gurmeet Singh" "Kapil Jhaveri" "Shailendra Kumar" "Abstract Thought Production"

Pardon Pixarh but the topic IS sourcable and at the time of your nomination did include a poorly formatted citation. However, and even though it is citable, since we have no confirmation that filming has begun, I would suggest a temporary delete as simply being TOO SOON. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 23:41, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Yes I understand the notability of the people associated with it but the film itself? The article so far only has this[17], this [18] and this [19] and none of the three is a WP:RS. Perhaps a temporary delete would be fine for now. Because finding WP:RS is necessary so unless that is met, the article cannot stand for now. Pixarh (talk) 02:16, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Which is specifically why Pixarh, even with minor mention in acceptable source Bollywood Hungama, I suggested a temporary delete. It might never return. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 07:53, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 01:35, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:51, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

hello, how can I improve the article. pls suggest. Shruti.mii (talk) 11:33, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pixarh, I'd like to add to the content of the article if properly explained what exactly is needed to mark it's importance. Thanks. Shruti.mii (talk) 06:49, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:56, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Discounting the WP:SPA input, there is unanimous and broad consensus to delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:50, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Gänshirt[edit]

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

This article came to my attention through this odd photo caption. I'm not 100% sure about the subject's notability but the article was created by a single-purpose account. Note also the vast number of redirects. Subject is an associate professor in China and appears to be an academic of pretty average notability. Does not obviously meet the criteria at Wikipedia:Notability (academics). Citobun (talk) 03:09, 9 Novaember 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 04:35, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 04:35, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 04:35, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 04:38, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Even though it might be a bit unusual for a German academic to hold such a position at a Chinese university, I agree this academic rank doesn't justify notability. However the subject meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines as a Creative Professional WP:CREATIVE: "The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the subject of … multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." This is true for his book Tools for Ideas, which has been reviewed, discussed, cited, translated to English and Chinese, and has been used in university education in quite a few counties. As an architect, the subject also "played a major role in co-creating" much-published architectural works in his role as a project architect in the architecture office of Álvaro Siza. 街路道 (talk) 01:09, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Note - This user is the subject of an ongoing sockpuppet investigation and may have COI in this case. Citobun (talk) 09:06, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:33, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ (continued) Here are a few numbers to support the argument I made above: Worldcat lists for [Gänshirt, Christian]: "19 works in 51 publications in 4 languages and 742 library holdings". For his book Tools for Ideas [Worldcat lists 452 library holdings], plus 95 [library holdings for the German edition]. This adds up to 547 library holdings, which for a book in the humanities should be more than enough to demonstrate its significance. 街路道 (talk) 03:56, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ (continued) Here some more information to support the second argument I made above. In his time as a project architect in the architecture office of Álvaro Siza, the subject was in charge of a large factory building for Vitra/Vitrashop, which has been published and reviewed in quite a few publications.^[4] The building was also one of the core topics of a doctoral dissertation published in 2006.^[5] 街路道 (talk) 04:22, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ (continued) Two more numbers to support the first argument I made above: For the subject’s book “Tools for Ideas”, Google Scholar lists 38 works referencing the English edition, plus 13 referencing the German edition “Werkzeuge für Ideen”, adding up to 51 references. Again, for a book in the humanities should be more than enough to demonstrate its significance.街路道 (talk) 04:52, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note to administrator - all four "keep" votes above come from the same single-purpose account that has done nothing aside from comment on this discussion. I do not believe the subject meets the notability criteria at WP:CREATIVE. The idea that Tools for Ideas is a well-known work is simply not true. Google results are extremely sparse. It should also be noted that the Tools for Ideas page was created by another single-purpose account and is promotional in tone. Lastly, that the subject worked as a project architect and contributed to major projects does not establish notability through WP:CREATIVE - in any architecture firm there are many project architects that have a hand in many major works, yet few project architects have actually received the depth of coverage in secondary sources to warrant a Wikipedia page. This subject also has not. The numerous single-purpose accounts and promotional WP:ARTSPAM pages surrounding him smells of a case of using Wikipedia for advertising, contrary to our policies on neutral point of view and what Wikipedia is not. Ganshirt himself made a few fledgling edits to Wikipedia mere days before Tools for Ideas was created by the SPA. I suspect a case of of self-promotion through a web of sockpuppets. Here is a list of SPAs (or near-SPAs) surrounding the subject that may be socks:
- Christian Gänshirt (talk · contribs)
- Another notch (talk · contribs)
- 街路道 (talk · contribs)
- Grassview (talk · contribs)
- Xisto01 (talk · contribs)
- P78 (talk · contribs)
- Goyah (talk · contribs)
- Frogday (talk · contribs)
- Regard X (talk · contribs)
- Ach8 (talk · contribs)

Wikipedia is not a means of promotion. Citobun (talk) 09:20, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Another note - I have opened a sockpuppet investigation on this matter. Citobun (talk) 11:36, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note - I'm sorry I repeated the "Keep", I didn't think of this as a voting process. Please check "gänshirt tools for ideas" on Google and see how many results come up. Please verify the data and references provided above to see if they justify notability or not. I assumed WP:CREATIVE is about the work, not the person. 街路道 (talk) 14:25, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have struck the repeated keep !votes above. Only one is allowed, however users can post unlimited comments. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:15, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ http://pride-flags-for-us.tumblr.com/post/121675982089/is-there-a-novosexualnovoromantic-flag
^ http://www.amazon.com/Triathlon-Every-Woman-Triathlete-Yes/dp/0615698069/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1449603429&sr=8-1&keywords=meredith+atwood
^ http://triathlon.competitor.com/tag/beginners-luck
^
- Bodenbach, Christof (1994): Vitra-Produktionsgebäude in Weil am Rhein, in: Bauwelt 24, pp. 1300-1301
- Wolff, Jan A. (1994): Stoische Box, in: Leonardo 8 (August/September 1994), pp. 18-22
- Fehlbaum, Rolf (2000): The construction of a place: Building with Nicholas Grimshaw, Frank O. Gehry, Tadao Ando, Zaha Hadid and Alvaro Siza Vieira, in: Noever, Peter (ed.), Visionary clients for new architecture, München 2000, pp. 75-102
- Kenneth Frampton: Álvaro Siza – Das Gesamtwerk, Stuttgart/München 2000
- Kenneth Frampton: Álvaro Siza. Complete Works, Phaidon, London, 2000, ISBN-13: 978-0714840048
- Philip Jodidio: Álvaro Siza: Complete Works 1952-2013, Taschen, Köln 2013, ISBN-13: 978-3836521710
^ Stock-Nieden, Dietmar (2006): Die Bauten der Vitra Design GmbH in Weil am Rhein 1981-1994. Untersuchungen zur Architektur- und Ideengeschichte eines Industrieunternehmens am Ende des 20. Jahrhunderts. Inaugural-Dissertation zur Erlangung der Doktorwürde der Philosophischen Fakultät der Albert-Ludwigs-Universität Freiburg i. Br., see pp. 18-20, 59-61, 153-171, 178, 218, XXIII-XXIV

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:15, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Right, we are such a network. For someone who is familiar with the way Wikipedia works this should be easy to see (and is intended to be), simply have a look at the lists of edits/contributions. All we did is provide information; all information provided conforms with Wikipedia standards, is verifiable and properly referenced. We never got involved in editorial conflicts or any discussions (except this one). 街路道 (talk) 00:06, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The policies are clear. Wikipedia is not a means of promotion. The use of sockpuppets for inappropriate reasons, i.e. avoiding scrutiny or contributing to the same page with multiple accounts (as you have), is prohibited. Editing with a conflict of interest is strongly discouraged and paid editing without COI disclosure is prohibited under the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use. You never got in editorial conflicts because you obfuscated the promotional nature of your editing by using numerous sockpuppets to create the illusion of a diverse body of editors all working on these articles. Citobun (talk) 09:28, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note regarding the first argument given above: Since it's existing, the Wikipedia page on Tools for Ideas has usually had over one thousand | visitors per month, this could be regarded another indicator that the book is not that unimportant. Until now, no one had any complaints about that page. 街路道 (talk) 00:06, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia pageviews are not an indication of notability. But since you pointed it out, the fact that the pageviews are high is merely a testament to the fact that you used your sockpuppets to Wikilink to this article on hundreds of related articles on Wikipedia, i.e. by inserting it into the Design template. Citobun (talk) 09:28, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Question, regarding the second argument given above: If architects spend years of their work life in a leading role (like project architect in this example) working on the making of an important building, why should this not be considered “Co-creation” in terms of WP:CREATIVE? What would then be the meaning of this term? 街路道 (talk) 00:06, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Every large architecture firm has numerous directors, yet rarely do these people have sufficient coverage to meet Wikipedia notability criteria. At the same firms there are countless more project architects who have a hand in major works, but have not received major coverage, in-depth discussion and similarly do not meet notability criteria. If Ganshirt played a leading role in designing the Sydney Opera House then he might meet the criteria at WP:CREATIVE. But forgive me if I am a little doubtful that Tools for Ideas has made a major impact, given that the article was written by you and your sockpuppets, that you have a clear conflict of interest, are doing this for promotional purposes, and that I have never head of this book and cannot find indepth coverage on Google. Wikipedia is not a means of promotion and you have abused multiple accounts – just stop. Citobun (talk) 09:28, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but Siza has never run a large architecture firm, at the time there were not more than 25 people working in his office, and it did't have any "directors" besides himself, let alone "countless more project architects". The question here is what co-creation means in terms of WP:CREATIVE, Citobun did not respond to that. As I said above, please check "gänshirt tools for ideas" on Google and Google Scholar and see how many results come up. "I have never heard of this book" is not a particularly strong argument. Anyway, since GoogleBooks made the book available online for free, sales numbers dropped to almost zero, so there in not much of a point in promoting it. Finally, we only used one and the same signature in this whole discussion, because we do not want to confuse anybody. 街路道 (talk) 12:13, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ganshirt does not meet the WP:BASIC criteria at Wikipedia:Notability (people). He has not received a sufficient depth of coverage in reliable secondary sources. As that page states, meeting one or more "additional criteria" does not guarantee that a subject should be included. Your references do not demonstrate a depth and breadth of coverage nor a focus on Ganshirt - every architecture firm has these sorts of portfolio publications done up by architectural publishers that detail their most significant work over the years. This does not instil notability to every single project architect. Lastly I feel that if Ganshirt and his work is so notable then someone will independently make a Wikipedia article of their own accord. The articles you have created are tainted by the simple fact that you have abused multiple accounts for promotional purposes, violating a core policy of Wikipedia: that of NPOV. You know that and that's why you have so many sockpuppets to avoid scrutiny. This sort of manipulative behavior harms the credibility of the encyclopedia. It is embarrassing to the subject of the COI edits. It wastes the time of volunteer editors (i.e. myself and any admins who have to pore through this mess). Just shameful – I have literally wasted hours researching your 11 sockpuppet accounts and corresponding with you here when I could be making meaningful contributions elsewhere. Wikipedia is not for advertisement and promotion, there are other websites for that that I advise you to try instead. Citobun (talk) 12:36, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note to admins - I think that by continuously commenting, and creating a new bullet point for every single comment, the above sockpuppet is really confusing this discussion and dissuading other people from contributing. The issue here is pretty cut-and-dry (i.e. someone is abusing multiple accounts to promote a non-notable subject and sell their book) and yet passers-by are led to believe this is a highly controversial AfD by virtue of the EIGHT separate comments the sockpuppet has left. Citobun (talk) 09:28, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:55, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is just a ridiculous case of Self promotion. Using Citespam and Refspam for Bookspamming through a zoo of socks. Has ever anyone written one substantial sentence in the articles about the subject or its book that is not part of his (meat) puppet zoo? I have deleted the link to his book from the template Design.[20] -- Ben Ben ^(talk) 14:05, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also deleted the link to his book from the template Visualization[21] where it was set by one of the socks. [22] -- Ben Ben ^(talk) 00:09, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The question should not be who provided the information, but if the information provided is correct or not. Tools for Ideas obviously meets the Wikipedia standards for notability, this is not the topic of this discussion. 街路道 (talk) 13:23, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why do I have the constant feeling of listening to a con artist while reading your arguments? Can you answer me that? -- Ben Ben ^(talk) 00:52, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note to administrators - It was certainly our mistake to use alternate accounts to provide information, and we totally understand your difficulties in trusting that information now. Being aware of that, we took great care to support all information with the necessary references for independent verification. Is there anything else we could do about that? In the discussion above we basically provided two arguments defending the notability of the subject as a Creative Professional WP:CREATIVE. The first argument, which is probably the stronger one, is his book Tools for Ideas. Please verify the data provided above (more than 500 library holdings listed in Worldcat, 50 citations in Google Scholar, quite a few results for "gänshirt tools for ideas" on Google) to make your decision. You might also have a look at the footnotes of that page to find authors commenting on or discussing concepts of the book in some depth (see footnotes 18-22 for reviews in German, footnote 21 for one translated into English). The second argument touches on the more difficult question if the work of a project architect in a small, but important architecture office could be acknowledged as "a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work" in terms of WP:CREATIVE. We are not sure about the standards Wikipedia applies in such a case. Should you decide to relist this AfD debate again, please provide some guidance on how to continue. 街路道 (talk) 16:16, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop referring to yourself in the plural form, it is misleading and manipulative. Secondly I already answered all your queries above. If a subject is genuinely notable then someone will eventually independently create an article for them. You don't need to do it yourself. This is an encyclopedia, not LinkedIn. Citobun (talk) 03:13, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see any independent significant coverage about this person. An average professor. Every professor writes textbooks to make extra money. Staszek Lem (talk) 04:10, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete/userfy. (I was asked to comment here). I'll ping User:Randykitty for a 2nd opinion regarding WP:PROF, but his research seems not to meet the requirements. As for notability for being a writer, I am not sure if Tools for Ideas is notable at all: I see no reviews in Google Scholar. There are few on the web, primarily in German, and I am not sure those are sufficiently reliable sources to support the notability of the book. And even if the book is notable, I don't think it's significant enough for his notability as a writer. PS. I'd advise the creator(s) to stop abusing Wikipedia for promotion, but instead, ask for this and related pages to be userfied (maybe in few years the subject will gain proper notability). The article is well written, but encyclopedias are not places to advertise oneself. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:36, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please note: This user has been asked by Citobun (talk) to provide support for his point of view, see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Piotrus 街路道 (talk) 01:31, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't ask him to support my POV. I messaged a single user, whom I have not interacted with before, for a third opinion because I feared that this AfD would get closed with no consensus. My message was totally neutral. Review WP:CANVASSING - what I did, messaging one user for a third opinion, does not quality as canvassing. Meanwhile you are continually trying to manipulate this discussion despite your WP:COI. Thankfully we have consensus now (five delete vs. one keep from an SPA COI pseudo-Chinese sockpuppet) so happily this waste of time should not be drawn out much longer. Citobun (talk) 03:50, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please remember that this is not a voting process, this debate is about the question if the arguments presented are valid or not. Simply ignoring them does'nt make them less valid. Your request was not neutral at all, it was eloquently conveying your point of view. I'd be very grateful if you could stop trying to manipulate this discussion by telling other users they should stop contributing to it. I will defend my point of view as long as it is necessary. 街路道 (talk) 06:51, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. GScholar indicates just a handful of citations. Does not appear to meet WP:PROF. As for the book, that article reads like an advert and somebody should go through it carefully to see whether the references actually support what is being claimed (the article looks suspiciously like a work created for hire: it's expertly written and formatted perfectly, and this by an editor with just a handful of edits...) I checked one reference for the book being used in a university course and it was just included in a long "further reading" list, which is trivial. We see the same thing here: the rather mediocre claim to fame ("site manager", really?) that "He worked as a site manager in a BAL team taking care of the transformation of the Former Reichsbank building into the headquarters of the Federal Foreign Office of Germany, a project overseen by Hans Kollhoff & Helga Timmermann." is supported by a link to the homepage of BAL, which does not mention Gänshirt. --Randykitty (talk) 10:03, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please note: This user has been pinged by the previous user who had been asked by Citobun (talk) to provide support for his point of view, see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Piotrus 街路道 (talk) 01:31, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That is only partially correct. Yes, I was pinged by Piotrus, no I was not asked to give support for a particular point of view. Piotrus regularly pings me to give my opinion in cases where I have expertise that may be useful. Even if I had been asked to support a particular POV, I always make up my own mind and Piotrus certainly knows that (see here for an example where I don't give the answer that he may have hoped for). Contrary to what 街路道 suggests, no canvassing has been going on here, as it is perfectly reasonable to ping editors who may have specialized knowledge. --Randykitty (talk) 09:55, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, (although this is not necessarily relevant for afds) I am always a little uncomfortable with non-english subjects who do not have an article in their country's wikipedia (I usually check to see if they have any useable references) ie. Gänshirt does not have an article in the German wikipedia [23]. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:34, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nonnotable in each and every respect.
- He is not even a professor; he is associate professor.
- His university profile says not a mum about his achievenemts ("the International Journal of Architectural Theory[www.cloud-cuckoo.net] " - OHRLLY?).
- "He is mostly known for his writings on design theory, contemporary architecture and urbanism.[3]" - not supported by ref cited.
- "he proposes the concept of the design cycle as a recurrent time pattern" - what a crock of shit! This is known for at least a century

And so on... The article is a hopeless WP:SYNTH of puffery scrapped off the bottom of a barrel. - üser:Altenmann >t 17:59, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder: Don't feed trolls. - üser:Altenmann >t 18:03, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Two of the three "keeps" amount to "it's important", which isn't a convincing argument in the face of WP:DICDEF. Can be restored if a non-dicdef article can be written. Sandstein 22:05, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mawla[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Purely dictionary definition of an Arabic word. And mostly unreferenced. The prev AfD was no consensus, but the objections posted there were not addressed in the past 8 years since the first Afd.Staszek Lem (talk) 23:11, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:51, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:51, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Mawla seems to be related to Mawali, Mawlana, Mawlawi and Mullah. I hope MezzoMezzo or other wiki-experts on Arabic can shed some light on this and on whether or not it is worthy of an article. - HyperGaruda (talk) 17:00, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, and the Polish word czerwony is related to chervonets, Czerwien, Czerwonak, Bialo-Czerwone Iskry, and several dozens more. So what? Staszek Lem (talk) 19:15, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's just that I'm not sure, especially considering that there are so many interwiki links and that Mawla seems to be the parent word of the others I've mentioned. - HyperGaruda (talk) 20:43, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In all European-lang wikis texts are basically same: dicdefs. And I am not aware that being a "parent word" makes it notable. If this were the case, we'd have whole Latin and Greek vocabulary in wikipedia. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:40, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay...I have to apologize here. I saw this when I started, intended to respond, unfortunately forgot and saw it again and assumed that I had responded. But yes, there is an etymological relationship between the above mentioned terms; all of them are ultimately related to the Arabic word wali and wilayah, but not all of the above derived terms are Arabic (Mowlawi and Mawlana being examples of that). As for whether or not that warrants the article being kept, then as you all know, that's a separate topic entirely. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:47, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:03, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but if it really is a "parent word", I'd say that a redirect or DAB page is more appropriate than deleting. - HyperGaruda (talk) 08:45, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Looks to be purely a WP:DICDEF. Not opposed to a redirect if there's an appropriate target. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:11, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if sufficiently improved; otherwise selective merge to Mawali. In the argument above between HyperGaruda and Staszek Lem, HyperGaruda is largely right - terms like Mawali and Mawlana have a far closer conceptual relationship to mawla than any of Staszek Lem's examples have to czerwony (indeed, in origin, Mawali seems just to be the plural of mawla). Mawla can apparently be translated into English as either "patron" or "client", depending on context - in early Muslim society, through to the fall of the Ummayad Caliphate, these patron/client relationships were socially immensely important, to the point where conversion to Islam was only possible if the convert entered into such a relationship with an existing Muslim. This feature of Muslim society largely disappeared after the fall of the Ummayads, but the word and its close relatives remained in use to describe somewhat similar relationships. To be fair, the current article scarcely touches on this at all, so in itself would be no great loss - Mawali already pretty much covers the Ummayad-period patron-client relationships though, if someone with enough expertise could write it, we could certainly do with an article closer in style to the corresponding article on Spanish Wikipedia in its coverage of connections between various related terms - unfortunately, I have absolute none of the knowledge of Arabic that would be necessary to do this adequately. Failing this, redirecting to Mawali would at least roughly cover the original concept, but merging in one or two of the definitional points from here would somewhat strengthen that article. PWilkinson (talk) 01:25, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Spanish article has nothing beyond dicdef plus summaries for derived terms. Their wikipedia have their rules, we have ours. There is nothing to merge. the dicdef for mawla is already there. The rest is gibberish. Staszek Lem (talk) 03:25, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Replace Mawla's contents by those of Mawali and redirect Mawali to Mawla. This text gives a nice explanation of its meaning and most importantly: mawali is the plural form of mawla. Per WP:PLURAL, the current Mawali article should thus actually be titled Mawla. - HyperGaruda (talk) 18:33, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

When considering the merger of revision histories, perhaps it is better to just delete Mawla and then move Mawali to Mawla. - HyperGaruda (talk) 18:39, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Mawla is an important term in Islamic studies as well as Islamic history. It is sufficient to pay attention to google books results[24] to find how many books has written about it.--Seyyed(t-c) 05:32, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Currently the article is strictly a WP:DICDEF (or worse -- a partial dictionary entry in that it provides lexicographical information and usage without even including a straight definition). As Wikipedia specifically does not include articles that are dictionary definitions, this a problem regardless of how important the term is (there are lots of important terms that don't have Wikipedia articles. That said, if anyone wants to edit the article to be about a single concept rather than a word, I'd happily reconsider. Otherwise, a keep !vote misunderstands the purpose of Wikipedia vs. that of, say, Wiktionary. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:35, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, I'd like to add that this is a second AfD nomination. If it is so important then why the article is still so useless?Staszek Lem (talk) 18:10, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteI am not sure why we are even discussing this. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. To be frank this article is not even a dictionary entry as does not even define the term. In my opinion one of the shoddiest articles on wikipedia which should have been tagged with speedy deletion rather than AFD. There are millions of words used in the Hadith and the Quran, so are we going to include them all in wikipedia because they are "important in Islamic studies"? I am afraid not. The WP:BURDEN is on the keep voters to show that this word has a unique definition within Islamic theology which has been given in depth coverage by multiple reliable sources. Otherwise, lets get rid of this mess please. Regards FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 07:25, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mr. Guye (talk) 01:55, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTDICT, and as has been pointed out above, the article doesn't even provide a good definition of the word. --Michig (talk) 06:50, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: to the Keepers (actually, there's only one die-hard Keeper): as per my remark of 19 November, I have used said source to rewrite the dead-linked etymology section in Mawali. Mawla is at least used in an encyclopedic context over there. I hope the Keepers are now ok with deleting/WP:TNT'ing the Mawla article. - HyperGaruda (talk) 08:41, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: appears more like a dictionary definition. Unless wikified, it should be merged into Mawali. Vincent60030 (talk) 07:52, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:52, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. The article on this word is no more than dictionary-like. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:13, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Mawla is a important and notable subject in Islam (Shia and Sunni Muslims).Saff V. (talk) 16:00, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But Wikipedia is not a dictionary; it is not here to define words, and notability is conferred by reliable sources, not by assertions of importance. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:11, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as it's currently a dictionary definition, but keep if someone replaces it with an article on the concept expressed by the term. If it's a significant concept in Islam, we definitely ought to have an encyclopedia article on it, although deleting the current page wouldn't violate that idea, because the current page isn't an encyclopedia article. Nyttend (talk) 02:40, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- This is the second nomination, man. They had 8 (!) years to do it. Staszek Lem (talk) 02:48, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - I know, but that's not my point. In other words, "if someone gets up and replaces it with an article before this AFD is closed, consider me a keep". It looks like we have no reason to object to the existence of an encyclopedia article on this topic, so if someone writes one, it shouldn't be deleted through this AFD. But as long as nobody does anything new, it should definitely be deleted. Nyttend (talk) 03:26, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:11, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fender Volume Pedal[edit]

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

Non-notable accessory product. I don't find independent, reliable sources to demonstrate its notability. Mikeblas (talk) 06:02, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. VegasCasinoKid (talk) 09:13, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No sources + only very slight claim of significance to begin with (being the "first outboard device offered by Fender"), though that doesn't cut it. Discant X 10:57, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy keep (withdrawn) (non-admin closure) St Anselm (talk) 12:10, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Evangel Bible College[edit]

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

Absolutely no established Notability or sources. Looks like it was created primarily for advertising. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 04:34, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:56, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:56, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:56, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ I can find no secondary source, in face, I can't find a church listing or a webpage, just a meagre Facebook page. Ping me to take another look if someone can source it. Guessing tat it's a small secondary school.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:36, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. The Asia Pacific Theological Association lists it as a member.[25] Debbie Johnson was its president from 2003 to 2009.[26][27] Clarityfiend (talk) 00:23, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a college of a major Pentecostal denomination I would expect it to be notable. It is listed on a denominational website. Unfortunately searches are hampered by the existence of an Evangel Cathedral in Maryland. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:20, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Changing my vote since it is a college, not a secondary school. The graduating class photo on its Facebook page dees show that it is an extremely tiny school.E.M.Gregory (talk) 02:03, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Considering withdrawing this, seems notability has been found, well buried perhaps, but found. I'm on mobile right now so I can't, but if anyone feels inclined, you can close this as withdrawn or snow keep or something... Or let it run Thanks! EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 03:45, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) ansh 666 03:36, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yukichi Chuganji[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Reads in its entirety (omitting the 4/5 of the article which talks about all the other people who were older, not as old, Japanese, not Japanese, oldest living person, oldest living woman, man, Spanish man, the name of his daughter, and so on):

Yukichi Chuganji (March 23, 1889 – September 28, 2003) was a Japanese supercentenarian and the world's oldest man (and later the world's oldest person) until his death at age 114 years, 189 days. He lived in the city of Ogori, Fukuoka. He died as the verified oldest Asian man ever.

Recommend redirect to appropriate list, per WP:NOPAGE / WP:PERMASTUB. (The one (1) source in the article yields the additional information that he drank milk but not alcohol, and that he drank apple juice just before dying; I don't think that changes the NOPAGE situation, however.) EEng (talk) 02:54, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Afd of Yukichi Chuganji? I thought joke. there is no reason to deleted or redirected. as the reason, the previous AfD of similar record holder (1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6) result was keep, in the same way as this article should be keep. also, this person is noted than other people who was world's oldest person, because Chuganji is one of the few men to hold the world's oldest person title. (As women live longer than men, became the world's oldest person for men is very rare.)--Inception2010 (talk) 09:20, 4 December 2015 (UTC) This editor has made few or no other edits outside this topic.[reply]
Delete and Redirect per nom. What title? We established that people in China (1/5th of the world's population) can't even compete in this non-competition. Therefore at best the title is for "World's Oldest (except China and other places we don't like the record keeping in, and only because someone else they never met died, and only until further research proves someone else held the title, and not counting the 80% of the supercenturians we know exist but can't name or document) Person" Legacypac (talk) 09:44, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Legacypac Your argument undermines itself. You're entirely right that this is not a competition; We don't choose the winners but we do include those individuals who have been recognized in reliable and verifiable sources for some particular accomplishment or characteristic; that's what the Wikipedia Notability standard is all about. The sources here are unequivocal in that recognition and that's why the article belongs here. The bullshit argument that there is some unknown person who might have been older is irrelevant and should be disregarded. Alansohn (talk) 15:22, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Legacypac, I'm sorry that you don't have basic critical thinking or research skills. He was the oldest KNOWN AND VERIFIED man, according to Guinness World Records and the Gerontology Research Group (highly regarded organisations). It's nothing "personal" against China, it's just that the country has very poor record-keeping systems. If you can't prove someone is as old as they claim, they can't be recognised as the official world's oldest person (otherwise, what's to stop ME from claiming to be 150?). Stop with the same old WP:IDONTLIKEIT arguments. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 23:45, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The question is coverage in reliable and verifiable sources, and they exist from multiple continents in major publications documenting and supporting the strong claim of notability. Our nominator has again resorted to the disruptive removal of sourced material via edit warring see here, butchering this and other articles to support his claims. Alansohn (talk) 15:22, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete then redirect Since when is a single WP:ROUTINE BBC obit significant coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources. Per WP:NOPAGE, everything of importance in this article can be easily covered in appropriate lists. This article can only be a WP:PERMASTUB. It should be deleted. David in DC (talk) 15:53, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is no such thing as a routine obituary in the BBC, they aren't your local newspaper. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:47, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The world's oldest person is clearly notable enough for their own article. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:00, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not the question. Please read WP:NOPAGE and WP:PERMASTUB and comment in light of the recommendations there. EEng (talk) 16:02, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This betrays a fundamental lack of understanding about the meaning of the word "notable" in Wikipedia policy. It is not meant in the colloquial sense. It's is defined for Wikipedia's purposes here: WP:N. The subject may well be notable in the colloquial sense of the word. But the subject is clearly not notable for Wikipedia's purposes. The whole article hangs on a single BBC obit and on irrelevant (and unsourced) "horse race" coverage of who breathed longer than the subject and whose permanent interruption of breathing led to someone falling short of the subject's record-breaking achievement. David in DC (talk) 16:06, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

David in DC, this betrays a fundamental lack of understanding about the meaning of the word "notable" in Wikipedia policy. I don't care about horse racing, but we have thousands of article about horses, whose sole claim of notability is that they ran faster than a handful of other horses, breathing through their nostrils to run a few fractions of a second faster than their competitors. This is an article about someone whose is covered in reliable sources worldwide as being the world's oldest person, a claim of notability that puts this one individual ahead of several billion others. I don't give a steaming turd about whether or not you think this accomplishment is notable; what matters to me, and to Wikipedia, is that this individual has a strong claim of notability backed by appropriate reliable and verifiable sources. Alansohn (talk) 17:51, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe we're reading different articles. The only source referenced in the article I'm looking at is a single, routine BBC obit. David in DC (talk) 18:28, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see that after you wrote your "steaming turd" screed here, you added two references to the article. One is not a reliable source. The other is a second routine obit. Neither transmutes this dross into gold. Per WP:NOPAGE and WP:PERMASTUB the proper treatment for this material remains to delete it and then redirect the subjects name to one of the appropriate lists. David in DC (talk) 18:49, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Don't get too worked up about Alansohn's lashing out; he's well known for it and mostly people learn just to ignore him. Discussion about this article's sources is at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_World's_Oldest_People#Persistent_restoration_of_content_not_source_to_an_RS. EEng (talk) 18:56, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@David in DC: I would suggest you do not cast doubt on the ability of an experienced editor to interpret Wikipedia policy and guidelines and try to "explain" them to me. It makes you sound intensely patronising. I'm fully aware of the meaning of notability, both in the real world and on Wikipedia, and it would seem that the majority of editors here agree with me. Thank you. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:48, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Happily, we experienced editors know that majority !votes are irrelevant to our endeavor. It's the quality of our analyses that should prevail.

Also, I'm ever so appreciative if your kind suggestion. None of us has a monopoly on the wisdom market and I, for one, truly rely on the guidance of other experienced editors on matters if civility. Most especially from experienced editors with sterling reputations for civility and collaborative editing. I count my blessings every day for the willingness of my esteemed fellow editors to countenance my failings in this area and to gently help guide me towards improvement in this area. Thanks, cheers, and happy editing, my sibling. David in DC (talk) 13:23, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I think it is common sense that someone who was at one time the oldest living person in the world is notable, and even if there was no other reason to keep this article, then it should be kept based on the instruction in WP:Notability to use common sense. However, I think obituaries from major news organizations are sufficient coverage to show that a person is notable, and that he does in fact have significant coverage in reliable sources. The references to WP:ROUTINE mentioned above are a misapplication of the guideline, since WP:ROUTINE is a section of Wikipedia:Notability (events), and thus has no bearing on whether a person is notable. The point of WP:ROUTINE is that the death of the person is not a notable event. Newspapers routinely run obituaries for notable people, and that doesn't provide evidence that the death should be covered in a separate article. However, such coverage in a reliable source is evidence that the person is notable and should have their own article. I furthermore disagree that this article should be merged or redirected per WP:NOPAGE, as that section seems to call primarily for a subjective assessment of whether the article subject would be better covered in a larger article. In this case, I think the details in this article would not improve other articles, and instead think that we are covering the subject in the best way right now (with a little information in articles like oldest people, and some more information in a standalone article). I also disagree with WP:PERMASTUB in general, as I find stub articles useful and satisfying to read even when they can't be expanded; since it is an essay and not a guideline, it should have no bearing on the outcome of the discussion. In short, I think he passes the notability guidelines and I find none of the arguments for a redirect convincing. Calathan (talk) 19:48, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Redirect. NOPAGE and PERMASTUB apply. No substantive encyclopedic content to justify a standalone article and this will clearly never change. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 20:05, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This man received not just local, but international coverage. The oldest person in the world is deserving of an article, not just an entry on a list. That's how we've treated other "oldest people", up to the last few days. Jacona (talk) 23:55, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Last few months you mean. And that was after a decade of sockpuppetry and ARBCOM issues. We also treated this as not needing discretionary sanctions but they do now. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:35, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He was the oldest man in the world out of several billion and one of the oldest men of all time. Coverage in sources exist. Passes WP:GNG. Why is WP:NOPAGE being vehemently applied to longevity articles, but not others? Just because you don't find the information interesting doesn't mean it isn't of interest to others. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 00:06, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Coverage in sources exist". WP:BURDEN suggests that you provide it, not require everyone else to prove a negative. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:37, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is a massive inconsistency in that the article's two sources (both WP:ROUTINE obituaries) claim he was the world's oldest man around the time of his death while the entire article goes into a circular speak about how he wasn't considered the world's oldest man at that time due to the Kamato Hongo issues. As such, we have two routine obituaries which don't show particularly notable coverage as the only sources about him (citation 3 to Table C is entirely a sourcing issue about whether or not the GRG or Guinness believed or didn't believe in the Hongo claim and isn't related to Chuganji. It seems like it's a WP:FRINGE theory that anyone believed that Hongo was the world's oldest man (making the whole GRG craziness more suspect). -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:35, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I dont understand what you are saying here. Hongo is a female. How can she be the world oldest man?? Petervermaelen (talk) 16:09, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand if you think it is too short. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:44, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Really? the oldest person in the world and sixth oldest man ever recorded isn't notable? I beg to differ. He died over 10 years ago so sourcing will be more difficult, but not a reason to delete this page.--Uietueps (talk) 04:38, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Was the World's Oldest Verified Living Man and, later, Person. That is a pretty valid reason as to why this article should be kept. There are several articles about this man:

Japanese Man, 112, World's Oldest (4 February 2002)
World's oldest man celebrates 113th birthday (23 March 2002)
Oldest man marks 114th birthday (24 March 2003)

He was also mentioned alongside Kamato Hongo as one of the oldest in the world numerous times. 930310 (talk) 22:55, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the key here is being verified as the oldest person ever in the world at a point and there are sufficient sources that verifies this. Vivexdino (talk) 05:15, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Clear failure of WP:BEFORE, and the nominator does not make an argument for deletion that is based in the deletion policy. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 11:03, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Boity Thulo[edit]

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

Delete. The source used, Incwajana.com is unreliable and unknown. It's authority is not recognized therefore this article should be deleted. It is created for web presence and does not show importance. Wikipedia is not meant to promote celebrities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zacleaner (talk • contribs) 27 November 2015‎

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:44, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - while I agree with the assessment of the current source, there is quite a bit out there on this actress. I also think this is a case of why is she notable, but she does at least pass WP:BASIC, if not WP:GNG, as shown by articles here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here. And that's just on the first two pages at News. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:47, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Clear failure of WP:BEFORE, and the nominator does not make an argument for deletion that is based in the deletion policy. (And this is the third time I've been able to cut-and-paste this rationale for nominations by the same nominator, too.) The Bushranger _{One ping only} 11:04, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bonang Matheba[edit]

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

Delete The article is poorly sourced. A lot of information on it was unsourced claims clearly written by a fan and after deleting it they constantly brought it back. This article was clearly created by a publicity company to increase web presence of the person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zacleaner (talk • contribs) 27 November 2015‎

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:44, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There's nothing wrong with the sourcing, The Sowetan is a mainstream nationally distributed newspaper. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:46, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - literally thousands of hits on News, these are the first 3 on the first page: this, this (although light on depth), and this. Plus this, this and this. I always attempt to AGF, but 10 seconds of WP:BEFORE would have shown this person as notable. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:37, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Clear failure of WP:BEFORE, and the nominator does not make an argument for deletion that is based in the deletion policy. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 11:02, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pearl Thusi[edit]

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

Delete. The source used, Incwajana.com is unreliable and unknown. It's authority is not recognized therefore this article should be deleted. It is created for web presence and does not show importance. Wikipedia is not meant to promote celebrities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zacleaner (talk • contribs) 27 November 2015‎

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:44, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - While the current article's source is not reliable, the subject does pass WP:GNG. Plenty of available citations such as this, this, this, this, this, this and this. And that's only on the first two pages at News. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:31, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Isleworth Mona Lisa. Anything important can be merged from the history. Sandstein 22:08, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Henry F. Pulitzer[edit]

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

No notable sources. Unaddressed problems, especially COI. Fails standard BIO rules. DreamGuy (talk) 18:33, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:38, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No images, isn't very notable and barely any content.
- Comment "No images"(?) and "barely an content" are not criteria for deletion. As for "isn't very notable": how so? freshacconci talk to me 19:54, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment For the other part, that was speedy deletion. I apologize, sometimes I get brain farts. Anyways, Wikipedia:Notability (people) says that The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for one several times. Or that: The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field. There, I don't see either. Also, it needs more significant coverage in WP:reliable sources. Dat GuyWiki (talk) 10:05, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - So he was the owner of the Mona Lisa, eh? Ummmm, maybe, I suppose, but I doubt it. I deleted that line and am perfectly fine with making this entire piece go away. Carrite (talk) 01:46, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hold on Please slow down and read carefully. Pulitzer was the owner of the Isleworth Mona Lisa.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:02, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have no idea whether the Isleworth Mona Lisa is authentic. I am saying Keep because Pulitzer is a central part of l'affaire de Isleworth, the link is useful to that page, and - especially - because the amount of attention attracted by the involvement of Pulitzer was and continues to be enormous. See [28].. and the rest of what's on news searches.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:19, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:44, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Isleworth Mona Lisa. His media coverage seems to rest solely on his ownership and championship of the painting. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:43, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete possibly re-direct to Isleworth Mona Lisa, but there's nothing here that would be inappropriate there, and the story is all about the painting, not this person. For him to have a page there would need to be content about him, and there isn't. I say "possibly" redirect because he is found with a text search, and that is enough IMO. LaMona (talk) 16:24, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia:Notability (people) says that The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for one several times. Or that: The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field. There, I don't see either. Also, it needs more significant coverage in WP:reliable sources. Dat GuyWiki (talk) 17:05, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 18:23, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Isleworth Mona Lisa -- RoySmith (talk) 18:54, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus to keep following relisting. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 12:23, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

MSpy[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Software article of questionable notability, previously deleted in this 2013 afd, recreated by now-blocked SPA as possibly promotional. This listing is a replacement for an incomplete listing by another editor from earlier in Nov. 2015 Dialectric (talk) 18:06, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Dialectric (talk) 20:57, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Where's the advertising? This article actually cites some pretty bad reception, which I would say also establishes its notability. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 12:45, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep simply because of the listed reception which suggests significance and notability. Notifying past AfD commenters AdventurousSquirrel and Peterl in case they come around for commenting. SwisterTwister talk 06:37, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:43, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I agree with the others, the negative sources make it somewhat notable. However that "Software" section is definitely written like an ad and should be revised. FrameDrag (talk) 13:07, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The spamminess that concerned me before seems to be mostly absent in this version, and there is some actual coverage of the software in 3rd party sources now. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 13:42, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Kharkiv07 (T) 03:57, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Juan Gossaín[edit]

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

Lack of notability and lack of references JohnFlynt (talk) 17:59, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Creating deletion discussion for Juan Gossaín

Comment. The corresponding Spanish Wikipedia article is far more detailed, though no better referenced, and a quick look through the first few pages of the standard GBooks search shows several potentially good sources, though my Spanish is not up to judging either their reliability or their independence of the subject. PWilkinson (talk) 19:41, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:43, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Juan Gossaín won National Simón Bolívar Awards in Colombia. This article would be promising for someone to translate from Spanish into English or to develop on the English side. It would be a good improvement for Colombia, Literature, and Journalism WikiProjects. Instead it's been an ignored stub. It now has a few cites as a starter. Crtew (talk) 13:03, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I see at least a couple decent sources off of Google, and taken as a whole, the subject looks notable enough. L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 14:13, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) clpo13_(talk) 08:01, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Christine Beauchamp (pseudonym)[edit]

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

Not notable. Created by account that faked multiple sign ins. entire existence of article OR. Real sources, but trivial coverage. DreamGuy (talk) 17:55, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:53, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:43, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this is a famous case study, discussed in depth.[29],[30],[31] —Мандичка^YO 😜 10:46, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ~~(and maybe Move)~~ Seems to be enough coverage — [32][33][34][35]. ~~Most of the results appear under Clara Norton Fowler though, so maybe a move is in order?~~ Discant X 10:51, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like most sources identify her as Beauchamp repeatedly, with a mention of her real name. For example in the first link I posted above, the chapter was called "The Real Miss Beauchamp." —Мандичка^YO 😜 11:36, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yup. You're absolutely correct. I suppose I had it in my head that I found more sources by searching for Clara Norton Fowler rather than Beauchamp so that was the more common usage. Reading them over again though, it does seem that "Beauchamp" is the subject, and "Fowler" is mentioned as extra info. I'll just go ahead and scratch out my move suggestion now. Discant X 12:05, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I used it as the search term too :-) since it was more specific, I figured it would be faster, but noticed the primary name is Beauchamp. —Мандичка^YO 😜 18:06, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 02:36, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Preston City Wrestling[edit]

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

Local pro wrestling organization. Coverage appears to be routine sports reporting in local papers, nothing to meet WP:GNG. Mdtemp (talk) 15:49, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep PCW should stay up but if somebody could rewrite? its not me who made it - Steven Fludder
Keep I don't agree. I gave sources from some local papers but also from other papers more important. But if you want, I can add more reliable sources. Moreover, the partnership with Ring of Honor made this federation known in America. Lika0n (talk) 23:18, 28 November 2015 (UTC) (the creator)[reply]

PS : Sorry for my poor english. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lika0n (talk • contribs) 11:38, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep BUT completely re-write. Horrible grammar and reads like it was written by a child or someone who barely speaks English. Definitely doesn't come close to the high standard of writing that Wikipedia is known for. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.105.145.232 (talk) 19:53, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 16:16, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 00:02, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:43, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've improved the grammar. I think the IP was quite harsh on the complete re-write but it did have issues that I think I've fixed. Definitely notable. Mega Z090 (talk) 22:08, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm actually surprised at how well sourced this is considering it's a minor league.LM2000 (talk) 04:05, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus to delete following relisting. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 12:23, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rufus Davis[edit]

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

While the article makes a credible claim of significance that I felt avoided speedy deletion, the notability of Rufus Davis, as defined in Wikipedia's inclusion guidelines, isn't clear. I don't find evidence that he meets the general notability guidelines or the criteria available for politicians (which according notability to officeholders only at national or major subnational levels). Are there independent reliable sources from outside his community that give him substantial coverage? —Largo Plazo (talk) 21:36, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 21:37, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 21:37, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable small town mayor lacking notability. Article written by article subject. reddogsix (talk) 21:58, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
5K is not large enough to get a mayor over WP:NPOL just for the fact of being a mayor — it can be enough to satisfy #3 if the article is genuinely substantive and well-sourced, but isn't large enough to give a mayor automatic inclusion rights just because he exists. However, the level of sourcing here is not adequate to get him over WP:GNG. And even the "first African American mayor" bit doesn't help much — that, too, can be enough of a claim of notability if the sourcing for it is a lot better than this, but it doesn't constitute an automatic inclusion freebie either if the sourcing is this weak and this local. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 18:02, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Even in regard to "first African American mayor", I'd say it's probably always a reasonable claim of significance. But as for meeting WP:NPOL in the face of failure to meet WP:GNG, we've probably reached a point where it's no longer Wikipedia-notable that arbitrary towns in the United States happen to have elected a mayor who's African American for the first time. It's become pretty WP:ROUTINE (which is a good thing!), not a milestone that's going to get national, or even state, media coverage every time it happens, particularly in a place like Camilla, Georgia, which is 65% African American. —Largo Plazo (talk) 19:00, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:42, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable mayor of small town in Georgia, population ~5400. Subject does not satisfy the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG, with significant coverage in multiple independent, reliable sources. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:28, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Nothing to suggest even better general notability. SwisterTwister talk 03:30, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Yet another NN small-town mayor. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:01, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Closing with WP:NPASR. (non-admin closure) Kharkiv07 (T) 03:54, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Juli Grbac[edit]

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

Individual seems to fail WP:NN, can't find much about the individual and certainly nothing to indicate notability. Additionally, I can not verify a fair amount of the information in the article. Jab843 (talk) 20:57, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:03, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:03, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:15, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:40, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:12, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ereka Vetrini[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Appears to fail the notability guidelines. Not really known other than for her appearance on The Apprentice, which she did not win. Oneforfortytwo (talk) 20:21, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:38, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:15, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:40, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Although sh ehas appeared on well-known T.V shows, she ahsn't recieved any significant coverage of her own, so not notable. RailwayScientist (talk) 07:56, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Michael Lohan. The redirects were slightly more prevalent than the straight deletes. The question was where to. I thought this was the slightly better choice. (non-admin closure) Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:41, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ashley Horn[edit]

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

fails notability as love child of Michael Lohan; does not appear to be a notable singer; tabloid coverage only. Created by blocked sockpuppeteer. —Мандичка^YO 😜 20:12, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 22:01, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 22:01, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Change to disambiguation page (delete if needed to hide history) featuring her as a link to Michael Lohan's article and also a likely search term for The Midnight Beast's Ashley Horne, as she's certainly not notable and set for a solid article. SwisterTwister talk 22:04, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How useful of a DAB would it be? The only other article would be a redirect based on a different spelling. Also Ashley Horn's real name is Ashley Kaufmann - Ashley Horn appears to be a stage name for a career that never happened. —Мандичка^YO 😜 09:55, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:14, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect at best. Has done nothing. Probably should be speedy with admission "As of late 2014, Horn had not yet released a debut album." in article for a supposed musician. DreamGuy (talk) 19:50, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Lindsay Lohan (preferably) or Michael Lohan: No independent notability of her besides being the alleged child of Michael Lohan. Tibbydibby (talk) 20:35, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:40, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest a redirect to Michael Lohan, with a capsule summary there. Another link from the Lindsay Lohan page (under siblings) could point directly to this part of the Michael Lohan page. No independant notability apart from her more (in)famous relatives.Voodude (talk) 16:57, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete being related to famous people does not make one notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:25, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Closing with WP:NPASR. (non-admin closure) Kharkiv07 (T) 03:54, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kabhi Jo Baadal Barse[edit]

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

The song fails WP:NSONG. All the content from background section is sourced to the involved artists themselves talking about the song and general trivia related to the song. NSONGS says ".. This excludes media reprints of press releases, or other publications where the artist, its record label, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the work..." The critical reception section writes reviews of the songs from mostly WP:RS but NSONGS says "... Coverage of a song in the context of an album review does not establish notability. If the only coverage of a song occurs in the context of reviews of the album on which it appears, that material should be contained in the album article and an independent article about the song should not be created..."; which is what is happening here. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 08:39, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 08:39, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 08:39, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:07, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:38, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) clpo13_(talk) 09:46, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alfonso Carvajal (writer)[edit]

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

Certainly questionably notable and improvable as I simply found nothing better with my searches and this almost basically speedy and PROD material if it wasn't there may be better sources and improvement somewhere. Notifying past users and taggers DGG (you know I would've notified you regardless for your familiar insight ), Scott MacDonald and Courcelles. SwisterTwister talk 07:24, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:26, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:26, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep The books can be verified in worldcat--they are each in about 20 worldcat libraries. These of course represent Noth American libraries---there isn o equivalent union catalog for South America. Popular fiction from south & Central America is often highly represented in US libraries; this is literary work of a somewhat different nature, and the holding libraries are the major academic libraries. I take this to indicate a certain importance. For the esWP, I do not make the same assumption of notability that I do for the fr and de WP., and the article thee is way below our standards. DGG ( talk ) 08:48, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:06, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:38, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Here are some references [36], [37], [38]. However, it is going to take some work to dig out references in other journals, preferably by someone who knows the Colombian literary sources. LaMona (talk) 16:45, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:57, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Scott McCartney[edit]

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

Seemingly non-notable journalist even though the listed awards especially the George Polk Award (listed as "prestigious") may suggest keepable and notability but also the only results I found was this, this, this and this. Notifying tagger Rettetast and also DGG who may have some familiar insight. SwisterTwister talk 07:24, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:26, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:26, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:26, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:26, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:26, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. We have articles on about half winners of the Polk awards. The category "Transportation Reporting" was awarded only twice, so it's hard to compare. But apart from journalist, he's a notable author: His book ENIAC, the triumphs and tragedies of the world's first computer is in 728 libraries, and is the most widely held book ever published on the subject. [39] His other books are held in between 200 and 300 libraries. There are undoubtedly reviews, and they need to be looked for)--one substantial review is in IEEE Annals of the History of Computing , [40], but for the most widely held book on a topic like Eniac, they will be there. Google Scholar shows the book has een cited 136 times, quite high for a technical book. DGG ( talk ) 09:01, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:06, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The Polk Awards are clearly well-known and significant (covered by the NYTimes every year, even when they don't win); the Encyclopedia of American Journalism describes them as among the most prestigious in the field.[41] Gbooks search also shows extensive citation of his work. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 18:37, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:38, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Based on the awards, as said above, this should be a keeper per Wikipedia's notability rules. However, the article is a poor stub in need of more development as are many of the articles that get nominated in this process. Crtew (talk) 12:25, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) clpo13_(talk) 09:47, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Abidullah Ghazi[edit]

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

Questionably notable and improvable as the best I found was this, this, this and this and unfortunately this article has basically almost stayed the same since November 2008. Pinging past users Epeefleche and HJ Mitchell and also DGG who lists to be notified of these subjects and may some insight with this. SwisterTwister talk 07:24, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:27, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:27, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:27, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:27, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:27, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

weak Keep. Hard to tell. I'm in favor of extended notability to careers like this, which aredifficutl to judge from our usual perspective. DGG ( talk ) 07:53, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:06, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:38, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I agree with DGG. This is a bio that can easily slip through the global bias sieve on WP. I tried to clean the article up a bit - for an educator to be on this list is very significant when you look at the other people on there.[42] —Мандичка^YO 😜 17:18, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, those above me make fairly compelling arguments. Kharkiv07 (T) 03:53, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 08:05, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

William Esser[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:BIO or WP:GNG. References are poor. There are broken links and links to books that mention the subject superficially. The one notable source is an obituary published in The Pittsburgh Press. Delta13C (talk) 08:50, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 10:25, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 10:25, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 10:26, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now perhaps unfortunately as this would actually seem notable and improvable but my searches simply found nothing better than a few passing mentions at browsers and Books. A restart with better information and sources would be more than welcome though, SwisterTwister talk 19:21, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:29, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to lack of non-trivial coverage in reliable independent sources. Guy (Help!) 14:20, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Rather dodgy sourcing, including things like sourcing the father's profession to the father's obituary in the local paper, or the rather misleading discussion of Dorothy Day, where the actual article makes it clear he supported the magazine, and invited her to visit, which we only have evidence she did merely once. A promotional article. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 12:53, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 22:06, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Roni DeLuz[edit]

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

Article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:BLP. Sources in article are Youtube videos of the subject in media appearances, a list to a book publisher's authors, and a broken link to a book review in a magazine. The subject has appeared in some news sources found through a Google search, but is not covered in depth, but rather her business and juice detoxes are covered: [43] [44] Delta13C (talk) 08:35, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 10:26, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 10:26, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as searches at Books, News, browsers and Highbeam easily only found passing mentions, hardly much for a better article. Draft and userfy if needed though, SwisterTwister talk 19:23, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as fails regular author rules. Per ONEEVENT if book somehow manages to be notable, redirect to an article solely on that. DreamGuy (talk) 20:04, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has a NY Times bestseller, passes GNG, I'm finding significant coverage going back to 2008 which I've been adding to the article. I hope this article isn't up for deletion because she's a "diet guru." While I think that stuff is crap, I am able to be partial enough to see she passes GNG at the least. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 21:09, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just so you know, being an author of a book on a bestseller list does not satisfy WP:AUTHOR in order to meet notability. The Toronto Star [45] article is a book review and does not cover the authors of the book in depth. The source from Black Enterprise [46] is also a book review, but it seems to be more of a promotional junket rather than a piece about her. Let me be clear, this is a person who went to a diploma-mill school, Clayton College of Natural Health, from where she got an ND and PhD and wrote a book about detoxing and rapidly losing weight which made the New York Times Bestseller list for three weeks in 2007. She has no other marks of notability. Delta13C (talk) 21:37, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

- I disagree with you. She passes GNG in my opinion. I'm not saying she's a brain surgeon, I just think she passes GNG. I think detox diets and naturopathic medicines are woo, but I'm not going to say she doesn't pass GNG because of that. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 22:14, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, Agree with nominator that a book appearing on NY Times bestseller list does not contribute to WP:AUTHOR. It does, however, contribute to notability of the book. I have also found these which may be deemed okay for the book's notability: [47] - Washington Post a review of 2008, unfortunately need to purchase so can't say if and in-depth review or not (if link doesn't work just go into Washington post site, their archives and search book title, it is hit no. 9), [48] - Cape Cod Times short review (but not just a trivial listing:))- "takes readers on a journey to understand foods and the ways we process them, using the life experiences of real people to illustrate changes we all can make for better health.", [49] - What Is a Detox Diet? in Fitness magazine (as this is a review of the actual diet at the 'Vinyard' it maybe useable for either DeLuz or book?) - "FITNESS says: Avoid it. Three weeks with no solid food is "too extreme," says Detroyer. Plus, "nobody needs enemas or colonics. There is absolutely no research to support [their benefits], and I think it could be dangerous. It could dehydrate you if you are not adequately replacing lost fluids."", and [50] - Toronto Star in-depth(?) review (already in article) - "Although DeLuz recommends a 21-day detox, the plan can be modified into a seven-day cleanse or a two-day cleanse. .. Helene Charlebois, a registered dietitian based in Ottawa, says the Martha's Vineyard plan is not meant for – and shouldn't be tried by – people new to detox diets. .. OUR VERDICT: If you regularly rely on a cleanse or detox, you can probably make your way through this one, too. But if a detox is new territory for you, it might be best to stay away or, at least, get professional help.", also worldcat shows[51] book is in 600 libraries(I know this can't be used for notability but it is an indicator?...) ps. I am also concerned that her main claim to fame is a book which she co-authored with two other people, so an article on the book may be the way to go. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:03, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Megalibrarygirl. Agree that this diet stuff sounds dubious, but there are sources in respected publications.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:56, 30 November 2015 (UTC) One other thing: the article needs a detox.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:59, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:29, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since the sources are almost exclusively promotional and non-independent. That results in an overly promotional article that gives false parity to nonsense and science. Guy (Help!) 14:22, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Noone's linking to any coverage of him independent of his diet, and a mere google search is poor evidence. Appears to be one of a thousand fad diets that get temporary coverage then go away - WP:ONEEVENT applies. For that matter, the most recent reprint of the diet book I can find is 2010, so the lasting notability of the diet itself is questionable. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 00:12, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - While there is an argument for the notability of the book, that doesn't hold for this author. Doesn't pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:40, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to California Department of Consumer Affairs. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 02:36, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

California Bureau of Naturopathic Medicine[edit]

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

This article does not seem to meet notability guidelines for organizations (WP:ORG). The references that are cited in the article are closely associated with the organization: one is the agency's website and another a dead link to the California Dept. of Consumer Affairs. I did a search for news articles mentioning the committee, and there are two, but they do not cover the agency in depth. The first mentions a naturopath who is appointed to the committee's board.[52] And the second lists the committee as an opponent of a mandatory vaccine law passed in California in an article covering the bill.[53] There is no independent and in-depth overage of this organization, therefore the organization cannot be notable to those outside the organization. Delta13C (talk) 08:15, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 10:27, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 10:27, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:19, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now as this seems an easy case of no better notability and improvement as my searches only found some passing mentions toward the end of searching. SwisterTwister talk 19:25, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. California Department of Consumer Affairs contains a list of "bureaus, boards, and commissions" in California. Note that Medical Board of California is no better sourced than this one. - Location (talk) 19:34, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Medical Board of California should also be a candidate for deletion, but I haven't look independently for sources to establish notability yet. Delta13C (talk) 19:52, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to California Department of Consumer Affairs because it otherwise fails GNG. DreamGuy (talk) 20:01, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have now nominated that listed article as my searches simply found nothing compelling for obvious better notability and improvement. SwisterTwister talk 20:04, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to California Department of Consumer Affairs, per above. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 23:19, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:28, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to California Department of Consumer Affairs. No significant coverage in reliable secondary sources independent of the subject. - Location (talk) 02:41, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect seems best for dealing with the notability. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 12:55, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Obvious non-local refs. (non-admin closure) —azuki (talk · contribs · email) 23:41, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gary Jones (Louisiana politician)[edit]

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

Despite some coverage in the local newspapers, which is to be expected for someone seeking lower-level political office, this does not pass GNG or WP:POLITICIAN. Superintendent, school board member--no, not notable by our standards. Drmies (talk) 01:02, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:GNG and WP:POLITICIAN. The refs supplied are either of very local interest only or inadmissible. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:48, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'd have !voted for deletion had there been nothing but local coverage of the BESE race. However, Googling reveals that Jones was also in charge of Task Force Pelican, commanding National Guard operations in Louisiana for the first month following Hurricane Katrina, including the evacuation of the Superdome and the Morial Convention Center. Jones appears throughout James A. Wombwell's "Army Support During the Hurricane Katrina Disaster", published by the US Army's Combat Studies Institute Press. The WP article doesn't mention Jones's role in this, but the identity of the TF Pelican Jones with the Jones of this article is shown at this Times-Picayune article. Among this, the Louisiana Life piece on Jones as Louisianan of the Year—Education, and the coverage of the BESE election, I think we've got enough material to satisfy WP:GNG. — Ammodramus (talk) 04:26, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Ammodramus, I appreciate the work, though I disagree--the Times Picayune article only spends a few sentences on him, and actually doesn't say anything about him other than saying he was in charge of one operation. The MyNewOrleans article is exactly like the kind of coverage decent citizens get in local publications. My neighbor was the Montgomery Citizen of the Year a few years ago, but I wouldn't dream of writing up his article. Anyway, Louisiana Life is a subsection of New Orleans Magazine, which is basically one of those fancy-looking local publications (not an RS) that live on advertising and non-journalistic, mainly promotional writing, so we shouldn't put much stock in the award or the writing about it. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 21:35, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies, I wasn't citing the Times-Picayune article in support of Jones's notability. Since Gary Jones is a fairly common name, I was making sure that the Jones of our discussion was the same person as the Jones of Task Force Pelican. The T-P article provides that proof. Given that, I think that the Wombwell piece establishes notability. Note, too, that Jones was a brigadier general, which appears to satisfy criterion (3) at WP:MILPEOPLE. — Ammodramus (talk) 22:40, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but the Wombwell book is not an independent publication and can thus not really add toward notability, which is why I didn't talk about it. Drmies (talk) 23:07, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What makes "fancy-looking local publications" unreliable? Don't they have editors? If I looked at the number of corrections that the New York Times each day, I would assume they were the unreliable one. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:03, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 10:34, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 10:34, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 10:34, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Passes WP:GNG and WP:POLITICIAN, rock solid references. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:36, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- No, Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ), not until you explain to our audience how he meets any of the requirements in POLITICIAN, for instance. He is obviously not a "Major local political figure", and it sure looks like he is "Just being an elected local official". As for the GNG, you know as well as everyone else that his coverage is completely local, and consists of the kind of run-of-the-mill coverage that local newspapers write about. Drmies (talk) 21:28, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just passing through this discussion, but one thing that caught my eye is the assertion that local coverage somehow negates GNG. It doesn't. Local coverage can be used to show notability. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 03:45, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't say that. Please look more carefully at the context. Drmies (talk) 15:42, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:21, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Info on page is verifiable with sufficient sourcing to pass WP:BASIC.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:43, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agreed. Passes WP:BASIC. Additionally, the ongoing Common Core debate in Louisiana makes him relevant/noteworthy. Bmhs823 (talk) 06:52, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Closing with WP:NPASR (non-admin closure) Kharkiv07 (T) 03:48, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Glengarth Sevens[edit]

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

Non-notable rugby union tournament - article relies on a single primary source Bcp67 (talk) 13:10, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 00:42, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 10:34, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:20, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:21, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:33, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bishwashuk Sevasram Sangha[edit]

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

Unable to establish notability. Unreferenced since created in 2011. Searches of the usual Google types, HighBeam, JSTOR, EBSCO, InfoTRAC, and ProQuest returned nothing but wikimirrors. Searches for ashrams near either of the two locations mentioned returned nothing that matched. Without significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources, does not meet WP:ORG. Worldbruce (talk) 07:28, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 07:30, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 07:30, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 07:30, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 00:39, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 05:37, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete likely as that's all enough to suggest a non-notable and unimprovable article. Notifying past taggers Bgwhite and LeoFrank in case they have comments. SwisterTwister talk 07:14, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:21, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Hopefully this can be relisted for a third time to allow better insight. As drastic measures, I'm notifying Indian users Dharmadhyaksha,{U|AKS.9955}}, Sitush and Human3015. SwisterTwister talk 05:09, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - here because of SwisterTwister's ping but I've done my own checks. As others have said, there does not appear to be suitable coverage in sources. I wonder if this creation was made more in the spirit of advertising than Wikipedia. - Sitush (talk) 14:50, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Closing with WP:NPASR (non-admin closure) Kharkiv07 (T) 03:48, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Scheithauer[edit]

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

Easily speedy and PROD material as not only are most of the band articles now deleted, the best I found was only this, this and this and I would've restored the original redirect if it wasn't that the band article is now deleted. Notifying past users Kinu, Ponyo and Philippe (now retired from his Wikimedia account). SwisterTwister talk 07:23, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:25, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 00:05, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 00:06, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:16, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 09:20, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pseudomonas aeruginosa Mannose Sensitive Hemagglutinin[edit]

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

Rejected prod but I have no idea whether or not this is a notable drug. No sources are provided. A google news search for Wantepuan shows nothing (in English at least), regular searches show only mirrors to this page. I suggested redirecting it but without a source there's nothing to merge. The image there was uploaded by the same user without even a link to a webpage or anything. It's a publicly traded company so this may be a hoax for all I can tell. Ricky81682 (talk) 00:07, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but Move to "PA-MHSA": Googe search on PA-MHSA finds plenty of hits like this. PamD 00:33, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Even without the move, there are a lot of results for the full name, as opposed to the brand name. However, it's a medical journals, so I'm not sure if a bunch of journal articles suggesting the possibility of an effective treatment results in notability. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 00:36, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a source that the Chinese FDA approved the drug? That's kind of its biggest claim at the moment, isn't it? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:41, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now: No secondary coverage. About 629 citations (h = 12) for academic articles on the drug; may be notable if Chinese sources are checked, but I'm not confident about this drug's notability because of the lack of secondary sourcing. Esquivalience ^t 00:04, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:24, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 00:03, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:16, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, at least based on English coverage. Hits on Pubmed and Google Scholar appear to be all primary articles from the same lab; reviews or coverage in news articles don't seem to exist. - HyperGaruda (talk) 17:43, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Niagara Falls, New York#Government. (non-admin closure) clpo13_(talk) 09:50, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Totes McGoats[edit]

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

It's not notable, it only received a day's worth of news coverage which is just a blip in the timeline of the universe. Buffaboy ^talk 00:58, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and Merge to subsection: Government in Niagra Falls, New York where a sentence about this goateed caprine environmentalist already exists.E.M.Gregory (talk) 02:00, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:36, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:36, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and Merge, per E.M.Gregory. This is a pretty lame permastub. Alsee (talk) 16:56, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment For a "mascot" who was only in the news media for 1 day, how is this even worthy of being merged into an article about a city with a history spanning multiple centuries? Buffaboy ^talk 17:59, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it was in the news for more than 1 day, there was also this "follow-up" article. . . LOL. Ejgreen77 (talk) 14:22, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. A3. And the snowball is rolling, too. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 12:26, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

HJIS Grade 10 of 2015-2016[edit]

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

Contested PROD. I don't see how any of this is appropriate, nor do I see why a grade of the Horizon Japan International School should have its own article. Adam9007 (talk) 00:51, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is a potential candidate for speedy deletion per WP:A3. I also think we should consider deleting the article for Horizon Japan International School as not satisfying WP:GNG. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 02:30, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete..This shouldhave been speedied. It's onlty A7 that can't be used on schools. Obviously the work of a child. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:20, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per Kudpung. Inherently non-notable. The work of a child. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:45, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - I mean seriously? Absolutely zero notability. In fact, if notability could have a negative value, this article would qualify. Although, the main article for the school would likely remain due to WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:42, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] ttp://pride-flags-for-us.tumblr.com/post/121675982089/is-there-a-novosexualnovoromantic-flag

[2] ttp://www.amazon.com/Triathlon-Every-Woman-Triathlete-Yes/dp/0615698069/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1449603429&sr=8-1&keywords=meredith+atwood

[3] ttp://triathlon.competitor.com/tag/beginners-luck

[4] 
Bodenbach, Christof (1994): Vitra-Produktionsgebäude in Weil am Rhein, in: Bauwelt 24, pp. 1300-1301

Wolff, Jan A. (1994): Stoische Box, in: Leonardo 8 (August/September 1994), pp. 18-22

Fehlbaum, Rolf (2000): The construction of a place: Building with Nicholas Grimshaw, Frank O. Gehry, Tadao Ando, Zaha Hadid and Alvaro Siza Vieira, in: Noever, Peter (ed.), Visionary clients for new architecture, München 2000, pp. 75-102

Kenneth Frampton: Álvaro Siza – Das Gesamtwerk, Stuttgart/München 2000

Kenneth Frampton: Álvaro Siza. Complete Works, Phaidon, London, 2000, ISBN-13: 978-0714840048

Philip Jodidio: Álvaro Siza: Complete Works 1952-2013, Taschen, Köln 2013, ISBN-13: 978-3836521710

[5] Bodenbach, Christof (1994): Vitra-Produktionsgebäude in Weil am Rhein, in: Bauwelt 24, pp. 1300-1301

[6] Wolff, Jan A. (1994): Stoische Box, in: Leonardo 8 (August/September 1994), pp. 18-22

[7] Fehlbaum, Rolf (2000): The construction of a place: Building with Nicholas Grimshaw, Frank O. Gehry, Tadao Ando, Zaha Hadid and Alvaro Siza Vieira, in: Noever, Peter (ed.), Visionary clients for new architecture, München 2000, pp. 75-102

[8] Kenneth Frampton: Álvaro Siza – Das Gesamtwerk, Stuttgart/München 2000

[9] Kenneth Frampton: Álvaro Siza. Complete Works, Phaidon, London, 2000, ISBN-13: 978-0714840048

[10] Philip Jodidio: Álvaro Siza: Complete Works 1952-2013, Taschen, Köln 2013, ISBN-13: 978-3836521710

[5] Stock-Nieden, Dietmar (2006): Die Bauten der Vitra Design GmbH in Weil am Rhein 1981-1994. Untersuchungen zur Architektur- und Ideengeschichte eines Industrieunternehmens am Ende des 20. Jahrhunderts. Inaugural-Dissertation zur Erlangung der Doktorwürde der Philosophischen Fakultät der Albert-Ludwigs-Universität Freiburg i. Br., see pp. 18-20, 59-61, 153-171, 178, 218, XXIII-XXIV

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]