Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 November 24

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 23 November	25 November >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 08:05, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Abbay

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

Non-notable actor. I could not find any detailed sources on him. Natg 19 (talk) 23:02, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 23:03, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 23:03, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 23:03, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Classic case of a trivial and not major well-known actor with only a few roles, absolutely nothing to suggest otherwise. SwisterTwister talk 05:00, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You can't make this up, keep HarrySnake (talk) 18:24, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Note to closer: HarrySnake is a suspected sock per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/AS92813.—Bagumba (talk) 12:02, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Unfortunately that is simply a list of his work and not in-depth third-party sources such as News and magazine which are needed for this article. Not to mention, of those 11 roles, all were background characters and not major. Sorry but Wiki is not IMDb (who is more lenient with actors and filmmakers pages). Cheers, SwisterTwister talk 19:47, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Insufficient body of work in his career to merit encyclopedic biography on that basis alone. Some incidental coverage in his recurring role as the banker on Deal or No Deal, but this seems a NOTYET situation. Fails GNG. Carrite (talk) 16:20, 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:36, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody Around

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

Still unsourced, not intrinsically notable song. Should have been deleted a while ago as per WP:NMUSIC since there's not even chart positions on this article. smileguy91^{talk - contribs} 22:45, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm voting weak delete because there's several hits at Google verifying the existence of the song, but most are lyric sites, not exactly establishing the notability of the song. The article itself does not establish any notability either. LBHS Cheerleader (talk) 23:04, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lithuania-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:47, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - notability not established. Renata (talk) 01:39, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: non-notable { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 15:33, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus is to keep as article's been improved since nomination (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 20:42, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alison Statton

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

Articles does not meet notability guidelines. Subject is a musician but does not meet WP:MUSIC, and the tone of the article is promotional and written like a FANPOV. Delta13C (talk) 20:26, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 23:28, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 23:29, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. Obviously notable as the singer with Young Marble Giants and Weekend, and I would guess that Devine & Statton would also have enough coverage for an article. Nomination only addresses article quality with no objective assessment of the subject's notability. A simple Google search finds all these from the first 3 pages of results: , [1], [2], [3], [4]. --Michig (talk) 18:27, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article has obviously been improved, doesn't read like a promotional piece and sources look good. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 04:47, 28 November 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 A7 by Bbb23 (non-admin closure) NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:54, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ProLinked Magazine (Pakistan and World Wide)

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

Promotional article about a non-notable online magazine. Speedy deletion has been place, removed, replaced, removed by an alternate IP. Taking it here to prevent further disruption of what should be a simple deletion process. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 20:11, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-I was the one who put the Speedy Deletion on in the first place, and it is definitely written in a promotional style. This should be really straight forward to delete. In veritas (talk) 21:05, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete. I also placed a CSD A7 tag on it, and the tag was removed. Fails GNG, no claim of notability. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:08, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - A7 - Tagged as such as this is blatant A7 material and I'm sorry but no one should be removing the bloody tag without explaining why!, Doing a bit of copyediting[5] doesn't make the article non-a7! - As the saying goes "No Sources = No Article. –Davey2010^Talk 23:00, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with speedy deletion of this article because there is no claim of notability at all. Simply existing is not cause for this magazine to be included in the encyclopedia, and anyone can create a publication. LBHS Cheerleader (talk) 23:10, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete (no sources) and close per SNOW. kashmiri ^TALK 01:33, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 23:31, 24 November 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. ‑Scottywong | gossip _ 16:57, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Drongan United

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

Club has only ever played in minor amateur competitions, therefore fails WP:FOOTYN. Also fails WP:N due to lack of significant coverage. Jellyman (talk) 18:35, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Jellyman (talk) 18:44, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability, fails GNG, winning the Amateur Cup not enough. Giant Snowman 20:12, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 23:34, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 20:06, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 20:07, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 20:07, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Amateur club which has not participated in a national cup or at a level to meet WP:FOOTYN. Insufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 20:08, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - they have competed in, and in fact won, the Scottish Amateur Cup, which is a national cup............ -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:36, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - A national cup, not the national cup, and – as the name implies – a minor one not one open to professional teams. It doesn't confer notability. Jellyman (talk) 21:59, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - ...and yet appearing in the FA Vase, the equivalent competition in England, is accepted as establishing notability? Hardly seems fair -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:17, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      - It's not really a direct equivalent. Clubs in the FA Vase are part of the pyramid system, and generally play in enclosed grounds, are semi-professional, etc. Amateur clubs in Scotland are not part of the senior system and generally play on public parks and the like. And you will find hardly anything by way of reliable sources for most of them, beyond routine coverage of results. Jellyman (talk) 19:32, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Cmt If this goes a few dozen Scottish 'junior' clubs will need to go too. SevcoFraudsters (talk) 22:39, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes, there's certainly an argument to be had there, but having said that, junior football is clearly of a higher grade than the amateur game. Jellyman (talk) 19:32, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unreferenced article, no evidence of notability. Eldumpo (talk) 21:37, 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 Half Girlfriend. Never close this early but both nom & NRP agree it should be redirected so pointless leaving it open. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 22:51, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Half Girlfriend (2016 film)

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

No indication from article or per my WP:BEFORE search that principal photography has yet begun. That doesn't mean that it has not, only that I couldn't find the info and that it wasn't provided in article. Doesn't yet meet WP:NFF. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:16, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Half Girlfriend. The production seems to be a popular topic in Indian media, but, according to this article, one of the leads still hasn't been cast. Normally, I'd say to merge it, but it's just two sentences, one of which is a rumor. I think it'd be easier to start from scratch and stick to the facts. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:50, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, good note, NRP. I should have noticed the book link. Redirect is better. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:56, 24 November 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. SmartSE (talk) 13:42, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Coinman: An Untold Conspiracy

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

Non-notable book lacking non-trivial support. Fails WP:NOTBOOK. reddogsix (talk) 17:17, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Did a quick Google search, and the top links were mostly promotional or self-promotional. Not many secondary sources or reviews to verify its notability. GabeIglesia (talk) 18:51, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I couldn't find anything useful, not even with a search of the Indian Newspaper Search engine. I wish the author well, but this book just doesn't pass notability guidelines. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:13, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked the editor that created the page, as their username was the same as the company promoting the book. This article is very promotional and is likely copyvio from somewhere, but I'd encourage leaving this up for a full AfD since that would help prevent its recreation before the work passes notability guidelines. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:16, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:41, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Eric M.K Osiakwan

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

non notable and promotional. Did not found or build any notable companies; consulting for various agencies is not notability , One references is his grad school alumni page, the other is citeseer profile. The web has a number of similaryuneliable bio notices, and refs to various articles he wrote, but I do not see anything more. . Borderline notability combined with clear promotionalism is an equally good reason. Small variations to the notability standard either way do not fundamentally harm the encycopedia, but accepting articles that are part of a promotional campaign causes great damage. Once we become a vehicle for promotion, we're useless as an encycopedia. The relevant policy here is NOT DIRECTORY DGG ( talk ) 16:01, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 22:15, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 22:15, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 22:15, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as my searches News, Books and Highbeam immediately found some links but certainly nothing for a better article. Notifying Wikicology for some African insight. SwisterTwister talk 22:16, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. I can't see any evidence of notabiity. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 07:49, 26 November 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. SmartSE (talk) 13:43, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Female Nude Wrestling

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

Essay that tries to connect modern erotic entertainment and professional wrestling with the ancient Olympics and the history of naturism. Cited sources do not corroborate the connection. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 16:01, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also most of the names mentioned have no mention of their participation in their own articles. BLP issues I think.Peter Rehse (talk) 17:47, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:45, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:45, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is a Naked Women's Wrestling League and also Danube Women Wrestling is a promoter for this kind of sport. If leagues and/ or companies support this way of wrestling (and earn their money with it), it is the proof that Nude Wrestling is relevant and consequently Nude Wrestling should have an own article. The content of the page may be modified of course, with emphasizing the commercial/ economic purpose. (But this, the pure commercial background) is not principally different to other wrestling styles (e.g. American wrestling).Flk-Brdrf (talk) 08:56, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:45, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Youtube videos and non-independent websites aren't enough to meet WP:GNG. Article also has heavy dose of OR.Mdtemp (talk) 15:31, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Existing does not confer automatic notability. The lack of independent significant coverage means this article does not meet WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 03:40, 30 November 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 all. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:42, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Muslim Musa

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

This cricketer has not played any First Class / List A / Twenty20 cricket. He is thus non notable. Fenopy (talk) 15:22, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Fenopy (talk) 15:26, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. The-Pope (talk) 16:17, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. The-Pope (talk) 16:18, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. The-Pope (talk) 16:19, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all They all fail WP:NCRIC, and none of them have any non-routine coverage about them, just stats pages. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:06, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. All fails WP:CRIN, and each article erroneously makes the claim they are first-class cricketers, which is a level none have played at. PinchHittingLeggy (talk) 23:47, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fail WP:CRIN per reasons above. No indication any have been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources therefore failing WP:GNG. Hack (talk) 03:47, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. They fail WP:CRIN. Jack | ^{talk page} 04:44, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete None of them have played a first-class/List A match, and is they currently stand, they fail WP:NCRIC. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:48, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. Per WP:CRIN. Johnlp (talk) 11:07, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball close. WP:CRIN does not allow for notability of youth internationals probably because in cricket, a large number of youth internationals do not go on to play senior cricket for notable teams. --Dweller (talk) 13:28, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The author has said on WT:CRIC that he created the articles on the basis of participation in the 2015 India Under-19 Tri-Nation tournament. I do not know if this tournament meets official List A criteria, but I assume it does not. If it is List A, then the players meet WP:CRIN. We need verification that the tournament is or os not List A. Jack | ^{talk page} 16:17, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

They're list as Youth ODIs on Cricinfo if that helps. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 20:58, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all, Under-19 internationals are not considered List A, but irrespective, Google searches reveal no non-trivial coverage. They may well go on to have notable careers, but at the moment they don't meet our notability requirements. Harrias ^talk 08:38, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all, and snow close, per above. IgnorantArmies (talk) 13:52, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. All of them failWP:CRIN.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 02:56, 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 Keep. WP:SNOW Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:17, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2015 Russian Sukhoi Su-24 shootdown

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

Tragic but WP:NOTNEWS. There is a conflict going on. Shot down aircraft unless it involves somebody notable are rarely notable. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:36, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:41, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:41, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:41, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:41, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there's no deadline, and this is already a significant event in world politics, it's not as if it was A vs B and A shot down B, this is completely different and far more notable. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:37, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

its a work in progress with content being added and merge. Keep per TRM.Lihaas (talk) 13:38, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep clearly enough sources to support an article on this incident. --Jayron 32 13:39, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong and Speedy Keep This is a major international incident which will have significant long term effects in syria. There is an abundance of sources to support this article. Winner 42 Talk to me! 14:03, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Russia is not notable? 331dot (talk) 14:09, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Close it. --Jenda H. (talk) 14:13, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:15, 24 November 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. SmartSE (talk) 13:46, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of Autodesk acquisitions

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

Inappropriate list that belongs in the main article. An attempt by another editor to redirect this to the parent article was reverted without comment. No need for this article or the redirect. Mrfrobinson (talk) 12:59, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. In fact, the corporate acquisitions section of the main article has a vastly superior list already. This does not aid navigation, to create a splinter list here. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:41, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:43, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:43, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree, nothing obviously compelling and significant to suggest a likely search. SwisterTwister talk 05:36, 25 November 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 17:39, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Self-examination

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

Why in the world Neelix made this article which just gives 2 or three sentences about, and links to Breast self-examination and Testicular self-examination. It adds nothing to the understanding of those topics, and misses completely the concept of self-examination of your thoughts, feelings, and motives - like why a person needs to insert tiny tittie redirects to other articles. As part of a delete we can G8 Housekeeping the 10 or so vague redirects this article. Legacypac (talk) 04:01, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:07, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, there's no point to this article. PK T(alk) 14:41, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While both topics are very important, nobody seems to be putting them together as one subject. Each already has its own article. I was also expecting something on mental self-examination, which also probably deserves an article of its own. Kitfoxxe (talk) 15:00, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. It appears that sources use the term "self-examination" to refer to refer to the general concept of conducting a medical examination on yourself (see, e.g., this source). Alternatively, I think you could also make a plausible argument to redirect this to Human self-reflection. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 17:05, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:NOTDIC. As said this doesn't even mention mental or spiritual self-examination, etc. —Мандичка^YO 😜 18:06, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There were three very pointless confusing inbound links from articles - in the opening paragraphs of Breast self-examination and Testicular self-examination and one see also from a mental topic. So a reader would click on the link to learn about self-examination just to be directed back to where they came from while learning nothing. I removed the links Legacypac (talk) 23:40, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:15, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nonsensical and unnecessary and misleading WP:OR WP:SYNTH of two existing wiki articles. Not even what self-examination actually means. Softlavender (talk) 22:23, 30 November 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 Nobody else gives a flying monkeys. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:30, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jamie Woodruff

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

This white hat hacker has had a little bit of local news coverage, and there is a possibility that he may get more in the future, but otherwise it's a bit too soon for an article, and I'm not sure where I'd redirect to. It doesn't help that IPs are falling over themselves to remove content without citing actual policies, so an AfD sounds like the best answer. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:34, 24 November 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. Drmies (talk) 04:50, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Morningstar

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

Article contains one reference to a website of the subject. Article fails WP:GNG and WP:BLP. Delta13C (talk) 08:04, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- This person is totally non-notable. BMK (talk) 08:23, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as the very embodiment of non-notable. This deprodding ought to win some sort of award for over-literal application of rules; yes, the WP:BLPPROD template technically shouldn't be used if the article contains any kind of reference, but a deadlink to the subject's own website used for the sole purpose of proving they exist is clearly not a "source" in any meaningful sense of the word. ‑ iridescent 09:21, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 10:48, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 10:48, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not meet GNG, or any notability or inclusion guideline. Softlavender (talk) 04:54, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 08:02, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of meeting any specific notability guideline, and I couldn't find any independent coverage that would meet WP:GNG. EricEnfermero (Talk) 21:27, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – The subject has received some significant coverage in a reliable source, such as this article in The Flint Journal, which was found using the Google news link atop this discussion. However, I'm not finding additional significant coverage to qualify an article for the subject; does not meet WP:BASIC at this time. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:50, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Promotional in intent, no indication of importance. Should have been sent to PROD. Carrite (talk) 16:23, 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 delete. Take your pick of G3, hoax, or G5, recreation by blocked editor, since this is clearly a rehash of what happened with Black privilege. —C.Fred (talk) 12:32, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Black Privilege and Blackness

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

Unsourced, article is a copy-paste of White privilege (with certain words modified, see Talk:Black Privilege and Blackness and compare the two pages). -Sonicwave ^(talk|c) 07:31, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a hoax article.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:50, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Snow delete -- GB fan 14:55, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nedim Malicbegovic

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

Non-notable person. Adam9007 (talk) 16:57, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete!--Jack Upland (talk) 07:49, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article was deleted yesterday too, no need to do an AfD. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 15:24, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WikiOriginal-9, the AFD was started before I speedied it, and Adam9007 challenged the SD on the basis that there was a claim of notability, so I've restarted the AFD. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:10, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say there was a claim of notability; I said I thought there may be a claim of significance (a lower standard than notability according to the policies/guidelines/essays), which is what A7 is about unless I've seriously misinterpreted it as many others believe? Adam9007 (talk) 22:48, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:45, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Completely unacceptable article, about a 17 year old who plays online games. Should be removed from the encyclopedia ASAP. The last time it was listed at AfD it was A7ed within the hour, and IMO it should be A7ed again. I would suggest G4, but G4 probably doesn't apply - because the previous deletion, although it occurred during a community discussion, was not the RESULT of a community discussion. --MelanieN (talk) 15:46, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Followup: I see that this article was restored and the AfD reopened because the nominator, User:Adam9007, believes the article does not qualify for A7 because it has a claim of significance. According to Adam, the subject "claimed to be a top player in a notable online game". What the article actually says is that the subject is "one the best DotA2 players" - without any evidence or any specifics, just the subjective claim that he is one of the best. That is absolutely not a "credible claim of significance". We are all in deep trouble if we can't apply A7 to vague claims like this. Suppose I write an article about myself, claiming that I am pretty well known in my town - must that article go through a full week of discussion before it can be rightfully removed? I still say this article should be A7ed immediately. --MelanieN (talk) 16:06, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

MelanieN, I agree, but I didn't think that I could ignore a good faith request from Adam9007 when there had been no comments. I think it's obvious that the article is doomed, and I have no problem with an early closure, although I don't think I should wield the axe again myself Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:16, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I completely understand, Jim. I am not speedying it myself for the same reason; I am "involved" because I am one of the people who has been talking to Adam9007 about how to interpret A7. But if some uninvolved admin wants to A7 it again, or simply snow-close the AfD, I would support them. --MelanieN (talk) 16:23, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because there is no demonstration of our notability guidelines being met. However, I'd like to put in a word for Adam who would be right to remove an A7 CSD if he genuinely believed there was an indication of importance or significance. I think the advice he has been given on his talk page is good but it should be regarded as advice, not instruction. Administrators (and old-timers like me) get things wrong sometimes. Some administrators do not understand that WP:CSD#A7 is not a notability criterion and really far too many do not understand that WP:CSD#G4 only applies to "substantially identical" articles or versions. For me, ill-judged notability AFD nominations are generally a worse problem than CSD removals. Thincat (talk) 23:46, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note about G4: This version is completely identical to the previously deleted version. The reason G4 does not apply here is that the previous version was deleted without a community discussion. --MelanieN (talk) 00:54, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and I should have made it clear I was not referring to a potential G4 in this case. I see G4 CSDs overturned at DRV, generally after having been deleted by particular admins, and I wonder how many wrongful ones never get appealed. Anyway, thank you for helping folks rather than merely adding templates! Thincat (talk) 08:17, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of Swedish supercentenarians. I really wish all the pro-centenarian editors and all the anti-centenarian editors would take it out to the parking lot and settle this once and for all. Come back and tell us who won, and we can move on to arguing about porn stars, pokemon characters, shopping malls or some other dreadfully important subject.

But, lacking that, there's clear consensus here to not have this as a stand alone article. Less agreement what particular flavor of not keeping we should implement. Without getting overly analytical about it, merging seems like the right compromise, but in keeping with the style of the merge target, I would recommend just cherry-picking the basic statistics. And, leave a redirect, and the history intact. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:23, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Anders Engberg

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

Reads, in its entirety,

Anders Engberg (1 July 1892 – 6 November 2003) was a Swedish supercentenarian, the oldest ever male in Sweden when he died at the age of 111 years and 128 days. Engberg worked a as a farmer.

Propose merge to an appropriate list per WP:NOPAGE and WP:PERMASTUB. EEng (talk) 04:58, 24 November 2015 (UTC) EEng (talk) 04:58, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support Merge Note the previous 3 AfDs are for an unrelated band/singer with no relevance to this discussion. Legacypac (talk) 09:29, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the oldest ever male in Sweden. Has a page at Swedish wikipedia. This is WP:GNG all over.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:39, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that the Swedish version [6] is also a stub merely supports the WP:PERMASTUB argument. Also, WP:OTHERLANGS. EEng (talk) 17:05, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have expanded the article. He is also the oldest man ever from Sweden and the only man in Sweden to have attained supercentenarian status. 930310 (talk) 17:33, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, wait -- don't tell me. The article now explains that he was born here, got married, worked doing something, wife died, lived independently until age X, moved into a nursing home at age Y, and died. He credited his longevity to eating a clove of garlic every day, so that no one would come near him and he wouldn't catch any germs. 1/3 to 1/2 of the article will be about who was the oldest lefthanded Swede before/after him. EEng (talk) 18:16, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, I was spot on (except for the garlic). All these articles are the same. EEng (talk) 18:18, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You just can't source the garlic part. I removed outlandish claims about this farmer being the oldest person in Sweden's history - there is a really good chance some other people lived longer in the last 1200 or so years. Legacypac (talk) 00:43, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

He is the oldest man ever from Sweden with documentation to support his age. So what you are doing is destructive. 930310 (talk) 09:30, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and/or Redirect to List of Swedish supercentenarians. WP:NOPAGE and fails WP:GNG as sources do not demonstrate notability. Belongs on a list, rather than a standalone article. CommanderLinx (talk) 15:44, 25 November 2015 (UTC)This editor has made few or no other edits outside this topic.[reply]
Actually WP:GNG is satisfies here. Per fact of him being the oldest man ever in a country.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:06, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How can you prove he was the oldest man in Sweden's 1200 years of recorded history - something I find highly improbable. Legacypac (talk) 17:38, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Legacypac, you still seem to operate under the erroneous belief that we need to prove the "truth" that Edberg is the oldest person to ever live in Sweden. The way Wikipedia works is to use documentation provided in reliable and verifiable sources. The misunderstanding / misrepresentation that someone must prove the relative age of all other people who have ever lived in Sweden is just as demonstrably false as the claim that we must prove that Usain Bolt has factually run faster than every person who has ever lived on Earth in order to call him the "fastest person ever", as Wikipedia does in the lead of his article. Alansohn (talk) 20:29, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually that article is incorrect. We can say that Bolt is the only person to win both x and y races and set a record in the z sponsored event. Not dying is not an event and there is no competition between super old people to keep breathing. Legacypac (talk) 20:56, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:NOPAGE. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 09:59, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agree with other users.--Inception2010 (talk) 16:17, 26 November 2015 (UTC)This editor has made few or no other edits outside this topic.[reply]
Delete Having an article on the Swedish Wikipedia or being the oldest anything has no relevance to this discussion. Having the type of coverage that would satisfy WP:N does and I am not seeing that here. Canadian Paul 18:38, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please specify how reliable sourcing that proves that this man was the oldest ever man in Sweden is not satisfying WP:N?. It doesnt make any sense.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:06, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the reliable sourcing for this outlandish clam? He is about 11 years short of the claimed world record holder, so it seems very unlikely the good Swedes have never had anyone older. Legacypac (talk) 17:42, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are two sources covering this at length in the article. So.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:27, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Presuming that you are referring to the middle two sources, I can respect that there could be different interpretations here. Personally, I see them as local, routine coverage that does not satisfy the guidelines for WP:N or, at least, a stand-alone article. I have no objection to his inclusion on one of the many supercentenarian-related lists on Wikipedia. Canadian Paul 16:19, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Two of the three Swedish sources cover him at length while the last one makes a passing mention of him. In that regard, there is some notability even if in my eyes there is no "significant" coverage in the sense that any article about this gentleman would become anything more than a WP:PERMASTUB. Blackmane (talk) 12:20, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So two sources do cover him at length. that notability. And PERMASTUB is not correct as it has been edited and expanded some even during this AfD. WP:IDONTLIKEIT apply to reasoning above. There are reasonings within your comment that shows notability.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:27, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. BabbaQ (talk) 21:24, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The two source do cover him at length satisfying the notability. However, the salient question is: Is there any way for sources to be presented that would result in an extensive article beyond what is there now? Notability does not automatically mean an article should be created or kept, the main thrust of WP:NOPAGE. As for the applicability of WP:PERMASTUB, this article hits all the last 3 points. Blackmane (talk) 02:42, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The article was nominated for speedy deletion G4 ("...a page that was previously deleted via a deletion discussion, is substantially identical to the deleted version..."), but the cited deletion discussion was for an article about a different person and so I declined the request. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 01:37, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete then Redirect to List of Swedish supercentenarians. What little there is here in the way of sourcing is WP:ROUTINE coverage. There's no WP:SIGCOV. What facts there are can easily be characterized as unencyclopedic. Born, worked thatching roofs until thatched roofs were supplanted by eternite after WWII, lived some more, moved, had four sons with the lovely and talented Gerda, moved when he became a widower, wound up in a nursing home and eventually died, survived by two of his sons. Oh and some horse-race info about his standings in a mythical longevity competition for prolonged breathing. The thatched roof info, fascinating tho it may be, is not biographical info about this subject. The horse race commentary is irrelevant and, as Legacypac points out, probably misleading. WP:NOPAGE governs here. The article should be stricken from the encyclopedia and a new rdirect created, pointing to the Swedish centenarian list. David in DC (talk) 18:00, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete then Redirect to List of Swedish supercentenarians as per David in DC and EEng.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:52, 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 delete. JohnCD (talk) 17:47, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

TBS Publishers' Distributors

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

Does not have notability or pass WP:GNG or WP:NCOMPANY. There is not significant coverage over numerous WP:RS. The article has many primary sources from the company website. These called awards or certifications? For instance on of the "awards", if you read thru to the sources you will find 100 bookseller companies rec'd the same thing. see here:[7] Sounds like some of the books sold there might have some notability, but notability does not go to the book store for having sold a possibly notable book. II say Delete as nominator. Zpeopleheart (talk) 10:47, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Many references are notable. If we go through the sources we can see that most of them are significant ones. Also note that Poorna Publications is the publication wing of TBS. They published the said notable books. If their work is notable, why don't they? Regarding award, its a prestigious award from a national body. Do anyone loss significance by the award is won by many companies?--Sidharthan (talk) 13:53, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG Josu4u (talk) 22:57, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 04:45, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't see any in-depth coverage that would help this pass WP:NCORP. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:18, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 10:52, 24 November 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 per WP:CSD#G7 Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 22:39, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GMovies (Get Inside, Not In Line)

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

Nothing to indicate notability - this seems to be just promotion. One reference is their own Web site, the other is a publicity site. CSD nomination was declined as being "beyond the scope of A7", perhaps because there is an App component to interface with the Web site. Gronk Oz (talk) 04:45, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Looks like the author just requested deletion too. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 15:48, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I believe the article is about the app itself, which is software. A7 does not cover software. Adam9007 (talk) 22:30, 24 November 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. A7 and G11 -- promotional with no claim to significance.. DGG ( talk ) 09:10, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

IndiaLends

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

No obvious notability. The refs show that it exists but that is all. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 10:46, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 04:44, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 04:44, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 04:44, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as this is essentially non-notable that WP:GNG would not even apply, News, Books and Highbeam all found links but basically all press releases and other trivial matters. SwisterTwister talk 05:17, 25 November 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. The article doesn't look that bad (To be honest it's fine compared to some of the articles on here!), Meh article's been improved isnce nomination. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 20:52, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kohler Interiors

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

All of the references are to their own Web sites, directory listings, or tangential (e.g. a biography of the person who started the company before they bought it). A Google News search did not show up any better references. Having an article like this serves no purpose except promotion. Gronk Oz (talk) 04:31, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I disagree with your belief this article is promotion. It's no different than other million and billion dollar companies having their own articles for each division listing their companies, ect. I've added the article with additional sources from newspapers and business journals. 8 of the 12 sources are from newspapers or business news websites. Asher Heimermann (talk) 04:46, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
— Note to closing admin: Asher Heimermann (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:45, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:27, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See related Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Destination Kohler. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:44, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's clear the nominator's concern was references and the user believes the article is promotion which is not promotion considering other large companies have their own articles for their divisions. The nominated article has references to creditable news websites as well as company websites. Because the Kohler Company is so large, it would be difficult to include all of their divisions, subsidiaries, companies, major events hosted and it's hotels and golf courses. Asher Heimermann (talk) 16:01, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator is quite capable of making his own statements about what he thinks, thank you. I see two serious problems: the lack of references that establish notability, and the promotional tone. To establish notability, perhaps you would be kind enough to point out which three or four references you think are most compelling. They should be significant, in-depth coverage of the subject in reliable, independent sources. It seems to me that the tone of the article reads more like a corporate brochure: its only content is the list of subsidiaries with a brief description of each - that is not really encyclopaedic content. And please don't get distracted by what pages do or don't exist for other companies: that is not relevant here, this article must be assessed on its own merits.--Gronk Oz (talk) 17:06, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Kohler Company is a large national corporation with a very diverse set of properties and divisions besides its mainstays - plumbing and engine divisions. See Template:Kohler Company to see how complicated it is. Looking at the big picture, I think that how their properties and divisions are divided into articles is reasonable, including this list. A single "list" style article to link together the divisions, destinations and their many other properties would be too large. I don't think that any of these companies should have their own articles at this time but the group is notable based on the number / quality of the sources. I agree that tone in this article was a problem so I have edited out the promotional wording. Royal broil 05:41, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Kohler Company perhaps as News, Books, browsers and Highbeam found some links but simply not much better to suggest a better separate article. SwisterTwister talk 06:14, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree that some of the verbiage is still promotional-ish, but there appear to be enough independent sources to establish notability. The text of the article also seems to be rather rambling and disorganized but that is fixable. Nyth 63 11:02, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 06:58, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Spanish Tutors Hong Kong

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

Small tutoring service with no evidence of notability and no significant independent references. Of the four references provided, the first is a general article which does not mention this company; the second merely indicates that the company is listed by the local Chamber of Commerce; the third is a directory listing; and the fourth is the company's own website. Contested PROD. MelanieN (talk) 04:19, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:48, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:49, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:49, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:49, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. There are countless language tutorial centres in Hong Kong and I don't see anything that sets this one apart. Citobun (talk) 06:07, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Failed WP:GNG. STSC (talk) 06:51, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A WP:SPA article on a small business with no evidence of notability. Could be a CSD A7. AllyD (talk) 07:42, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: If a company failed WP:N, it also usually have WP:NOTAD problem. --Thomas.Lu (talk) 16:23, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(Note: I am moving this comment to the proper place in the discussion. --MelanieN (talk) 16:33, 24 November 2015 (UTC) ) This is the first and only Spanish language centre in Hong Kong that sends a tutor to your house and at the same time you can learn at their branch. Not sure if this is relevant enough. Also it is recognised by the Spanish Chamber of Commerce in Hong Kong as an a Spanish language school to learn Spanish (the references have been updated and properly linked). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clerkchakrit (talk • contribs) — Clerkchakrit (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete. The only independent coverage I can find is by the Spanish Chamber of Commerce in Hong Kong, cited in the article. There isn't enough for notability. Der yck C. 22:05, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
SNOW Delete - Clearly not yet notable even generally and there's nothing yet for a better article. SwisterTwister talk 05:38, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Article re-edited and linked with cram schools in hong kong https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cram_schools_in_Hong_Kong If the majority considers that the article should be deleted no problem. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clerkchakrit (talk • contribs) 18:31, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per above fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 04:08, 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 keep. There's consensus that politicians at this level (deputy minister) are notable, though just barely if they haven't had a notable career. The state of sourcing is currently poor, but a search of the spelling given by Carrite suggests that there is enough coverage to satisfy WP:GNG, and the article's sourcing can certainly be improved. (non-admin closure) clpo13_(talk) 21:59, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yerzhan Ashikbayev

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

Foreign Ministers are presumed notable. Not so for Deputy Fooreign Ministers, such as this individual. DGG ( talk ) 04:12, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:58, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kazakhstan-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:58, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agreed, fails WP:POLITICIAN as written for now. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:38, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, deputy (national) ministers fulfills WP:NPOL by far. --Soman (talk) 18:26, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:44, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Of course deputy ministers are notable. Good grief! Just plain common sense. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:43, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:37, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. According to WP:POLOUTCOMES, politicians at this level are "usually considered notable": Sub-cabinet officials (assistant secretary, commissioner, etc.) are usually considered notable, especially if they have had otherwise notable careers. A deputy minister is akin to an assistant secretary, is it not? Everyone at United States Assistant Secretary of State has an article. Egsan Bacon (talk) 18:23, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This would be a perfectly valid claim of notability if the article were sourced enough to satisfy WP:GNG — but it is not strong enough to confer an automatic inclusion freebie, if the resulting article is sourced entirely to a single blurb on the website of an affiliated organization rather than to any real or genuinely substantive media coverage. This is a civil service position, not a political office per se, so NPOL doesn't apply — but GNG does, and even an NPOL claim wouldn't be allowed to rest entirely on a single primary source the way this does in its current state. Delete, without prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody can source and substance it better than this. Bearcat (talk) 18:25, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This will help: Kazakh spelling is Ержан Ашықбаев. Passes GNG, a top level Kazakh state functionary covered extensively in the media. Carrite (talk) 16:28, 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. Jenks24 (talk) 14:35, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hua Hin Tennis Exhibition

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

Wikipedia Tennis Project has long established that exhibitions are usually not notable. The burden of proof lays in this particular exhibition event to show it's massively different than all the rest. Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:59, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nice to see a sport wikiproject deciding that something in it's area is not notable. We need more of such minor events pruned from numerous fields. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:12, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:43, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 10:32, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sport-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 10:32, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 10:32, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:37, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it is just an on again off again exhibition. Legacypac (talk) 22:00, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now. Doesn't seem that notable and only one source. Could be drafted if possible. Vincent60030 (talk) 09:35, 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:51, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Horx

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

poorly written self-promotional COI article (cross reference main contributor's name and subject's name). There are two articles in existence - one under subject's real name (which looked like this https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nick_Halkes&oldid=680569551 until I wikified it) (previous attempt resisted by SPA ip editor), and another under Horx. Too much crossover, too similar a subject - can be condensed into one article under subject's real name Rayman60 (talk) 01:07, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:42, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:36, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Can be mentioned in Nick Halkes if it can be referenced with an independent source. Something the latter article lacks all together. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 04:09, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails gng, no significant secondary sources. Jacona (talk) 00:25, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 06:55, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Todd Hessert

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

Fails WP:BIO. No evidence of notability found in reliable sources. APK whisper in my ear 08:32, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find any sources either. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 20:52, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 03:47, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 10:41, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:07, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:36, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Google searches bring up lots of social media stuff, but that appears to be it. Couldn't find anything in Google News or Google Books. Appears to fail WP:GNG. Egsan Bacon (talk) 18:30, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Excessive promotion and peacock terms about a person who doesn't appear to pass notability requirements. If it wasn't so badly written I would assume it was written by Hessert's PR. Mabalu (talk) 00:05, 26 November 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. Jenks24 (talk) 14:35, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Airtel Super Star Awards

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

Non-notable award function article with no claims of notability or any importance given by secondary -tertiary sources. Also seems to have been given only once in 2011 as majority of Google hits turn out to be of 2011 itself. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 08:53, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 08:55, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 08:55, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alts:

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

And searches through WP:INDAFD: "Airtel Super Star Awards" "Star India Awards" "Super Star Awards" "Airtel Awards"

Comment I looking beyond Google we actually can find coverage in years other than just 2011. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 19:18, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please share when you find that they meet our WP:RS and other criteria. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 09:00, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- No reliable sources indicate coverage other than 2011.Kavdiamanju (talk) 16:25, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 03:47, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:36, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and put this out of its misery. Legacypac (talk) 22:02, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now and draft it if needed. It could be notable if more efforts were put in. Currently, it doesn't seem notable until the creator or major contributor does improvements to the article. Vincent60030 (talk) 09:28, 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 delete. JohnCD (talk) 17:48, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2014 WTA Finals – Rising Stars Invitational

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

To nominate, to sure whether this article is keep or not, make consensus. 333 -blue 11:23, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this - Wikipedia Tennis Project has long established that exhibitions are usually not notable. The burden of proof lays in this particular exhibition event to show it's massively different than all the rest. It's one thing to be shown on the main page, but it's own article?.... not a chance. This was prod'd and was due to be deleted today, but it was deprod'd with no explanation. Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:55, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:53, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 03:42, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 10:48, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:35, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with Fyunck(click) that it is not notable to have an article of its own. Alternatively, its content might merge with main article SOAD KoRn (talk) 19:48, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - proposer apparently misunderstood the PROD process. The PROD for this article had expired when the article was proposed for AfD. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 01:44, 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 keep. Very surprisingly, but there you are. Woof? Sandstein 17:43, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of beagle, harrier and basset packs of the United Kingdom

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

List of non-notable subjects. The general concept of pack hunting is obviously notable, but listing the individual packs is not necessary or essential in understanding or explaining that concept. Fram (talk) 07:54, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep These are quite historic institutions and just need work. I have made a start and have little difficulty finding sources as hunting was a popular sport in its day. Andrew D. (talk) 18:44, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- You mean that one primary source and one unlinked newspaper article with unknown contents and unclear title you added? Fram (talk) 20:15, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - There's a lot more than that out there and so it takes time to produces pages about the topic as there are so many interesting scents to follow. Anyway, for a source which demonstrates quite clearly that the topic passes WP:LISTN, please see Bryden's Hare-hunting and Harriers. This is a book of hundreds of pages including Appendix D which is a list of beagle packs. Q.E.D. Andrew D. (talk) 23:32, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:08, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:46, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:45, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As per WP:ATD editing to improve the page is preferable to deletion and efforts are being made to do just that. Better to welcome and encourage improvements than to reject them for not yet being sufficient. Markpackuk (talk) 14:07, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Improperly named article, non notable subject. No refs. Borderline hoax. Szzuk (talk) 08:00, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There doesn't seem to be anything wrong with the name. The topic is notable (demonstrated above). The page has refs. It's obviously not a hoax. None of the points made in this !vote seem accurate. To further confirm this, I have just added a reference for the first entry in the list; it was easy. Andrew D. (talk) 08:17, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article is garbage. I'm not arguing over its merits. Szzuk (talk) 08:59, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Szzuk's position is WP:RUBBISH and so should be discounted. Andrew D. (talk) 18:53, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Label and dismiss is an attempt to discredit valid points, none of which were refuted. Tapered (talk) 23:54, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A simple run through of the possible references in the various links provided shows ZERO reliable sources. No reliable sources are cited in the article itself. No justification for its continued presence. Tapered (talk) 23:39, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments A search of The Independent website (for the only possible reliable source cited) using the title and date didn't produce a match. On another note, the sister page to this, List of foxhound packs of the United Kingdom, is also a strong candidate for the axe. Tapered (talk) 23:54, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:32, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've found the Independent story mentioned on its website and updated the reference on the page to include a link to the web address for it. Markpackuk (talk) 09:54, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good work, but that in no way buttresses this article's existence. If THAT's the best reference, the shutes are greased for deletion. Tapered (talk) 13:33, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't the best reference. I demonstrated a better reference in the discussion above - Bryden's Hare-hunting and Harriers - with Notices of Beagles and Basset Hounds. That's a book of 436 pages including a specific list of beagle packs and so is ample for our purposes. Andrew D. (talk) 17:27, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It shows the packs exist, perhaps, but it's a specialist reference manual that by itself doesn't approach conferring WP:N. That requires some sort of notice by a significant reliable source, which hasn't so far been provided--"if no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, then it should not have a separate article." I repeat--the shutes are greased. Tapered (talk) 06:34, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:SIGCOV, a significant source "addresses the topic directly and in detail and so Bryden's book is an excellent source for our purposes. Tapered's dismissal of "specialist reference manuals" seems absurd but it is, in any case, easy to find more sources such as The Field or the Encyclopaedia of Rural Sports. Andrew D. (talk) 07:56, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I stand corrected. I was too dismissive of Bryden, and The Field is a WP:RS. Nice work, again! Tapered (talk) 03:16, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Bryden's book is independent of the subject, and The Field (mentioned above by Andrew Davidson) is a WP:RS after 163 years in print. List meets WP:N. Tapered (talk) 03:21, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I strongly oppose deleting the content of this page. The subject matter may not be interesting to all and the article does need some work but it is worthy of article status. I would however be supportive of a merger of this page's content with that of List of foxhound packs of the United Kingdom into a new page with a name like List of packhound packs of the United Kingdom, this would allow the inclusion of Bloodhound, Draghound and Minkhound packs. Cavalryman V31 (talk) 21:17, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:42, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

K. Hari Prasad

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

does not meet notability, references sited are self published or from blogs, even news seems to mention name as pass by and no stress on notability, also a work of PR Shrikanthv (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:45, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- Ascii002 (talk · contribs · guestbook) 02:40, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- Ascii002 (talk · contribs · guestbook) 02:40, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:31, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Closing with NPASR. (non-admin closure) Kharkiv07 (T) 01:26, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nickelodeon Kids' Choice Awards India

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

Non-notable award function article with no claims of notability or any importance given by secondary -tertiary sources. Also seems to have been given only once in 2013 from majority of Google hits results. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 09:08, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 09:08, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:44, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:31, 24 November 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 Disambiguate. (non-admin closure) Kharkiv07 (T) 01:33, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Beacon Villages

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

Either delete or convert to disambiguation page. The article is almost a dictionary definition of the word. Note on the use of the term can be merged to the four village articles. Jolly Ω Janner 09:24, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:22, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is mentioned in South Devon & Dartmoor (Slow Travel) and websites for the villages but doesn't need a separate article. Disambiguate between Cosdon Beacon and Ivinghoe Beacon (where the villages are Pitstone, Marsworth, Ivinghoe and Cheddington). Peter James (talk) 22:52, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:44, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep name is in local use for local authorities that cover all 4 villages, by realtors and in tourism promotion.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:47, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:31, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguate. As pointed out by Peter James and per web search on "beacon villages" ivinghoe, the term is also used for a group of villages in the Chilterns. Cosdon Beacon, being a notable feature of Dartmoor, should be promoted to an article where its associated villages can be mentioned. —SMALL JIM 12:19, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguate, I was unaware of the presence at Ivinghoe when I listed this deletion. Jolly Ω Janner 22:27, 24 November 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. Jenks24 (talk) 14:36, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Show of Hands (application)

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

Fails WP:GNG with no secondary sources, just its own website, Tumblr and YouTube video. McGeddon (talk) 10:16, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Dialectric (talk) 01:31, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now - Nothing better. SwisterTwister talk 20:58, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - there is significant coverage on this in a number of app review sites including apppicker.com, appleappinsight.com, and appszoom.com. Whether these sources meet the standard of WP:RS is an open question.Dialectric (talk) 00:37, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:43, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:31, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All the sources in the article are first-party. I checked out the sources suggested by Dialectric. IHMO, app reviews on websites with unknown editorial review don't establish notability. One of the reviews gives the app 5 stars, then says, The only thing I really did not like about this application is that it constantly crashes. I gotta wonder how many stars it would have gotten if it didn't crash constantly. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:17, 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. JohnCD (talk) 17:51, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2015 WTA Finals – Rising Stars Invitational

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

To nominate, to sure whether this article is keep or not, make consensus. 333 -blue 11:22, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this - Wikipedia Tennis Project has long established that exhibitions are usually not notable. The burden of proof lays in this particular exhibition event to show it's massively different than all the rest. It's one thing to be shown on the main page, but it's own article?.... not a chance. This was prod'd and was due to be deleted today, but it was deprod'd with no explanation. Fyunck(click) (talk) 02:01, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – there exist IRS about contest (eg. [8], [9], osaka + RSI), so the notabilty is suitable for a stand-alone article; En Wiki has category for exhibitions > this article is no exception.--Kacir 21:44, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:43, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sport-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 10:50, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 10:51, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:30, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with Fyunck(click) that it is not notable to have an article of its own. Alternatively, its content might merge with main article. SOAD KoRn (talk) 19:48, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - proposer apparently misunderstood the PROD process. The PROD for this article had expired when the article was proposed for AfD. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 01:43, 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 no consensus. Closing with NPASR (non-admin closure) Kharkiv07 (T) 01:25, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oleg Vyshniakov

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

Not-notable. Honorary council of a secondary city is not notable in its own right. The references are all about the office rather than the individual and are essentially from a single source. This seems nothing more than an advert with no indication of importance. Peter Rehse (talk) 11:35, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - first, he's a prominent businessman;[10] It may seem trivial as a "secondary city", but it's significant to Jews of Western Ukraine that Israel opened a second consulate in Lviv, considering the political situation and humanitarian aid Israel provides. Persistent coverage - [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17]. —Мандичка^YO 😜 20:47, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The first reference really does not address his prominence and the others are about his appointment. Again the whole article is not about him but Israel–Ukraine relations for which an article exists. Most of the references and extenal links in the article are not even about the honorary council post which again is not that special. Your justification could easily be addressed by expanding the relations article and I suppose you could mention the name of the honorary councils there.Peter Rehse (talk) 10:20, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:42, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:22, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:29, 24 November 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. JohnCD (talk) 17:54, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Punggol North MRT Station

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

Pure spectulation. LTA did not announce any station name other than the location (which is Punggol North). Location does not equal to station name. See also WP:CBALL, WP:RS and WP:OR. Converted a contested Prod that has been added multiple times by dynamic IP, latest 119.74.41.17. -- GB fan 13:33, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am not offering any opinion myself at this point. -- GB fan 13:35, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:57, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:57, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to North East MRT Line. Right now, this is just speculation, with a single reliable source. Even the location is not confirmed yet. When the station is confirmed, the article could be un-merged. epic genius (talk) 15:39, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not going to vote, but this is my opinion: NS6 Sungei Kadut, NE2 Bukit Permei or Keppel (before the name is used for CCL 6), NS12 Canberra (before being officially announced) are deleted from wikipedia for spectulation. However, this is a tricky one. What we know is LTA announced that this station is located in Punggol North. Even though this is most likely the station name, LTA did not announce anything official.
I also raised my concerns here before, i just quote my point: "Even though the LTA website list it as Punggol North, it is not the station name. it is just to indicate it will serve the punggol north area. If you look at the Jurong Region Line page, they also list the areas. are they station names? They are not. Thus Punggol North is not the station name (yet). even the LTA map of the MRT system does not show punggol north, despite showing others like canberra, thomson east coast line etc."
-115.66.225.183 (talk) 01:25, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:40, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is already a section on it mentioning the extention. There is nothing on this article worth merging into North East MRT Line. Even the article itself uses term like "(NOT YET FINALIZED, NOT CONFIRMED BY LTA)". -68.68.96.83 (talk) 22:38, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:29, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There are no mention of the name for Punggol North MRT Station on LTA web page. There is nothing worth mention. Even the name itself is contracting where it keep on moving pages (renaming) to such as but not limited to: Mountain View MRT Station, which far even worst, does not exists in Singapore.

Note: Consider multiple pages such as Changi Airport Terminal 5 MRT Station were deleted as there are no clear references or official source, and all those being deleted are created by the same user, MineUser (MinecraftUser), which display lots of unreliable pages and recently tried blanking this page, and edit by Timothyhouse1, another user which provide information based on his liking and not real (fictional), the articles itself had already deemed extremely unreliable.

119.74.41.17 (talk) 23:13, 27 November 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 Rename to Islamism in the Gaza Strip - (I've moved the article but haven't changed the lead or anything so that may need updating). (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 20:54, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Islamization of the Gaza Strip

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

The present article "Islamization of the Gaza Strip" may be renamed to "Talibanization of the Gaza Strip," as explained on the talk page. However, given the opposition to that name change under the explanation that "Talibanization" is confusing, the alternative is to delete the article, as Islamization is simply not what is currently happening in Gaza, it is rather a process that occurred a thousand years ago. 0nlyth3truth (talk) 23:05, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

SPEEDY KEEP This long-standing and well-sourced article on a significant topic. and WP:WHACK! User:0nlyth3truth who, dissatisfied with the way his proposal to change the article title was going, brought a conspicuously notable article to AFD.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:44, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Given that 2 of 3 respondents at the time suggested deleting the article and dispersing its contents as a response to my proposal to rename it, your whack is entirely unmerited and clearly shows that you did not carefully consider the discussion at the talk page. I have since proposed moving the article to "Islamism in the Gaza Strip" and I expect that to get more traction. 0nlyth3truth (talk) 01:24, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:39, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:39, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:51, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename - though there are some concerns with current name, the article refers to modern radicalization of Islam in Gaza and effectively demise of all other religions in the strip. Maybe Islamist radicalization in the Gaza Strip will be a better title.GreyShark (dibra) 20:29, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is still called Islamization when people who were less observant of Islam become more observant. Debresser (talk) 11:03, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename It should simply be renamed to Islamism in the Gaza Strip. This article's scope does not appear to be about how the Gaza Strip gradually became almost completely inhabited by Muslims or changing churches into mosques. The article is about the strict implementation of Hamas' version of Sharia, in the Gaza Strip. The Gaza Strip was already 99% Muslim long before this process began so "Islamization" is rather confusing. There are some sources that use the term "Islamization" in the article, but there are far more scholarly sources that use the term "Islamism" instead, which is a much more common and recognizable term that deals with this socio-political process. The article could also be expanded to include the history of the Muslim Brotherhood (from which Hamas originated) and the Salafist movement in the Gaza Strip and the increasing Muslim conservatism in Gazan society over the decades. This is the most proper route for the article to take. --Al Ameer (talk) 04:08, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously, no consensus has been reached. I believe my comments here successfully capture why. I am withdrawing my own attempt at changing these titles, but I encourage interested individuals to contribute to a longer-lasting resolution at the Project Islam talk page. 0nlyth3truth (talk) 17:38, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would give it some more time before concluding that there is "obviously no consensus", which is a decision that the administrator closing this thread will ultimately determine. --Al Ameer (talk) 18:12, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Very true. Anyone, feel free to ping me if this conversation goes anywhere. 0nlyth3truth (talk) 22:50, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I fixed the missing header. I doubt this discussion has been logged at all, so I have manually added it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 November 24. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 02:50, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:30, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Islamism in the Gaza Strip, per Islamism in Pakistan, Islamism in Europe, Islamism in the United Kingdom, etc. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:34, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Islamism in the Gaza Strip. Per what everyone else said. Brustopher (talk) 12:58, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note that there have already been 2 recent rename discussions on articles talk page Talibinization of the Gaza Strip and Islamism in the Gaza Strip. Both closed a few days ago, withrawn. Is this the proper place for a rename debate? User:Shawn in Montreal, [[User:Sam Sailor?E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:18, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a subject described in a large number of sources. My very best wishes (talk) 01:11, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename to Islamism in the Gaza Strip. The article is about the modern age state-imposed version of Islam. Islamization implies that Gaza previously was not Islamic and is now in the process of becoming so. As the nom explains, Islamization in the region occurred over a thousand years ago. - HyperGaruda (talk) 09:34, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

HyperGaruda is incorrect. "Islamization" has two meanings in current English usage. One, as Hypergaruda says, is the conversion of an area to Islam. The other is the imposition of a stricter forms of Islam on a Muslim region. See for example this 2013 article in The Atlantic, a very mainstream magazine known for it's fine writing: "What's Behind Turkey's Islamization and the Protests Against It" [18] Turkey, of course, is an almost entirely Muslim country (as in Gaza, large, ancient Christian populations have been ethnically cleansed). Islamization is widely used in this sense. Here's a google search on "Islamization of Turkey" [19]. This is the proper term. It just is.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:40, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here you demonstrate that "Islamization" is just too ambiguous. Per WP:PRECISE and the fact that all other articles titled "Islamization of" are about the historic meaning, this page should move to "Islamism in the Gaza Strip". - HyperGaruda (talk) 13:18, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFF Merely because articles on the Islamization of Turkey, Islamization of territories ruled by ISIS, Islamization of Saudi Arabia (which took place under the rule of the House of Saud), Islamization of Pakistan, etc. do not yet exist, is not an argument to delete this article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:21, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CONSISTENCY. May I remind you that WP:PRECISE and WP:CONSISTENCY are Wikipedia policies and that they therefore supersede the WP:OTHERSTUFF essay. Who said anything about deleting anyway? Ok, Nom did, but even (s)he'd like to see a renaming. - HyperGaruda (talk) 14:51, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note also that the proposed Islamism in Gaza would necessarily conflate a political narrative about the political rise of the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas and the other Islamist factions now in Gaza, with the topic of the present article, which is the Islamization, imposing of draconian and uncompromisingly literalist interpretations of shaaria on a population.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:25, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Per the two definitions of Islamization, "Islamization of Gaza" would necessarily conflate a historical narrative about the rise of Islam since the 7th century in Gaza etc... Nope, Islamization is simply much broader than Islamism. - HyperGaruda (talk) 14:51, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Islamism in the Gaza Strip. A number of people seem to be confused on what Islamization means, that took place in Gaza several hundred years ago. The topic that they seem to want to cover is about Islamism and that would be the appropriate name for the article. nableezy - 19:51, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Sam Sailor ^Talk! 00:40, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Paula Huston

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

Seems to be a not-particularly-notable author. Article is really glowing with praise, which is not surprising given it's written by the author herself and what I assume is a PR firm on her behalf. — foxj 00:35, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Ascii002 (talk · contribs · guestbook) 02:53, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. -- Ascii002 (talk · contribs · guestbook) 02:54, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as News, Books and Highbeam all found links including words such as accomplished but there's simply nothing better for a better article at this time. SwisterTwister talk 08:35, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We are still learning how to create these pages. Is it the inclusion of endorsements that is the problem? We can remove those if absolutely necessary.Avemarpr (talk) 21:25, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Avemarpr: Are you being paid to write/maintain articles like these? You need to declare this on your userpage or you are in breach of the Wikimedia Terms of Use. — foxj 00:50, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment got a book review in the NYT [20], and has more of a bio at Amazon than here. I strongly suspect the editor who wrote the BLP simply needs to understand WP:RS as part of the means to establish "notability". I am pretty sure the author meets those criteria, and suggest this AfD be placed on "hold" for a bit. Collect (talk) 23:12, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
keep There are enough reliable, secondary sources (and book reviews) already in the article to pass WP:AUTHOR. But, Can someone explain why an, "American novelist, short story writer, essayist, and creative nonfiction writer." (or a fan of such) but certainly an SPA devoted to promoting this writer can't manage to write a simple encyclopedia article? If article crator is reading this, just read a few WP articles about famous and imfamous writers, and get a clue.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:08, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
keep, meets WP:GNG, here is a review from the LA Times [21] for Simplifying the Soul - "it's encouraging reading for people struggling with big challenges or the smaller daily distractions that upset our peace of mind." and heres a review of A Land Without Sin from the Chicago Center for Literature and Photography Weekender magazine [22] - "What Paula Huston gives the reader is a mature and cynical adventure novel.". oh and good old Buffalo library shows reviews from Booklist and Publishers Weekly for Signatures of grace[23], The holy way[24], Daughters of song[25], and A land without sin[26].Coolabahapple (talk) 15:27, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

and Kirkus also has a couple of reviews[27],[28]; could a kind administrator please speedy keep this so no more editor's time is wasted, thanks Coolabahapple (talk) 15:35, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 02:21, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems clear at this point. Collect (talk) 14:33, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Well-documented coverage is more than clearly sufficient. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 17:51, 24 November 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. The consensus appears to be that this officer (or his death, at least) is notable per WP:INDEPTH. There were suggestions to rename and edit the page to focus on the event rather than the person, but I'll leave that up to a move discussion. (non-admin closure) clpo13_(talk) 21:51, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Trevor Casper

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

BLP1E non notable policeman ,known only for being shot while on duty. DGG ( talk ) 02:18, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, the above user is adding another article to be deleted instead of making edits to improve the article. The article has stood since March 2015. Trevor Casper is a notable policeman in fact, being the Wisconsin State Patrol's youngest trooper in it's history. He is also the youngest law enforcement to be killed in the line of duty. Asher Heimermann (talk)

Delete per WP:NOTNEWS; nothing here to provide "additional enduring significance", as WP:EVENTCRIT puts it. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 19:02, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So why do black people, who are criminals, get their own Wikipedia article when they are shot dead by police? These black criminals are not notable and receive little media coverage but they have Wikipedia articles. Why are their articles not removed? Maybe if the article was about a black officer, the request would not have been made at all. Asher Heimermann (talk) 19:30, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Black, white or grey, they should be deleted, too. Sometimes they are, sometimes they aren't. Depends on how well (or if) anybody argues the particular cases, and who closes the AfD. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:48, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Trevor Casper and his death was an event that received significant and in-depth coverage from local and national media (ABC News, CNN, Washington Post) which makes the article notable per Wikipedia's WP:INDEPTH. Asher Heimermann (talk) 19:34, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 22:18, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 22:18, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 22:18, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:INDEPTH. Nyth 63 11:16, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Nyth83-thank you-RFD (talk) 13:21, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Reformat The shooting itself may be notable, but this guy played a passive role in it, and (apparently) nothing else of note. Not enough here for a bio. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:44, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:BLP1E 2601:586:C002:82F0:4930:678B:8799:94A8 (talk) 19:09, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How can an IP user be allowed to join this discussion? The user does not have a registered account. Asher Heimermann (talk) 18:16, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone can join in a discussion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:54, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Too many American police officers are killed in the line of duty for each to have an article. There needs to be some other reason for notability (and being the youngest member of a force or the youngest police officer in a state to be killed isn't it). -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:52, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:53, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Being the youngest police officer in Wisconsin killed is very notable. There is enough references and media coverage was national and international. Asher Heimermann (talk) 18:12, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No it isn't. Being the youngest police officer ever killed in the United States may be notable (and even that's questionable). But a single state? No. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:51, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - clearly a case of national coverage on a high level. Rename it to Death of Trevor Casper. Deletion is not likely if we consider WP:GNG and WP:CRIME.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:35, 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 no consensus. No further consensus evolved after three weeks. If further evidence arises yea/nay on notability, of course there is no prejudice against a renomination. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:51, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yoiking with the Winged Ones

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

Unreleased 2016 album. So far as I can see, none of the sources actually mention the album, they just support facts such as what yoiking is, that crow populations are declining, that flight is a metaphor, etc, so the article fails WP:NALBUM at present. I couldn't find any secondary sources myself. McGeddon (talk) 17:12, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Record is mentioned in the Sámi Newspaper Ávvir 10/27/2015 url: http://avvir.no/kultuvra-oddasat/2015/10/dasa-cahka-fiinna-stuora-govva The record is also mentioned in NRK Sámi Radio radio show 'Duorastatmágasiidna' 29/10/20115 url: https://radio.nrk.no/serie/duorastatmagasiidna/SAPP43004415/29-10-2015 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80m6an (talk • contribs) 22:18, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Two sources have been added in a sort of external links way (not used as cited sources in the article). The major issue I see with the article is that the text of it is supported by no sources. There are many inline references, but not one of them support the article's content when it relates to the album in question. Manxruler (talk) 09:38, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All this AfD is doing is determining whether the article should exist yet. If the new sources are in the wrong place and the article needs tidying up, that's fine, we can sort that out later.

I can't seem to autotranslate the first source from Norwegian and the second appears to be audio - can somebody verify that these sources provide the "significant coverage" and "enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article" that WP:NALBUM requires? (And that they're not interviews "where the musician or ensemble talks about the recording", which would be considered primary sources.) --McGeddon (talk) 09:47, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The reason you can't autotranslate the source from Norwegian, is that it isn't in Norwegian, but Northern Sami, for which no autotranslation exists. My knowledge of Sami language is extremely limited, but the Ávvir article appears to deal with Ánde Somby's career and his having made/being in the process of making an LP called "Juoiddá Joavdan" in collaboration with Chris Watson. Now, seeing as a cover with "Yoiking with the Winged Ones" appears in the article, "Juoiddá Joavdan" may be the Sami name for "Yoiking with the Winged Ones".

The NRK Sámi Radio link appears to be a portrait interview. Manxruler (talk) 10:25, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just found a Northern Sami to Norwegian translator. You could run the text through that, and then from Norwegian to English through Google Translate (granted, I just did that, and the result from Norwegian to English is barely comprehensible). The Ávvir article (according to the Northern Sami to Norwegian translation result) is about Somby's career in general and his having announced on Facebook that he is about to release his first LP ("Juoiddá Joavdan"), with four joiks (songs). The LP (which may be the same as "Yoiking with the Winged Ones") is according to the the article recorded in the Lofoten Islands and had final work done in London, UK, by Chris Watson. It appears that Somby is stating that he is considering to have a release of the LP "Juoiddá Joavdan" in Tromsø, Norway, at some point "after the winter darkness" (probably meaning after 15 January 2016). Manxruler (talk) 12:01, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there

This editing has been an 'experience'.

It is not hard to understand the rationale for the rules in WP:NALBUM. Wikipedia can be flooded by lots of propmo material from different 'publishers' of records.

When applied to a world where lots of lots of records are published every minute - as the english speaking world. That rationale makes perfectly sence. In particular if that is a world equpped with a huge system of reviewing and evaluating. But if that is applied to worlds where records barely are published the rationale makes less sence. Many of the small cultures have the problem of invisibillity. That applies in particular to cultures where many parts of the culture is threatned by dying, such as the Sqmi Culture with the languag as very threatned and yoiking even more threatned. At the same time these small cultures have an urgent need to somehow 'speak' to the mightiest of cultures - the english speaking culture. Naturally this 'speak' is about sad things and problems. Yoiking with the Winged Ones is an attempt to 'speak' through something different. But oftentimes such attempts are 'killed' by principles that are created for other purposes - such as it appears again in this case. At least I can use this as an example in my teaching on the dilemma between the intended purpose of a principle and the actual consequenses of it - like in this case to add to the problem of invisibillity of Sami Culture (How many articles do you have about Sami Culture here?)

It is neither hard to understand that tagging makes the process of editing much more efficient, fast and requiring less work. But there are som challenges both when the tags are designed and when they in the next round are applied. Here it seems that the challenge is what the tag refers to when it mentiones 'topic'. Is it the very vinyl, its sounds and music, the images on the cover, the envelope, the weight of the record, the feeling when you open up the envelope or is the 'topic' the issues connected and mentioned in the text. In the first case WP:NALBUM only asks for reviews. It would be nice it that was communicated through a disclaimer, so that one would not start to use time to submit articles about records in Wikipedia unless they are reviewed. If WP:NALBUM asks references to the things mentioned in the text, then it becomes a question to reference use of metaphors and history of yoik and what not. When the prose, which is a metaphorical one was tagged, then I understood that as a direction to write referencial prose about the metaphors used.

I dont know how to understand this. Maybe Wikipedias editorial culture is all settled with conventions that seem obvious for the insiders and erratic for newcomers. Maye this is not a welcomening system for newcomers any more and that to try to contribute here ends up being a waste of time. If that is the case, that also would be a good thing to mention in a disclaimer, so that one as a newbie do not end up in such processes as this one.

For me this isnt a total waste of time though. I can pehaps use this case in my course in legal sociology that I teach at the Law faculty. We have some interesting topics involved here - how a regulation is communicated, how the enforcers of the regulation understand and practice the regulation, how formal equal treatment can end up as an unequal treatment. In this case how formally equal regulations in WP:NALBUM intended to limit flooding end up practically blocking any record from indigenous peoples from having an entry. Not many if any if any indigenous cultures have a structure similar to the english reviewing system.

80m6an (talk) 13:32, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Even if this topic is notable, the article should be WP:TNT with the mess of original research, poor writing, and non-NPOV. From what I can tell, there isn't reliable, independent coverage of the topic anyways. FuriouslySerene (talk) 14:22, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:34, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:34, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:34, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 18:52, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but with reservations - seems like it is a project of importance to the musical heritage of the Sami cultural group. The page is fairly well sourced with good quality references, but the main problem is that many of the references are basically off-topic for the general audience reading this encyclopedia. I enjoyed seeing a reference to an academic work investigating the idea of "The Sublime From Antiquity to the Present. ", but it requires a leap of imagination to understand how that fits within a page discussing an art project in an obscure European language.

Together with the edits above, this suggests to me that 80m6an is new to wikipedia and has written something as would be expected in an academic publication, and is close to (if not already) falling foul of WP:NOR.

I therefore conclude that the editors need help to write encyclopedic content, possibly including a more appropriate title and help to prune the refs. Help rather than delete, I think. JMWt (talk) 21:25, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone explain why this should not be a section on Joik? It seems to me that a lot of the page is making (in my view quite interesting) comments about the social practice rather than the art project, would these not be better found there?JMWt (talk) 14:21, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think they're already found there, aren't they? User:80m6an made some edits to the Joik article last week, expanding the oral tradition and fairy angles. If there's anything left in the Winged Ones article that isn't mentioned in the joiking article, I agree it should be moved across.

This is clearly an editor working in good faith who's misunderstood the problem tags applied to their article, but if Winged Ones is not (yet) a notable album, which it doesn't seem to be on current sources, the article should be moved to a draft page. --McGeddon (talk) 17:11, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there

Thank for the work you all put into this. I think I will get off this bus now. I have some experience from different editing interactions from other contexts. I have understanding for that there can be some temperature now and then. What seems characteristic with this one is that me as a newbie in this, the editors involved Manxruler and McGeddon in combination with how the tags are formulated becomes a confusing experience. At first there seemed to be some minor issues, and I started to fix them. Then more and more issues appeared. As I tried to edit the text new ones came up. One example is that the article was originally written in a pretty metaphoric prose that is usual for this type of articles, but then it was tagged that the prose should be more referencial, so I did, and here we are. As I already mentioned, this hasnt been a total waste of time for me, as I can use this experience in teaching my class. But now I do not want to go further in this. I leave you in peace and love. Thank you for your patience. I hope the tags I put on top of the article will make it disappear. All the best.

I was planning to write more on the joik page. The few edits that I did, gives just some fragments. But I want to gett off this bus. I would like to delete the edits that I made there, so that things are as tidy as they were before I entered this. How should I do that? Is there a page that directs how to do that.

80m6an (talk) 23:44, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh, that's very unfortunate. Unfortunately I think you are unlikely to be teaching your class an accurate understanding of how the wikipedia culture works because you don't appear to understand it yourself. That said, if you felt under attack when doing your best to write a useful article, then I can only apologise and assure you that it is not about you. There is certainly space here for discussion of the cultural identity of the Sámi, you've just written about it in a way that doesn't really work here. I don't know how else to explain it to you. JMWt (talk) 16:03, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a short section on the project on Joik#Contemporary_developments. Unfortunately whilst many of the references on Yoiking_with_the_Winged_Ones are interesting, few are directly relevant. I am sure that 80m6an feels the whole thing has been a complete car-crash as he/she has obviously put in a lot of effort and has been frustrated with the process of adding information to wikipedia and is not understanding what is the normal practices and checks-and-balances in place here. I only hope they come back and try again. JMWt (talk) 16:25, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete

Wikipedia is a good thing. No doubt about that.

However I think that every community somehow encapsulates itself in common practises that are not so accessible to newcomers; what JMWt refers to as 'the normal practices and checks-and-balances in place here'. A world that is Kafkaesque does not have bad willed people. Everybody is doing their best. I think that is the case with current editing in Wikipedia as well. I dont find McGeddon or Manxruler ill willed. But as an experience this appears to be like being In the Hall of the Mountain King. The language is twisted like what 'topic' refers to. The logic is twisted. Manxruler asks for adjustment of prose and asks for references. When that is done, then new issues appear. McGeddon is contradicting him/herself. FuriouslySerene takes the full step and uses a language that reminds very much about troll-talk when commenting the article, but that is perhaps also common practise here.

In an afterthought it would have saved me for work and effort if I had a disclaimer when I got the automatic invitation to write an article about the project. This has not been a waste of time. It has rather been an interesting experience. I am satisefied with that. I am sorry for that I don't have the time to be a part of this any more.

Please. Could me and my text leave this hall in peace?

I promise. I wont enter your premises again.

80m6an (talk) 21:28, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi There.

Now I see that the article is taken down. Thank you so much for helping me out of this. All the Best.

80m6an (talk) 11:10, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article is still there for now - since discussion is currently split on whether to keep it, we should let this Articles For Deletion discussion run its course before deleting anything.

Wikipedia is a project maintained by volunteers around the world who help out where they can and don't necessarily coordinate - what you see as a Kafkaesque bureaucracy of "new issues" being brought forth when others are resolved is just different editors seeing different problems. Some editors can be a bit terse, but most will be happy to answer questions if you aren't sure what a template is asking you to fix, or what a policy means. (I'm not sure where you think I've contradicted myself, but feel free to ask me if you want anything I've said clarified.) --McGeddon (talk) 11:25, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Manxruler Dear McGeddon Dear FuriouslySerene Dear JMWt

I appriciate your involvement in this wonderful effort to make Wikipedia what it is.

I have had my share here now, and I am kindly asking you if you could assist me to get out of this. Is there a simple good and peaceful way for me to get myself and my text out of this?

80m6an (talk) 14:22, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I understand, but nobody can delete content until there is consensus and this process has run the course. You can stop contributing any time you like. JMWt (talk) 14:24, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There have been few !votes and not much consensus. Relisting. Mr. Guye (talk) 01:34, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mr. Guye (talk) 01:34, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If the sources listed in "Mentions in mass media" are employed as references for the article, in place of the mostly irrelevant refs used as of now, then I think this could be an article to keep. There are some useful things in "Mentions in mass media", including a review. Manxruler (talk) 23:25, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, what have we got that meets WP:NALBUM?

Ávvir article: an article about Somby and his Juoiddá Joavdan album which may or may not be the album which this article is about. If it is this album, and if the article is not just an interview "where the musician or ensemble talks about the recording" then this sounds like a good source.
NRK Sápmi radio: you say this "appears to be a portrait interview", so can't be used to established notability as it is a source "where the musician or ensemble talks about the recording"
BBC's Late Junction "played a track and mentioned the record": can't be used, as this is not a significant depth of coverage
Nordlys article: seems to be paywalled so I can't check it
Ávvir review: autotranslating it twice it seems to be a track-by-track review, so seems a good source.

So in the absence of further sources it comes down to what the Nordlys article says, and whether first Ávvir article is an interview or not. (I've autotranslated it via the tool you suggested - there's a lot of first-person sentences, but I can't tell if they're attributed to the journalist or to Ánde Somby.) What do we think? --McGeddon (talk) 09:25, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1. As for the Ávvir article, a Google (got a Facebook hit on 29 October 2015) seems to support that Juoiddá Joavdan is this album. A re-reading of the Sami to Norwegian translation seems to indicate that this is an interview with Somby, with the artist talking about a record and the process of creating it. He likes the LP format, and to have the record in question produced as an LP, he had to go to London to attain the assistance of Chris Watson. I'd say, this article is "an interview "where the musician or ensemble talks about the recording"".

2. The NRK Sápmi radio ref seems to be a portrait interview.

3. I agree with regards to Late Junction.

4. I would guess that this might be a review (I could visit a library and have a look at the newspaper in question).

5. This is indeed a good source. It's a proper review, using the Norwegian dice throw system (it got a throw of 3.4).

So, thus far there is one good source. Does that suffice? Manxruler (talk) 16:06, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As for 4., I went to the library yesterday and had a look at the paper version of the newspaper in question. The review (or what it may be) wasn't in the paper version, so I guess it's only an online article. Will try and see if I can gain access to the online article somehow. Manxruler (talk) 22:34, 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. Michig (talk) 06:42, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamin W.S. Lum

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

Non-notable actor. It seems that he had bit parts in various roles, but never a main role. I was able to find one brief obituary on him, but it seems to be more "local" news. Natg 19 (talk) 00:17, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 00:18, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 00:18, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 00:18, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. A fair number of minor credits, but nothing major. Clarityfiend (talk) 12:16, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per failure of WP:ENTERTAINER and WP:GNG. TheAstuteObserver (talk) 22:17, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 04:45, 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.