Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 December 7

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 6 December	8 December >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:01, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Courtship disorder[edit]

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

"It's EXTREMELY sexist, and doesn't have a single bit of a verifiable source worth half a fuck.

Have the biased author's writings even been peer reviewed? or is he just some hack of a writer trying to promote his own work? This article is utterly worthless." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:405:8402:ABB0:25C3:1926:DA5B:D35A (talk) 18:45, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm completing this nomination for an IP editor, who left this message on the article's talk page: Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:16, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I did complete the AfD nomination, but I'm finding quite a bit of coverage out there and not all of it is from Freund. The coverage isn't overly heavy but it is mentioned in academic texts like this and this. I will note that it is covered in this textbook, where the author comments that there hasn't been a lot of research on the topic. This may be true, but I think that the coverage in the aforementioned books alone should be enough for the topic to pass as a whole. Now whether or not the article needs to be rewritten is another question. I don't see anything that particularly stands out, but then I'm unfamiliar with the topic so I'm going to drop a note at the psychology and sexuality WikiProjects to see if one of them can take a look. Offhand though, this looks to be a notable topic. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:23, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Is this even a serious nomination? The article contains very many RS's, and here is a list of 350 more: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=%22courtship+disorder%22&btnG=&as_sdt=1%2C5&as_sdtp= . — James Cantor (talk) 14:01, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Other. Can I suggest here that it might be most appropriate to shorten and merge it with the main article on paraphilias? I'm guessing that's a separate request thingy. As far as the anonymous user's concerns...

1) Is it EXTREMELY sexist? I don't think so and it looks like there was already a lengthy discussion about this in the talk section. Presumably consensus was reached that this article accurately reflects the research on this topic and is not an attempt to make social commentary, or a forum to debate, gender differences in paraphilic disorders.

2) Is there a single bit of a verifiable source worth half a fuck? I'd say every source was worth at least half a fuck. And I was able to verify a lot of them as I don't have to worry about paywalls thanks to working for a university hospital. I felt fairly confident about the ones that weren't available online based on their abstracts, chapter titles and/or how they were referenced in other sources.

3) Have the biased author's writings even been peer reviewed? Yes.

4) Is he just some hack of a writer trying to promote his own work? I'm wondering if Anon saw James Cantor's disclosure on the talk page and maybe overlooked that Cantor said he's the primary author of only one of the citations, in which case, my guess is that Anon is worried that Cantor is actually Freund.

5) Is this article is utterly worthless? I don't think it's worthless, but I do think it's a bit biased towards a hypothesis that fell out of favor during the development of the DSM-5. The term "courtship disorder" is still used, but it doesn't refer to rape anymore, which is an important and widely accepted distinction as evidenced by how it's used in the DSM-5 (2013). I also think it's worth emphasizing that in the DSM, courtship disorder isn't really an "official" name for a category of disorders (as in, it's not listed in the table of contents and doesn't have a subheading in section on paraphilic disorders). It's also never been the name of a diagnosis in either the DSM or the ICD. Within the DSM-5 chapter called Paraphilic Disorders, the phrase "courtship disorder" appears exactly two times and is used to help conceptualize the difference between paraphilias that involve pain and suffering (algolagnic disorders--sexual masochism, sexual sadism, pedophilia, fetishism and transvestism) and those that do not (courtship disorders--voyeurism, exhibitionism and frotteurism). Very intentionally, rape is not attributed to any disorder in the DSM (not even so-called "paraphilic" rape). And it gets zero hits when I ctrl F "rape" in the section of the DSM on Paraphilic Disorders. Maybe it made more sense for this concept to have its own article in 2009 when it had more buzz as some people were arguing for/against adopting it into the DSM-5. At the end of the day, the consensus was to be clear that rape is not considered a diagnosable psychiatric disorder and to give passing mention to 2 subtypes of paraphilias, courtship disorders and algolagnic disorders. Permstrump (talk) 20:13, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I forgot to sign this at first, but I guess it was some time between 14:01 and 18:49, 8 December 2015. Sorry I'm new! Permstrump (talk) 20:15, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:49, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioral science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:50, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Ditto James Cantor's comments.--Surv1v4l1st ^{▌Talk|Contribs▌} 19:26, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable, supported by large numbers of WP:RS, see James Cantor's Google Scholar search above. -- The Anome (talk) 11:15, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 19:23, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Trufab (UK)[edit]

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

No evidence of any notability: routine listing plus one small locally-reported H&S incident. AfD 10 years ago closed as "No consensus", but perhaps it's time to delete it now. PamD 23:13, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Multiple searches (Highbeam, Guardian, Google) are not providing evidence of notability for the Rochdale-based firm. (Note there are others of similar name worldwide.) Reviewing the key argument from the 2005 AfD, I don't see a routine HSE case as evidence that a firm is notable; much more is needed for WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 17:52, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as No evidence of any notability fials gng. –Davey2010^Talk
Delete - searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage to show that it passes WP:GNG or WP:CORPDEPTH. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:10, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. joe decker ^talk 02:31, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Evan Scales[edit]

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

Article is currently just a stub, but some searching didn't leave me feeling there would be any significant material that could be added to allow demonstration of notability. Article fails WP:CREATIVE. Drchriswilliams (talk) 22:40, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Drchriswilliams (talk) 22:55, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Drchriswilliams (talk) 22:58, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Drchriswilliams (talk) 23:04, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Hardly much to even suggest satisfying general notability and a convincingly better article. SwisterTwister talk 05:53, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the reasons given above. -- Hoary (talk) 04:00, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 17:32, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stefan Andrić[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by the article's creator without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:21, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:21, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 15:16, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 15:16, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 15:17, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 15:19, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Per WP:FPL, Serbian SuperLiga is a fully pro league, and he apparently did play some caps there. As I don't quite agree with ridiculously low inclusion criteria for sportspeople, I won't be arsed to actually !vote. No such user (talk) 15:27, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@No such user: Can you provide a source that shows he played in the SuperLiga? I could only confirm appearances in the Serbian First League (which despite its name is the second division of Serbian football). Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:19, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, sorry, no; didn't follow the timeline too closely. They were relegated last year, and he was apparently one of players from the youth team they engaged thereafter (I Googled briefly). No such user (talk) 18:28, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 19:18, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - has not played in a fully pro league Spiderone 19:12, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:15, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Liberty BASIC Workshop[edit]

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

Add-on that fails WP:PRODUCT -- article doesn't even describe what it is beyond being an add-on. Was tagged PROD back in 2012, but the tag was removed when a couple links were added to the Liberty BASIC website. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:36, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:36, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:37, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Software article of unclear notability, lacking independent RS references. The TUCOWS link is a download site, and these are not typically considered independent. In any case, 1 brief review is not enough to establish notability, and a search turned up no additional RS coverage, just more download sites and incidental mentions. Dialectric (talk) 06:42, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as this essentially too soon at best. This was actually tagged for speedy but that user is now no longer active but GB fan changed it to a PROD until it was removed. SwisterTwister talk 06:46, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I've salted this and other previously used titles. --joe decker ^talk 14:47, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Presskr,Inc[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

This is a spam article about a non-notable website which has been speedy deleted six times before as Presskr (now salted), Presskr Classified, Presskr.com and a further three times at Draft:Presskr, and the repeated draft submissions have all been declined. Two WP:SPIs are creating the various identical copies - see User_talk:Legacy2015 and User_talk:Chrish1984 for the messages posted to them, and their contribution histories for the scope of their interests (the only other contributions shown being articles about the founder of the site).

The site itself is non-notable with no reliable third party coverage, just a selection of press releases. The claim that the site "became the most visited website India after six months of operation" is contradicted iby the supplied reference and claims of significance greatly exaggerated (potential audience being quite a different thing from actual audience).

The content of the article is purely about the services the site provides and is entirely promotional in nature ("presskr gained prominence due to its large selection of second-hand item", "items listed on Presskr include electronics, pets, cars and, vehicles and other categories including land and property is absolutely free for everyone" etc.)

This should clearly be speedily deleted again. I am bringing this to AfD because speedy deletion was contested - this time, one of the two users created the article and the other contested the speedy nomination. RichardOSmith (talk) 19:15, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: User:Legacy2015 and User:Chrish1984 are now confirmed to be sockmaster and socpuppet respectively. RichardOSmith (talk) 22:53, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you richard as previous editor wasn't successful with his article therefore he attempt several times but this is his fault but this doesn't meant that the Article is inappropriate.even I agree with Chrish like he said you should also see the similar Olx page that have bunch of issue. I voted for the Article that shouldn't be delete as I saw the article closely even I am 100% sure the Presskr company is legitimate and worthy to be in wikipedia Article. Ain619 (talk) 21:05, 7 December 2015 (UTC) — Ain619 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Blocked as promotional meat puppet and/or sock puppet. Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Legacy2015.RichardOSmith (talk) 18:54, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Dear editor I agree with Ain that the following article is worthy to become encyclopedia the reason is Presskr is legitimate Company as far as I am concerned I think the previous editor was try hard to write article about presskr but unfortunately he wasn't successful after many attempts he made therefore another editor try to write about them so what is yhe problem. If any editor can't successful with their editing skill it's doesn't meant that subject is spamy right lets say I wanna writr about Ebay but several times I got decline from administration which I have lack on my writing skill but o doesn't meant that the company os spamy however they don't even know about it whatever we are discussing here. So I will recommend not to delete Presskr, Inc as the company is legitimate. Thank You Skynetsolutions707 (talk) 08:33, 8 December 2015 (UTC) — Skynetsolutions707 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. — Skynetsolutions707 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Blocked as promotional meat puppet and/or sock puppet. Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Legacy2015. Mkdw ^talk 05:59, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This was not an advertisement neither spamy, but VALUABLE INFORMATION about our Indian emerging classifieds product that everyone on the Internet seeks on Wikipedia! – Help Indian E-Commerce Ain619 (talk) 10:49, 8 December 2015 (UTC)Blocked as promotional meat puppet and/or sock puppet. Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Legacy2015.RichardOSmith (talk) 18:54, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that Ain619 has implicitly !voted keep above as well. RichardOSmith (talk) 11:57, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Note the declared WP:COI. RichardOSmith (talk) 11:57, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the question is not whether the company is "legitimate" but whether it is notable, and it is very clear that this company is not. The article is very spammy but that can be fixed with editing by people who are not affiliated with the company - the lack of notability and significant coverage in third-party sources cannot be fixed, however. In addition to the three mainspace articles and one draft mentioned in the nomination, there's also Draft:Pressker and Draft:Presskr.com - an interesting online shopping website, the latter of which has not (yet) been deleted. A few other single-purpose editors have also been involved in creating and recreating the articles over the last six months (but that's a question for SPI, not this discussion.) Clear conflict of interest, at any rate, as also shown above. --bonadea contributions talk 11:39, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep at first I would like to clear that I’m not associated nor affiliate with any company including Presskr. However I just would like to create the article about the said subject where people can know about Indian Wikipedia website. There’s several article exists and nobody is considering on them. Here i got some link you might be you wanna consider on them too, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olx.ph https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OLX these article is already exists on Wikipedia but you didn’t show your any interest, i was expecting that Wikipedia welcome & help new editor on their community but i wasn’t expect that there is nobody for helping to each other instead they will pull your legs. As far as i am concerned with due respect Mr talk and talk is only the person who don’t wanna put their effort rather then they find clues to article get deleted. Even i noticed the both user are same person who are keep trying to delete the article. This is not the way sir to helping your junior editor even if your senior and expert your should show your some help and motive and junior editor. Anyways thank you for everything — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.221.136.164 (talk) 14:08, 8 December 2015 (UTC) — 101.221.136.164 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment: See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. AllyD (talk) 20:16, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt all name variants: I recognise this from previously posted variants. It has the same inflated claims ("According to statistics from Alexa Internet Presskr became the most visited website India", with the associated Alexa link giving 5247th in India). Startup coverage and press releases are not enough: fails WP:NWEB, WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 20:10, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Notable however I am not administration but I look closely the entire article and it's should be in encyclopedia as I found the reliable sources and cited according. The article consider to be notable it's help the readers. CheersMaboihi (talk) 22:14, 8 December 2015 (UTC) — Maboihi (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Blocked as promotional meat puppet and/or sock puppet. Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Legacy2015. Mkdw ^talk 05:59, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- When you added citations to the article it was not as user Maboihi. You appear to be admitting that you are another sockpuppet of Legacy2015. RichardOSmith (talk) 22:43, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:NWEB. -KH-1 (talk) 01:13, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence of independent sources. Sbwoodside (talk) 04:21, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:30, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Salt. No notability. A waste of time for editors to continually have to address this. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:12, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

SNOW delete as there's nothing at all to suggest even a minimally better notable article. SwisterTwister talk 08:44, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:02, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Julia Gasper[edit]

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

I have been contacted by Julia Gasper who wants this article deleted. Upon checking the article, I found that Julia Hasper meets neither the not ability criteria for academic nor for politician. Also the article is not carefully neutral per BLPs, most references are from LGBT partisan site with bias against the subject. Irmgard (talk) 18:06, 7 December 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 December 7. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:30, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:19, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:19, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:19, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the press in question is respectable professional press, and Gasper's views as documented therein have clearly achieved considerable and extensively documented noteworthiness - David Gerard (talk) 13:39, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - she really has received tremendous coverage so she passes via GNG. Her bio tracks all the articles about her. It appears like she spends every waking minute publicly attacking gay people so that is what her bio is going to reflect. If she doesn't like this news coverage, maybe she should do something else with her time. If someone wants to trim the article, go ahead, I got nauseated just reading it. —Мандичка^YO 😜 03:38, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article sourcing seems a little unbalanced in favor of one particular source, PinkNews, but that source doesn't really have a different slant on her than the others, so I don't think this compromises the neutrality of our article. And in any case, she has significant coverage in major news outlets, enough for a clear pass of WP:GNG. I'm willing to listen to subject requests in borderline cases, but this doesn't look borderline. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:10, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:15, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rolling 12-month period[edit]

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

WP:DICDEF. Going to AfD because the article was previously PROD'd and the PROD was removed by the article's author. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 15:24, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seems to be just a dictionary definition. Borock (talk) 18:00, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails notability; just an accounting term —Мандичка^YO 😜 03:41, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SNOW The Bushranger _{One ping only} 12:34, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of directors who won the Academy, BAFTA, DGA, Golden Globe, and Critic's Choice Award for a single film[edit]

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

Mentioned as also delete for the same reasons in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of actors who have won an Academy Award, a BAFTA Award, a Golden Globe, a SAG, and a Critic's Choice Award for a single performance (2nd nomination), bringing to its own AfD to keep things transparent. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:02, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per identical rationale and discussion at previous AfD. FuriouslySerene (talk) 15:32, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 15:41, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:INDISCRIMINATE, no evidence that this grouping is the subject of study.Pincrete (talk) 16:18, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per previous AfD. Sideways713 (talk) 16:34, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per all above JayJay^{What did I do?} 18:31, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete by WP:INDISCRIMINATE Matt294069 is coming 23:24, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, see previous deletion discussion. It's just as arbitrary with directors as it is with actors. --Monochrome_Monitor 00:05, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. —Мандичка^YO 😜 03:30, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@RoySmith: Um... are you going to close this? --Monochrome_Monitor 12:56, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, given that I proposed it, no, it wouldn't appropriate for me to close it. Somebody else will come along and do that. I wouldn't lose any sleep over the outcome, however. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:14, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SNOW The Bushranger _{One ping only} 12:34, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of actors who won the Critics’ Choice, Golden Globe, Primetime Emmy, SAG, and TCA Award for a single performance in television[edit]

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

Mentioned as also delete for the same reasons in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of actors who have won an Academy Award, a BAFTA Award, a Golden Globe, a SAG, and a Critic's Choice Award for a single performance (2nd nomination), bringing to its own AfD to keep things transparent. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:02, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per identical rationale and discussion at previous AfD mentioned by nom. FuriouslySerene (talk) 15:32, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:INDISCRIMINATE. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 15:41, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. No reason to believe that this grouping is the object of study.Pincrete (talk) 16:20, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per all above JayJay^{What did I do?} 18:30, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the same reasons as the movie performance list. Sideways713 (talk) 19:46, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete by WP:INDISCRIMINATE Matt294069 is coming 23:24, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. —Мандичка^YO 😜 03:31, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. joe decker ^talk 02:24, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hendrick van Kampen[edit]

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

Unsourced and I am struggling to find any sources which support the notability of this individual. Frietjes (talk) 13:50, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No sources found, and possibly a hoax. The article asserts that his book won a number of prestigious awards, but the winners' lists for those awards state otherwise. --Arxiloxos (talk) 17:45, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as mentioned above, and verifiable by the awards websites, none of the award claims seems to be true. Also, several other biographical claims are untrue, or atleast very unlikely (I am not going to elaborate on details here to avoid advice for the possibly next hoax). No sources in article. No sources could be found via Google (in German, English, and with possibly related topics and search terms). This is most likely a hoax. GermanJoe (talk) 04:58, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Also likely a hoax when looking at his name: it's typically Dutch, both his first (although slightly old-fashioned when spelled with "ck" instead of "k") and last name. I would have at least expected him to be called Heinrich (or Henry after the alleged move to Canada). - HyperGaruda (talk) 19:30, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 17:33, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Billboard (record producer)[edit]

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

Non-notable person, Does not meet WP:GNG. Has been tagged since July 2011 as needing more references. Zpeopleheart (talk) 10:45, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 12:40, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 12:40, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as News and two web searches found some links but surely nothing convincingly better. SwisterTwister talk 05:04, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:47, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Clearly fails GNG. Ceosad (talk) 21:54, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly passes WP:COMPOSER; needs better and more references, which I can find extremely easily on Google when I looked so... Instead of deleting, you could always find these not-so-dificult to find citations. Edit: I added liner note citations to all of them. I don't see a need to cite the record sales of them for passing NALBUMS, you can just find that on the album pages. Since the complaints about this article are no longer existent, I propose the AfD end. SanctuaryX^{Stop talking in codes} 02:57, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But isn't this about a person instead of his recordings? WP:NOTINHERITED I struggle in finding anything more than brief mentions about him. This WP:MUSICBIO guideline is more relevant: "Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself." Liner notes help, but they are not independent sources. Ceosad (talk) 14:39, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I looked a little further and there's actually WP:COMPOSER"Has credit for writing or co-writing either lyrics or music for a notable composition." He has several notable compositions in that list.SanctuaryX^{Stop talking in codes} 14:49, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, he seems to be a notable person, and would undoubtedly be notable, but we cannot prove that he is notable. I am worried about depth of coverage that is certainly lacking in any sources I could find. Ceosad (talk) 15:02, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll see if I can find more references, but you only have to meet a criterion, not all or multiple of them to be considered notable. I had that linking to the wrong page~ Fixed it. Plus, your NOTINHERITED link, doesn't apply because it isn't inherited. You can't inherit something from what you created. That is meant to say that just because a person/thing is notable, not all of their works/associated things are. If a person's works are notable, then that person is notable.WP:COMPOSER.SanctuaryX^{Stop talking in codes} 16:04, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 20:19, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No comments since last relisting., Let's give it one more try. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:48, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:48, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Actually, if they meet any of the criteria of WP:COMPOSER, they may be notable; it doesn't mean they are notable. In this case the lack of significant in-depth coverage doesn't help them pass WP:GNG, and their songwriting credits aren't strong enough on their own. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:16, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree that the almost complete lack of substantive coverage is a death knell here. The songwriting credits by themselves are insufficient. --Bejnar (talk) 16:26, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 17:33, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DJ LBC[edit]

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

Article's subject is a non-notable radio DJ. Almost CSD ~~but seems to be some dispute over deletion~~ (was PROD'd) -- samtar ^whisper 12:35, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Samtar, there is no dispute over deletion. Please see article's talk page. Warmest regards. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 12:46, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No worries Wikicology, I've struck that :) -- samtar ^whisper 13:21, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 17:18, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 17:18, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (I was the PRODer) as I simply found coverage about his death instead of anything else. SwisterTwister talk 17:19, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I earlier de-proded it per one or two reliable sources I found but not enough to establish the subject notability. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 20:13, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The international obituaries show he was a significant figure in the Zambian radio scene.John Pack Lambert (talk)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:31, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not seeing enough in-depth coverage to show they pass notability criteria. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:39, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. kelapstick^(bainuu) 20:45, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Shanawar[edit]

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

Non-notable person. Musa Talk 23:29, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 23:30, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 23:30, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 23:31, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG's significant coverage in reliable sources. Nothing on GNews, no mentions in GBooks. I've checked the refs in the article and none even mention the guy. The sourcing is pretty much a WP:COATRACK about his father Nadeem Sarwar. - HyperGaruda (talk) 07:26, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion is opposed: Notability is beyond proof if one can read the local news in Pakistan. I have also read the comments of someone on the talk page. Editors pointed out the attention and involvement of concerned community before a neutral action. For your info and knowledge your are invited to watch shia islam portal and its section "in the news" he was accompanied with his father in the British Parliament for mourning sitting. Nannadeem (talk) 15:25, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Nannadeem: I've taken a look at Portal:Shia Islam/News, but neither Facebook nor Twitter are reliable sources, because the content is self-published without editorial supervision. You'll really need more reliable sources about Ali Shanawar to support that he (not his father!) is notable for the (worldwide) Wikipedia community, i.e. beyond his local fanbase. And don't just say that there are sources; you will have to provide the sources here on Wikipedia. - HyperGaruda (talk) 17:07, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know what Noha? Have you read the names of Noha reciters? Have not you noticed that his father's page has already been deleted? Do you have knowledge about this genre and the community likes it. Applying bureaucracy of rules is not the very basis of WP. Please read Wikipedia:Ignore all rules. You must respect the sentiments of a community. The action should be based on comments from concerned community.

Notability: type his name in the google search engine you will see above hundred results - legible in English. Nannadeem (talk) 18:53, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Nannadeem: I'm a Shia Muslim and I don't think this article meets Notibility. He is just popular among Shia Muslims and a few Sunni Muslims. There are no reliable source which shows that he is notable. And some of the content in the article is copied from his website. www.Safeer-E-Aza.com.--Musa Talk 22:30, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your disclosure for your belonging to Shia community and your tag for deletion of page on account of notability of "Ali Shanawar" is a question on your knowledge. Instead of improving the page, you have tagged it for deletion. This is a conflict between some schools of this community and most of them are known as "orthodox".

WP has recently launched a campaign of WP:WAMP for more representation from Asian countries. Deletion of pages is cause of set back to the campaign. The page has no harmful content to our WP. You will notice that many a websites have cited the WP as their source, so we should pride of our WP which is also serving as source for info in respect of Ali Shanawar. Any how, I request you to improve the page as a friend to me and your own community. Thanks Nannadeem (talk) 15:16, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to improve this article but I found nothing about him so I nominated it for deletion. He is not a notable person. You're trying to save this article because you're fan of Ali Shanawar. I also listen to his Noha's but I don't find him notable.--Musa Talk 18:40, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are issuing two contradictory statements simultaneously: (1)He is just popular among Shia Muslims and a few Sunni Muslims + (2) He is not a notable person.

Your childish finding of my being a fan of him is denied. You were unable to improve the page thus you decided to tag it for deletion. This is biased action you have done. Thus deletion proposal appears personal and not for goodwill of EN:WP. Nannadeem (talk) 19:24, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I request the deletion admin to close the discussion. The concerned community has already been suffering from due representation. Nannadeem (talk) 19:24, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:Subjective importance and specifically the subsections WP:POPULARITY, WP:FAME and WP:POSITION. Here on Wikipedia, notability is not the same as popularity. By notability we mean that there is significant coverage in reliable and independent sources, in order to prevent fabrications from being formed here. In other words: a short mention somewhere in a news article's margin is not significant; a forum or blog where anyone can post anything, without people correcting your mistakes, is not reliable; Ali's personal website and facebook page are not independent nor reliable, since he could easily write that he's won 5 Grammy Awards, while we all know that is not true. Without reliable sources, an article is not improvable and thus should be deleted. Again, provide reliable sources that have enough to say about Ali if this page should not be deleted. - HyperGaruda (talk) 20:18, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, That is what I was trying to say.--Musa Talk 20:39, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notability of Nadeem Sarwar

With ref to finding of notability of son and father cited by the page deletion proposer: (and) In order to avoid the flag of OR I am taking liberty of reproducing contents from the feature article published in the Sunday Magazine of the Express Tribune (partner of New York Times) for popularity and notability^[1]:

Not only is Nadeem Sarwar the king of the noha/marsia industry, he is also the most successful artist of the larger music industry as he sells 200,000-300,000 CDs a year and all of them get sold within the span of two days. This is despite the presence of YouTube and downloadable music; no artists has a better business plan or a more loyal fan following,” says Imran (a business man from Rainbow Centre, Karachi)

I further add that while searching info about the persons in question, most of the URLs open the pages for download of Nohas. This is a technical reason as well. Nannadeem (talk) 12:41, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please read Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nadeem Sarwar (Noha Khwan) and this is the discussion for deletion of article of Ali Shanawar not his father.--Musa Talk 17:51, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the header as it had messed up the AFD log. –Davey2010^Talk 18:53, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I know. I am sure you have chosen a community and genre that is why you have also placed deletion tag at Rehan Azmi. Nannadeem (talk) 19:10, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the lone keep !vote makes no persuasive argument, and has presented zero new sources. Searches turned up virtually nothing on this individual. Granted they were in English, so I have to defer to HyperGaruda and Musa Razas assessment of the foreign sources. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:29, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge He is famous Noha reciter, so is better that merge to Noha article. There are not sufficient reliable sources. Saff V. (talk) 13:21, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:01, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I see above that comments for keeping are based on WP:Ignore all rules and "respecting the wishes of a community", which I find quite concerning. Not notable is not notable, and an article about someone not notable should be deleted. LjL (talk) 15:02, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The nominator said it all: this isn't a notable person. The article's citation method is clearly a grasp for straws as many of the citations simply don't support the cited material, as has already been noted by other editors. The only clear source we have is the one from Amazon, which isn't RS. The subject fails the WP:GNG once we look past the improper citation and since that's sort of a threshold, there isn't much else to be said. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:54, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Rafay Mahmood (June 12, 2011). "Marsia and noha artists: Songs of sorrow". The Express Tribune. Retrieved December 5, 2015.

Comments: Yes not notable is not notable. This is my stance too, but try to understand that who is here to represent the subject or a particular genre, that is why I am pleading. Please see at WP:NTEMP where it is clear that once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage. The page is not new. Just before relisting it has been accepted by the page deletion proposer that he is popular among Shia and Sunni. It is my simple wording that rule of law is for justice/equilibrium - and not for only punishment or reward. Nannadeem (talk) 16:00, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. joe decker ^talk 14:44, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Earth 2016[edit]

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

Again an unsourced crystal ball without useful content. Already removed earlier after a normal procedure Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miss Earth 2016 The Banner talk 11:08, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete, per former deletions, should have CSD'd. AddMore der Zweite (talk) 11:46, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I did put a CSD on it but that was removed. The Banner talk 12:29, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete [1] Legacypac (talk) 11:48, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:54, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:54, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete again. Problems noted at the first deletion debate persist. No reliably sourced venue. No date. No reliable source coverage found. • Gene93k (talk) 14:18, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - To be honest this should've been G4'd as there's nothing different from the last AFD, Fails CRYSTAL & GNG –Davey2010^Talk 20:19, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect for now to Miss Earth in case to WP:TOOSOON and WP:CRYSTAL was the best known so far almost deleted against the article. Oripaypaykim (talk) 13:41, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- When you redirect it, you have to be constant vigilant against recreation. That will happen on average once a week. After deletion it will be salted after the third recreation. The Banner talk 21:56, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Problem with redirecting is after a week of redirecting a fan will come along revert and no one's none the wiser (it's happened a few times!) whereas if it's deleted we then know if it's been created or not, –Davey2010^Talk 22:05, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect for now and protect - WP:CRYSTAL. Protection until the event comes near should do the job. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 14:01, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And shortly after protection, it will be recreated as the The 16th Miss Earth Pageant. This needs to go and stay gone. A G4 speedy works for me. • Gene93k (talk) 02:41, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 19:24, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Multiplex Entertainment[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. Fails WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH. sst✈^(discuss) 10:41, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. sst✈^(discuss) 10:42, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. sst✈^(discuss) 10:42, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete, The article fails WP:GNG. Looks like for PR. All the article created by the creator also looks like that.Josu4u (talk) 12:43, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - NN company, no proper sourcing, COI editors. -- Alexf^(talk) 14:42, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete definitely PR, no notable independent coverage. AddMore der Zweite (talk) 22:17, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now at best as there's hardly even much to suggest minimal general notability and improvement. SwisterTwister talk 06:41, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all the above _└^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 12:15, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. joe decker ^talk 02:22, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanseer Koothuparamba[edit]

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

Searches revealed no reliable coverage. Fails WP:MUSBIO, WP:ENT, and WP:GNG. sst✈^(discuss) 10:40, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. sst✈^(discuss) 10:42, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. sst✈^(discuss) 10:42, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete, The article fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSBIO. Looks like for PR. All the article created by the creator also looks like that.Josu4u (talk) 12:45, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Yes by all means as there's hardly much for both better notability and improvement with the current article. 06:11, 8 December 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SwisterTwister (talk • contribs)
Delete per above, Fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:05, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:29, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Priyamanaval (Sun TV series)[edit]

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

Fails WP:TVSERIES and WP:GNG and lacks significant coverage and is a run in the mill TV show.It was deleted in AFD and now has been recreated under the 5th Title.It has been has been deleted 6 times in various titles Priyamanaval (Tamil series),Priyamanaval (2015 TV series),Priyamanaval (TV series) and Priyamanaval and all these titles are create protected hence the new title.Note the Creator of this article has a history of repeatedly recreating various articles deleted in WP:AFD under new titles. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:50, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:56, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:36, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete .I am Raghuraman from Chennai TV stations air non stop serials round the clock including this one nothing special or notable .ரகுராமன் — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.174.44.149 (talk) 14:57, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It has no useful information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.93.200.36 (talk) 15:44, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. joe decker ^talk 14:41, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ricky Garcia (actor)[edit]

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

Clearly fails WP:NACTOR (only one notable role to date) – strongly suggest it get moved to Draft space, as it's similar to a case like Draft:Peyton Meyer. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:23, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails WP:NACTOR, might be worth an article at some time but WP:TOOSOON now. Geraldo Perez (talk) 21:37, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator is working to find references for the article and has added some. Just noting that they are still passing mentions of the subject and don't meet requirements of WP:GNG for more than passing coverage. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:20, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I totally agree. One supporting role on a TV series, and one boy band that doesn't seem to have any major notable releases, is still too low notability bar to qualify for an article. I'm still of the opinion that this one should be moved to Draft space – let's revisit this one in about a year... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:32, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 22:18, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 22:18, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 22:49, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:36, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Doesn't meet either WP:GNG or WP:NACTOR. Case of WP:TOOSOON. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:31, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. joe decker ^talk 02:21, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Artisan[edit]

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

No indication of notability per WP:BIO, with no significant coverage online from WP:RS, just lots of mentions on blogs about seduction tactics. Fails WP:NAUTHOR, as he's so far only written a self-published Kindle ebook with no claim of notability per WP:NBOOK and no significant coverage online from WP:RS. Won two awards from the "Dating World Summit", an organization I can't find online, and with no claim to notability. His sole claim to fame seems to be an 8 minute feature on his company on ABC Nightline last month. None of this amounts to a "widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field". Claims of running courses abroad for 7000+ participants are referenced by primary sources, and I can't find reliable secondary sources online to confirm them. His company (with the ABC reference) might be worth a mention in dating coach, but there's not enough here to merit a whole separate article about him. Norvoid (talk) 10:35, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Norvoid (talk) 10:36, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Norvoid (talk) 10:44, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it's noticeably not a joke since Titusfox tagged it but I'm simply not seeing any better notability here even generally. SwisterTwister talk 06:22, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per Norvoid, the Nightline source is the only usable one, and it's not enough. Looking for more sources, I'm seeing heavy signs of aggressive self-promotion (which is unsurprising, considering) but nothing reliable. Someone who speaks German or trusts Google translate more than me can decide if this article is usable, but my tentative assessment is that it's not, and it does nothing to explain why he would be notable. Grayfell (talk) 01:22, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Norvoid ,fails WP:BIO.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:01, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:28, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tremble (film)[edit]

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

Despite a minor award from a novelty film challenge, I find no evidence of qualifying coverage for this six-minute film. Fails WP:GNG and WP:FILM. —Largo Plazo (talk) 20:57, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 21:10, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 21:10, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – insufficient third-party coverage for this to pass WP:GNG – most search results are about When the Mountains Tremble. An award distributed by a film festival based in a city with ~300K people cannot be considered "a major award" in any way. Does not meet any of the WP:NFILM requirements. sst✈^(discuss) 15:28, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:34, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per failing WP:NF. Created for a "local" competition akin to a 48 Hour Film Festival, a group of filmmakers are given a set of assigned object/themes/phrases to use in making a short film. If completed in time, the project is then screened and judged. Few such EVER meet notability standards, but I do wish to congratulate the filmmakers for continuing their careers.[2][3] Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 22:18, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 17:34, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

MRC Social, Genetic and Developmental Psychiatry Centre[edit]

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

The main institute is notable, the subdivisions, such as this one, are not. Our practice is to not make articles on institutes within departments within medical schools. We don't usually make for medical school or university departments either, but perhaps the main Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience at, King's College London is notable enough for that--I am not nominating it for deletion at this time. But going further does not seem appropriate. Having articles such as this and the adjacent AfD seems like a PR effort for the University DGG ( talk ) 23:46, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Medical Research Council (MRC) is a publicly funded government agency in the UK, and this (SGDP) is an MRC centre based at the University (instead of an institute within department within a school/faculty). Actually, many MRC centres have their own articles (see, for example, Edinburgh's Scottish Centre for Regenerative Medicine and MRC Human Genetics Unit, and Cambridge's MRC Cancer Unit). (This is my first discussion so sorry if I do this incorrectly.)--Chanpeter (talk) 19:16, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I do not understand it quite that way. It is indeed sponsored by MRC and is one of their centers, but it seems to operate as one of the units of Kings Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience. DGG ( talk ) 06:07, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree with DGG's understanding of the normal practice, and I can't see any reason that the default practice should not apply. Thparkth (talk) 17:47, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - So Scottish Centre for Regenerative Medicine, MRC Mitochondrial Biology Unit, MRC Human Genetics Unit, MRC Cancer Unit, etc. should have been deleted if there is a "normal practice"? They (1) ARE operated as one of the units of uni as well; (2) do not have any additional citations. I don't mean those articles should be deleted, but, isn't this double standard? --Chanpeter (talk) 17:06, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 20:27, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 21:12, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 21:12, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:08, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:34, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 16:52, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:27, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not enough in-depth coverage for a stand-alone article. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:33, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus, but since the content is covered at Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience I will be redirecting this article there. Sjakkalle (Check!) 17:29, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maurice Wohl Clinical Neuroscience Institute[edit]

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

The main institute is notable, the subdivisions, such as this one, are not. Our practice is to not make articles on institutes within departments within medical schools. We don't usually make for medical school or university departments either, but perhaps the main Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience at King's College London is notable enough for that--I am not nominating it for deletion at this time. But going further does not seem appropriate. DGG ( talk ) 23:43, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There are many articles on institutes within departments (e.g. UCL Institute for Global Health, UCL Institute of Child Health, Oxford Institute for Energy Studies and more).--Chanpeter (talk) 19:25, 24 November 2015 (UTC) Edit - Definition of notability found.--Chanpeter (talk) 19:51, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

that there are others, n't mean we should have articles on them all, and it doesn't even mean that the articles on the others are appropriate. I take a look at them also. WP:N is pretty clear that even for subjects that would technically meet the definition of notability, they can also be combined in an article on a broader subject. That's especially true when there is only 1 ref that isn't from their own website, and the ref is actually to a particular grant for a specific part of this center. DGG ( talk ) 06:10, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, clpo13_(talk) 20:03, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:19, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:19, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:19, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:33, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Nom's assessment is spot on. WP:OSE isn't a valid argument in this case, and there is simply not enough in-depth coverage to substantiate a standalone article. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:28, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. joe decker ^talk 02:21, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pither clan[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. There do not appear to be any reliable sources that discuss this clan. Sitush (talk) 10:31, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 10:39, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. This clan (if it is one) might appear in this book according to GBooks, though I can't find the exact word "pither" in it using its search box. Until someone cites a few sources, WP:V is not met. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 15:49, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- That book is by H. A. Rose - it is not a reliable source per long-standing consensus. - Sitush (talk) 16:03, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:18, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to lack of non-trivial coverage from reliable publications. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 00:28, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:30, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Connor Carmody[edit]

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

This child actor has made minor appearances in a few TV episodes and 1 film. No results at Google News. Doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:NACTOR. Skr15081997 (talk) 11:46, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Skr15081997 (talk) 11:46, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Skr15081997 (talk) 11:46, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Skr15081997 (talk) 11:47, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Classic case of a former child actor with no better notability and improvement to suggest keeping. SwisterTwister talk 23:15, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:21, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Total lack of adequate coverage, especially for someone who made all their TV/film appearances before age 10.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:38, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Block (Internet). ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 15:08, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Banhammer[edit]

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

Per WP:NEOLOGISM. The article has already been through two AfDs (deleted the first time and redirected to Ban (law) the second) and a deletion review (which upheld the decision). I would also be open to the idea of merging and redirecting it to Ban (law) (once again) or Block (Internet), though if we were to go that route, I would lean towards the latter article. Graham (talk) 06:47, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Block (Internet) or delete. It's imperfect, but Block (Internet) is pretty much the same thing. This seems more applicable to Wiktionary or Urban Dictionary. It surely gets used in reliable sources, but so do lots of other phrases. Merely being used doesn't make a neologism notable. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:52, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect back to Block (Internet). Seeing how the sourcing remains the same as before, the article has not been significantly expanded to show notability or warrant a split. It seems a section at most in the Block article would be sufficient for the size of content in question. I am unclear why the article was restored after the AfD otherwise. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 13:21, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 21:30, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:20, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Irish presidential election, 1997#Derek Nally. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 12:35, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Derek Nally[edit]

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

Delete: as non-notable unsuccessful political candidate. Quis separabit? 03:36, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 21:26, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 21:26, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Irish presidential election, 1997. Snappy (talk) 12:19, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:19, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Irish presidential election, 1997#Derek Nally. sst✈^(discuss) 10:27, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Irish presidential election, 1997#Derek Nally as suggested. There is insufficient reliably sourced material to support a standalone article at this time. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 00:47, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:34, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Daily Sparkle[edit]

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

Non-notable newspaper JMHamo (talk) 20:18, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:22, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:22, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It is nice they do this, but it clearly does not warrant a Wikipedia article.DreamGuy (talk) 00:06, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:44, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:18, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:58, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disability-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:58, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unreferenced and no claim to notability. JDDJS (talk) 17:34, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Does not seem to meet notability standards. JTtheOG (talk) 01:16, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. joe decker ^talk 14:39, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Eric M. Baker[edit]

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

Mid-ranking officer with a second-level and a third-level decoration. Does not meet WP:SOLDIER. Four victories, so not an ace either. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:23, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 16:23, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 16:23, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 16:23, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Also honorable, but also just not notable. DreamGuy (talk) 00:21, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:44, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:18, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:27, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as per nom and above editor. Honorable, but not notable. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:24, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:47, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tamar Nemsitsveridze[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, WP:ONEEVENT, no reliable, independent sources conform WP:RS The Banner talk 15:51, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 22:29, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:21, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:43, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - as the winner of national pageant. Additionally there was a national scandal regarding this pageant; Tamar was originally third and then the winner and runner-up were disqualified as they both lied about being married and one of them also lied about having a criminal record.[4] —Мандичка^YO 😜 08:36, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:18, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:02, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ukrainian National Union (UNU)[edit]

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

Non-notable group with very little coverage, and may be just a few guys. Much of the article is copied from Social-National Assembly. Please be aware there is a much more notable group sharing the same name. Blackguard 09:12, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:42, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:27, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:27, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, appears to be sufficient coverage, and has formed paramilitary unit of its own. --Soman (talk) 20:46, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:18, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per significant coverage; note article exists across 11 languages. Directorate of Ukraine (formed 1918) does not have the same name. —Мандичка^YO 😜 04:03, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:03, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Michelle A. Harris[edit]

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

Not notable enough to warrant own article...information may be moved more usably to Political history of Chicago. smileguy91^{talk - contribs} 03:33, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 03:46, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP She's a current Alderman, and heads the Chicago City Council's powerful rules committee. She's notable enough for the Chicago Tribune, Chicago Sun-Times, NBC News, WTTW. Victor Grigas (talk) 04:16, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:44, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Chicago is an internationally famous global city, which is the rarefied "elite" class of cities in which we do accept the city council as an office that satisfies WP:NPOL — while it's certainly true that not all of her colleagues actually have articles yet, by far the majority do. The article definitely needs some improvement, I won't argue with that — but it already isn't entirely unsourced, further sourceability is definitely attainable, and a valid claim of notability is present. Keep and flag for improvement. Bearcat (talk) 22:41, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:42, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:18, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think any modern Chicago alderman would satisfy the GNG with ease. (And even for 19th century aldermen, I would bet that significant material exists in print.) Victor Grigas has already shared some of the sources that are available in this specific case. A proper article on the political history of Chicago would be too broad to include biographies on any individual aldermen, so a merge is not a good idea. Zagalejo^^^ 06:45, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Closing with NPASR. (non-admin closure) Kharkiv07 (T) 00:41, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Marģers Krams[edit]

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

fails WP:BIO. ambassadors are not inherently notable. the mere 5 gnews hits merely confirm the person held this role, nothing indepth LibStar (talk) 03:29, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 07:09, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latvia-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 07:10, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 07:11, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:42, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:29, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:12, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. SOFTDELETE per low participation herein. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:52, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Golden Regiment Marching Band[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Fails notability per WP:Band. The article makes a big deal about this band making the finals of a competition, though in the end it got 10th place. I also feel there's a conflict of interest with the page's author. If anything this should be a redirect to Blue Springs High School which right now is a redirect itself. FallingGravity (talk) 03:16, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 07:11, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 07:12, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now and restart later if better as I found some coverage at News, browsers and Highbeam but nothing convincingly better. SwisterTwister talk 04:58, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:37, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:45, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:54, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wrestle Rampage[edit]

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

Non-notable organisation. Fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG Cult of Green (talk) 01:28, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

'keep' ist been part of NWA and Zero1 Pro Wrestling and Shinsuke Nakamura and all of The Mighty Don't Kneel has been there and on November 28, 2015 at Titanium Security Arena will host the biggest show in Australian wrestling history — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.101.129.6 (talk • contribs) — 59.101.129.6 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Biggest show in Australian wrestling history my rear end. That belongs to Global Warning in 2002. Mega Z090 (talk) 07:34, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 00:01, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:27, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 21:14, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Appears to derive notability from Zero 1 and has much unsourced information with tags dating back to January 2015. Can't see at a glance how this can be saved. Claim made above by the IP (who as an aside is subject to an SPI) is as I stated above ridiculous, and frankly blatantly unsourced to boot. Mega Z090 (talk) 07:34, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

'~~keep~~' Global Warning in 2002 was done by wwe witch is American Wrestle Rampage is Australian — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.101.157.223 (talk) 07:00, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Irrelevant. Mega Z090 (talk) 21:38, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:09, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:46, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:47, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'll admit pro wrestling isn't my thing, but I don't see the significant independent coverage required to meet WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 03:24, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG with no significant independent sources.Mdtemp (talk) 16:57, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG; I've been unable to find significant reliable coverage.LM2000 (talk) 10:38, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

While it has connections to Nakamura, Zero 1, NWA, etc. this notability is WP:NOTINHERITED.LM2000 (talk) 10:40, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The only explicit opinions are for deletion, and I can't see anybody taking the walls of text about how important, etc., this person is seriously - at least not in terms of our inclusion guidelines, which is what matters. Sandstein 17:30, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gianluca Minieri[edit]

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

Non-notable individual lacking support for claims. reddogsix (talk) 01:21, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Mr Gianluca Minieri recently has been nominated most influential trader in the financial Markets and is a vital source for Finance Universities to understand the work mr Minieri has done and must have a knowledge of him as an individual and his background as a university course requirement. Furthermore Mr Gianluca has been featured on Bloomberg financial magazines almost every month now and is a key topic for financial researchers and Bankers. His work has a an immediate effect on the global markets of Asia, Europe and America. He is a key individual with more then sufficient references of importance through the hundreds of interviews and Financial newspapers and magazine interviews on such well known website like Trading Desk, Bloomberg and many others. Interviewers and journalist find great use in this page in order to understand his work carried out. Likewise we, the university association of Finance request that this page is kept as wikipedia is a source of great importance to our alumni and Mr Gianluca is a key element in not only student research but Working colleagues and financial market associates as a whole. Thank you Please note all research was done from articles and references are currently published and researched.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:46, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:46, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as News, Books, browsers and Highbeam all found links but essentially all trivial mentions. SwisterTwister talk 05:19, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It is an obvious fact that articles will be partially talking about Mr Minieri as he is not a singer or actor but Executive vice president and global head of Trading In a trading bank. in the world of finance magazines rely on multiple opinions of traders but Mr Minieri has been nominated One of the most influential traders of 2015 making him a key subject in the study of finance and the markets. No banker or in fact trader will have an article of his own as for people in the banking industry there is no interest in an extremely long biography but rather on the individual as well as his work and opinions of others. This Article is key in the studies of Journalists for interviews, students at university level and traders. As you can see if you were to read articles about other top traders on wikipedia trivial mentions will always be the case but for sure to not signify non importance of an individual as in Trading magazines like Bloomberg where mr minieri was featured It is a normal custom to talk partially about him/her. The links and references are for use of confirming the status of the individual like mr Minieri and confirming the claimed work he has done. Furthermore Financial magazines like Bloomberg do not decide to write articles regarding any person but only key individuals of interest which is why Mr Minieri was Chosen. With no doubt I support that this article should be kept and all required information was provided in order to keep it active. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by YourJames100 (talk • contribs) 14:09, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Unfortunately, if there are only trivial mentions of the individual, he will not meet the criteria for inclusion into Wikipedia. Valid support per Wikipedia guidelines is the key to an individual's notability. reddogsix (talk) 17:24, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -There are not only trivial mentions but if someone actually went through the links it would be very obvious that that is not the case. All references are current and active, they are genuine from large important publishers. there are articles about Mr Minieri only. Wikipedia is a place where articles for use of students and professionals must be uploaded which can be of their interest and of use. We for a fact know this individual is a key source of research in the financial market. I would like to bring this matter forward to a supervisor possibly as I do feel this time there is absolutely no attempt to take my request and opinion into consideration nor anyone is actually reading what I am writing. I think this ignorant attitude from wikipedia is shameful and as a major supporter and donator the site I think it is a shameful behaviour and I will be talking to the university association in order to bring consequences forward in terms of stop donations. Subsequently what I am saying is not that someone can upload what he/she wants when he/she makes donations but in my case I am responsible of teaching finance, I have included all needed and required references, and I know this individual is key in the financial market, I should have the right to upload this article. It is not my fault that whom is in the office like the wikipedia administrators have no knowledge of bankers and traders but it is understandable as you work in a different sector. As much as you people know about Justin Bieber and other singers and actors, for us these are our individuals of importance which benefit hundreds of people and it is unfair that working people an students must suffer consequences of the lack of knowledge regarding these individuals from wikipedia. I wish you take this matter forward if possible with whoever is responsible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by YourJames100 (talk • contribs) 19:41, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Do you really think making threats will help you case? There are no supervisors in Wikipedia, this is a community driven encyclopedia. If you are not aware of that I would question your knowledge and subsequent "donations" to Wikipedia. Since you created the article, you have the WP:BURDEN to provide reliable support for the article, something you have failed to do. I would also strongly suggest you read WP:UNCIVIL and WP:LEGAL before responding further. reddogsix (talk) 22:39, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - There is no threat being made, your lack of knowledge is a threat to this site. This is perfect proof that you do not read what I am writing. Please I wish to speak to someone responsible regarding the article or to a supervisor, I don't have time to waste on stupid discussions that don't go anywhere. Thanks— Preceding unsigned comment added by YourJames100 (talk • contribs) 08:40, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - A comment like, "I will be talking to the university association in order to bring consequences forward in terms of stop(sic) donations" certainly is a threat. Again, there is no supervisor, it you wish to get help I suggest you go to WP:EAR for help. Oh, and once again, please read WP:UNCIVIL before responding on this page - your comments really do not assume good faith. reddogsix (talk) 20:34, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -No use in commenting with someone like you. My reasons were listed above and now you are harassing me and you have gone off topic. I have signalled your behaviour to wikipedia. Have a nice day — Preceding unsigned comment added by YourJames100 (talk • contribs)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:27, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:06, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On the one hand, I'm seeing good secondary sources which reference Minieri as an expert, but on the other these tend to be brief mentions and I've not been able to find anything particularly substantive which suggests he is specifically notable as an individual. I can believe that it is possible he is notable and that there are references which describe his important contributions to the field, but I'm not seeing them. JMWt (talk) 12:48, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I am a finance student from the institute of finance of Manhattan. I have opened a case in the univeristy and institute to help keep this page live as it was great use to me in my last essay. Your comments are correct and much more fair then your last collegue as I can see. I have foun this article which is only about mr minieri and his number 46 banker in the world interview. http://www.fi-desk.com/onthe-desk-gianluca-minieri-pioneer-investments/

Should I include it in the links? Well, I will attempt to. Other students are searching further information and articles based on the magazines we have in university where mr minieri was on. Thanks— Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.74.224.5 (talk • contribs) 14:05, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Unfortunately, the reference you provided is a primary reference - in interview - the article still lacks secondary references. reddogsix (talk) 15:23, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

With all honesty I dont still understand what else wikipedia could possibly want. Mr minieri is a banker and trader, not a singer or actor. It is very different in terms of searching for sources. The amount of sources this page has are mpre then can be found onany banker and in my opinion do demonstarte his status and importance. On the other hand this article is of great use to students like us. What else can be done, can you kindly look for links as well to help keep this page up. We really need it. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.255.234.194 (talk) 19:45, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage to show they pass notability criteria. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:23, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. joe decker ^talk 02:19, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tauqueer Alam[edit]

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

Seems like a non-notable producer/write of non-notable works both failing WP:GNG, backed by non-RS refs like IMDb. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 09:02, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 09:03, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 09:03, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

so many web news links and work shows its a notable person — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mywhitefox (talk • contribs) 12:02, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

None of those are WP:RS and are just passing mentions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 12:33, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I'm not seeing much better convincing notability from the current article. SwisterTwister talk 06:08, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have gone through all web kinks and found he is a notable person and doing great in his field. Even have seen some interview on news channels regarding his uocoming movie. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ishueditor (talk • contribs) 11:02, 9 December 2015 (UTC) i added these info hope useful for this page Career Tauqueer Alam tried acting and he appear in Kyo Kii... Main Jhuth Nahin Bolta,2001, Govinda (actor) Starer Hindi Film, in the scene of court. he feel there that he have no future in acting and started his career with ETV with writing a social comedy, and this serial hits the audiences emotion with laughter. after that he was only in writing serials and film, now he is turned as producer and his first film is Haunted Rooh and as well produced so many musical album. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mywhitefox (talk • contribs) 15:34, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per SwisterTwister. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 04:56, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Notable as I have gone all details and find its notable person — Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.91.115.192 (talk) 12:41, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notable under what criteria? --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 06:17, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. joe decker ^talk 02:18, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Iyle - See Love (Igebulikwe)[edit]

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

Recreated after being speedy deleted twice, fails WP:NSONG JMHamo (talk) 07:50, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. As mentioned above I've speedied this twice in the past two days Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:01, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:A9. Artist's article was deleted. Vanjagenije (talk) 21:24, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:18, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of Bates College commencement speakers[edit]

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

Non-notable WP:LISTCRUFT JMHamo (talk) 07:40, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Indeed. Pure cruft. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:54, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 16:54, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maine-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 16:54, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:52, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence that this group of people has been covered (as a group) in independent sources. EricEnfermero (Talk) 09:00, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 08:31, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

SuperMarioGlitchy4[edit]

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

Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) It had no meaningful hits in a video game reliable sources custom Google search. There are no worthwhile redirect targets. If someone finds more (non-English and offline) sources, please {{ping}} me. czar 06:14, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. czar 06:15, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:Notability (biographies) as written. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:50, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I consider myself a former fan of SMG4, but that's not relevant. What's relevant is I found no reliable sources at all relevant to the subject (not sure about the TV Tropes page I found), so it fails WP:GNG. --TL22 (talk) 13:21, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails GNG. Sergecross73 msg me 16:54, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete per WP:SNOW. Editor has also been given a WP:NOTHERE block as they've almost solely made edits that pertain to their personal fanfiction. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:43, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of Dead World books[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG, no citations found. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:01, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:12, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:13, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No indication of notability. Pburka (talk) 14:59, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This looks to be related to this AfD. Ultimately as far as I can tell, this is a similar situation and looks to be a fanfiction based on this movie, given that it contains the same fanfiction OC that they created in the other AfD. I'm going to go ahead and give the editor a WP:NOTHERE block since they seem to have a very long history of adding fanfiction works to Wikipedia, such as Transformers Infected and Transformers : The ROBLOXIAN War. Basically, they've had plenty of warnings that adding fanfiction to Wikipedia is inappropriate. They haven't been active since November, but that they've done this for a while gives off the strong impression that they may likely return to re-add this later on. I think that I'll likely close this one early since there's really no chance that this series will pass notability guidelines. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:40, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. PeRshGo you may request to restore this to the draft space at WP:REFUND. Mkdw ^talk 05:38, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vladimir Gendelman[edit]

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

Appears to be autobiography oradvertisement, low notability. JamesG5 (talk) 07:52, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Not an autobiography, as I'm not him, nor is it an advertisement. A little WP:AGF couldn't hurt though. As for notability the only folks I've worked on in the BLP space have been actors so I'm not going to pretend I'm 100% sure what the threshold for business people are. But he's an active guy in the area, and he writes / gets asked his opinion on business matters a lot, most specifically on the subject of Ukraine. PeRshGo (talk) 08:04, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- As several of the sources were his own articles it looked like a self promotion piece, my apologies on that point.JamesG5 (talk) 08:05, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - I just threw those two in on the end as writing examples, if you think it's better with out them they can go. PeRshGo (talk) 08:09, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - That goes back to notability, then, as it leaves a single credible source (NBC) and a PR site. A google search shows very little about him that's not tied to his company. I note also that you created a page for the company Company_Folders as your first action on Wikipedia. I hate to strain WP:AGF but this does seem like promotion.JamesG5 (talk) 08:18, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      - I've been editing Wikipedia for nearly a decade. That was not my first action on Wikipedia. In addition that would leave two credible sources, NBC, and DBusiness, in addition to the marketing company site which while questionable by merit of being a marketing company, really isn't writing him a promo article at all. But that being said if you think it isn't worthwhile it can be pulled and replaced with another article. That one just seemed to be a more interesting one. PeRshGo (talk) 08:33, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        Apologies again, for some reason your contribs list is showing your first as being making a page for that company. The DBusiness link wasn't there when I made that comment, just the Promodo link which is what I was referring to. Just still not sure why the owner of a local small business that makes office supplies is notable.JamesG5 (talk) 08:43, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        To me I figured that as a writer alone or as a business owner alone he probably wouldn't meet the notability threshold but together he might. Truth is, this was a first shot to see if I could get some of the more active business guys around the Detroit area Wikipedia pages. Seems like this region is woefully under represented, and I thought, wow this guy writes a lot and his company has a distinction within that specific market (they make a lot of the print collateral for the big 3 and some other major companies) maybe he'd make the cut. Probably if I wouldn't have included those articles written by him at the end he would have. But AfDs tend to favor the deletionists and the BLP realm is a pain to start with. PeRshGo (talk) 08:53, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        I guess if I want to see this thing through to the end, and given I spent the better part of the evening working on this I might as well, my argument has to be that if a bunch of publications see him as notable enough to interview, does that not make him notable enough for our purposes? PeRshGo (talk) 08:56, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        Well, last thought I'll add in that regard is that on WP:Notability it talks about standalone pages. Assuming this guy and his company are notable enough to be on Wikipedia I can't imagine why they would have separate pages. At the very least I'd argue they should be merged with either a bio on him as part of the company page or a blurb on the company as part of his page. My opinion, let's see what others think.JamesG5 (talk) 09:02, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        I'll also throw out there that clicking the links above it seems he's cited in a few books as well. Not a ton but for his field it's pretty good PeRshGo (talk) 09:24, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 08:28, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now as he's simply not independently notable. Notifying Wikimandia who may have some Ukrainian insight. SwisterTwister talk 07:18, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. classic promotionalism. Beyond the bio background, it's a story of how he came to found the company. Unfortunately, nothing about the company is notable, and neither is he. I've nominated the company page for deletion as well at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Company Folders. WP is not the place for press ampaigns. DGG - 18:26, 16 September 2015
Comment It seems the deletes are having this one, even if some of them are erroneously assuming bad faith. That being said I'd still like to work on covering some of the Metro Detroit business guys on Wikipedia, so before this gets closed out, if someone could direct me to any good information on what the notability threshold is on business people, either here or on my talk page I'd appreciate it. Cheers. PeRshGo (talk) 19:34, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

PeRshGo If needed, this can be drafted and userfied to your userspace until it is better and as for the notability, see biographies notability. Cheers, SwisterTwister talk 20:29, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 21:55, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 20:24, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Jkudlick ^tc_s 05:28, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 05:30, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 05:30, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was move to Draft space. Dkendr is correct, this discussion has gone on long enough, I don't see another relist as giving us much more. The consensus is that at this time, the subject doesn't meet notability criteria, however there is potential. So move to draft space it is. I suggest using the Articles for Creation process to get assistance in improvement there. The page can now be found at Draft:Melinda Hill. kelapstick^(bainuu) 21:33, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Melinda Hill[edit]

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

The subject is short of Wikipedia's notability criteria (WP:ENTERTAINER) and essentially received an extra degree of attention after a game show appearance - article would be more appropriate as a section in an article regarding contestants on said game show. Article is being used by sock puppet of article subject for promotion. Relevant content being removed by said sock puppet. Dkendr (talk · contribs) 21:32, 17 November 2015 (UTC), updated Dkendr (talk) 21:20, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I've completed this nomination and added the rationale, based on Dkendr's edit summary[5]. They are, of course, invited to expand on their rationale. Other options (protection?) might be useful if a sockfarm is indeed at work. No comment on the merits. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 22:09, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There is nothing wrong with this wikipedia page and it should not be deleted. All info is cited and referenced correctly. (Example: http://tangledwebwewatch.com/2013/07/17/stephs-la-weekly-feature-series-melinda-hills-romantic-encounters/) Content has been removed wherein it is libelous and untrue vandalism. It is within the acceptable guidelines and standards of wikipedia to remove such content. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion This statement is incorrect vandalism: "Hill's America's Got Talent appearance was notable for her complete failure. She bombed so thoroughly that the judges were not even motivated to activate their buzzers to end her set early.[11]" Statement is not factual and is meant to cyber-bully a living person with inaccurate and undocumented slander. No judge on America's Got Talent has ever been "unmotivated to activate a buzzer." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.91.24.252 (talk) 12:37, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I removed the complete failure line - this is a BLP, after all. As for the rest? Look, you and Dkendr have gone back and forth on this article for more than a week now, getting nowhere - and all while coming dangerously close to an edit war. Let's see if the AFD gets more eyes on the article, and perhaps we can get some of these problems sorted one way or the other. The first step should really have been the talk page, but this works as well. So, @Dkendr:, how's about you and this IP editor stop reverting the article and see what other editors think? UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 13:59, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

_{I also marked your comment as a keep, since you say the article should be kept. This is for the benefit of the closing admin. FYI. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 13:59, 18 November 2015 (UTC)}[reply]

Ultraexactzz: Wikipedia is about community consensus so whatever that may be I will of course abide. Dkendr (talk) 17:18, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ultraexactzz: I will agree to that and thank you very much for your help and suggestion this morning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.91.24.252 (talk) 14:45, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ (iVote is nomination -- Jreferee (talk) 05:31, 7 December 2015 (UTC)) : Subject fails the notability test, page patrolled by a sock puppet. I do want to add that I put a "delete for notability" tag on the page... and it was deleted with no supporting edits... Dkendr (talk) 17:16, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep : By most metrics I question the "notability" of someone with such low-level (online videos, podcasts, uncredited appearances, etc.) show biz accomplishments, and yet the subject appears to meet wikipedia's much more lax notability standards by providing references that indicate some degree of independent press coverage, even though that press (online interviews and free "alternative" weekly entertainment guides) strikes me as borderline non-trivial. Certainly wikipedia has allowed notability status for pages that have provided less back up, so why should this page be any different? Let it stay ShelbyMarion (talk) 19:01, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

.

weak delete: Technically it fail entertainer notability criteria. At first glance does seem to have a diverse and active career, however in reality they all look like bit parts/extra roles. If result is keep, page has COI and neutrality issues that need addressing (ideally keeping overly enthusiastic editors away from making wholesale changes to whatever remains of the article). Rayman60 (talk) 21:08, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: As an Adventure Time fan I enjoy reading about the career trajectories of the cast. I only wish this page had more information about Melinda's work on Adventure Time and could clear up the certain conspiracy theories about her character Doctor Princess, one of my all time favorite characters.CelebFan (talk) 03:00, 27 November 2015 (UTC) — CelebFan (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I call sock puppet on this user. Account created Nov. 26, 2015, with no other edits in its portfolio. CelebFan of course is permitted to create a page about AdventureTime, but should be reminded that Wikipedia is not the place for fan fiction. Dkendr (talk) 03:11, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: How is this even up for discussion? The statement above is completely false: "essentially received an extra degree of attention after a game show appearance - article would be more appropriate as a section in an article regarding contestants on said game show. Article is being used by sock puppet of article subject for promotion. Relevant content being removed by said sock puppet." { Melinda Hill has never appeared on any game shows, according to google. I am a fan of her stand up comedy and her appearances on several network and cable TV shows. She also hosted a TV series called Comedy.TV which is still airing over the world and we watch it frequently here in Chicago.EdwardEditHands (talk) 20:56, 28 November 2015 (UTC) — EdwardEditHands (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Melinda Hill was a contestant on America's Got Talent, which is a game show. I call sock puppet on this one too; the account was created on Nov. 28, 2015, same date as this posting, with no other edits in its portfolio. Dkendr (talk) 03:11, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, clpo13_(talk) 18:31, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable performer, talented, she appeared on the Craig Ferguson show. My unofficial test of pageviews is averaging about 30/40 per day, sometimes spiking, here, and while of course it is unofficial, for me it usually is an indication of notability. Some coverage here, but sources in article now, such as this ind-depth one, and this one suggest she meets the WP:GNG although admittedly there is a much extra junk in the article.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 02:24, 30 November 2015 (UTC)--Tomwsulcer (talk) 02:36, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Talented" is subjective. The "Secretariat" character was on Ferguson more often, should it have a page? If she is notable for hosting a show then the show might qualify and this article could be included in it. Dkendr (talk) 03:05, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Followup: The "Secretariat" character from Ferguson does in fact have its own paragraph in the main Craig Ferguson show article. Dkendr (talk) 21:21, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Jkudlick ^tc_s 04:58, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 05:00, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - at least as a standalone biography article since the topic Melinda Hill has not received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources (see nutshell at Wikipedia:Notability (people)). That is, there are not enough reliable secondary sources, independent of the topic, to written an account of Melinda Hill's life. While the article includes basic facts regarding her career, the Wikipedia article does not include life events or even portray her experience of these life events since none of the Wikipedia reliable secondary sources cover such information. As such, the topic cannot be maintained as a biography and should be deleted. The information would be more appropriate as a section in an article regarding contestants on the game show -- Jreferee (talk) 05:31, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - once blogs are excluded, there is almost no coverage of this person. Appearance on a single game show is definitely below the (very low) GNG threshold, and the existence of blogs discussing that same game show does not confer notability. If this person receives more coverage then reliable sources will emerge; for now it is at best WP:TOOSOON. Delete as not notable. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:21, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps draft and userfy so delete for now as there may be enough coverage for even a marginally acceptable article but there could be better coverage and I'm seeing that so far so drafting and userfy may beneficial for a future article. SwisterTwister talk 06:07, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, apart from the original editor and what could easily be a bit of sockpuppetry, there don't seem to be any reasons to keep this article. Userfying and waiting for new sources is however not unreasonable. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:17, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This does seem to be the fairest approach to retaining the content for future revival if warranted and maintaining notability policy. Dkendr (talk) 05:53, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree with the nominator. There are a lot of trivial mentions, local news and event listings used as sources here. Of note: if you go to the articles on the works she's done where she was not cast as "herself", almost none have her name in the article. If anything (and this is a stretch) she may be encyclopedic for her two shows, but there's little of encyclopedic value here beyond that. That's not to say she's not talented, I'm sure she is, but Wikipedia is not IMDb. I would suggest redirecting to one of the articles but I can't determine which, so search results would be better. No prejudice against moving to draft space if someone wants to work on it, but frankly I don't think there's any merit. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 21:19, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Userfied Page[edit]

I have userfied this page to preserve its content in case of a notability change or the content becomes usable in a wider-scoped article. This does not constitute "cyber bullying" in any way. Dkendr (talk) 20:19, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Dkendr: you should not have done that, and you did it improperly. I have asked at WP:ANI to have this move reverted. Please at least wait for this discussion to close before you act on how you interpret the result, and then please ask for help if the page needs to be moved. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 20:58, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved the page back. Dkendr, please do not move the page in that manner. The closing Admin will move the page to userspace if appropriate.--kelapstick^(bainuu) 21:02, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please excuse my enthusiasm but I'm wondering how long the debate will be allowed to drag on? Dkendr (talk) 21:05, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dkendr Well, considering this has been relisted twice, it may end soon unless someone wants to relist a third time. SwisterTwister talk 21:27, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep as the current sourcing seems like a start and this can be nominated later if needed (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 06:36, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hong Kong 3D Museum[edit]

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

Apparantly unremarkable company - unable to verify the links, so cannot establish any kind of notability for this subject. Salimfadhley (talk) 04:54, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 05:05, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 05:05, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 05:06, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve - The reliable secondary sources indicate notability. STSC (talk) 05:38, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve. Coverage on Apple Daily + Wenweipo + Discover Hong Kong means that WP:GNG is passed. I'll brush it down and stubbify it for now to make it more acceptable. I have also taken the liberty to move the article to its current title (correct capitalisation). Der yck C. 23:57, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw if a chinese-reading editor can verify the sources. --Salimfadhley (talk) 02:13, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. And a {{minnow}} for the OP who, while I can appreciate the desire to help out an IP who can't figure out the AfD process, will I hope check a little deeper next time so they don't get snookered by a trolling IP again. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:44, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

James Heilman[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Completing nomination on behalf of IP who said "Dude Is Not Noteworthy Enough to Have a Wiki Article" on the talk page. This nomination is procedural only, I am neutral. Everymorning (talk) 02:51, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per refs in article which show the obvious WP:N. Suggestion to nominator: next time, wait for the IP to at least ask for assistance. This AfD is trolling and a waste of time. Johnuniq (talk) 04:31, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 05:10, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for the same reasons as the last time. Plus, the article quite clearly demonstrates notability through significant coverage in just The New York Times alone. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:35, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Four big write ups in The Atlantic with Heilman as the lead and authority {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 05:48, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for sure. The person (James Heilman) is for sure sufficiently noteworthy! Is it really necessary to discuss this, based on an anonymous person's comment on the talk page? I find that odd. EvMsmile (talk) 08:00, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep seems to be a strong case for speedy keep as per A3 - either the IP is a vandal, or the NOM hasn't properly read the article. JMWt (talk) 08:40, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:14, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

US transition to electric cars[edit]

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

Seems to be an essay rather than an encyclopedic article. I would recommend merging anything useful to electric car but I imagine most of it's already in there. — foxj 02:19, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:14, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:14, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:15, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There's no need to be U.S.-centric and this is a sort of artificial topic which doesn't need its own page. Electric car covers it all fine. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (notify) 10:32, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Although the information is important the form of the article is not suitable for an encyclopedia. It starts out: "This page explores the consequences..." Encyclopedias are for facts, other media are for exploring alternatives. A published article (or even better more than one) making this kind of speculation should be linked to electric car and the conclusions given in a short section there.Borock (talk) 18:08, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Miss Florida USA. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:13, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ashleigh Lollie[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This pageant winner is a perfect case for WP:NOPAGE because her name is best presented on a list. She obviously fails WP:NMODEL and the page is whisper thin on meaningful content. Delete so it can't be restored against policy and then create a redirect to Miss Florida USA for her name. [6] Legacypac (talk) 02:18, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect per Legacypac's WP:NOPAGE argument. Jacona (talk) 12:53, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:26, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:26, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect if destination page is revised to actually have bios of winners.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:24, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Miss Florida USA. Adog104 ^{Talk to me} 23:20, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:03, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lola LC88[edit]

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

Per request of Robert McClenon and CambridgeBayWeather. This is one of two articles on cars of this period, the Lola LC87 and the Lola LC88. Both articles depend on a handful of deadlinks and sources seen as unacceptable. See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Lola LC87 (2nd nomination). This article was listed there too: as both articles suffer exactly the same failings, they stand or fall together.

That MfD has now closed as delete. However for bureaucratic reasons, an MfD was seen as having no scope over an article, hence this AfD. Andy Dingley (talk) 02:12, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article on 87 was proposed for deletion for having no references. This article does have references. If the proponent of deletion thinks that the references are inadequate, they may make that statement as the reason for deletion. The two articles are not comparable, in that one was referenced and the other was not. If the deleted article can be properly referenced, it can be resubmitted, either preferably via Articles for Creation or directly into mainspace. If this article is not properly referenced, then it should be deleted, but I think that it is properly referenced. Your opinion may vary. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:40, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

They were both referenced, and using the same sites. LC87 didn't use inline citations to them, but that in itself would be no good reason. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:51, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Lola LC87 was entirely unreferenced but had some external links which were not the same as the references on the LC88 page. The LC87 was of poor quality and ungrammatical, drafted by an IP editor well known to the F1 project as disruptive through submitting similar poor quality drafts via talk-pages, and adding unreferenced text to articles. The LC88 (where the referencing did need improving...which it already has been to an extent) was added to the MfD mentioned above on the basis of 'well if the Lola LC87 is proposed for deletion..then what about this one'. There is no reason why this article should be deleted, the car passes notability and the page has references. This proposal should not be seriously considered. Eagleash (talk) 10:30, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So you admit that the LC87 article wasn't deleted for any reason of notability (both of these cars are tenuous for that) or for referencing (the LC87 had just had the same book references added to it, and not by one of these heinous IP editors), but just for "other" reasons. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:37, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The LC87 page was edited entirely by the IP (35 different addresses since September) editor apart from some attempts to reference it by Andy, which added no in-line citations. Both cars pass F1 project notability, ~~all~~ most F1 cars do. & the LC87 draft has already been salvaged and is being worked upon. Project members could have fixed the draft, but why should we? (Andy didn't) We kept away from the debate in view of the history as we've fixed literally dozens of articles in the past & our patience with this editor has run out. His edits are WP:TE paragraph 2.7 as sources have never been provided. The page was deleted because it was poor quality, after it was rejected via AfC several times Eagleash (talk) 11:02, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The place to deal with a tendentious editor is never by revenge article deletions at MfD. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:24, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There was no question of revenge. Editors from the F1 project kept away from the debate for that very reason. The article was judged as poor quality by the reviewer who subsequently tagged it for deletion. Eagleash (talk) 20:52, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On another point, and in the interests of clarity and any future discussions, it has been suggested that to say 'all' F1 cars would pass notability may not be precisely accurate, with which I agree. I have therefore amended my comment above, whilst leaving the original wording in place. Eagleash (talk) 01:34, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Everything has to pass GNG and I believe this does, or it certainly will do once I gain access to my source material in a few weeks. The LC87 article was deleted because, unlike all this IP's other produce, we didn't clean it up or rewrite it. Nothing vengeful about it – we just got tired of fixing up his rubbish. Someone else outside the project nominated it for deletion and we just didn't step in to save it. We are not obliged to fix articles just because we can. Regarding the notability of F1 cars, I do not believe that all F1 cars are inherently notable, but the majority have more than enough source material out there to pass GNG. It's just a case of putting it all together. Both the LC87 and LC88 can pass GNG without any bother. Bretonbanquet (talk) 01:51, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There's enough out there to get this past the GNG. Whether or not the LC87 should have been kept or deleted is irrelevant; it can always be recreated later if it too passes GNG. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 12:38, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 12:39, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 08:28, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pawa Up First[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBAND, unable to find significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the topic JMHamo (talk) 01:16, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. sst✈^(discuss) 01:40, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. sst✈^(discuss) 01:40, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I thought about speedying this, but better here Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:27, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Hardly signs of a better article with notability and improvement from what I see. SwisterTwister talk 06:15, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Despite some relatively strong arguments about WP:MERGE, if there are no notability concerns here then the fundamental consensus that the subject is in fact notable. A merge discussion can be held on the talk page through the merge process if the article is deemed a stub which is borderline per definitions at WP:STUB. Mkdw ^talk 05:27, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

John Painter (supercentenarian)[edit]

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

There's no indication that there is enough significant coverage of reliable sources for a separate article on Mr. Painter. Of the three sources here, I added the GRG table M that reiterates his birth, death, age and ranking as world's oldest man. The City Paper is an obituary showing essentially WP:ROUTINE local coverage of his death (even though it had a statement from the Governor). The other source is his local congressman congratulating him on his 112 birthday which given the way the Congress Record is full of these kinds of things is almost WP:ROUTINE coverage as well. Both notably were based on his significance as the oldest Tennessee which was later learned to be incorrect for what that means. I think per WP:NOPAGE we should redirect the page to List of the verified oldest men and the actual details about here could be made into a mini-biography there (List of supercentenarians from the United States has nineteen at the moment). Ricky81682 (talk) 10:51, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Does the French Legion of Honor make him notable? EEng (talk) 15:01, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, not every one listed at List of Légion d'honneur recipients by name has an article so I'd say it wouldn't make him automatically notable. We're back to the WP:GNG analysis then. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:05, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, it certainly doesn't make him inherently notable. It's a very common award, even to foreigners. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:43, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of supercentenarians from the United States. EEng (talk) 13:15, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A substantial article that makes clear claims of notability based on extreme age and recognition for his military service. The scope and breadth of the article and the inclusion of appropriate reliable and verifiable sources satisfy our notability standard. Alansohn (talk) 00:20, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep And so the never ending deletion spree continues. This man was not recognised as the oldest living man until after his death, so naturally there isn't as much coverage for him as we typically see for other former world's oldest men, but does that make the achievement any less significant? No. I've added some more sources in to the article although it might need a clean up. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 01:54, 26 November 2015 (UTC) This editor has made few or no other edits outside this topic.[reply]
Extremely Weak keep/leaning merge Being one of five people in a state of 6 million or so to have been awarded France's highest honour would certainly merit consideration of an article. A Keep rationale would have a stronger case if it was made cleared as to why Mr Painter was awarded the honour. I'm not looking for feats like Charles Upham, but there surely should be something. Excepting his war service, the article actually weakens his claim for a standalone article as he came from a family of long lived individuals. Blackmane (talk) 12:48, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 20:07, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It seems to be common sense that the oldest man in the world at any one time is notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:41, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The question on the table is notability, but WP:NOPAGE. EEng (talk) 18:46, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That didn't make any sense. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:04, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How right you are. What I meant to say is "The question on the table isn't notability, but WP:NOPAGE." EEng (talk) 12:04, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Looks to be enough on the page for an article. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:59, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What specifically in WP:NOPAGE are you citing, it is like telling people the answer is in the bible, all your questions will be answered there. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:19, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't compare NOPAGE to the bible, either in length or inscrutability. Anyway, the relevant parts of NOPAGE are

There are other times when it is better to cover notable topics, that clearly should be included in Wikipedia, as part of a larger page about a broader topic, with more context. A decision to cover a notable topic only as part of a broader page does not in any way disparage the importance of the topic... Sometimes, a notable topic can be covered better as part of a larger article, where there can be more complete context that would be lost on a separate page... Sometimes, several related topics, each of them similarly notable, can be collected into a single page, where the relationships between them can be better appreciated than if they were each a separate page... Sometimes, when a subject is notable, but it is unlikely that there ever will be a lot to write about it, editors should weigh the advantages and disadvantages of creating a permanent stub.

EEng (talk) 01:32, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How can "a notable topic ... be covered better" by reducing his biography to 4 data points in a table? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:17, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly what it says above: "Sometimes, several related topics, each of them similarly notable, can be collected into a single page, where the relationships between them can be better appreciated than if they were each a separate page". EEng (talk) 14:36, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge keep on List of the verified oldest men and add a mini bio to that page. Not enough for a stand-alone article but it fits the format of the list page for inclusion of a minibio. Then create a redirect with the subject's name as a search term. David in DC (talk) 18:18, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Oldest man. (Though no inline citation for the same.) Yogesh Khandke (talk) 20:07, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per WP:NOPAGE and PERMASTUB. There's not enough here for a standalone article, even if GNG were met. Vanamonde93 (talk) 05:44, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep solid referencing. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:16, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Irrelevant, since notability isn't the question. EEng (talk) 01:48, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Since he was posthumously verified as having been the WOM, there is reason as to why this man didn't escape local media attention. He also received France's highest honour, which further strengthens the reason as to why he should have his own article here on Wikipedia. 930310 (talk) 22:14, 5 December 2015 (UTC) This editor has made few or no other edits outside this topic.[reply]

Hardly. There are five ranks of the order. Apparently he's in the rank that has 75,000 other recipients. Anyway, it's not about what the subject "should have", it's about the best way to present whatever's worth presenting about him (WP:NOPAGE). EEng (talk) 01:48, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There is no question of notability, but only whether to merge or keep. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 00:37, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Jkudlick ^tc_s 00:37, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of supercentenarians from the United States and create a redirect as a plausible search term - Per WP:NOPAGE and WP:PERMASTUB, we should try to avoid creating articles which will never grow beyond stubs. As to the question of whether the Légion d'honneur confers automatic notability, WP:SOLDIER has a footnote that in the event of the nation's highest valor decoration having multiple grades or classes, only the highest military grade qualifies. Should Mr. Painter be added to any list of Légion d'honneur recipients, he should be wikilinked to his section in List of supercentenarians from the United States. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 01:17, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 01:18, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 01:19, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. World's oldest man deserves a stand-alone article. Jacona (talk) 12:49, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"A decision to cover a notable topic only as part of a broader page does not in any way disparage the importance of the topic" i.e. it's not about what the subject "deserves", it's about what best serves the reader's understanding. EEng (talk) 03:53, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your commentary. To clarify further, the subject deserves a stand-alone article, so the reader's understanding can be better served. The detail can be listed in the subject's article and be wikilinked from the broader topic. In this way, the reader does not have to read about this individual unless they really want to. The "broader topic" would be cluttered up by including all this detail there. Jacona (talk) 13:23, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, based on existing coverage which should satisfy general guidelines for determining notability. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 00:47, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Irrelevant, since notability isn't the question. EEng (talk) 03:53, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a merge question, why are we here. Merges are handled on the talk page, this is Articles for Deletion. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 14:50, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, lost to history is that fact that AfD was originally "Articles for Discussion" -- it gradually came to be called Deletion because that's 98% of the traffic here. I thought about making these proposals on the article talk pages, as you suggest, but several other editors felt that the increased visibility/transparency of AfD might be preferable, given the long sorry history of longevity topics. But you're the second or third editor to make the same suggestion recently, so I'm reconsidering. Thanks. EEng (talk) 21:07, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Where is this lost to history? It has always been my understanding that this forum was initially referred to as Votes for Deletion and was later renamed to Articles for Deletion. I was not aware this was ever referred to as Articles for Discussion. The option to merge is an editorial decision which can be dealt with on the respective talk page. As to your question of relevancy, I am afraid we disagree. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 01:18, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

At the risk of stating the obvious, if I could remember where it's lost to history, then it wouldn't be lost to history, would it? Maybe I'm thinking of TfD, which really is "Templates for discussion". EEng (talk) 02:29, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In this case I believe you are simply mistaken. A name change of that magnitude would not be lost to history, and I don't see how it would be possible given the nature of how Wikipedia operates. A cursory search shows that a renaming was proposed in ~2009 but consensus was not reached. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 20:52, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, so I had it backwards. Great detective work on your part, though I'm not sure it matters. EEng (talk) 21:10, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

'NOPAGE is a a pretty strong argument here. The info presented here is much better presented in context in other articles. So Merge and include a short bio on the list article. Legacypac (talk) 09:15, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:11, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Amsterdam International Radio (AIR FM)[edit]

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

Seam like non-notable company. Google News search reruns no hits [7]. I can't find any reliable sources that discuss the subject. Vanjagenije (talk) 00:28, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – insufficient coverage, fails WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH. Even if it were notable, it would need WP:TNTing since in its current state it is basically an ad. sst✈^(discuss) 01:32, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. sst✈^(discuss) 01:38, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. sst✈^(discuss) 01:38, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacks any coverage in secondary sources, failing WP:GNG. Article seems to have been created merely to draw attention to a non-notable, startup, and online-only radio station. - HyperGaruda (talk) 07:39, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:17, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:30, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Even near speedy material, nothing currently to suggest better yet. SwisterTwister talk 06:42, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Online radio stations can get into Wikipedia if they're sourced well enough right off the bat to satisfy WP:GNG, but are not granted any automatic presumption of notability just for existing — and this article, as written, tilts decidedly in the direction of being an advertisement for the station rather than an encyclopedia article about it. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 17:46, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

[Sunday_Magazine-1] Rafay Mahmood (June 12, 2011). "Marsia and noha artists: Songs of sorrow". The Express Tribune. Retrieved December 5, 2015.

[1]