Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 September 13

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 12 September	14 September >

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. The talk page does not look like a problem; it is merely a redirect to Talk:Spectral network. --MelanieN (talk) 21:34, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Spectral Networks

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

This was a reasonably long-time stub (2011, tagged with few edits since then) for WP:Companies without WP:NOTABILITY or even a company website that I originally prodded. Another editor noticed that it shared a name with "spectral network", a math concept without a wiki, and changed the page to reflect that instead. A more recent editor moved that text to a separate spectral network page per WP:MOS and returned some of the original stub content here with a redirect. I still don't think it meets notability as a company. Since we've had a few hands in this pie it makes sense to have others look at it. (Also, if this doesn't pass AfD, the talk page is broken, and I don't know how to fix that.) Alaynestone (talk) 23:30, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Alaynestone (talk) 23:30, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Alaynestone (talk) 23:30, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unreferenced stub, delete per failing WP:V (before failing WP:NCOMPANY too). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:09, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now as I found nothing to suggest better improvement. SwisterTwister talk 05:46, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment for Admin: If this passes AfD (and it looks like it will), the "talk page" is actually the one for spectral network so it shouldn't be deleted or the real spectral network article needs a new talk page. Not sure how it happened in all the updating, but I do know I'll make it worse if I try to fix it. Alaynestone (talk) 21:48, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep passes WP:POLITICIAN.(non-admin closure) Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:18, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Niranjan Davkhare

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

The subject does not qualify the standards required by WP:BIO. Most of the article is written by a WP:SPA. The primary inspiration behind the article appears to be subject's online publicity/image building before state assembly elections of 2014. Badnaam (talk) 23:04, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 September 13. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:26, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:54, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:54, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Members of Maharashtra Legislative Council become notable per WP:NPOL. He won the Konkan's graduate seat in 2012.ref (Business Standard). Clean it if you see promotional tone, but keep. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 06:50, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as that's what I thought earlier and I found news results here. SwisterTwister talk 06:58, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:POLITICIAN. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:48, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. --MelanieN (talk) 21:37, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Beijing Axis

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

The only references I can find on this group are either primary (mostly press releases), name-drops, or quotes from the founder. I can't find any history actually talking about the group from independent sources. Primefac (talk) 23:10, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. CORPSPAM clearly failing WP:NCOMPANY. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:09, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now as I found nothing better than this and this. SwisterTwister talk 05:55, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:55, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:56, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. --MelanieN (talk) 21:38, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

NM CareerMatch

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

A largely non-notable job finding site (that doesn't even exist anymore) with little external coverage. Its claim to fame is that it was funded by a grant from the U.S. Department of Labor, which doesn't seem like an especially good argument to me. Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 23:04, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Mexico-related deletion discussions. Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 23:08, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now as I found nothing better than this to suggest improvement from its obviously source-challenged state. SwisterTwister talk 06:08, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The program apparently existed at least through 2011 (see here), but perhaps not much later than that. Regardless of its existence or its date of demise, the article itself makes no assertion of notability other than that already noted by the nominator. And I agree that the assertion, even if proven true, does not confer notability. NewYorkActuary (talk) 22:48, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Ordinary language philosophy. Overall consensus is to Redirect (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:42, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ordinary language

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

This article contains the opinion of one person, has many many issues, no sources, is not neutral, and reads like an essay and not an encyclopedia article.. We already have ordinary language philosophy, which has it's own problems, but isn't nearly as horrid as this.Geodon93 (talk) 22:36, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the better-developed duplicate page at Ordinary language philosophy. ‑ iridescent 22:59, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree Geodon93 (talk) 01:15, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The topic is notable being the subject of numerous sources such as How Ordinary is Ordinary Language?; Ordinary Language and Perception; Defining Ordinary Words for Mundane Objects: Ordinary Language and the word Vehicle; The Logic of Ordinary Language. These sources indicate that the topic is not purely a matter of philosophy such as Wittgenstein's work; but arises in other domains such as the law. Andrew D. (talk) 23:03, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd argue that outside the field of philosophy, the topic is better covered by Plain English. I wouldn't argue against this becoming a dab page, though; looking at the history, this page is a leftover from Nupedia before we standardised how titles were handled. ‑ iridescent 23:09, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The page refers to ordinary language within the context of ordinary language philosophy. What "ordinary language" is should be covered by "ordinary language philosophy". There's no good material for a merge here. The page reads off as a person who does not like the ideas of Bertrand Russell in particular. The page itself is strictly limited to philosophy and logic, not law. Regardless:This isn't about the topic of ordinary language but the (poor) quality of the page in particular. Based oon the edit history, it really only seems to carry Larry Sanger's personal view on the matter. Geodon93 (talk) 01:25, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect This should be a part of ordinary language philosophy. In fact it went through one deletion where no one even commented on it, but nothing was done, or I would have put it up for nomination! MurderByDeadcopy^"bang!" 13:26, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Transwiki to Wiktionary. Sandstein 19:44, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thrombohemorrhagic event

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

Dictionary article Rathfelder (talk) 22:27, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Wiktionary -- The Anome (talk) 22:29, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 01:27, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki to Wiktionary, as currently this article consists only of a single line of text to provide definition, with a reliable source. Drchriswilliams (talk) 17:47, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki as suggested as although Books instantly found some results, it's probably better at Wiktionary for now. SwisterTwister talk 05:53, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki as this would seem to be the most sensible place for this material, at least at the present time. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 16:31, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with above. Right now we have an acceptable article at Vascular disease which might be expanded. --Bejnar (talk) 03:34, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete per WP:CSD#G12: Copyright infringement The base of this article was a copyright infringement as pointed out by User:Kudpung. While legitimate edits were made to the article they are unfortunately derivative works of a copyright infringement. The article has been deleted, however there is no prejudice against another article of the same subject being recreated if it can demonstrate the requirements of the project. Chillum 00:21, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Asarulislam Syed

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

Zero coverage in reliable sources as required to meet WP:GNG or WP:BIO. SmartSE (talk) 21:49, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Two things at least are clear: he does not meet WP:PROF (no publications I can locate), and his professional role as a physician is non-notable. The question is whether he's notable as a political figure, or political writer. The article makes far reaching claims e.g. the founder of Jannat Pakistan Party, a party which has not yet contested any elections -- Pakistan apparently has 182 political parties, and certainly not all of them are notable. He is additionally claimed to be notable as: a performer in a local California band playing Pakistani music; someone who "conscientiously rose to speak on various public forums"; a deliverer of radio sermons that "attracted a huge audience internationally"; author of "author of a world renowned article "Conspiracies against Islam, From Qadian to Taliban." published in "A Newsletter from WWW. QUAIDEAZAM. COM", the website of Shalimar Radio, a station that " Pakistani Radio that operated through purchased Air Time from Channel 900 AM, from KALI (AM) in West Covina, California. " Those articles--all written by User:Ibne'Ishaq and User:BiH, a now-banned promotional editor-- need looking at also. DGG ( talk ) 02:06, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Promotional article by a paid advocate. WP:COI and WP:OR apply. Richard Harvey (talk) 15:18, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article is a COPYVIO and/or close paraohrasing of http://quaideazam.com/asarulislam/, one of its sources; and all the reasons per DGG. Note: The creator of these paid articles has since been indef blocked . Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:00, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep (non-admin closure) Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:49, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Dickson (engineer)

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

Simply not notable for an encyclopedia, cannot find many sources and just blatant promotion. Sheroddy (talk) 21:10, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 21:26, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 21:27, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. Shoddy nomination, does not appear to have followed WP:BEFORE. Fellow of the Royal Academy of Engineering should be enough for notability by itself, as should the presidency of the Institution of Structural Engineers. CBE is also usually considered enough (although the two lower orders OBE and MBE are not). It's merely informational, not promotional, to list the significant awards and fellowships that the subject of an article has attained. And there's nontrivial coverage of him e.g. here and here. The article is badly sourced but that's a reason for cleanup, not deletion. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:35, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Simply notable for an encyclopedia that aims to combine the functions of general and specialist works of reference (see WP:5). --Andreas Philopater (talk) 21:13, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and close WP:SNOW - per David Eppstein above. --Jersey92 (talk) 02:05, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Nominator is new to Wikipedia (less than a month), and notes on User page that they practice "Extreme article deletion" --Jersey92 (talk) 02:08, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Indeed, the CBE has always been held to satisfy WP:ANYBIO #1. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:59, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to American Idol (season 14). Courcelles (talk) 22:07, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Seavey

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

Does not meet any of the criteria in WP:MUSBIO. Babar Suhail (talk) 20:25, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Likely redirect to American Idol (season 14) as this is what he's going to be best known for so far and my searches like this confirm it. SwisterTwister talk 06:19, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:19, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:19, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to American Idol (season 14) - Only table for this programme so makes sense tor edirect. –Davey2010^Talk 00:48, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. --MelanieN (talk) 21:40, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kyle Hendry

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

This footballer is not notable per WP:NFOOTBALL as he has not played in any WP:FPL and I can not see him pass WP:GNG either. Qed237 (talk) 19:06, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Qed237 (talk) 19:07, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per reasoning given by nom. JMHamo (talk) 19:27, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 20:22, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:56, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 12:03, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 17:28, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY, never played in a fully-pro league. MYS 77 ^✉ 20:59, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As per nom. MbahGondrong (talk) 21:38, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom Spiderone 10:08, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. --MelanieN (talk) 21:43, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The acorn paradox

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

I am making this nomination on behalf of 85.178.217.32 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). The reason stated is:

The topic is not notable in any way. No search results not originating here.

Procedural nomination: I express no opinion. JohnCD (talk) 18:49, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:55, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:55, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:55, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - What a shame that three of us jumped in to PROD without noticing it had already been dePRODded and thus ineligible. To echo my comment there, this particular example looks to be specific to the book The Glimmering Time. If we had an article for that title a redirect might make sense, but we don't. Fails WP:GNG. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:57, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Snow tends to obscure the ground. ;) 85.178.200.49 (talk) 01:22, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete seems like a run of the mill time travel paradox with nothing to lend it notability. Artw (talk) 19:19, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A non-notable example of a time travel paradox. There don't seem to be any sources online that discuss this. The book looks like it might have been self-published, which means it's an uphill battle to get any commentary. Since there's no commentary on the subject, a merge is inappropriate. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:29, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. --MelanieN (talk) 21:45, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sargeants of Kington

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

Non notable bus company, Been unsourced for nearly 10 years & unfortunately I can't find anything, Fails NCorp & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 18:28, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 19:33, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Standard searches do not reveal enough significant coverage in independent reliable sources -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 09:52, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. –Davey2010^Talk 18:44, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't find any sources, either. This trivial mention seems like the only hit on Google News. Wikipedia isn't a business directory. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:30, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Although an article on the college falls under WP:TOOSOON (even the "keep" !vote of SwisterTwister actually says this), the Mugda General Hospital seems to be notable. After closing this, I will move the article to this new title. Randykitty (talk) 13:37, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mugda Medical College

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

Delete for now as the medical college is yet to start. Article can be recreated once when the college starts. WP:TOOSOON Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 19:02, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per TOOSOON. TomStar81 (Talk) 02:21, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:47, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:47, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:47, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: According to sources, only 2-3 months are remained for college to get stared.--Human3015^TALK 13:58, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is a working General Hospital at presentVinegarymass911 (talk) 03:08, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Do not delete. Yes, it is working hospital right now, also college is going to start in few months. Medical Colleges having MBBS course are not so common in Bangladesh or South Asia, not every district has Medical College in South Asia. So this Medical College deserves article. Obviously this article needs improvement, I hope students of this college will improve this article once college starts working. Thank you. --Human3015^TALK 19:10, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 18:10, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now simply to see how its goes as, sure, the sourcing could be better, but if it becomes a notable college it will become acceptable. SwisterTwister talk 06:23, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. This institution hasn't approved yet as a medical college and there is no mention of it in the 2015-2016 Session MBBS/BDS admission circular. [1] Happiest persoN (talk) 12:39, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Ah, the exuberance of South Asians and their new colleges! It seems the planning committees for these places put "create a wikipedia article" on their to-do-lists early on. Yet, the hospital where this new school is to be located seems notable. After close, we can discuss whether the article should be moved to Mugda General Hospital, if the medical college part is not yet clearly notable.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 14:23, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Move to Mugda General Hospital.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:59, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 22:06, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Aqua Connect

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

DELETE Blatant advertising of a non-notable piece of software. The article has now been deleted at least seven times. Article keeps being resurrected by Single Issue Editors or accounts with suspiciously low activity. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 18:07, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A little summary

September 21, 2008

23:18 Aqua Connect created by User:MacJarvis (first edit)

September 22, 2008

00:41 Aqua Connect deleted by User:Steven Walling.
01:19 Aqua "c"onnect created by User:MacJarvis (clone of deleted "Aqua Connect" article, note that Connect starts with a small C for this one)
04:29 Aqua "c"onnect deleted by User:Kimchi.sg
20:33 Aqua Connect re-created by User:Dani5703 (first of two total edits)
21:05 Aqua Connect deleted by User:Stifle.
23:28 Aqua Connect re-created by User:Dani5703 (second and last edit)
23:38 Aqua Connect deleted by User:Kimchi.sg

September 23, 2008

04:46 Aqua Connect re-created by User:JoMoMac (first of three total edits)
05:51 Aqua Connect deleted by User:Kimchi.sg
05:52 User:JoMoMac blocked indefinitely for re-creating a spam page
07:13 Aqua Connect protected to prevent re-creation by User:Kimchi.sg until October 23

September 24, 2008

16:25 Aqua "c"onnect article re-created by User:CMLeister (no other edits, and please note lower case C again)
16:27 Aqua "c"onnect deleted by User:NawlinWiki

September 26, 2009

16:39 Deletion review started by User:66.134.162.202 (obviously MacJarvis as he/she clearly states they wrote the deleted article)

October 2, 2008

05:17 Aqua Connect restored by User:Chick Bowen after Deleted Review here.

December 6, 2009

20:33 Aqua Connect deleted by User:Wizardman after second discussion results in delete decision.

November 2, 2011‎

01:34 Aqua Connect recreated by User:Jake Petroules

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 19:34, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now likely as my first searches News, Books and browser found nothing particularly good. Pinging the still most active Stifle and ContinueWithCaution and sending a hatnote to MuZeMike. SwisterTwister talk 06:38, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt all versions of the name including AquaConnect, Aqua Connect, and Aqua connect. The company is not notable; it appears the only coverage it has received relates to a lawsuit against another company. I just deleted a paragraph which had nothing to do with Aqua Connect. That leaves four references: the company's own website (primary source), a court filing (primary source), an article about the lawsuit in Lexology, and a dead link to barbieslapp.com. Clearly fails WP:GNG and WP:CORP. --MelanieN (talk) 22:05, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 22:05, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Carcariass

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

Non notable band which hasn't acquired significant coverage in reliable sources. Winner 42 Talk to me! 19:48, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:20, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:20, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:20, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The group just isn't notable. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 13:37, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 18:02, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: non-notable band. Fails WP:GNG. Quis separabit? 20:31, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there's simply no improvement. SwisterTwister talk 02:01, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Nicholas Wyman

The result of this discussion was 'delete'. The actual discussion has been hidden from view but can still be accessed by following the "history" link at the top of the page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 22:05, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Avishek Majumder

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

Indian musician. The article appears to have been created and mostly edited by the musician himself, and cites no references except IMDB. A brief Google search has not yielded anything relevant, either. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 17:47, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 17:52, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 17:52, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No evidence of notability. — JJMC89 (T·C) 17:55, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now as although my searches found News results, they're only for the film composition and there's no better coverage. SwisterTwister talk 22:55, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 22:05, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammed Arshad Ali

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

Article about the CEO of a company. Two local news sources make a very brief mention of him, and the other sources are not independent nor do they seem to meet WP:RS. Fails WP:BASIC. - Mr X 16:48, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. - Mr X 16:48, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. - Mr X 16:48, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. - Mr X 16:49, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now as there's simply no evidence of better coverage. SwisterTwister talk 22:17, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. sami ^talk 22:57, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 22:05, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

L'Assiette Vitalité

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

Presented as a nutrition book published by a French foundation. However, the book cannot be found by title or ISBN in French or US Amazon, and the only evidence I can find of its existence is an entry in Worldcat for what may be a later edition, but with zero library holdings. The "publisher" listed is actually a printing company (Quebecor World) so the book may be considered self-published. LaMona (talk) 16:25, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. LaMona (talk) 17:15, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. LaMona (talk) 17:15, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. LaMona (talk) 17:15, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. LaMona (talk) 17:15, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unfortunately as I found no better coverage. SwisterTwister talk 06:49, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing criteria to be included here as a book. Fiddle Faddle 17:18, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above - David Gerard (talk) 19:11, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Three Oaks, Michigan. (non-admin closure) Kraxler (talk) 19:19, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Apple Cider Century

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

No sources to establish notability of this event. Kelly ^hi! 00:21, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cycling-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 00:39, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:NEVENT. sovereign°sentinel (contribs) 01:59, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:56, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:56, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mention and redirect at Three Oaks, Michigan as this may not be outstandingly notable but it seems locally known enough to mention at the community's article and my searches found results here and here. @Kelly and Sovereign Sentinel: Your thoughts? SwisterTwister talk 04:48, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Seems like a good idea. sovereign°sentinel (contribs) 05:14, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I also agree with SwisterTwister's suggestion. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:11, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone 16:07, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete both. I am willing to userfy the article about the organization to the author, if requested. --MelanieN (talk) 01:24, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Advances in Group Theory and Applications

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

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

Non-notable new journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Randykitty (talk) 21:45, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This appears to be a legitimate new journal and not one of the many predatory journals that have been popping up like mushrooms. In particular it claims not to charge authors for publishing, always a good sign. But it's too soon to tell whether it will become notable. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:04, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Advances in Group Theory and Applications" is a new journal, but its editorial board, which is listed in the journal web page is formed by 13 very well-known mathematicians. Their quality can for instance be checked either using the MathSciNet data base of the American Mathematical Society or the Mathematics Genealogy Project. It is reasonable that in the next few years the journal will have a prominent role in the mathematical world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Francesco de Giovanni (talk • contribs) 22:09, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 22:12, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL/WP:TOOSOON and WP:NJOURNALS. This is a non-notable journal, and the article was created by the EiC of the journal. If it becomes notable, then we can have it, but not before. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 22:25, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete New journal which has not yet proven Notability. Just because notable people are involved in the journal does not make the journal itself notable for Wikipedia standards perWP:NOTINHERITED.- McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 22:31, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note added a second article about the organization which writes the journal which fails to meet notability standards aswell. I am pinging previous editors to reassess @David Eppstein:,@Headbomb: and @Randykitty:.
- The organization and conference have apparently been running for eight years now, so they have a more plausible claim of notability than the new journal. But we need reliably published sources that are independent of the organization and attest to its significance, in order to pass the general notability guideline. The article currently has no such sources and without them we can't keep it. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:51, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - The society has organized conferences with the same title in the years 2007, 2009, 2011, 2013, 2014, 2015. For each of them the proceedings have been published in the journal "Note di Matematica", and fully reviewed by "Mathematical Reviews" and "Zentralblatt fur Mathematik". In the website of last conference (the 2015 edition) you can find the link to all these proceedings. Francesco de Giovanni — Preceding unsigned comment added by Francesco de Giovanni (talk • contribs) 22:59, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - I should also mention that I was one of the founding editors of the journal "Journal of Group Theory" (published by de Gruyter), and I was a member of that journal since 1996 to 2014. The "Journal of Group Theory" was born as a consequence of an international conference that I organized in 1994 (Infinite Groups 1994), whose proceedings were published by de Gruyter. The new journal is a consequence of many discussions between people working in the area during the last edition of the conferences, and reflect the opinion of the editors of the opportunity of having an open-access journal out of the commercial system; all publication costs will be covered by the association AGTA. Francesco de Giovanni — Preceding unsigned comment added by Francesco de Giovanni (talk • contribs) 23:10, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - That's laudable and quite hip, but unfortunately it doesn't help your open-access journal: notability is not inherited. Now, what you said about, about published proceedings, that's theoretically helpful in establishing notability for the organization (not yet the journal). Can I point out to all participants that we're talking about two different subjects here, a journal and a professional organization, each of which have very different notability requirements? Don't throw out the organizational baby with the journalish bathwater. Drmies (talk) 23:30, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I appreciated very much the last comment by Drmies. Actually, it is probably true that it's too early to establish notability of the journal, and I probably it would have been better to wait, say at least one year, to propose that article. The situation of the Society is quite different, and I could add to the article a complete list of references of the published proceedings, which would probably convince you about its notability. Thanks in any case for your attention.Francesco de Giovanni (talk) 23:40, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:44, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

- I have just added more information about the publication of the conference proceedings in article of the society "AGTA - Advances in Group Theory and Applications". I hope it can help!Francesco de Giovanni (talk) 23:51, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Delete both; the society isn ot notable either. It has organized a short series of conferences, published in a minor journal. DGG ( talk ) 23:28, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- To DGG: Your comment is very strange: look at the list of speakers at these conferences - they are among the recognized best world researchers in this area of mathematics, even a field medallist Francesco de Giovanni (talk) 00:26, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More discussion is needed about the orgainization's article; there is certainly a consensus to delete the article about its journal. L Faraone 16:04, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone 16:04, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both as WP:TOOSOON. There is consensus for deletion of the journal article, per Faraone above. The organisation does not yet meet WP:ORG. --Bejnar (talk) 19:29, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 22:03, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Centre for Indian Political Research and Analysis

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

Seemingly non-notable group that appears to have ceased to exist as their website no longer works and my searches found nothing immediately good and outstanding here, here and here. For an article from February 2007, there has been no improvement and I see no signs of it happening. SwisterTwister talk 03:07, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 03:09, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 03:09, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 03:09, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 03:09, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Maybe this is their another website. But this website is also not much useful. But they do have this too. They also claim that they have another unit in Africa. Found this book which is just mentioning this organization. Flipkart do sells their research. I think we usually don't find much independent sources for "think tanks". Their quality is mainly depends on their research work or analysis of the issue. But still it does not seems to be very notable.--Human3015^{Send WikiLove} 21:06, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 02:34, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm not sure whether they still exist or not. What I am sure about is that the searches didn't turn up enough to show that they are notable. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:34, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone 15:59, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 22:03, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Jackson Wiley

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

Edited this article down as it contained much unsubstantiated and outdated information. Now I am wondering if this is enough to fulfill WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC - I did further searches and there is some material but it either is linked to his father who was a director or announcements. I failed to find any reviews related to performances either as a conductor or as a guitarist. Karst (talk) 07:14, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 07:34, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 07:34, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 07:34, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:56, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:13, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not entirely sure but maybe delete for now as although my searches found results here, here and here but this may ultimately not be enough so delete for now. SwisterTwister talk 04:54, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - as per nom and above editors. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:47, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone 15:52, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Lacks coverage and the article content doesn't suggest anything that would qualify under WP:NMUSIC. Brian heim composer (talk) 18:17, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 22:03, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ujala Shanker

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

Blatant promotion and a resume of somebody who is not notable/noteworthy yet for an encyclopaedic article. Might be written by an editor close to the subject. Cannot find any objective news outlets confirming the relevance of this subject Sheroddy (talk) 15:50, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 15:56, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: as non-notable individual. Should have been speedily deleted long ago. Quis separabit? 20:28, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there simply aren't any signs of better coverage. Inviting past editor Boleyn. SwisterTwister talk 22:24, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I edited this while trying to find some evidence of notability. I couldn't find the sources to confirm WP:GNG or WP:BIO. Boleyn (talk) 20:01, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I get a surprising count of 373 Google hits, and even with the best intentions I find nothing worth adding that would count towards meeting the general notability guidelines. -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 15:59, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 22:02, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dayananda Palahela

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

A non-notable professor- has been tagged for notability since May 2015, with no improvements. The references provide simply establish he exists. Fails WP:NACADEMICS and WP:GNG. Dan arndt (talk) 15:15, 13 September 2015 (UTC) Dan arndt (talk) 15:15, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 15:18, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 15:18, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 15:18, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 15:18, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as although I found a few results that appear to be him, I found nothing convincingly good. Pinging David Eppstein and DGG. SwisterTwister talk 06:52, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The very meager Google Scholar results, and the insignificance of the publications he does list, imply non-notable. But I leave this one to David E., because it needs to be checked in the specialized indexes. DGG ( talk ) 17:39, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. His publications can be found on Google scholar or MathSciNet under the name "P. W. A. Dayananda". They have Google scholar citation counts 55, 32, 29, etc., for an h-index of 8. This is a low-citation field but that's not enough to convince me of notability via WP:PROF#C1. I was able to verify that he worked for (and has retired from) St. Thomas, and found suggestive evidence although not reliable sourcing for his being educated in England and at one time living in Australia. None of this amounts to notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:45, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete under WP:CSD#G7 per the request of the article author. Mojo Hand (talk) 15:08, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hrishikesh (Director)

Previous AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Hrishikesh Pandey (director)

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

removed PROD. All sources are unreliable, one source included (the one I though could be reliable) does not exist (there is no "Global Standard News") implying self-promotion. WP:BEFORE turned up nothing in websearch, booksearch, or newssearch. I'm always happy to be wrong, but this appears to be a non-notable director. Fails WP:FILM, WP:BIO and WP:GNG 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:48, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. And, yeah, please don't blank, redirect, rename, whatever the page after you propose it for deletion. Just chill for a week and see how the debate turns out. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:20, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, the result is Delete the redirect, but keep the main article it points to. When I closed this, the main article also got deleted by accident. Not sure if I actually did anything wrong, or it's just a bug in the script which automates the close process and might not understand redirects properly? In any case, I've restored the main article. My apologies for the confusion. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:29, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion ongoing at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/List of Apink concert tours -- RoySmith (talk) 12:45, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of Apink concert tours

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

Doesn't look notable at all Action Hero Shoot! 14:27, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as just miscellenous info without independent notability. I notice that the nominator blanked this page after he boldly blanked the List of Apink concert tours and redirected it to Apink. The redirect should be deleted as an unlikely search term. --Bejnar (talk) 03:27, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - clearly WP:FANCRUFT. Although I notice the nominator changed the page to a redirect, which I don't believe should have been done when it was here at AfD. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:56, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 22:02, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Adrian Bryant

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

Personal trainer with YouTube channel. No reliable independent sources. Neither Alexa rankings nor any number of YouTube clicks establish notability on their own. Note: the article had more content in the past, but it was mostly promotional (SPA) and based on self-published sites. GermanJoe (talk) 14:01, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Notability not established. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 15:05, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: utterly non-notable. Page created for vanity and/or promo. Quis separabit? 17:52, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 22:01, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FIFA U-20 World Cup records

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

Unsourced listcruft, non-notable JMHamo (talk) 13:45, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. JMHamo (talk) 13:47, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable. Major records can be mentioned in the main FIFA U-20 World Cup article. Giant Snowman 13:49, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 23:52, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:LISTCRUFT — Jkudlick ^tc_s 23:56, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:NFOOTY non-senior internationals are not inherently notable, it stands to reason that any statistics relating to their performances as re therefore also not inherently notable. Nothing here but WP:NOTSTATS. Fenix down (talk) 12:02, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 22:01, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of FIFA U-20 World Cup hat-tricks

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

Fails WP:GNG and is pure listcruft. U20 football is not usually notable JMHamo (talk) 13:38, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. JMHamo (talk) 13:40, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable. Giant Snowman 13:48, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:LISTCRUFT Spiderone 15:41, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 23:53, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:LISTCRUFT, and non-senior football is generally non-notable. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 23:54, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No indication that the notion of hat tricks at the U20 WC has achieved any significant level of coverage as a subject itself. this is just pure WP:NOTSTATS. Fenix down (talk) 12:01, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect again to 2011 British privacy injunctions controversy#Jeremy Clarkson (non-admin closure) Kraxler (talk) 19:31, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AMM v HXW

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

Of dubious notability other than the connection to Jeremy Clarkson, whose article and 2011_British_privacy_injunctions_controversy#Jeremy_Clarkson already tells us as much as this stub. It has already been redirected on 13 January 2012‎ and then rebuilt by User:DanielJCooper . Derek Andrews (talk) 13:06, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect, without delete, without prejudice to recreation at a later point in time if better quality source discussion and improvement in article content presentation. — Cirt (talk) 16:35, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. --MelanieN (talk) 01:35, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

SC Evolution - Koshiki Karate

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

Unsourced article about a karate club. No evidence of notability. Fails WP:ORGDEPTH. - Mr X 12:52, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is the first article ever about any koshiki karate club in our country, so please, tell me what to add, because it's my first topic in Wiki. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kukoba Paul (talk • contribs) 13:52, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

— Kukoba Paul (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 20:28, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable club of a minor style of karate. Does not meet WP:MANOTE or WP:GNG.Peter Rehse (talk) 20:28, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The page is fine. Information needs some improvement, that much is right, but not deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Redgladcat (talk • contribs) 06:42, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

— Redgladcat (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Delete Article has no independent sources. No indication of any notability.Jakejr (talk) 19:34, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. As always leniency is always given to Indian subjects (Ie films, shows, BLPs etc etc) as unlike UK/US sourcing for indian stuff's alot harder to find, Anyway overall consensus is to keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:51, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

SaadeyCMSaab

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

Non-notable film, not even released yet. No claim of notability Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:21, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 13:31, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alts:

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

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

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

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

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

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

WP:INDAFD: "Saadey CM Saab" "Vipin Parashar" "Kashish Singh" "Harbhajan Mann" "Sumeet Singh Manchanda" "Avishek Majumder" "Gurpreet Ghuggi"

Keep per meeting WP:NFF (paragraph 3). As topic notability is through the availability of sources (even if not currently used), no article ever has to make a claim "I am notable". The stub article already has sources which tell us filming has commenced with lead actor Harbhajan Mann, and a little BEFORE tells us its production HAS coverage to meet WP:GNG and that its release date is next month on October 30. It serves the project and its readers for this stub to be expanded over time and through regular editing using the available sources. Yes the current stub is a poorly sourced, but so what? When a film topic meets WP:NFF (paragraph 3), we do not delete it... we fix it. Sorry Jimfbleak but we look first, determine if the topic is notable and not judge it for being WP:IMPERFECT, and then we allow it to remain and be improved over time and through use of the many available sources. One editors opinion. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 21:36, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Schmidt, , to me, that amounts to saying that all films (and by implication books and recordings) can have an article, even if not released at the time of posting, as long as they have some sort of reference to someone or something that already has an article. That interpretation of para 3 seems to rely on notability by association, which isn't normally acceptable. Not my understanding of the notability guidelines at all. Presumably your interpretation also applies to people (X's father was famous, so X gets an article as long as he can find a ref or two?) Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:49, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Jimfbleak: Please do not misstate or misinterpret or WP:WAX my arguments. Simply put, I pay attention to community consensus that created MOS:FILM#production and WP:NFF and WP:GNG, and understand that (no matter where it is being shot) IF a film project has entered filming (many never do) and ITS production receives coverage to meet WP:GNG (many never do) it may merit an article before release. I believe this filming project meets inclusion guides enough to be expanded per available sources to serve our readers. You (apparently) do not, and that's okay. Thank you. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 07:32, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 09:16, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Agree with argumentation as presented by MichaelQSchmidt, above. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 16:38, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:40, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Udanchhoo

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

Non-notable film, not even released yet. No claim of notability let alone references Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:18, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 13:33, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alts:

WP:INDAFD: Udanchhoo "Udanchoo" "Vipin Parashar" "Vishal V. Patil" "Rajniesh Duggal" "Saisha Sehgal" "Bruna Abdullah"

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

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

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

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

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

Keep Being unreleased is not the guiding issue for projects BEING filmed... coverage of production IS. In looking, we do know the film had its music launch last April, in May it was announced that actor Gautam Gulati opted out and was replaced by Rajneesh Duggal, and we do know filming has begun and they were shooting in Greater Noida where lead actor Duggal used 10 different looks. Yes the current stub is a poorly sourced, but so what? When a film topic meets WP:NFF (paragraph 3), we do not delete it... Sorry Jimfbleak but we look first, determine if the topic is notable and not judge it for being WP:IMPERFECT, and then we allow it to remain and be improved over time and through use of the many available sources. One editors opinion. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 21:10, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 09:12, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I added a handful of references yesterday; subject meets WP:GNG. -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 07:16, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Sam Sailor: Thank you for helping make it obvious that the TOPIC met inclusion criteria even before is was nominated for being WP:UGLY. What is far too often forgotten is that under WP:NRVE, WP:N and WP:HANDLE a article being unsourced is not nearly as important as sources being available for improvement. That's why in a community SO-FIX-IT does not mean DELETE-IT. Good job. Y Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 07:37, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It meets WP:GNG.EyThink (talk) 11:44, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment above is the user's only wikipedia edit Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:41, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jim, they currently have 487 edits] here. -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 15:16, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I'm seeing good deal of discussion among various types of references. — Cirt (talk) 16:39, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 22:01, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

José Luis Espinosa

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

Player has not yet played in a professional league. '''tAD''' (talk) 11:10, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Check this source as it clearly verifies that he has played soccer at professional level. Realmmb 11:18, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Segunda División B is not a professional league. '''tAD''' (talk) 11:27, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Transfermarkt is not a reliable source, so any information contained in that page does not contribute to confirming notability. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:02, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 12:10, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverge, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:02, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:02, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 12:04, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 17:28, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: My new friends who edit Indian football articles need to learn the rules me thinks. Player fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 19:50, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY, never played in a fully-pro league. And even if this page was correct, a more suitable name, like Tiri (footballer), would be better. MYS77 ^✉ 20:58, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- A suitable suggestion. And as the ISL is professional, it could be sooner than we think '''tAD''' (talk) 01:03, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 22:01, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Novell

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

No indication of notability, no reliable sources that cover Novell in any detail. Not a single relevant Google News result. Huon (talk) 10:49, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Didn't appear in any notable production or film so far, his books have not attracted reviews of any kind outside of Amazon. 85.178.200.49 (talk) 22:11, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No sources available, therefore delete. Best, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 00:59, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Can't find any relevant sources, and the article isn't really any help. It's probably too soon for an article yet. Maybe when the films are released and the book series gets some reviews there will be coverage. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 10:59, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 22:01, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

BYOEM

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

WP:NEO, no google hits, and I cant even really tell what it means exactly. Savonneux (talk) 09:59, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are a couple of Google hits for "bring your own e-mail", but nothing relevant for the article. Delete. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 18:10, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I think this is WP:TOOSOON. I'm seeing a few mentions on non-notable blogs in relation to the Hillary Clinton server scandal, but nothing mainstream notable. Alaynestone (talk) 00:13, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - To be frank, this article seems useless. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 06:52, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Red card. Sandstein 19:43, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of Arsenal red cards under Arsène Wenger

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

Pure WP:NOTSTATS and WP:LISTCRUFT. Giant Snowman 09:12, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 09:13, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Would List of Arsenal red cards in the Premier League be an acceptable alternative? Spiderone 10:56, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For me, no. Giant Snowman 10:59, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm struggling to see how this fails WP:LISTCRUFT since there are plenty of reliable sources used from BBC, Guardian, Times etc. about their disciplinary record as well as comments from the chairman and manager themselves, in particular the one about Wenger's 'selective vision' which suggest that this is a possible topic of interest. Which of the 12 listcruft reasons do you think applies to this article? Spiderone 11:04, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1, 2, 3... Giant Snowman 11:12, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well it's not a 'random' list as I've explained below. It may interest a limited number of people, but when the next Arsenal player gets sent off you will undoubtedly have the newspapers/BBC keeping count of it, and one site publishing an updated list. Lemonade51 (talk) 12:15, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. I don't see a full list of red cards in any of the sources, so I don't see how this is a notable topic. – Pee Jay 11:32, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, well there isn't a full sourced list for this. Is this a notable topic? (Of course I know it is.....) But just one glance it says Igors Stepanovs won a league medal, but he didn't receive one during the trophy presentation. The Arsenal website incorrectly says he did though. Lemonade51 (talk) 12:15, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – naturally, although I admit the list is more slanted to Wenger's first period at Arsenal (42 red cards in five-and-a-half years). For me it's notable when the club chairman criticised the record in public, and a leading football correspondent called it appalling. This doesn't have to be a negative connotation of Wenger's management style, as his teams behaviour have improved, they have won numerous Fair Play awards and a high proportion of the cards issued were not acts of malice, but provocation. The introduction attempts to highlight this. But the high number of red cards are an anomaly for a manager who sets up teams to play intricate football. It was the subject of discussion almost every week in the English press, and Arsenal's 12 red cards in 2001–02 set the bar in the English division. Again this list is not something pulled out of thin air – there are incarnations of the tally on t'internet. Plus I see how this fails WP:LISTCRUFT. Lemonade51 (talk) 11:48, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - I would prefer if the article did not focus on one particular manager because this could lead to a dangerous precedent being set. For example, we could end up seeing articles like "List of Liverpool red cards under Brendan Rodgers" and it could get out of hand. I feel that the references used mean that this passes WP:GNG and I don't think it's necessarily a big issue if none of the sources themselves list all of the red cards. For example, how many sources in the Rooney international goals article listed all of Rooney's goals?

If this article is kept then I think it needs to be moved to List of Arsenal F.C. red cards under Arsène Wenger Spiderone 12:08, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per comments on Wikiproject Football; Can you imagine having an entire article dedicated to Fergie Time? No. Instead it's part of a larger topic i.e. Alex Ferguson. How about the an article about Utd's worst start to a Premier League season? No. Instead it's part of a larger topic i.e. David Moyes. By splitting this topic from the actual content of a biography A. it neatly circumvents balance and npov B. is almost certainly undue C. contributes practically nothing.

It's an interesting biographical note that should be dealt with as part of his biography, along with discussions about how he changed Arsenal from being "boring boring", his contributions to cosmopolitan nature of the Premier League, and his title successes. Y'know. Context. Koncorde (talk) 13:33, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would further add that his article appropriately summarises the key points in 10 sentences or less, and provides context for the "Fair Play" aspect. Koncorde (talk) 13:33, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The introduction provides context. One point raised is Arsenal won the league in 2002 with a record number of dismissals, which in itself tells you something. There is an article to United's worst start to a Premier League season, it's entitled 2013–14 Manchester United F.C. season. And whose to say there won't be an article (or books) dedicated to 'Fergie Time' in 20 years? – though I agree it would be best summarised in the manager's profile. One solution to your "balance" concern would be to link the list to the "Team indiscipline and fair play" section of Wenger's page. As for contributes "nothing", the list on its own doesn't but the prose/trend does. Arsenal have changed their act under Wenger; they are still prone to taking provocative action, but they don't lose a man at a rate of one every three games like before. Again, it's for you to draw your own conclusions. Lemonade51 (talk) 14:12, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, the context is Arsene Wenger, not a list. Your example of the 2013–14 Manchester United F.C. season does not help as again the start is treated within the context of the larger (and more significant) season which is the whole point being made. And no linking the list is not the solution, by all means merge the content (with due weight) to the fair play section - but once you have done that the specific red cards themselves are really irrelevant. Koncorde (talk) 15:49, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I fail to see how this is notable. Pure trivia and listcruft. JMHamo (talk) 13:58, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not notable. Kante4 (talk) 15:37, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - but move to List of Arsenal F.C. red cards in the Premier League or other manager-neutral name. The list is well referenced, and a number of claims regarding Arsenal's red card record, indicates criterias for general notability is met. List of international goals scored by Wayne Rooney is comarable, where not a single goal is notable at it's own. The only thing I think is missing in the article, is a good reference confirming all the red cards in a given period is included in the list. Grrahnbahr (talk) 16:18, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete An article on the titular subject would not require a detailed list. The article matter goes no where, selective in it's narrative and the list is just...a list. Leaky Caldron 17:02, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I don't know (and I can't even understand) why such a list exists. This is not an important statistic, more like a trivia that commentators talk about during a match. MYS 77 ^✉ 17:04, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems to be a WP:COATRACK for criticism of Wenger. Number 5 7 20:04, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, worth mentioning in Wenger's biography (and relevant Arsenal FC season articles) that Arsenal had poor discipline in the early part of his tenure, but not a notable standalone list. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 20:11, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with nominator's opinion that it fails WP:LISTCRUFT and WP:NOTSTATS. This appears to also be a WP:COATRACK article and is hardly of encyclopedic notability. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 22:31, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as pure WP:LISTCRUFT. ~ Rob^Talk 03:42, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:LISTCRUFT and WP:NOTSTATS. Fenix down (talk) 12:00, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
delete way beyond the scope of what is appropriate for an encyclopedia --ℕ ℱ 12:59, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - go get a blog! --Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 14:30, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - great amount of references. RealDealBillMcNeal (talk) 20:46, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it is not being recommened for deletion for lack of references, it is being deleted for WP:NOT. --Bejnar (talk) 03:38, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to University of Dhaka#Dhaka University Cultural Society. (non-admin closure) Kraxler (talk) 19:44, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dhaka University Cultural Society

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

fails WP:ORG. complete cruft article created by single purpose editor. At best it is a one line mention in main university article but content is of no interest to someone outside the society LibStar (talk) 08:04, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect over to University of Dhaka. It fails WP:ORG and WP:RS as well as WP:SECONDARY. Article without proper sources, even used facebook page as source. The article seems like a promotional one and the organization is a newly established one without any formidable story. Misleading information, since it has no office in the Teacher-Student Centre, University of Dhaka. Endeavorbd (talk) 12:15, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge / Redirect over to University of Dhaka, since the organization by itself isn't really notable CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 15:20, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge / Redirect over to University of Dhaka, since the organization seems not that notable but is described as a potential one which is formed for the cultural development of the university. Some of the sources are reliable. AaqibShatil (talk) 4:40, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Moved from Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Dhaka University Cultural Society

– Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 02:21, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is a new society but it has made a great impact on the students of Dhaka University. Any student of any university can attend our program. So, though it is a new society; it should be kept and we will update our program details soon.

We have some news in some popular newspapers of Bangladesh. These are very reliable sources of news. Some of the links are: http://www.eduicon.com/News/Details/6660.html http://www.banglanews24.com/fullnews/bn/423055.html http://www.atntimes.com/?p=234411 http://www.campuslive24.com/campus.141433.live24/ http://newstrack24.com/%E0%A6%A2%E0%A6%BE%E0%A6%95%E0%A6%BE-%E0%A6%AC%E0%A6%BF%E0%A6%B6%E0%A7%8D%E0%A6%AC%E0%A6%AC%E0%A6%BF%E0%A6%A6%E0%A7%8D%E0%A6%AF%E0%A6%BE%E0%A6%B2%E0%A7%9F-%E0%A6%95%E0%A6%BE%E0%A6%B2%E0%A6%9A-2/ http://www.somoyerbarta.com/2015/09/newsID23874 http://www.jjdin.com/?view=details&archiev=yes&arch_date=12-09-2015&feature=yes&type=single&pub_no=1308&cat_id=3&menu_id=70&news_type_id=1&index=6 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ahsan Mahmood Rony (talk • contribs) 01:40, 14 September 2015‎ – Please sign your posts!

Just to pick the first link, all it does is state that they've gotten a press release from the organization, with the contents of the press release briefly described. That's not the kind of reliable source coverage that a Wiki article really needs. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 02:32, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 22:19, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 22:21, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. As a purely personal thought, I wonder if lists of goaltenders by teams would work. But consensus is clearly against this list. Courcelles (talk) 22:00, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of NHL goaltenders

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

NHL has been in existence since 1917. A specific page devoted to "NHL goaltenders" is not only not encyclopedic but completely impractical and would be impossible to maintain having regard to categories on this page. While lack of similar pages isn't decisive, it shouldn't be ignored there are no wiki pages devoted to the categorization of other NHL positions. GLG GLG (talk) 07:28, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom. Only a handful of goaltenders are listed on this page (of the many hundreds who have played the position in league history), and the list doesn't actually reflect "NHL" goaltenders with their complete records, but those who've played for the Buffalo Sabres team (in existence only since 1970) and only reflecting their record with Buffalo, as opposed to their entire careers. Between 80-100 goalies take the ice in the NHL in any given year, and maintaining such a list -- never mind the daunting premise of completing it -- would be a formidable task for which I can't picture too many editors lining up. Ravenswing 08:38, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We have categories for this and as the nominator pointed out we don't have lists for other hockey positions. Baseball players aren't listed by position either....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:57, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:LISTCRUFT, specifically points 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 8, 11, and 12. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 00:11, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it per my thoughts at WT:HOCKEY#List of NHL goaltenders. This list is hopelessly incomplete, only containing 40+ goaltenders out of about 720 total. Without someone wanting to put in the necessary work, it's better to WP:TNT it than promote this grossly inaccurate list. -- Tavix ^(talk) 13:26, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom. Deadman137 (talk) 19:26, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 21:59, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

K.King

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

He's released one track (with 11 references to the fact!), no other referenced facts, looks like WP:TOOSOON Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:56, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG and has WP:COI problems as well. On a side note most of the refs state that they were retrieved in 2014. That is a fairly neat trick for an article created today. Were the copy/pasted from some other article? MarnetteD|Talk 13:53, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable. The hype over the Putin rap single is more notable than the artist, but even that fails WP:NOTNEWS. The "international success" claim is pure misrepresentation for "temporary popularity" (as literally everything curious vaguely related to Putin). Also most likely a re-creation of a previously deleted article (we had King Tiger (rapper) lately, although this one looks different and may be from a different rap spammer). Would need an admin to look into the deletion background. GermanJoe (talk) 15:44, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - He's not really popular; his song is (to a degree). As well, the limited notability of his hip-hop single is of the 'flash in the pan' variety. It all seems problematic, as pointed about above, so this article should just be deleted. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 02:04, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: not only non-notable but some of the unsourced claims are hard to buy, i.e. Zimbabwean born rapper and record producer from Moscow, Russia and King was born 11 September 1982 in Harare and moved to England at the age of 14 then to Russia at 16. Quis separabit? 22:07, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 21:58, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tsundue/Co-op Co-op

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

Not obvious why this is notable, promotional tone, WP:HOWTO Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:51, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This looks like an open-and-shut case. If an admin comes in, maybe it's worth a speedy deletion. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 15:34, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this article's title "Co-op Co-op" is the title of a book on Cooperative learning by Spencer Kagan. This article offers nothing that is not in the Cooperative learning article. The article appears to be promotional without the peacock words. The article is improperly titled being a sub-page of the non-existant "Tsundue". No redirect is appropriate. Kagan's book itself is not notable, fails WP:NBOOK. With no claim to importance or notability this might be an A7 deletion, but a "learning strategy" is likely not "web content" or "organized event", and it is probably better to finish the Afd. --Bejnar (talk) 19:41, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 21:58, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yui Tatsumi

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

The only potential proper source NKTV does not exist. Otherwise fails PORNBIO and GNG Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:43, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom - Fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 01:02, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 05:52, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator's accurate analysis. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 00:00, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No seeing any actual in-depth coverage of this person other than video listings. --DAJF (talk) 08:34, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to International Vietnamese Youth Conference. (non-admin closure) Kraxler (talk) 19:56, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Len Duong International Vietnamese Youth Network

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

A non-notable network. Fails on WP:GNG and WP:NONPROFIT. No coverage in reliable source. Even official website, mentioned in external link,is redirecting to an engineering tool development company. Tagged for notability concern since 2011 without any significant improvement. Hitro talk 20:49, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:26, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:26, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:26, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete even in gnews the only hit is a facebook page. fails WP:GNG completely. LibStar (talk) 04:33, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 05:51, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to International Vietnamese Youth Conference which has slightly more coverage. Wow, double-checking other's failed searches, oh what fun! No, there is no significant coverage of this network. It fails WP:GNG. The article has been around since February 2007‎, it has been tagged as needing sources since February 2011. --Bejnar (talk) 19:49, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 21:58, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Santera Tequila

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

Advertisement for a beverage, which doesn't show any indication of notability. Searches on the engines only returned a couple of minor mentions on News. Can't find any in-depth coverage which shows this brand is notable. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:11, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 21:14, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:37, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:28, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: some industry and press-release stuff but no decent coverage in WP:RS. Fails WP:CORP and WP:GNG. Vrac (talk) 18:52, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: entry has been updated with further online news articles and coverage. Further additions have been made to entry clearing WP:RS. Product is available for purchase and sale, clears WP:CORP and WP:GNG.Coreykam (talk) 19:14, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - The two additional citations don't meet the threshold of notability. The first is from Liquor.com, which isn't a reliable source, since it exists solely to promote alcoholic products. The second is a dead link. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:35, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - Good catch. Article has been updated with notes. Liquor.com has been taken out of sources and the second link is now active. Additional links and information have also been added.38.99.10.106 (talk) 15:49, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 05:51, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now (draft & userfy if needed) as my searches found nothing better than some sponsorships and unfamiliar links. SwisterTwister talk 21:37, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the article fails to state a basis for notability. Editor Vrac is correct, there is some coverage, but not what one would call significant. Editor Coreykam's good faith attempt to add more really didn't. "Lifetailored" and "Headlines and Heroes" are interesting magazine/promotional websites but add little, the same with "Good Spirits News" published on wordpress. None of them would be considered reliable sources. --Bejnar (talk) 20:01, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 21:58, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vested business brokers

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

Subject fails on WP:ORG. Article is unsourced. Not enough coverage in reliable sources either. Being tagged for notability concerns since June 2012. Hitro talk 21:22, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:37, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:37, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:29, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This looks like an easy case. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 23:40, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with the above. Alaynestone (talk) 00:18, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 05:51, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No significant coverage. Fails WP:ORG. I agree with editor CoffeeWithMarkets, this looks like an easy case. But nonetheless it was relisted. Oh well, it is not like I had a train to catch. Gee, they have their own website, and directory listings, and you can view client testimonials on YouTube! It does have an importance claim (See A7), if you believe the staff-written bio of Ms. Goldstein at the NY Senate website: The company is the largest privately held company specializing in the sale of privately held businesses, with over 3,500 listings. With that kind of standing, would one not expect greater coverage? Given the tenor of the complaints listed at US-Complaints.com maybe an investigative business reporter can get a Pulizer. Try WP:SNOW. For the record, the article was created in June 2012‎ by a WP:SPA. --Bejnar (talk) 20:29, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Showtime Networks. Clear consensus to not exist as a stand-alone article. No real agreement on what to do instead, but redirect seems like a reasonable average of the opinions. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:16, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Showtime (brand)

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

Purely original research, as most of these companies/services are linked in name only, and their owners are completely unrelated – not a unified "brand" as claimed in the article's title. The Showtime disambiguation page already lists these services adequately. (Relisting due to no participation at last AFD discussion) -- Wikipedical (talk) 21:23, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:36, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:36, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 05:51, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Showtime Networks (plural), the brand owner and licensor, no substanial difference. Someone might want to merge the non-WP:OR content, namely the Bell Media licensing and its citation. --Bejnar (talk) 20:48, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Don't see the need for the redirect, since anyone who would type in the (brand), would already be given the Showtime Networks choice. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:52, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Showtime Networks, which apparently owns the Showtime brand.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:25, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 21:57, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Susan Millar

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

Delete: as non-notable. Promotional advert in almost every way. Quis separabit? 21:36, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:30, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:30, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:30, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:30, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 05:50, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I was able to find one Belfast newspaper article that confirms the story that her family has links to the Titanic. That's not enough for wp:gng, and her book is self-published. LaMona (talk) 15:46, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of coverage, fails WP:GNG, fails WP:NOTBLP. --Bejnar (talk) 21:46, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 21:57, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Norene

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

I'm inclined to think this vet (in both senses of the word) does not satisfy WP:BIO and certainly not WP:SOLDIER. He does have an obituary, supposedly from AP,[2] and a mention in an Obama speech,[3] but I don't think that's enough. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:00, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:41, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:41, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:41, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:41, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Hmm, unfortunately, yes, there's not much for this and my searches found nothing of course than this. SwisterTwister talk 07:11, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 05:50, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: an upstanding and fine individual and citizen but not notable. Quis separabit? 20:30, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lacks significant coverage so not notable under the WP:GNG. Anotherclown (talk) 16:57, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 21:57, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tsubomi (actress)

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

Films winning awards does not mean the actors win. The AV Actress of the year does not appear to be a proper award but rather an X-rated japanese equivilent of a FHM type chart. In short. lacks RS and fails PORNBIO Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:35, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom - Fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 01:02, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 05:50, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Tsubomi is one of the most famous AV idols. The actress of the year award is indeed the equivalent of an AVN award (more prestigious, in fact, since Japan has far fewer such awards). She is also the subject of a short documentary by VICE (a mainstream RS):[4]. (Hit the CC button in the video player for English subtitles.) --Sammy1339 (talk) 22:42, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom's accurate assessment. The claimed "actress of the year" award fails the "well knowm/significant" standard of PORNBIO -- it isn't even mentioned, for example, in Pornography in Japan or even in the article on Weekly Playboy itself (looking at both the en-wiki and ja-wiki versions). Weekly Playboy, btw, isn't the Japanese version of the notable mag, but an entirely different publication of far lower stature. In the absence of significant RS coverage, there's no basis for keeping a promotionally sourced BLP (and that single online clip, which the cited page says "doesn’t go into any context or explore anything properly" falls well below the necessary level of coverage. I mean, if "tokyokinky.com" finds the coverage substandard, it's not going to be good enough for Wikipedia. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 12:19, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 21:55, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Williamson Hall

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

As far as I can determine, there is no indication of notability for this dorm other than it was named after a person that the university recognizes as notable. In general, we don't keep articles on dorms. We either delete them or merge them with the relevant college or university article. I am One of Many (talk) 04:10, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This article seems to have been written from a promotional perspective for the benefit of students within the university who may select or be assigned to it for housing. No sources from outside the university's own website have been provided. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:04, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: non-notable university dormitory. Quis separabit? 17:40, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 21:55, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

David Shane Gunderson

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

Tagged for notability since 2012 and I can't verify that the subject meets WP:PROF. He doesn't have a Google Scholar profile but the publications that show up are all mutiple-coauthored and gets below 20 citations Solomon 7968 04:08, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Solomon 7968 04:09, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Solomon 7968 04:09, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, reluctantly. I agree that he does not seem to be notable for his mathematical publications. What he should be notable for is the large and impressive collection of mathematical models that he has built, that (at least when I visited a few years ago) were on display in the lobby of his department's building. But I can't find any evidence that he actually is notable for that; I don't think my and Greg Frederickson's web pages on his models [5] [6] count for much and other than the subject's own page I can't find anything else. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:39, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: as non-notable academic. Quis separabit? 20:32, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 21:55, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Robbie Engelquist

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

He may be somewhat well known locally but my searches found nothing better to suggest improvement with the best results here and here (from News, and searches at CBC.ca found nothing else). At best, if he's not independently notable, he should be mentioned elsewhere but I'm not seeing a target. SwisterTwister talk 05:47, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:53, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:53, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:53, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:09, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 01:57, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:56, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete refs in the article are dead links and My Space, no independent secondary coverage anywhere, web searches turn up primary pieces and social media Kraxler (talk) 20:24, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 21:54, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tania Fakhry

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

Does not meet GNG. Charlie the Pig (talk) 05:05, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 07:45, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 07:45, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 07:45, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 01:56, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:55, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Given her age and the shortness of her career so far, it seems that it's 'too soon' for this page to exist. She's not particularly notable at the moment. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 04:11, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Withdrawn by nominator NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:23, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bernard Li

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

We can't have biographies on every High School teacher/principal on Earth. Action Hero Shoot! 03:54, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The subject is not a high school principal, but the former president of a university which has over 20,000 students. See [7], [8], and [9] for confirmation that he was indeed the president of Fu Jen Catholic University. The subject's status as a university president is already indicated in the article and indicates that he is presumed notable per WP:NACADEMICS. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:47, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted by Versageek as test page (G2). (non-admin closure) 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 08:20, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

公民黨鄭達鴻

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

Non-English Action Hero Shoot! 03:51, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep/WP:TNT Subject is stated as chairman for the Civic Party Young Civics and Vice Chairman for the Hong Kong Island section (strangely not listed at English version) at the party's website [10], and may start to have coverage in the upcoming District Council election [11], but I recognize that WP:TOOSOON can also be argued for deletion. More importantly is that the editor appears to not understand that en.wiki is the English Wikipedia, and I will be leaving a message for them. 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 05:37, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Not much participation here, even after two relists. Let's call this a soft delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:21, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kulacom Jordan

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

Although somewhat new, I'm finding sources saying it's a leading telecommunications company but, also, my searches found no outstandingly good results and instead here, here, here, here and here. Even if it's acceptably locally notable, the current state is not entirely acceptable. Notifying the only still active tagger Stuartyeates. SwisterTwister talk 22:23, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 22:24, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 22:24, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 22:24, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 00:52, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: any arabic-speaking editors who could supply the company's arabic name for searching? Most sources are likely to be in arabic. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:06, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:46, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - let this one go in the hopes of someone who knows Arabic getting involved. Based on that lack of involvement, and with the current searches, fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:47, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 21:54, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Brandee Elliott Educational Projects

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

Non-notable group with no good coverage and it seems it may be closed as their website no longer works and the best results my searches were this and this. I'm simply seeing no improvement or alternative to deletion for this article from May 2007. Pinging tagger PKT. SwisterTwister talk 02:46, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 03:10, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 03:10, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 03:10, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nomination. I can't find any useful references today that would indicate notability. PK T(alk) 11:25, 29 August 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) 04:17, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:43, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 13:47, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Swami Gopal Das

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

Granted this a subject where sources may not be accessible but this existed since December 2006 with no significant improvement and my searches found nothing at all aside from one result for a more recent Swami Nrittya Gopal Das in 1990s. Not to mention I searched for connections with the currently listed sources and found nothing. Systematic bias aside, there' simlly nothing to suggest improvement and keeping. Notifying tagger Righteousskills and author LRBurdak. SwisterTwister talk 21:57, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 21:59, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 21:59, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 21:59, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 06:06, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Possible keep -- The article cites a book and an article. We should assume good faith by the creator: I do not have access to his sources. I suspect that the article may overstate the man's significance. He should more like a civil rights campaigner than a freedom fighter, but that is a matter that can be resolved by tagging the article. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:12, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:42, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. Even with AGF, the current pickings for notability are too slim to satisfy WP:GNG, and nothing on searches shows it can be made better. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:14, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The lack of any verifiable sourcing is troublesome to me. I'm sensitive to the bias against offline sources, but not a single editor can verify anything in here.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 14:42, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 21:53, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quest for Al-Qa'eda

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

Unremarkable video game. No claims to significance. Google research shows that source reliability is questionable.

Even if they are taken as reliable, reviews show it as an "exploitation" game and really bad. Though I know the game being bad doesn't justify its deletion. Mr. Guye (talk) 21:51, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Mr. Guye (talk) 21:54, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge with Jesse Petrilla: Although I disagree with the nominator that it makes no claim to significance, it is definitely a very small claim at that. There's a Wired article ([12]) that talks about how many downloads it got quickly, and there's a passing mention in The Escapist ([13]), which are both reliable and notable sources, but there's nothing really here that establishes notability for it and it's not the full subject of either article. A couple of other situational sources that are now dead-linked, but it's the focus of none of the articles. I think this could be merged with Jesse Petrilla as well. Also, Quest for Saddam should be added to this nomination as well because it is a similar game and has a similar set of sources. Nomader (talk) 22:12, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Found another CNN mention ([14]), but again, just in passing. Still keeping my delete !vote. Nomader (talk) 23:38, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Save: Mr. Guye, just because you think a game is bad or not very remarkable, doesn't mean it didn't exist. Keep in mind this was over 13 years ago, hence why most of the links are dead. It was featured on MSNBC, in multiple magazines, etc, and was downloaded by millions worldwide. The game may not have been great, but it was fun and deserves its spot on Wiki IMO. To merge it with Jesse Petrilla would not make much sense. Martel10732 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:36, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Martel! Per our verifiability and notability guidelines, our personal feelings don't matter: it's important to find sources that say the article is important, not what we personally think about it. I think it would be a great Wiki article as well, but unfortunately, we don't have many sources for it outside of passing mentions like I brought up above. Do you have the link to the MSNBC or do you know which magazines it was featured in? If you do know them, we can add them to the article so we can keep it split out. Nomader (talk) 23:54, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nomander, I can't find the link to the old MSNBC article, but there is an online video of one of the MSNBC interviews about it on YouTube ([15]), also, here is a passing mention of it in an Orange County Register article about another game: ([16]) Martel10732 (talk) 00:01, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks: that helps a lot. I really wish there was something more substantive than a cable news interview... this whole thing is really on the cusp. I still think it'd be better serviced in a section in the Jesse Petrilla page instead of being split out into a stub, but let me search tonight and see if I can find anything else. Nomader (talk) 00:23, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In trying to find some old articles, I'm just finding a bunch of broken links. After 13 years there isn't much left. If it is decided to be deleted, I recommend merging it with the Quest for Saddam page and making it a section of that rather than Jesse Petrilla since it is the predecessor to Quest for Saddam. Martel10732 (talk) 01:42, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have those links? If they're from reliable sources, we can use the internet archive [archive.org] to try and see what they were when they first came out. Nomader (talk) 18:32, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 06:07, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:41, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:12, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mera Raqeeb

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

No references or sources cited since 3 days after it's creation. Ayub407 (talk) 11:06, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 11:31, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 11:31, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable at all. Umais Bin Sajjad (talk) 04:43, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Probably delete for now as my searches found nothing minimally good with these links probably being the best results. SwisterTwister talk 05:54, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 06:09, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:41, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator, subject lacks requisite coverage from reliable publications. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 18:44, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Searches turned up nothing to show it meets WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:10, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 21:52, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

British Association of Cosmetic Doctors

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

My searches found no good coverage aside from here and here. With this article from December with no significant improvement, it also seems they may have closed as their website no longer works and there are no solid recent mentions (aside from a passing mention from March at a university page. SwisterTwister talk 02:28, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 03:12, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 03:12, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 03:12, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 03:12, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 03:12, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's now "The British College of Aesthetic Medicine"; see http://bcam.ac.uk/about-bcam/history/. But my searches for that string in Google Scholar, Google Books and NewsBank UK & Ireland failed to find any significant coverage in reliable sources to meet WP:GNG, so delete. Qwfp (talk) 08:50, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 06:15, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:40, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable professional association, only source is their own website, no coverage to pass WP:ORGDEPTH Kraxler (talk) 21:05, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG since only reference is their own website.Jakejr (talk) 14:57, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nominator and Kraxler. The criteria in WP:ORGDEPTH have not been met as there have been no reliable independent sources presented to verify any claims. Notability has not been demonstrated for this organisation. As Qwfp notes, the use of this term as a redirect in the future would depend on the British College Of Aesthetic Medicine emerging as a notable organisation. Drchriswilliams (talk) 06:40, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 21:51, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Aang Serian Drum

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

No third-party reliable sources to establish notability. Kelly ^hi! 11:26, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 15:57, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:04, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as my searches found nothing better than this and I would've pinged some of the previous users but they're all no longer active (including Skier Dude with whom I was most familiar). SwisterTwister talk 04:59, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:39, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. appears to be of trivial importance.. DGG ( talk ) 18:53, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this is one of those articles that I wish we could keep, but there is simply not enough out there to show notability. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:04, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn by nominator (NAC), SwisterTwister talk 20:55, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Spread Research

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

Fails on WP:GNG and WP:ORG. Most of the content is written in promotional tone. References are unclear. Tagged for notability since February 2011 without any significant improvement. Hitro talk 19:05, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable company. Fails WP:ORG. --Edcolins (talk) 19:54, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Tutelary (talk) 20:55, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with nominator.New Media Theorist (talk) 21:18, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

New Media Theorist Are you aware of the recent changes? SwisterTwister talk 21:41, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:33, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:33, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak Delete~~Keep: ~~for now, probably a case of too soon, but not a slam-dunk delete.~~ They are the first French credit rating agency and are being quoted by Bloomberg et al but coverage isn't that significant yet, although I did find this, this, this and this. Vrac (talk) 00:10, 9 September 2015 (UTC) The article looks pretty good after Edcolins improvements, changing to keep. I suspect this co. will be increasingly influential going forward. Vrac (talk) 22:09, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I have changed my mind. The sources recently found by Vrac (talk · contribs) (thanks!) show a sufficient coverage in reliable, independent sources, in my opinion. Both WP:GNG and WP:ORG met. --Edcolins (talk) 19:29, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:36, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now as I suppose it's more acceptable now. SwisterTwister talk 21:41, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The references in the article support notability. The article could use some work, but I do not see a reason to delete it for that. --TTTommy111 (talk) 20:15, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawal- Vrac and Edcolins have brought significant improvement to this article. In the present scenario, I am withdrawing my nomination and requesting admins to close this debate. Thank you to both users. Hitro talk 19:30, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete all. Michig (talk) 07:17, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alexandra Botezat

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

As per consensus on U18 volleyball articles - they are not notable based solely on that criteria, they must pass WP:GNG, and this doesn't. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:49, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they are on the same team; and they all fall under the same notability status:

Delete all non notables. --Osplace 12:52, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per previous discussions on U18 teams.--Savonneux (talk) 20:54, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all Non-notable junior volleyball players. In the absence of significant coverage of each of the subject players in multiple, independent, reliable sources, they need to be deleted. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:07, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all As my friends said under age content is considered non notable in volleyball wiki project. Tomcat313 (talk) 17:01, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. CSD G5 Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:09, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of honors and awards received by Edward Snowden

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

Article created by sock of indeffed user Kbabej - suggest merging content from this article back into the Snowden article. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 02:15, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 21:51, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Asbury Plaza

AfDs for this article:

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

This strip mall was brought to AFD in 2007 and closed as no consensus. No sources were presented and arguments were simply wp:ILIKEIT. I can't find any source fails WP:GNG. Me5000 (talk) 22:26, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 07:57, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:31, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:31, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 06:06, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:10, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there's no better coverage. SwisterTwister talk 07:01, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Hard to say why this is exactly, but "power centers" don't get an much press attention as enclosed shopping malls do. There seems to be something about an enclosed mall which gives it a more defined culture and generates more writing about it, far more so than an equally large retail area consisting of a massive parking lot surrounded by big box stores. One can meet the love of their life in a mall food court, or dream of this occurring, far more so than in front of the Best Buy in the rain.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 13:39, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom and SwisterTwister - nothing to show notability, fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:58, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted G1 by Jimfbleak. (non-admin close) shoy (reactions) 14:45, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Laoch de graaf

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

Potential WP:HOAX. Unsourced bio, unable to verify claims. ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 01:10, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - And I recommend that some admin look at speedily closing this since the page looks like pure nonsense. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 03:09, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 21:50, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Cheesy Adventures of Captain Mac A. Roni

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

All I can find online is a few press releases. No reliable source coverage as far as I can see. Sam Walton (talk) 21:42, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 08:01, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 08:02, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 08:02, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Exactly and unfortunately, after existing all this time, I'm simply not seeing any improvement and there's not a good move target; the best my searches found was this. SwisterTwister talk 05:05, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 06:07, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:09, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unsourced, and no coverage to be found, web searches turn up sales and view outlets Kraxler (talk) 22:57, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom and above editors. Searches turned up nothing to show notability. Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:55, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 13:49, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Symptoms of Humanity

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

Promotionally-written article for non-notable album (band's own article is also in pretty poor shape, possible walled garden). DMacks (talk) 20:26, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 07:53, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 07:53, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both the album and band as it seems the band is also not notable with my searches finding nothing better this. Sure the albums are have some Allmusic reviews so there's thus a profile for the band but there's not much aside from that including to support and improve the article. DMacks, what are you thoughts of adding the band to the nomination as well? SwisterTwister talk 05:27, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No objection to adding the band itself here. I had not, figuring maybe someone who is more familiar with this topic would have a better chance of finding the band to be notable (and hence redirect the album to it) than I could. But if not, then also I would include their other three albums. DMacks (talk) 05:33, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was almost also going to think of redirecting to the band until I saw the big picture and although it helps to have familiar people look at it, I think it seems clear this band is not notable and there's no possible improvement. SwisterTwister talk 06:08, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Now including in this nom the band:

Union 13 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

And their other albums:

East Los Presents... (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Why Are We Destroying Ourselves? (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Youth, Betrayal and the Awakening (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

as all failing to reach WP:BAND notability or receive substantial independent reporting of any kind. DMacks (talk) 17:13, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 06:07, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:08, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect all albums to the band, Keep the band (changed from "delete all")Amended, see below.- no chart positions, no independent sources, no coverage to be found, web searches turn up sales outlets, and some rare primary pieces and blogs, fails WP:NMUSIC and WP:GNG Kraxler (talk) 23:09, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kraxler. How can you say there are no independent sources when the some articles already had independent sources and the above discussion clearly states there is independent sources? duffbeerforme (talk) 11:47, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In the article "Symptoms of Humanity" there are 3 links: tha band's page, and the record label's page, they are not independent. The third is a dead link. In the other three album articles there are three connected links, and only "Youth, Betrayal and the Awakening" has one Allmusic review. The band may pass WP:NBAND # 5, but stand-alone articles on the albums are not warranted. Kraxler (talk) 18:18, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you ignoring the allmusic review on the symptoms page? duffbeerforme (talk) 01:00, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Because the one on the Symptoms page is hidden in a box, and it's not about Symptoms of Humanities, it's a link to the Allmusic homepage, clicking on it, it shows right now a record by Lana Del Rey. There's a link to an Allmusic review of Symptoms at the band page, but one swallow doeth not make summer. I already conceded to keep the band, and keep the few reviews there. Kraxler (talk) 20:51, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the band. Multiple albums on Epitaph satisfies WP:BAND. Allmusic sources are good. duffbeerforme (talk) 06:35, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have updated the article so that it now inclused coverage from independent reliable sources. Other sources that may be of use are [17] [18] [19] [20] [21]. Given that they were an Epitaph band it's safe to assume punk music mags of the era reviewed their albums. BAM (magazine) did. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:44, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All. WP:BAND only says a band "may" be notable if they meet one of the criteria. This band clearly fails WP:GNG and WP:BASIC. Searches on News, Newspapers, Highbeam all returned zero hits. The 3 sources (2 of them are repeats) above are not persuasive. One is not a secondary source, one appears to be a simple listing, and the third is a non-WP:RS (a blog). Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:43, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All I have to agree with editor Onel5969 here. Neither the band, and certainly not the albums, arise to the level of significant coverage. --Bejnar (talk) 03:43, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Former Australian dialling codes. (non-admin closure) Kraxler (talk) 23:17, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

0848

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

Non-notable defunct area code in Australia. I would say merge, but the information is already included on Former Australian dialling codes. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:16, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 15:21, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Redirect~~ - Onel5969 would you consider simply redirecting the page to Former Australian dialling codes or possibly Former Australian dialling codes#Minor changes and withdrawing this AFD and speedy-closing it as "withdrawn/kept, will redirect without prejudice to any other editor un-redirecting the page". I would WP:BOLDly redirect it but I'm hesitant to do so while there is a call for outright deletion on the table. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 20:44, 29 August 2015 (UTC) See below[reply]
Comment - Hi Davidwr - I definitely would consider it. And I considered it before marking the article for AfD (rather thah prod). I just don't think this obscure now-defunct area code merits a redirect. But not saying I couldn't be persuaded. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:02, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I see your point. I didn't realize how obscure this was until I tried Googling it. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 21:18, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and keep history or Delete, I don't really care which. Redirects are cheap but absent this page it's doubtful anyone would bother to create one, and absent keeping this page's history I can't think of a good reason to create one. On the other hand, if one were created, I would oppose any deletion whose only grounds were "unneeded redirect" on the grounds that "redirects are cheap, if someone thought of a good reason to create one and its presence isn't harmful, keep it." On the other hand, if a redirect were created and someone nominated it for deletion showing that the redirect was confusing people into thinking that this historic area code was more important than other uses of the same number, I might be persuaded to delete, re-target, or create a disambiguation page. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 21:18, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 06:08, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:03, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Former Australian dialling codes. An interesting little tidbit of history, but not really needing its own standalone article. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:02, 13 September 2015 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Time for a little SALTing as well. Courcelles (talk) 21:49, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thulsi Wickramasinghe

AfDs for this article:

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

The subject is an associate professor- clearly fails WP:NACADEMICS - it was previously the subject of a speedy delete in 2011. The article appears to have been recreated without providing any evidence of notability being established.Dan arndt (talk) 00:48, 13 September 2015 (UTC) Dan arndt (talk) 00:48, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 00:54, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 00:54, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 00:54, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There's no claim of notability in the article and nothing there that might support a claim. Alansohn (talk) 04:14, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG and WP:NACADEMIC. Searches on Scholar turned up some of his articles, the most # of cites for any of them is 3. There were some hits on Books as well, but not enough to cross the notability threshold. Nothing on News, Highbeam, or JSTOR. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:31, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 07:12, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rakamakafo

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

Unencyclopaedic, tone inappropriate, and, though not direct advertising, appears to have been created for publicity purposes. Adam9007 (talk) 00:36, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This really should be removed. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 01:29, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Editing and discussion -Arcticle can be improved. Just need some more content and sources of information. It doesn't have any adverstiment, only information about the channel itself and its creation. Kekcuk264 (talk) 9:44, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
Editing and discussion - Should be corrected for grammar and use more sources Lewlight (talk)10:29, 13 September 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lewlight (talk • contribs) [reply]
- Account has been blocked as possible sock puppet. --Soetermans. T / C 14:45, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fails to establish notability, no third-party references. Number of subscribers or views is not by itself sufficient to warrant an article. Delete. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 18:22, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - might be popular, but that doesn't mean it's notable. --Soetermans. T / C 14:45, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now as although I found my best search results at News, there's not much to suggest better improvement. WP:TNT and start again when better. SwisterTwister talk 06:56, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 01:50, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 01:50, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 21:48, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Josie Harris

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

The only references that I could find about the subject are about a battery incident; unless someone finds other sources unrelated to the event, WP:BLP1E applies. Esquivalience ^t 00:27, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Notable for domestic violence incidents (not one); appearing in starter wives confidential; writing a book; suing Mayweather for defaming her character, regarding drug use; her relationship with Mayweather. Moreover, the page gets over 3k views per 30 days--although not a basis for inclusion--showing people are interested in her life.--JumpLike23 (talk) 01:34, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BLP1E, the whole article is about the domestic violence controversy, there's also WP:PROMO advertising the forthcoming book, it's an WP:ATTACK page against mayweather, giving undue weight to relationship issues, and it fails WP:SENSATION ("Wikipedia is not for scandal mongering ") which discourages to base an article on "tabloid journalism". Kraxler (talk) 23:29, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to Floyd Mayweather, Jr.' as she's obviously best known for being connected to him and there's not much to suggest a better separate article. SwisterTwister talk 06:55, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:55, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:55, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, Kraxler and SwisterTwister. Fails per WP:BLP1E. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:22, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. This is a BLP1E. I'd rather not redirect, though I can't stop anyone from creating one; but I will not do it myself. Courcelles (talk) 21:48, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mercedes Haefer

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

This bio violates WP:BIO1E. The only coverage here - none of which features her name as the article title/subject - is for being one of many members of the PayPal 14, none of whom are mentioned on the PayPal 14 article. Cagepanes (talk) 00:32, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 00:41, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 00:41, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:BIO1E WP:PERPETRATOR--Savonneux (talk) 22:05, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:59, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:59, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to PayPal 14. Notable incident, just not enough to support a BPL.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:31, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What would need to be merged? There is already a section on the PayPal14 article about the court case. --Cagepanes (talk) 14:34, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think a redirect on her name with a one-sentence summary and a few links would be appropriate.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:00, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But we don't have the other 13 listed in that article, so it would be undue weight only listing her. --Cagepanes (talk) 23:49, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 06:15, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:20, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE AfD started by sock of indeffed user Kbabej. Possibly this AfD should be discarded? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:22, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There have been two !votes already. I'd say to let it run, per WP:SK # 4. Kraxler (talk) 14:16, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Source here, substantive coverage on NPR, mention in The Atlantic, mention in The Guardian, mention here, coverage here, mention here, substantive coverage here, meets the WP:GNG.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:38, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate. from WP:BIO1E. Being one of 14 people arrested, for an event that involved hundreds possibly, does not constitute a "large role." Not an organizer, most of the charges dropped etc. All points to a minor role.--Savonneux (talk) 10:19, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to PayPal 14. Unclear why she is particularly notable relative to others in the group, and no indication of notability outside of this event/group. The refs in the article and linked here are significant coverage of the group, with only incidental mentions of Haefer; the only significant coverage of Haefer linked so far is the UNLV student paper 'rebel yell', which as a student paper does little to establish her notability. The darkreading.com article in refs is borderline, but in my view not substantial enough to establish notability apart from the group, either.Dialectric (talk) 06:41, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was : Speedily deleted by User:Mackensen - Mike Rosoft (talk) 19:35, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Eliza Jane Wilder

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

Created by sock of indeffed user Kbabej. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:19, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedily deleted under WP:CSD#G11 by User:Jimfbleak. Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:28, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Classroom games

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

Unencyclopaedic essay full of original research. Adam9007 (talk) 00:06, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - To be frank, this looks like nonsense. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 01:31, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:53, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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