Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 December 1

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

The result was delete. MelanieN (talk) 16:06, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

O-index

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

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

This article relies only on a single primary source, an article published very recently and listed as having zero citations by Google scholar. (The Hirsch source listed by the article is not about the O-index, but about a much more notable and earlier topic that the O-index is intended to supplant.) As such its subject fails WP:GNG as it is not the subject of in-depth coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources. It was prodded in early November but quickly deprodded by one of the two single-purpose accounts Urubu~enwiki (who has confirmed himself to be J.F.F. Mendes, one of the authors of the original/only publication on this topic) and Graphdust that created and maintain this article; see also the history of the associated article José Fernando Ferreira Mendes for other possibly-related single-purpose accounts Jfmendes and Beamendes99 (but note that Mendes himself is clearly notable). —David Eppstein (talk) 23:27, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nominator, it fails the WP:GNG. FuriouslySerene (talk) 14:38, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:11, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete on clear rationale of nominator. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:19, 3 December 2015 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete per nom. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 07:55, 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) Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:32, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

David Rosenberg

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

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

Despite wading through the long list of references, I can't find anything that conveys notability. Passing mentions, tangential references but nothing that says this person is notable. Most merely name check him as " commissaire". This article has been PRODed twice for similar concerns . The sheer bulk of references and the super-abundance of wiki-links and name-checking doesn't make up for the lack of real substance. Fails WP:GNG  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   11:03, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• keep I just reviewed the references, and only kept the relevant ones, pages which mention David Rosenberg's implication in the project. He is an author and art curator so there will be no post on TMZ about him to show his "star status", but he is mentioned by every institution he worked with. Please note that he was rewarded by the French Minister of Culture and Communications (Ordre des Arts et des Lettres) and is listed by Bibliothèque Nationale de France (cf. references). Also, please check the notability of Palais de Tokyo, Maison Rouge etc, you will see that to work for these, you must be "notable". For your information, in French, art curator is "commissaire d'exposition", that's why he is mentioned as commissaire in every reference site. Besides, for almost all his publications the ISBN is mentioned, I can't see what kind of reference could be linked to that to prove his notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anh.tamy (talk • contribs) 12:22, 23 November 2015 (UTC) Anh.tamy (talk · contribs) has only contributed to the article(s) under discussion for deletion and AFD. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 09:29, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Except passing mentions on exhibitions he curated, a couple of infotainment books he compiled with others and one short interview with Le Parisien, I've found nothing. No substantial coverage, only a collection of all the google hits with his name. Oh, and hundreds of people receive the Ordre des Arts et des Lettres annually. AddMore der Zweite (talk) 22:06, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just so you know, rewards Ordre des Arts et des Lettres are delivered by the French Ministry of Culture, it is indeed granted to about 200 contributors of arts and literature each year. The French population in 2014 was about 66 million people, which means that only 0,000303% got the reward. So sorry if I do think that the reward proves the notability of the person.

You're also talking about "a couple of infotainment books he compiled": I can count 30 in the list (not including collective works). I'm not sure if you're an art expert, but I can assure you those books are not even close to "infotainment", they are art books about notable artists.

And besides in Le Parisien, he was also interviewed by Le Figaro which dedicated the front page and 4 pages inside of its Culture magazine (from an october 2015 issue). I couldn't find it online, if you could help me find it, would be useful.

And there is also an interview on BFM (BFM is a kind of a French CNN). The interview is about an exhibition he curated as part of the FIAC program. You can google "FIAC", it's one of world's most important art fair dedicated to contemporary art.

To sum up, in my opinion the notability of one's works prove one's notability. Anh.tamy (talk) 23:27, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Delete - as it fails WP:Notability.--DaeafcMnnC (talk) 09:30, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(provisional) KEEP: I looked over this article and spent most of my time scratching my head at all the names of people (I didn't count, but it was in the hundreds upon hundreds). The article is confusing. Assuming all the references are legit (I don't speak French and wouldn't know a reliable French source from a hole in the ground), if the author can trim the fat and organize it better, I'd say keep. If the author (or someone else) doesn't fix it by the end of this AfD, then my vote is Delete. It's me...Sallicio!^{${\displaystyle \color {Red}\oplus }$} 23:23, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this person's notability is not to be questioned. Indeed, the article contains a lot of names, but some contribute to the person's notability- I'm no art expert but I guess Picasso or Jeff Koons are famous artists. The article needs to be improved by wikifying its presentation, I do agree that the neverending lists of names are confusing, but that's not the subject of the AfD.Waka waka1509 (talk) 11:15, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Note that Chevalier of the Ordre des Arts et des Lettres is approximately equivalent to a British MBE, which is not considered to qualify a recipient for inherent notability under WP:ANYBIO. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:00, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can you give a cite or precedent for that? I couldn't find it in the ANYBIO link. It seems that some orders in the French system (those relating to civil service) are probably not notable as significant awards for ANYBIO or WP:PROF, but that the order of arts and letters is more significant. It seems significant enough for me to lean towards keep, but I'd like to know about precedent. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 17:22, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the Order of Art and Letters is notable enough itself to have its own article on Wikipedia. So would it be logical to consider that people rewarded by a notable award are not notable ? Waka waka1509 (talk) 22:15, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, sorry that isn't logical. I have an Academic degree but I am not notable (thankfully). The award is notable but the recipient isn't notable because of the award. This is a case of "notability is not inherited".  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   22:38, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

An academic degree is not an award.Waka waka1509 (talk) 10:07, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's funny. I was certainly awarded my degrees! Or that's what the universities called it anyway. Maybe you'd like to tell them they're wrong? But, to expand. The Purple Heart certainly is an award by any standards. We have an article on it. So, by your logic every American serviceman who's been wounded should have an article, should they? -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:42, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lol why not, if it responds to WP:MILNG. This is a debate, I'm only giving my opinion on the Order of Arts and Letters and as a French citizen, I'd like to underline that in common opinion in France that award is maybe not as notable as a Nobel prize, but it's still a prize discerned by the French Ministry as a recognition of what it considers as "remarkable". Go argue with the Ministry and tell them their award is worth peanuts... As far, the only argument I can see here is that you consider the number of awarded too high (200) to have any value. Not to mention that it's a subjective argument. Besides, shouldn't we discuss more about the person's work to debate on his notability ? I don't think that the article mentions ONLY the award, aren't the exhibits and books he wrote a more interesting material for debate ? Waka waka1509 (talk) 13:54, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And as I said, I'm not passing judgement on Rosenberg's notability but only on the statement that his award confers inherent notability. Neither did I say the award was worth peanuts. As an Englishman, I certainly don't think the MBE or OBE (or the DSO or the MC or the DFC or a host of other British awards and decorations) are worth peanuts, but neither do I consider that they confer inherent notability on recipients, and this has in fact been established over many AfDs. Given this award is no higher or rarer than those I don't think we can consider it confers notability when they don't; that would be systemic bias in favour of French awards. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:43, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cite a precedent for what? The award being equivalent to an MBE? That's obvious from its precedence and the numbers awarded (up to 200 every year). That the MBE doesn't make a recipient inherently notable? Numerous AfDs. A CBE is the lowest honour we consider confers inherent notability. Note that I'm not expressing an opinion on this individual's notability; I'm merely saying that this award alone doesn't make him inherently notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:51, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:02, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:02, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:02, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:08, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:08, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It is clear over and over again (to me) that most Wikipedian's have zero understanding of the workings of the art world. --MurderByDeletionism^"bang!" 04:13, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Perhaps Keep simply because the article looks keepably currently. DGG, as you ask to be notified of these subjects, perhaps you can give some insight. SwisterTwister talk 06:14, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Unlike most such articles, this one is fixable .Contrary to what was said above, the lists of artists in each exhibit he curated do not add to notability --they rather give the imprsssion of being a cv, not an encycopedia article. A proper search should be able to find review of his exhibitions: if not, we can look at it again. DGG ( talk ) 07:21, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment From the discussions above, I have a feeling that what bothers here is the page layout. I do agree that those huge blocks of names are hurtful to the eyes, but as DGG said, it can be fixed. Maybe for each exhibit, we should cite the 5 most significative artists and just indicate the number of the overall ? Some users are just here to throw a stone, but I would like to remind you all (me included) that Wikipedia is a collaborative encyclopedia, so do some research and participate in the improvement of the articles instead of dismissing one's work.Waka waka1509 (talk) 10:36, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the artists. What needs doing next is checking the list of exhibitions. It's specified in the article as a selective list, so it can probably be selected a little more rigorously, but this would be better done by someone with better knowledge than Ihave. DGG ( talk ) 16:46, 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. MelanieN (talk) 16:07, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Richard LeMay

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

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

From what I can tell, LeMay fails WP:GNG as I wasn't able to find significant coverage in reliable sources. The two sources presented in the article are not independent of the subject, as one is his personal website and the other is from a film he produced. -- Tavix ^(talk) 22:53, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I usually try to save articles by fixing them, but I also could not find any sources other than his own and IMDB. Notwithstanding the weird writing style of the article, I say delete. Sorry. It's me...Sallicio!^{${\displaystyle \color {Red}\oplus }$} 23:10, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:05, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:05, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Nothing to even suggest better improvement generally therefore no convincing notability. SwisterTwister talk 06:30, 3 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. MelanieN (talk) 16:10, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

John Hinsdale

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

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

I'm John Hinsdale (the subject of this page) and I don't feel I'm notable enough to have a living-person bio on Wikipedia hin 22:13, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK  22:17, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK  22:31, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: LOL.. I must say, I have never seen this situation pop up before. But, I did a cursory Google search to verify, and I agree with you, sir. I wonder how the article made it past New Pages and how it's been around so long. Just out of curiosity, do you know the original author? It's me...Sallicio!^{${\displaystyle \color {Red}\oplus }$} 23:32, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:58, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete 2005!?! I weep WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dkriegls (talk • contribs) time, day month year (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:04, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:04, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Snow delete perhaps? As the article itself is not surprising considering it was 2005 and if it had been tagged, I would've found this quicker and tagged it for deletion sooner. Thus said, the current version is simply not enough convincingly enough notable. SwisterTwister talk 06:50, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Well it's JohnHinsdale's lucky day! - I'm extremely surprised this article's been around for 10 years in the state it's in!, Well it's beyond fixing and as the bloke's not notable this is a case where BLPREQUEST should be actioned for once. –Davey2010^Talk 03:00, 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. MelanieN (talk) 16:11, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lakme (2016 film)

Lakme (2016 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails my WP:BEFORE checks at Google News and Google Books (See this search). Fails WP:GNG as there doesn't appear to be anything significant about the subject via normal Google search. Nothing at Bollywood Hungama, for instance. No indication via sourced prose that principal photography has commenced, so it fails WP:NFF for now. I did find this reference at deewaneindia.com, but it doesn't do much to help establish notability, and note that the article creator calls himself Deewane India. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:09, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk  23:40, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk  23:40, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

type:(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)

lead:(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)

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

• I'd opine a temporary deletion until we have A) confirmation of filming and B) more sources toward production. Not that WP:BEFORE wasn't followed, but a flaw inherent with Google is that it does not does not crawl nor index Indian newspaper articles properly. Understanding and addressing this flaw, Titodutta created Indian-specific search engines at WP:INDAFD. For Indian topics, it is best used when Google fails us.... and it gives us "Sanjay Khandelwal" "Rayya Labib" "Devender Kishor" "Jitu Bhowmik" "Lakme". So we have sourcability, but not enough to meet WP:NFF (paragraph 3). Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 04:41, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• DELETE: I'm all for saving articles; however, if the author cannot find reliable sources before the end of this AfD, it should just be deleted. Sending it to the "stet docket" does nothing. It will just sit there until the power stops running to the Wikipedia server. Either delete it or fix it. It's me...Sallicio!^{${\displaystyle \color {Red}\oplus }$} 23:39, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Having available sources is not the issue... verification of filming IS. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 10:35, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete; as no evidence of notability, Can easily be recreated in 2016 or someone can go to WP:REFUND in 2026. –Davey2010^Talk 03:02, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - as per above editors. WP:TOOSOON. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:33, 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:35, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rejina Uprety

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

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

No evidence here of any significant notabiliyy. Only one ref appears to be independent and that hardly evidences notabiliy. Fails WP:GNG.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   08:51, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk  10:47, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk  10:47, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk  10:47, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as this is yet another classic case of a non-notable and not well-known actress for which my searches only found some trivial mentions at News and browsers, even then it was mostly for her marriage and other relationship matters. Notifying tagger Vansockslayer in case they want to comment. SwisterTwister talk 05:02, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete my sweeps of Nepali news did not turn up much.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:39, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Wait working on article to improve--Biplab Anand (Talk with me) 16:19, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep-- Improvement done--Biplab Anand (Talk with me) 09:24, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - but the additions have not added anything to the requirements for notability.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   10:31, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – बिप्लब आनन्द, thanks for your work, but this fails WP:GNG and WP:ENT. sst✈^(discuss) 07:36, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: this article on the Nepali Wikipedia is a one-line unsourced stub. ne:रेजिना उप्रेती sst✈^(discuss) 07:41, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete IMDb-like entry, almost zero coverage and couldn't find anything serious. Most results mirror each other and/or blogs. AddMore der Zweite (talk) 21:22, 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 keep. Nothing's changed since the last AFD which was only closed 4 days ago!, Not sure why this wasn't speedy closed but whatever consensus is to Keep again (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 03:04, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sparks Middle School Shooting

Sparks Middle School Shooting (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Over two years have passed, and there hasn't been any indication of lasting significance. This is truly a tragic event, but it's definitely not notable. Parsley Man (talk) 21:55, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep, agreed that the eventic is tragic, but it somewhat fails WP:CRIME. That said, in the past month, it has gained traction in the news what with Clinton and the community discussing it. It hasn't died off as would be needed for it to be deleted. True, it isn't front page news, but it is still mentioned in the news. I think for that reason, it should be kept. Jab843 (talk) 22:08, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK  22:27, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK  22:27, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK  22:27, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:47, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:47, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep While WP:LASTING states that: "Events that have a noted and sourced permanent effect of historical significance are likely to be notable." In other words, lasting impact is an indication of notability, not a prerequisite for having/keeping an article. The more relevant policy is WP:NOTTEMPORARY in light of which deletion, let alone a 2nd AFD so soon, seems inappropriate.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:43, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Back in today's news cycle: the Sparks Middle School shooting [1].E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:49, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Also Hillary Clinton discussing Sparks school shooting in campaign speech. Added this and a few more news reports from the last few weeks to article. Nom ought to have run WP:BEFORE. E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:06, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Plenty of sources here to justify notability. Hundreds of results come up in Google News search. Tinton5 (talk) 05:28, 3 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 a10, copy of Ali Nuhu. NawlinWiki (talk) 21:18, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vbghjkmnbvcfg

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

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

The title of the article does not match up to anything else in this entire article. TheInformativePanda (talk) 21:11, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I think we tagged this at the same time. It's the duplicate to Ali Nuhu and I tagged it with a CSD tag for that. Also, it could be also considered vandalism as well. This AfD won't be needed I wouldn't think. Wildthing61476 (talk) 21:13, 1 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. MelanieN (talk) 16:14, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of Celtic Urban Toponymy in Italy

List of Celtic Urban Toponymy in Italy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Prod removed. Deletion reason: A woefully incomplete article created by a now indef blocked user. We already have List of Celtic place names in Italy, so it's not as if the topic isn't covered yet. Not at a good title either, so doesn't even make much sense as a redirect. Fram (talk) 20:53, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK  22:37, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This is a collection of geographical dicdefs. I would propose transwikiing them over to Wiktionary, but they look like copyright violations to me. I note that the creating editor, who is also the primary contributor, is not just indefinitely blocked, he's indefinitely blocked for repeated copyright violations.

My reasoning is the same for this article, List of Celtic Urban Toponymy in Italy; the article List of Celtic place names in Friuli-Venezia Giulia, also up for AfD; and probably List of Celtic place names in Italy, although the latter is not up for deletion (yet). All of these look like they've been copied from somewhere without attribution. TJRC (talk) 23:41, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• TJRC asked me if I thought his reasoning here was sound. I do - I can't find a source for the content, but this user has a history of copy-pasting and translating without attribution. When I handled his original account, I thought this was simply a case of a user who for some inexplicable reason refused to follow the mandatory processes of WP:CWW, but while addressing his sock puppetry I realized that he was also translating directly from copyrighted Italian sources. It's not just the copyright of Wikimedians he was violating. I do not believe he composed this material, either. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:18, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - no discernible reason for this article; List of Celtic place names in Italy seems sufficient —Мандичка^YO 😜 08:16, 2 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. Deleted as A7 and G4 and WP:SALTed by Bbb23 (talk · contribs). (non-admin closure) clpo13_(talk) 21:40, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Albasco.com

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

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

Company not notable, fails WP:ORG. Page was tagged for CSD which was removed by another user (perhaps sock). Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 19:30, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Just realized that this page was deleted (AfD) few years back. Requesting an admin to SALT the page after deleting it. Thanks, Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 19:32, 1 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 Avro Vulcan XH558. Actually, the consensus is more like "not keep", because the clear majority here don't want to keep this list around separately, but opinions are split between delete and merge. The way to accomodate this is to redirect, allowing the editorial process to work out what, if anything, is mergeworthy.  Sandstein  19:25, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of Avro Vulcan XH558 post-restoration public appearances

List of Avro Vulcan XH558 post-restoration public appearances (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

I initially only created this list for size reasons, just to get it out of the way while I was making improvements to the main article. Since XH558 is now permanently grounded, and given every individual post-restoration appearance seems to have generated coverage in reliable independent sources, the time seems right to consider once and for all whether or not it should be completed and polished, or dumped. The only point of debate seems to be WP:LISTN. Natural Ratio (talk) 22:07, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep (creator and nominator) I'd say the LISTN case is marginal if only considering non-specialist sources, but in the case of supplementary lists like this, I think it's better to let readers decide whether or not they want to read it, rather than presume that it would be of no use to readers at all in the face of such overwhelming interest in both the main topic, and indeed in each individual entry on the list (even if the latter only proves to be through contemporary news sources in the general coverage sense). It's not like maintenance or future expansion is a factor - once completed to the necessary standards, that will be that. Natural Ratio (talk) 22:07, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk  22:21, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Is there any single valid point to that rationale? Andy Dingley (talk) 22:26, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, I thought I had said this in the above, but I appear to have dumped it before posting - the point is to settle the debate conclusively, in case that's what's stopping anyone else from putting the time in to complete it. It's certainly given me pause. Whether that's valid or not, I don't know. All I know is, if there's no positive conclusion, then I'm certainly not going to work on it (others might, that's up to them to take that risk). But based on past experience, simply asking for views on the talk page was unlikely to lead to a firm conclusion (witness the Background section debate I started on the main article, which despite being widely advertised, still 'concluded' with people both strenuously arguing that it both should and should not have one). While in that situation I was able to work around other people's inability to compromise or even revisit the discussion, and instead decided to do something else to work around them, there's obviously no such way to move forward wwth a third option on the issue of whether or not this list should exist (working on it anyway and just hoping nobody deletes it is not a compromise, it's just stupidity). Natural Ratio (talk) 23:06, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Maybe this Vulcan is a rock star among aircraft, but even rock stars don't get lists of performances. This is fancruft. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:09, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If that's the analogy you're going with, it seems to prove the exact opposite of what you're saying, see Category:Concert tours by artist - it seems accepted practice that rock star level artists merit a separate list (sometimes even multiple lists) of each one of their performances on Wikipedia. And it's worth noting that XH558 has often been described as the "rock star" of the air display scene, and the pilot has even said he feels almost like a rock star given the reaction it generates at shows. I would not advocate creating such lists for all display aircraft/teams, but it's not really in doubt that if they were to only be created for the really famous ones, XH558 would be one of them. Indeed, its notability as a display aircraft is the only reason it even has its own article on Wikipedia out of all other Vulcans, since it didn't do anything else notable (I know XM655 also has an article, but as of right now that has zero independent sources, so could arguably be deleted as not-notable). Natural Ratio (talk) 23:47, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, to stick with the analogy, tours are not the same as performances. I mean, if somebody performs on Saturday Night Live or The Tonight Show, is that worth noting? Clarityfiend (talk) 12:25, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Those tour pages include lists of performances - that was exactly my point. For rock stars, Wikipedia considers every performance to be worth noting. You can't compare this to appearances on TV chat shows - the whole point of a display aircraft is to make public appearances, just like the whole point of a rock star is to appear live on stage. It is not the main purpose of a musician or actor or whoever to appear on a chat show. Natural Ratio (talk) 16:45, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Uh no. Saturday Night Live is not a chat show, and it is a relatively big deal for musicians to perform on both these shows on national television. A few appearances are undoubtedly notable (e.g. the Beatles and Elvis on The Ed Sullivan Show), but the vast majority aren't, same as the Vulcan in air shows. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:54, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We'll have to agree to disagree then - I think it's extremely obvious what the difference is between the Vulcan appearing at a display/flypast and a musician appearing on a chat show. And it is a chat show, since it's primary purpose is to give guests a platform to promote themselves as a form of TV entertainment in between guest interviews, so that people are motivated by by tickets to their real shows, the tours dates etc. If it really was something that was analogous to airshows, then you're basically saying the only reason the Vulcan appears at one show, it to persuade people to go see it at other shows. Which makes no sense at all. Each show is the show. Just like each tour date is the tour. Natural Ratio (talk) 02:02, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, I see no evidence that this is a notable enough stand-alone list subject. The comparison to rock stars tours is not apt: for most occasions, it is more like "appearances on festivals", not making a solo tour. Some of the sources don't even seem to mention the Vulcan (the first I checked was [2]), which obviously isn't a good sign. To me, this is a list of excessive detail. Major appearances can be listed in the main article on the plane (which has a substantial section on "displays" already), but a list of every single appearance? Fram (talk) 07:56, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Don't judge the list by the state it is in now - it took me 5 seconds to find a source for Goodwood 2011 from the very same paper - Goodwood Festival of Speed 2011: Vulcan bomber to thrill Goodwood crowds..."The aircraft gave a show-stopping display in 2010 and has once again been invited to bring its unique spectacle to West Sussex." And as I said above, the rock star analogy is unfortunately very apt. Every tour appearance and every festival appearance, they'll all be recorded on Wikipedia somewhere if the musician is famous enough. And please note, the display section was largely written by me, and I was basically going on nothing but personal opinion - I don't profess to know which ones are major or not. Do you? Is appearing at Goodwood more or less major than Farnbrough or RIAT or anniversary flypasts, etc? To my eye, you could quite easily define at least half of the appearances as major in some way, so why not list them all, simply for completeness? Natural Ratio (talk) 16:45, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete individual displays are not really notable and anything that needs a mention should already be in the Avro Vulcan XH558 article. Like other individual and no less iconic aircraft that have articles on wikipedia an individual display or flypast is unlikely to be notable and nearly all of these and just run of the mill stuff for a display aircraft. MilborneOne (talk) 17:51, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See the question right above - I can see no feasible way to determine which appearances were important and which were run of the mill, it's only going to be my guesswork. If you're happy with that, please say so, because I'm kind of getting sick of being ignored on here. I do intend to take the XH558 article to a quality review, and if the question is asked, how did you select what displays to mention, I don't really have a good answer right now. Also, it should be obvious here that the question is whether or not a list of displays is notable, not whether individual displays are. Natural Ratio (talk) 02:02, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge back to Avro Vulcan XH558. I do wonder what the purpose of this AfD is. The nominator is also the article creator (in that he split this from the main Vulcan article), and has !voted to keep this article. The nominator is also arguing against both Keep and Delete !votes. This just seems like WP:Disruptive time wasting. Martin451 00:11, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose was to establish if there was a positive consensus for it to exist, before I spent the time needed to finish it and get it into some kind of decent shape. I'm addressing people's reasons to keep or delete to make sure people have thought it through properly. Since it already appears obvious there is not much support for it to exist, I'm glad I did it, otherwise it would have been me wasting my time. I'm not sure if that counts as disruption to you though? Also, please note, a completed list would be far too big to merge back - I estimate around 160 appearances overall, but that's just a guesstimate based on 20 per season, so it's really not going to happen, not as a comprehensive list anyway. Natural Ratio (talk)

I will note that this is not what AfD is for - indeed "the nominator does not advance a rationale for deletion]] is Speedy Keep rationale No. 1. If you believe there needs to be a discussion as to whether or not an article you think should exist, should exist, then you need to have that discussion on the article's talk page - creating an AfD for that purpose is, in fact, disruptive to the AfD process. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:32, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment the behaviour of the nominator and myself are now being discussed at WP:ANI wrt this and one other AfD. Martin451 01:13, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 09:18, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. or merge somewhere, or move to Wikia. This is overcoverage, and does not justify a separate article. we're not a fan publication.

In the interests of clarity, can you please confirm that you're fully aware of how long I estimate the completed list would be (re. your suggestion it could be merged), and the reliability/independence of sources that I propose to use to complete it, if kept (re. your suggestion it's only of interest to fans). Natural Ratio (talk) 19:45, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merging doesn't necessarily mean keeping all of it, one can (and usually should) merge only the most important bits. So whether this page is complete or only one-tenth of the max length does not invalidate a "merge" opinion in any case. Fram (talk) 20:21, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but since nobody has yet bothered to explain what constitutes a major/important appearance and what was just "run of the mill", and as I have detailed at length above, there is already a Display section in the main article which lists some appearances, I was assuming those arguing to merge meant the whole table. Natural Ratio (talk) 17:22, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Anotherclown (talk) 12:17, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. as the OP says, this hinges on WP:LISTN. And it fails. There is no evidence that this list is in itself a notable topic (for example as the subject of magazine articles rather than being tucked into an article about the aircraft), irrespective of its individual entries. Whether such a list could survive as a section in the parent machine's article is a different issue, which can not be tested at AfD. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:32, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge back to Avro Vulcan XH558, and then open a disussion on Talk:Avro Vulcan XH558 as to whether or not it should be retained or removed altogether. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:32, 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. MelanieN (talk) 18:48, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Abdul Jabbar Koubaisy

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

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

The notability is asserted only in connection with The Europe Trust, so I'd like to initiate a discussion to find out if he is significant enough to have independant article. Also, references are clear example of plainly a trivial mention and does not have significant coverage of him. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 18:35, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• delete. No particular notability. Even with the Trust: notability not inherited. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:04, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK  22:45, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK  22:45, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK  22:45, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as there's hardly much for a better article here considering he's only a trustee, nothing else more surprising such as CEO and Founder. Delete for now at best, SwisterTwister talk 07:02, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The best I see is [3] and it's a local niche media (regional/city-wide Catholic newspaper). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:08, 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 nomination withdrawn as a viable redirect target has been located. Bearcat (talk) 18:48, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lettieri

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

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

Completely unsourced article about a local café chain with no strong claim of notability per WP:CORP. It seems I'm actually the original creator here, at a time (2008) when Wikipedia's inclusion and sourcing standards were a lot more loosey-goosey than they are now (yes, you actually could once get away with "as long as the topic has a website") — but I largely forgot about it, not even realizing that it was originally my work, until it was tagged for notability and referencing a few minutes ago. So I just did a ProQuest search to see if it could be upgraded, and found that while Lettieri gets namechecked a lot, it isn't the subject of any significant reliable source coverage. I found one article in that database which verifies anything more than the fact that the chain exists — and that article isn't actually about Lettieri, but simply features a brief soundbite quote from Lettieri's founder about newfound competition from the actual subject of the article, Starbucks. And that's just not enough. In my defense, this was a legitimate article under the standards that applied at the time — but the standards have changed, and it's neither adequate nor improvable now. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 18:29, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I'm the one who just tagged it. I saw you created it and I thought I'd tag it so you (or someone else) would have the chance to improve it before bringing it to AfD. I did do a little searching before adding the tag and I saw some coverage for when its Yorkville location was closed (e.g., [4] [5] [6]). It doesn't look like there's much else so I'm not sure this article can ever be expanded. FuriouslySerene (talk) 18:40, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, basically what happened to this chain is that instead of actually pursuing the expansion plan that I wrote about at the time, the guy turned his attention instead to launching a new hamburger chain — which was much more successful, much more WP:GNGable, and actually (I only just now checked) has an article at Hero Certified Burgers. So on second thought, I'm actually going to withdraw this nomination and just redirect this article to that one since Lettieri is already briefly mentioned in it. Bearcat (talk) 18:48, 1 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. Nomination was withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) Jbh^Talk 21:44, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

National Fitness Hall of Fame

National Fitness Hall of Fame (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This company or organization does not seem to meet our notability requirments for a non-profit organization (see WP:NCORP).

It has not received any significant mainstream coverage. While there do apear to have been numerous mentions of this subject (e.g. briefly noting that certain celebrities have been awarded honors by this organization), there does not seem to be a single article or source which has covered this subject in any depth. --Salimfadhley (talk) 01:34, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No compliance with WP:Before. Ipse dixit? 7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:48, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can you clarify which aspect of this AFD is not in compliance? --Salimfadhley (talk) 20:15, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

there are sources out there. Now you have shifted the burden. Cart before the horse. Shoot first, ask questions later? We will now spin our wheels over something that should not have happened in the first place. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 21:43, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking the time to respond to my question. I had searched through news articles and I was unable to find any substantial coverage of this topic in any mainstream media. I did find a number of brief mentions (e.g. notes that a particular person was a member of the hall of fame), but nothing approaching substantial coverage. We can end this AFD now if you know of such a source. --Salimfadhley (talk) 22:09, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm looking. I hope User:Dr. Blofeld is looking, as he seems to have sources I don't. Very resourceful... that one. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 22:19, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, if you click on the line Find sources above, (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) you will find scores of articles and books which note the National Fitness Hall of Fame including a great many books. A lot of this centers on induction of members (or in the case of Arnold S, a proposed revocation). As I said, this is all displayed when you propose a deletion. And the President has spoken there. We can slog and winnow, but Z am confident it is there to survive any challenge to notability. You can dislike what they do, but to dismiss it as a "marketing/promotional service" is unfair. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 22:35, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I did find a number of mentions of this subject (of the kind that you and I both previously observed), however I was unable to find any single Reliable Source which covers this subject with any significant depth. It's not really a case of me not liking the links or the subject, more a case of being unable to find one suitable source which covers this subject in any depth. It simply doesn't seem to have been in the news, or the subject of any kind of cultural analysis. No need to fight it out, just point me to a single link that establishes the kernel of this subject's notability. Even better, give me two links! --Salimfadhley (talk) 00:22, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a clip file that includes stories about the Hall of Fame as being more than just a collection of objects and also being the locus of activities and honors. This are in The Addison Independent, The New York Times (March 17 2011), and The MidWeek (April 27, 2005) p.20, among others. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 00:37, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of brief mentions, no article seems to be significantly about this subject. This is consistent with what I have previously seen when I searched the news articles. I do stand corrected regarding the museum - yes it seems that they did (at some time) have a permanent exhibition. --Salimfadhley (talk) 01:34, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A number of hits in google books [7].♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:37, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw - new sources have been found. The article has been substantially improved. --Salimfadhley (talk) 17:18, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK  22:46, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK  22:46, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK  22:47, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK  22:46, 1 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. MelanieN (talk) 18:50, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

High Park Group

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

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

Non-notable organization, fails WP:GNG and WP:CORP. I searched and only came across a couple of trivial mentions in some articles years ago. FuriouslySerene (talk) 18:10, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. FuriouslySerene (talk) 18:11, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. FuriouslySerene (talk) 14:40, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:56, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:56, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:56, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Hardly much to suggest better solid notability. Notifying environmentalist Velella who may have comments. SwisterTwister talk 07:06, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I don't see anything that suggests notability in these refs. Looks like an attempt to hook Wikipedia into giving some faux authenticity to a campaign.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   09:08, 3 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. MelanieN (talk) 18:51, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hodansan.com

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

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

Non-notable web hosting company, doesn't meet WP:CORP or WP:GNG. —Largo Plazo (talk) 16:44, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Somalia-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK  16:53, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK  16:54, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:50, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:50, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:50, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per nom Gbawden (talk) 11:54, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Non-notable. --Edcolins (talk) 20:26, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - not notable, not an encyclopedic article. Citobun (talk) 03:26, 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. MelanieN (talk) 18:53, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gary Auerbach

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

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

Seems to fail WP:BP and WP:GNG. Sources are weak, which include self-published website, a deadlinked site, and authored book. The strongest sources are a couple catalogue entries of the Smithsonian for his photographs, which does not meet WP:AUTHOR. Delta13C (talk) 15:48, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk  23:43, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk  23:43, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete - lack of significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. --Salimfadhley (talk) 14:52, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:44, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:44, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:44, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:44, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, this seems to be advertorial, there's no evidence the guy is actually notable. Guy (Help!) 14:33, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Being a founding member and president of an organization is a claim that might constitute enough notability to keep a properly sourced and genuinely substantive article, but it's not a freebie that confers automatic inclusion rights just because the person exists. This does indeed look and feel less like an encyclopedia article and more like the kind of advertorial PR profile one might expect to find on his own website, and the referencing is parked almost entirely on primary sourced confirmation of his existence rather than reliably sourced evidence of notability. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 18:11, 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  11:56, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Islamic unity

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

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

Seems to be OR or at least original synthesis.

Undeleted after PROD+PROD2 without notification of the taggers (Anders Feder and yours truly). QVVERTYVS (hm?) 20:52, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:58, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk  23:27, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. The page was created by the sockpuppet of a serial copyright violator. Earlier versions definitely contain copyright violations; the current version may still contain them. Haven't gotten around to checking yet. See Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Srahmadi for details. —Psychonaut (talk) 09:14, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Since no one else has weighed in, I recommend to delete as presumptive copyvio, and because of the OR/SYNTH issues. —Psychonaut (talk) 15:46, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Definitely WP:SYNTH in its current state; half of it is a cherry-picked WP:QUOTEFARM. Article was created by a sock, whose sock "brother" additionally messed up the interwiki linkage between articles about Shia–Sunni relations and Islamic unity. I've restored that, so at least now I'm not feeling guilty for deleting something that wrongly had so many other-language versions. - HyperGaruda (talk) 18:00, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There really isn't anything more to add here that hasn't been said. This is one of the clearest examples of good-intentioned, well meaning OR and synthesis I've seen in a while. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:58, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete a glaring synthesis, providing meaningless examples for something that should be discussed at Ummah, perhaps. Also, per Psychonaut. AddMore der Zweite (talk) 08:22, 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. As per Lugnuts, references show this event is scheduled, and the US is going to take part. (non-admin closure) Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:42, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

United States at the 2017 World Games

United States at the 2017 World Games (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

2017 = WP:CRYSTAL, WP:TOOSOON. Mr. Guye (talk) 14:50, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lacrosse-related deletion discussions. Mr. Guye (talk) 14:50, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Mr. Guye (talk) 14:51, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:CRYSTAL - "1.Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place" Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:22, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:40, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:40, 3 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. Sources confirm it's happening and I can't see this AFD going any other way so wrapping it up (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 03:07, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Brazil at the 2017 World Games

Brazil at the 2017 World Games (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

2017 = WP:CRYSTAL, WP:TOOSOON. Mr. Guye (talk) 14:40, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Mr. Guye (talk) 14:40, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, an article cannot sustain itself with so little content, specially when it deals with something happening so far in the future. Victão Lopes ^Fala! 15:47, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:CRYSTAL - "1.Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place" Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:23, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:39, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:39, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:TOOSOON: "If sources do not exist, it is generally too soon for an article on that topic to be considered." There are sources stating that athletes from Brazil secured qualification, so it is not too soon to create the article, even though it still has very limited content. -- ThiagoSimoes (talk) 05:13, 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 keep. Sources confirm it's happening and I can't see this AFD going any other way so like the rest I'm wrapping this up (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 03:07, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Chile at the 2017 World Games

Chile at the 2017 World Games (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

2017 = WP:CRYSTAL, WP:TOOSOON. Mr. Guye (talk) 14:38, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. Mr. Guye (talk) 14:39, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:CRYSTAL - "1.Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place" Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:23, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:38, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:38, 3 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. Sources confirm it's happening and I can't see this AFD going any other way so like the rest I'm wrapping this up (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 03:07, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Switzerland at the 2017 World Games

Switzerland at the 2017 World Games (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

2017 = WP:CRYSTAL, WP:TOOSOON. Mr. Guye (talk) 14:38, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. Mr. Guye (talk) 14:41, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:CRYSTAL - "1.Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place" Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:23, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's still too soon. --Mr. Guye (talk) 15:08, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CRYSTAL is a policy, WP:TOOSOOON is someone's essay. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:03, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:37, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:37, 3 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. Sources confirm it's happening and I can't see this AFD going any other way so like the rest I'm wrapping this up (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 03:08, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Canada at the 2017 World Games

Canada at the 2017 World Games (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

2017 = WP:CRYSTAL, WP:TOOSOON. Mr. Guye (talk) 14:37, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Mr. Guye (talk) 14:37, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lacrosse-related deletion discussions. Mr. Guye (talk) 14:37, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree with the nominator in principle — articles like this should not exist until the event in question is no more than a matter of months away, so that there's a lot more that can be said and sourced about the topic than just "this is a thing that will happen, the end". But Category:Nations at the 2017 World Games already contains 35 other articles besides this one, and they're all subject to the same problem that applies here — so there's no valid reason to single this one out as uniquely inappropriate, as long as the others still exist. This should be discussed as a batch nomination on all of the related articles, not in isolation. Procedural temporary keep because this isn't a unique situation, but should be resubmitted as part of a batch — though I will support deletion as long as they all go. Bearcat (talk) 17:48, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:CRYSTAL - "1.Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place" Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:23, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 3 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. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:24, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bhakt

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

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

It is nonsensical meme. Just a sarcastic and slightly offensive social media slang. Not notable. Belongs to Wiktionary, not Wikipedia. I Max Viwe ♔ Viwe The Max 14:23, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK  15:23, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK  15:24, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK  15:24, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: This term is quite clearly a pejorative used by "trolls" on the internet. It shouldnt be on an encyclopedia. If one were to start including every offensive word coined by supporters of one political ideology to criticise supporters of an opposing ideology on social media, there would be no end to it. Judging from the sources, the term seems to have no notability outside of social media and political opinion pieces. 170.251.154.111 (talk) 04:54, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Suffices wiki requirement of coverage and notability , eventhough for some it may seem intrusive Shrikanthv (talk) 08:02, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: People should at-least be conscious of this word.Terabar (talk) 19:10, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Well sourced article on the lingo pf a political moment.E.M.Gregory (talk) 02:34, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: This term does not pass many wikipedia Guidelines. There are lots of other sarcastic terms like this. But those terms should not be included on wiki. Suman420 (talk) 13:36, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Wait! Which guidelines you are talking about? Wikipedia is a site for providing information. This article gives the neutral point of view. Its not biased. Terabar (talk) 13:45, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying it's biased. I'm just saying it should be on wiktionary...not on wikipedia.Suman420 (talk) 13:52, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. User:Suman420, can you explain, because we do have Limosine liberal and a whole Category:Political metaphors referring to people. E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:18, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

E.M.Gregory There is a term "Pappu" and we Indians use it to indicate how dumb someone is. This term is frequently used for a popular political leader in India. I won't take his name. I think including these kinda terms won't make wikipedia better. Personal opinion though. Suman420 (talk) 18:19, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Suman420: Anyway, there is already an article named Pappu, though name of that politician is removed from article.--Human3015^TALK  18:46, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That article does not represent what I mentioned above.Suman420 (talk) 19:42, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: social media slang. Not notable.Adamstraw99 (talk) 03:50, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It seems strange that on one hand you say that it is a social media slang and not notable but on the other hand in your edits you insert Rahul Gandhi's name in one social media slang page. See [8]. Why this double standard? Terabar (talk) 17:37, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete- as per nom and other delete comments. Dat GuyWiki (talk) 09:42, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete:In this Article Bharatiya Janata Party, Narendra Modi, Right wing word use is politically motivated by opposition political party supporter as they are more use to with it. and I suggest it to delete it after all Wikipedia is not platform to play politics.--Kdmehta1234 (talk) 00:49, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Okay, this is weird, we also have Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/bhakt. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:35, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I've deleted that AfD and will note that it was opened by @Gyan.pat:. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:12, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: The word Bhakt is an ancient Sanskrit word shared by many Indian languages. In all these languages, it denotes a person who shows reverence and devotion to God or some higher entity. Limiting the definition to a narrow recent political use is incorrect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.202.38.164 (talk) 05:45, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete : The purpose of this article is to troll supporters of a political party. The meaning of hindi word 'bhakt' is way more deep in hindu religion. Why let wikimedia be corrupted by trolls?? Please ensure deletion, or writing full fledged article on 'bhakt' and keeping this term as 'popular culture' in social media.Maverick.Mohit (talk) 05:53, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Very much relevant in current context and people must be aware of its meaning as it is commonly used — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.141.106.36 (talk) 09:57, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Wikipedia is not urban dictionary to include pages for memes. Bhakt is nothing more than a meme as is Adarsh Liberal. Both of them should be deleted. HemaChandra88 (talk) 15:12, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Per all reasons above.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 15:34, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adarsh Liberal (2nd nomination), which is a related Afd for another Indian pejorative term. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:44, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: The word Bhakt is an ancient indic word which means devotee, mostly in religious terms. For sometime it has been used to refer RW supporters in India. There can be a proper theological article on the term 'Bhakt' and there may be a small paragraph about its this use, but this article does not deserve a place on Wikipedia. Raju Das (talk) 16:11, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: The word BHAKTA or BHAKT is an ancient Indic word shared by many Indian languages. It means devotee. This article has been written as an opinion piece with an intention to troll the supporters of a particular political party in India. There can be a separate article on the actual meaning of the word Bhakt, and a gist of this usage included there. But, this article in its current form does not have a place in Wikipedia. It belongs more in Urban Dictionary. MT (talk) 20:43, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:NOTDICTIONARY. Editors should remember that "utility" is not a reason for keeping an article, see WP:NOT. --Bejnar (talk) 05:06, 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. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 03:08, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

John Abdo

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

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

Promotioal biographical stub. There is no indication of notability beyond inclusion in some fitness directories. Salimfadhley (talk) 13:32, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep "He was inducted into the National Fitness Hall of Fame in 2007." I've added more content and a several sources. No compliance with WP:Before. Ipse dixit? 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:42, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Wikipedia has a ton of red lined individuals that were inducted into the National Fitness Hall of Fame! So, is that's all the criteria one needs to get an article here? --MurderByDeadcopy^"bang!" 16:11, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm pretty sure that the National Fitness Hall of Fame also fails our notability criteria. --Salimfadhley (talk) 18:19, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is being saved virtually only because of who started this article. --MurderByDeletionism^"bang!" 06:40, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Notable fitness expert and notable inventor, and has even scholars writing about his book [9].♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:58, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There are enough sources to demonstrate notability, including the quotes in books. He is obviously respected in his field. Aymatth2 (talk) 19:10, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:34, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:34, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:34, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:34, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:34, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep perhaps as the current coverage seems convincing enough. SwisterTwister talk 06:51, 3 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. MelanieN (talk) 01:37, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer Romolini

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

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

Biograpical article about a living writer (and occasional TV guest). This subject does not seem to have been the subject of any significant coverage and therefore does not meet our notability requirments. Salimfadhley (talk) 13:31, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Clear vanity article created by SPA. Not notable. Poor article, little info except a link dump. Rayman60 (talk) 14:22, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:32, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:32, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:32, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:32, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:32, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The author is mentioned a few times in some articles, but not enough to write a bio. I think it's WP:TOOSOON for her career. Nothing showing up in databases. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 14:56, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for now. Unless somebody makes an effort to turn this into a stub, this list of web links should be deleted. Bearian (talk) 22:27, 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.  Sandstein  19:19, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

John Douillard

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

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

A poorly sourced BLP which is somewhat promotonal in tone. There does not appear to be any mainstream coverage of this subject consistent with what we require for a biography of a living person. All of the sources that we do have are somewhat within the "fringe bubble", and insufficient to establish the kind of broader notability we require. Salimfadhley (talk) 13:25, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:30, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:30, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:30, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:30, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:30, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:30, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Fails WP:GNG's significant coverage, as far as I can tell. - HyperGaruda (talk) 18:26, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not notable. Alexbrn (talk) 07:29, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - probably passes WP:FRINGE. His books and Nooks are available at my employer's website, Barnes and Noble. Bearian (talk) 22:32, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Searches didn't show they pass WP:GNG, and they certainly don't pass WP:NAUTHOR. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:26, 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 Speedy delete as WP:CSD#G4 by User:Liz. (Non-admin colusre) §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 06:24, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vineeth Raj Menon

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

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

All refs appear to be reviews for the song, not about the subject of the article. Notability is not inherited. Also, same article was just deleted a few months ago. KDS4444^Talk 12:02, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:25, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:25, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete: WP:CSD#G4 applies here. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 05:34, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• delete : as per above Shrikanthv (talk) 13:57, 3 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 03:09, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Black Anwar

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

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

Only coverage of this person is a WP:ROUTINE obituary. KDS4444^Talk 11:54, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I have added materials regarding his winning National Film Award with proper citation. There are other existant articles of persons with similar background. Altaf (talk) 08:38, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 16:40, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 16:40, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as I have to say although the article is not seeming like much, the award seems to compensate for that and with notability, this will also need any familiar attention for archived sources. SwisterTwister talk 06:35, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Black Anwar was a film actor who was involved with Bangladesh film industry since 1960s. He was a popular comedian, performed in more than 100 films in his career and earned Bangladesh National film award in 1989 for Best Actor in Supporting Role for his performance in the filmByathar Daan which passes WP:Notability, WP:NACTOR. The article needs attention from editors to add more contents and references. Happiest persoN (talk) 04:01, 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. joe decker^talk 16:04, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Swati Aggarwal

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

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

Non-notable actress. Musa Talk  11:32, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk  11:32, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk  11:33, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk  11:33, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No coverage that I could find. Possible a case of WP:TOOSOON; by all accounts she's still young. If coverage surfaces tomorrow, it can always be recreated. Vanamonde93 (talk) 05:36, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Yes, this actress is not so popular across Indian film industry. Still there are many authentic sources about this actress. Actress Swati — Preceding unsigned comment added by Suman420 (talk • contribs) 13:47, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. no apparent major roles in a notable film. DGG ( talk ) 17:57, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage to show they pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:26, 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 speedy delete. No indication of importance. Sam Walton (talk) 12:05, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sportslogos.net

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

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

Article is about a website that provides thousands of logos. many are used on wikipedia. VegasCasinoKid (talk) 10:37, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete This was tagged for speedy deletion, but the tag was removed by the author, which is not something they are supposed to do. The reasons for which it was tagged hold true even more clearly here; there is not really an indication of significance, and certainly no sources to show notability. Vanamonde93 (talk) 11:51, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:24, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:24, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as blatant promotion and clearly not notable commercial website. FuriouslySerene (talk) 21:38, 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. Tending keep, though.  Sandstein  19:27, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Eleanor Beardsley

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

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

Subject does not appear to qualify as notable. Hat PRODed this article but another editor removed the prod so am now nominating for deletion via XFD. KDS4444^Talk 05:00, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure I'm understanding the problem here - the subject appears to be a staff correspondent of a major international news organisation. I'm not entirely clear how one could be any more notable as a broadcast journalist.User:JMWt, (who, I assume wishes to vote Keep) (user name added by E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:15, 16 November 2015 (UTC))[reply]

Oops, sorry for forgetting my sig. Well I wasn't going to vote because I couldn't find a relevant guideline for journalist notoriety, but heck, if being a foreign correspondent for a major English language (and possibly any language) broadcaster isn't it, then it should be. So yes, what E.M.Gregory says below and a strong keep from me. JMWt (talk) 20:42, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The relevant guideline here is WP:AUTHOR. Merely being a correspondent for a major organisation is insufficient. We need some evidence that this individual is notable in their own right. Bondegezou (talk) 10:47, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• keep Nom is throwing up too many articles at AFD, too fast to have performed WP:BEFORE. As User:JMWt writes above, What are the odds that a long-time NPR correspondent lacks notability? This new article should have been tagged for sourcing, and/or for notability, and given time to acquire sources (I've now added some, I'm sure there are more out there. A search on Furman.edu or her hometown newspaper would be good places to start). Alternatively, someone can offer to help the article's Creator (an inexperienced editor) learn how to build an acceptable article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:23, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That Christian Science Monitor piece you referenced - was she working for CSM at the time, or is this covering her as a third party? If the latter, that would go a good way to establishing notability. That's one of the things that makes this difficult; there are NPR pieces that would help qualify her as notable if she wasn't employed by NPR. (And she certainly passes the first whiff test - i.e., I recognize her name, know who she is.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 23:17, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly don't know, so I searches christiansciencemonitor.com and found a single 2002 article by Beardsley , byline: By Eleanor Beardsley, Special to The Christian Science Monitor January 10, 2002. Looks like she freelanced for them at least once that year, in January, and in February they ran this brief profile/interview, a sort of poignant vignette about being a reporter in wartime.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:40, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Lacks sufficient sources to pass the General Notability Guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:11, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:01, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Okay, I'm seeing an article growing exponentially after being nominated because editors are finding reliable sources that are notable. --MurderByDeadcopy^"bang!" 03:50, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:35, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:35, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:36, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• The closest I would go is a weak keep but I'll actually have to say delete for now as although News, browsers and Highbeam found some links, there's not much else to suggest a better article but I am open to drafting and userfying. SwisterTwister talk 05:21, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. no evidence of sufficient notability as a correspondent. I definitely do not assume that it is likely that most correspondents for NPR are notable--neither for them nor any other network. DGG ( talk ) 09:08, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I hear her on the radio all the time and tonight i decided to look her up to more accurately identify her regional accent, because she pronounced the word "route" as "rowt" rather than "root." Her official NPR biography page did not state where she was born and raised -- but her Wikipedia bio did. Hurray for Wikipedia. This article was useful and simply exactly what i was looking for! 75.101.104.17 (talk) 08:32, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Note that the article is reliably and verifiably sourced. I just added a little info, some more sources, but, overall, that IP has a point: this is a article readers expect to find on Wikipedia. IMO, that makes it the sort of article we should keep. And searches show that her work is widely cited in books and (non-NPR) articles, meeting WP:JOURNALIST #1.) : "is widely cited by peers." E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:26, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. References look ok to me, especially the CSM story which has an autobiographical profile. I can see it via ProQuest. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 00:05, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Beardsley's prodigous output (more than a thousand articles on HighBeam, for instance) makes it difficult to filter out the things written by her to find things written about her. However, paging through the citations of her work on Google Scholar, InfoTRAC, etc., makes a persuassive case that she meets WP:JOURNALIST criterion 1: "The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors." Worldbruce (talk) 21:00, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per past precedent in keeping notable journalists; see e.g., Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Pete_Williams_(journalist). Bearian (talk) 22:34, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep She is a well-known journalist, but the coverage is a little thin. I do agree with Worldbruce that she meets WP:JOURNALIST criterion 1. --Bejnar (talk) 05:12, 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. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:25, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Adarsh Liberal

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

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

It is a social media term (not widely used) and is neither notable nor concerned with the development of India. The article has used a satire website in the list of references to make the point. Most importantly, it is a meme and not a suitable subject for Wikipedia. Katyaan (talk) 08:55, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note this nominator has been blocked.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 15:50, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 10:40, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 10:40, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 10:40, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: This is a new social media term. New origin, not ambiguous.Maverick.Mohit (talk) 09:30, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: just a nonsensical meme on social media, hardly any serious coverage in reliable sources. - Aurorion (talk) 13:44, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Seems IDLI nomination. Article already has enough reliable sources and can be improved. Passes general notability. It is equivalent term used against Bhakt. --Human3015^TALK  14:27, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep BBC, Hindustan Times, NDTV and other sources have reports over the usage of this term. That clearly shows that it passes the general notability criteria. Bharatiya29 (talk) 16:45, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Seems to be the Indian version of Limousine liberal, Gauche caviar, Champagne socialist or Chardonnay socialist. At least in some senses of the term offered, the affluence part. This one seems to be more wide-open in terms of the critique though, less focused on just the affluent hypocrisy part. (Can't believe we need Champagne and Chardonnay, but that's not to say we don't keep this one.) I guess I've talked myself into a keep: I'm seeing enough notable coverage in Gnews. No reason why it can't also be in Wiktionary, too. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:27, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: It would be nice if we all check the references and try to understand the context. The subject is not at notable. The term is coined by a section of people, later used by the print media to point out the on-going tussle between the followers of two political parties. E.g. BBC's link mentions an anonymous Twitter handle named @AdarshLiberal. Moreover, other references talk about the hashtag #AdarshLiberal. Everyday numeorus hashtags make a place in the top trends, are we going to allow such tags to have a separate page here? Another thing to note is that 8th reference is from a satire website and is not an authentic citation. It is important for all of us to understand the context and take a decision or else we may end up allowing such pages in the future.Katyaan (talk) 07:31, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strike vote of User:Katyaan as they are the nominator and their "delete" opinion is quite obvious. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 08:24, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, I've suggested we merge Chardonnay socialist into Champagne socialist. If anyone wishes to weigh in, please do. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:59, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Katyaan: This is not article related to any biography or scientific concept. This article is about "sarcastic" term or internet troll. And Faking News is reliable source for such stuff. Faking News is owned by Network 18 which also owns CNN-IBN. Faking News is one of biggest online satire website of India. Such kind of stuff are most discussed in satire magazines, though we also have sources of BBC, NDTV, Hindustan Times for this. Who said you satire magazines are not reliable sources? Don't forget Charlie Hebdo is also a satire magazine.--Human3015^TALK  18:18, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Human3015: This article is not about Faking News but a term used by Internet trolls. Moreover, this is not a widely used terms. As far as credibility of Faking News is concerned, tomorrow if this site says that Osama is alive and livng in US, we are not going to use as a credible reference. What kind of notability does this term has?Katyaan (talk) 05:28, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Well-sourced article on the lingo of a political moment.E.M.Gregory (talk) 02:36, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: This is not a notable subject but a term created by Internet trolls. Although few newspapers have covered it but it doesn't make the subject notable as it has been done in a different context. Although Faking News in itself is a satire website but the news that it carries has no worth. One cannot use its link as a credible source. On the other hand, had this article been about Faking News, then of course, we could have used other credible references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Expertseo (talk • contribs) 04:13, 3 December 2015 (UTC) I have stricken !vote of sock, see this SPI--Human3015^TALK  15:12, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Note Katyaan Intersecting in wide range articles with Expertso (Total 77 edits)?. Meat? Came in, when the keep votes from neutral editors increased. The Avengers 11:15, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is Expertso's first edit in 2015. Last was one year ago in Dec 2014. The Avengers 11:16, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Best case scenario, it is a WP:DICDEF, but we aren't a directory of all slang terms used by social media, nor of buzzwords used by said sources. It isn't sufficient to just have a couple of sources use a word. Encyclopedias considers the enduring value of topics, and this fails that test. To call it a "meme" is probably giving it too much credit at this point. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:24, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not "couple of sources". There are several, BBC, Hindustan Times, NDTV, ABP Live, IndiaTimes, Deccan Herald, IBN Live. All of these are reliable sources. Also I can provide sources in Hindi and other Indian languages. This term does passes GNG. There are Category:Internet slang, Category:Internet trolling for such terms and it is encyclopedic. --Human3015^TALK  13:59, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That other terms exist can't be used to justify inclusion, see WP:WAX, and GNG isn't the only principle at work. Some of those probably need deleting as well. With so much media, you can get 5 sources if Lady Gaga farted in public, that doesn't make it notable. There has to be some showing of enduring value. We aren't a repository for the "buzzword du jour". Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:04, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Articles like Cuckservative and Binders full of women are no different than this one. --MurderByDeletionism^"bang!" 18:43, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: Nominator of this AfD has been blocked as sock, I have also stricken !vote of their sockmaster above. See this SPI.--Human3015^TALK  15:15, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - 460 results in news alone, with dozens of articles just about this term (and Google News notoriously skips Indian newspapers). Btw, that was a terrible outcome on previous AfD by since KOd Black Kite, clearly should have been kept or no consensus. —Мандичка^YO 😜 16:34, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - For all the reasons above.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 15:47, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Please see related (by topic) Afd for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bhakt. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:43, 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 redirect to Bastyr University. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 03:10, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bastyr Center for Natural Health

Bastyr Center for Natural Health (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Article fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG. Reliable sources cited come from news articles which do not mention the subject in depth. Other sources in the article are from the organization or its parent organization. The article appears to be promotional and exhibiting WP:FRINGE problems. Delta13C (talk) 08:49, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or Redirect to Bastyr University. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 20:24, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect for now perhaps as the current article is not much better convincing and may be best connected for the university. SwisterTwister talk 07:07, 3 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 and Move to Almede Chattelle. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 03:11, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Listowel Ripper

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

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