Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 November 5

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 4 November	6 November >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Clear consensus for deletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:40, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Mendez[edit]

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

I had prodded it with the rationale: "I would have A7'd it, but if the assertion that he is the youngest official is correct (cannot find any verification of it), then I guess that could be considered notability. However, searches on News returned no hits for this particular person of this name; same with Newspapers, Books, Scholar (unsurprisingly) and JSTOR." - The prod was contested without comment. So, now we're here. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:59, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:13, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:14, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:15, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is no presumption of notability for NCAA football officials. Such a subject must satisfy WP:GNG, and I am not finding significant coverage in multiple, reliable, indpendent sources of the type required to pass that bar. Cbl62 (talk) 01:25, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with a curiosity to follow... it's possible there may be some notoriety arrive because he is an NCAA official at what may be perceived as such a young age. I haven't found support for this, but... maybe... --Paul McDonald (talk) 16:46, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, there doesn't seem to be any coverage of the subject. Jweiss11 (talk) 01:30, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The assertion that the subject is the "youngest American Football Official in the United States" [sic] is irrelevant, even if it is 100% true. Under the general notability guidelines of WP:GNG, the only thing that is relevant in determining notability is significant coverage of the subject -- significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources, each element of which is a separate criterion for judging whether references are suitable to be used in determining the notability of a potential article subject. In this case, I could no reliable coverage -- let alone significant coverage -- of "Steve Mendez" NCAA official. The most prominent source I found for the assertion of being the youngest NCAA official is Mendez's own Twitter account. Unless I missed something, this isn't even a close call. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:54, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I also think it is worth noting that the article creator and the subject may be the same person, given the creator's SPA editing interests and the similarity between the subject name and creator's user name: [1]. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:01, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:20, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources, clear fail of WP:BIO. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:54, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:58, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

UKeiG[edit]

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

Two brief mentions on News. Zip on Newspapers. Books returned the best about the group, but all the hits were either brief mentions or listings of the organization (with description obviously written by the organization itself). Scholar only has mentions of them, nothing in-depth, and same with Highbeam. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:57, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:11, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:49, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:49, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now as I simply see nothing better. Notifying taggers Benlisquare and Ntb613. SwisterTwister talk 07:51, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no in depth coverage of the subject and the existing mentions are trivial and (or) not coverage. Fails GNG, delete.—UY Scuti ^Talk 14:38, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:43, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Simmons (actor)[edit]

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

Failed prod where the rationale was "Fails WP:PORNBIO and WP:GNG." Prod was contested without rationale. Prod nominator was correct, searches turn up nothing to show this person meets WP:GNG or WP:BIO, and he clearly fails WP:PORNBIO. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:51, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:57, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:59, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:59, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No real claim of meeting WP:PORNBIO. Fails GNG. Article is based entirely on one source of questionable reliability. Searches for reliable source coverage get passing mentions in books. Those hits are mainly about Robert Mapplethorpe, not Simmons. • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I simply see nothing better. Pinging interested subject users Davey2010, Hullaballoo Wolfowitz and Spartaz. SwisterTwister talk 06:07, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above - Fails PORNBIO & GNG .–Davey2010^Talk 09:17, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the logic of my original PROD. No awards or nominations. No reliable sourcing. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 11:39, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mojo Hand (talk) 04:53, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Syren De Mer[edit]

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

Contested PROD for a non-notable porn star. Per this accurate PROD rationale: "Fails PORNBIO and the GNG. No awards or nomination. No claims of significance. No independent reliable sourcing, just IMDB and the subject's own promotional site." No RS coverage found in independent searches. • Gene93k (talk) 23:50, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:52, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:52, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:52, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I simply see nothing better. Pinging taggers Erpert and Boleyn and interested subject users Davey2010 and Spartaz. SwisterTwister talk 06:02, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I really have no opinion on this. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 01:01, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above - Fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 09:13, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the logic of my original PROD, which was tendentiously removed without explanation. This is a BLP with no sourced text and no assertion of notability. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 12:11, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Toronto District School Board. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:02, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agincourt Junior Public School[edit]

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

Non-secondary school with nothing in the search engines to show notability beyond having survived 100 years. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:26, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:09, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:09, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to Toronto District School Board per usual. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:15, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Toronto District School Board. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:21, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I have no issue with the redirect. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:00, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:29, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:55, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Blank Banshee[edit]

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

Clear notability issues, self-published outputs only. Semitransgenic _talk. 22:26, 5 November 2015 (UTC)'[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Semitransgenic _talk. 22:30, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 22:43, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I simply see nothing better. Pinging AfC commenters Tokyogirl79, Onel5969, MatthewVanitas}, Anthony Appleyard, interested subject user Bearcat and also tagger Reddogsix. SwisterTwister talk 06:10, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The only time I've ever touched this article at all was within an automated tagging run for a routine maintenance issue, which does not mean I necessarily have any special insight to contribute to the discussion. I'm really losing patience with getting 20+ pings per day from you on AFD discussions where I usually have nothing to offer, to be perfectly frank — just because I once bumped into it in an {{uncategorized}} tagging run in AWB doesn't automatically make me an "interested subject". Bearcat (talk) 06:25, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, I sense unnecessary tension from that message and "20" is exaggerated. Second, I also pinged you as you're a Canadian music fan so you may've wanted to comment. SwisterTwister talk 06:29, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - couldn't find any significant coverage in reliable sources to withhold the notability of the subject, fails WP:BIO.—UY Scuti ^Talk 15:09, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:59, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:59, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - They get a nice mention in this article, but only a couple of other trivial mentions at News. Nothing at all at Newspapers, Books, or Highbeam. Three trivial mentions at Scholar of all places. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:36, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The artist just doesn't appear notable. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 16:55, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:55, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ark TV[edit]

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

I didn't find any verifiable references that supports any claim for notability. In case, they do exist in Tamil, will be good if someone adds it. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 22:13, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:56, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:56, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:56, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:56, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, like Arthistorian1977, could find nothing on searches, but would be willing to re-evaluate if someone with access to Tamil sources can come up with enough to show notability. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:47, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Nothing to suggest better. SwisterTwister talk 06:59, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Unless someone shows sources/etc. that establish notability per WP:BROADCAST. As written, it fails right now. Ping me if better sources are presented. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:13, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:04, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Common Good (political party)[edit]

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

A small UK political party of no note. No mps, few votes, article could be construed as an advert. Refs while present don't confer notability. Szzuk (talk) 21:57, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This, along with several other articles on smaller political parties, was the subject of AFD less than a year ago. The result then was keep. Nothing has changed to alter that. I wonder if the present nominator has read the previous discussion(s). Emeraude (talk) 09:37, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I think that this article will keep coming up for deletion for the reasons in my nomination. Almost a year has passed since the last afd, a different afd often gives a different result sometimes in much less than a years time. I voted delete in the last afd so I'm aware of the previous discussion. Szzuk (talk) 20:11, 6 November 2015 (UTC)55[reply]

Add. Procedurally the prior afd was a mess, with 15 other afd's being lumped in after nomination. So half of that afd refers to this article and the other half to this one and 15 others. I think the result was a foregone conclusion because editors don't want to review 15 articles in one go. Szzuk (talk) 20:52, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't a joint nom and not all articles were kept. AusLondonder (talk) 02:04, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:57, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:57, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:57, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:58, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:GNG because of coverage in reliable media: Birmingham Mail [2], BBC [3] in addition to sources already in article. It is true that the sources are far form flattering, but they are in major news media. Moreover, while "No mps, few votes" is true, it is beside the point. Notability, for political parties as for everything else, can be conferred by the news coverage. E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:48, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep -- I think we have articles on small revolutionary socialist parties and Monster Raving Loony Party. The electoral success of most of these parties has been similarly negligible. My impression is that this is a one man band, and a serial failed candidate. It may come up again, so that a list of his failures may be useful: that is all this seems to be. You never know, if Northfield had a parish council he might have eben elected, though that would not make him notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:32, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I support the lowest standard possible for registered political parties. A credible encyclopaedia has a duty to inform readers in such topic areas. Easily has enough coverage. Also, notability is not determined by number of votes or seats. AusLondonder (talk) 02:02, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:55, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

J sort[edit]

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

Non-notable sorting algorithm. Occurs in the DADS, but that's a tertiary source, not a secondary one, and only contains a dictionary definition; the DADS itself refers to a USENET posting. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 21:54, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete In my defence, at the time I created this article Wikipedia:Notability read "There is no Wikipedia policy on notability ... lack of 'notability' is not a criterion for deletion." —Ruud 22:14, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:00, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:00, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Related: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Strand sort, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/JSort. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 22:00, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The only hit I found on Google scholar was this, a non-in-depth mention in a long list of sorting articles in a dodgy-looking journal. That's not good enough for WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:04, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not enough in-depth coverage to meet WP:GNG, and does not appear to pass WP:NSOFT. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:42, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:56, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Women and Minorities in Law Enforcement[edit]

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

Unencyclopaedic essay with a fair amount of what appears to be original research. Adam9007 (talk) 21:33, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom (essay, OR). Needs a full rewrite to become an acceptable article. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 22:09, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I found this article was very well written, why is it being considered for deletion? This piece has a well supported argument with several reliable cited sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ScoutLepore 95 (talk • contribs) 22:43, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is essentially a WP:CONTENTFORK. There is already an article for women in law enforcement, and an interested editor should create a new article for minorities in law enforcement (a simple google search will show hundreds of useful articles). At the moment, the article titled "Minorities In Law Enforcement" is about a non-profit group, but that organization may fail WP:GNG. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 07:04, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:02, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:03, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete agree with Notecard --JumpLike23 (talk) 17:03, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. @ScoutLepore 95: Please read Wikipedia's guidelines on original research. The material on women does not improve on the existing article, and the material on minorities is overly US-centric--if the article is kept, it should be renamed to "Women and minorities in U.S. law enforcement" or some such title. This is a class paper, not an encyclopedia article. --Finngall ^talk 17:18, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect as a sensible search term. Currently it's a clear content fork. Bearian (talk) 19:54, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:45, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Association of Executive Search Consultants[edit]

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

looks very like paid advertorial with multiple links to the AESC and related web sites embedded in the text. References are directory entries and primary sources. Delete as an advert Fiddle Faddle 21:24, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This has been lurking here for far too long. It is no better than it was when I slapped some tags on it in 2011 and that is not good enough. I have looked in its history to see if it got better before backsliding again and don't think that it did. In fact it has been a whole lot worse. There is some news coverage but even if the subject is eligible for an article this article is no good. I am not sure how much of it is the work of editors with a COI but I am pretty sure that at least some if it is and the overall impression is promotional. --DanielRigal (talk) 23:31, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. DanielRigal (talk) 00:34, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I saw this earlier but chose to finally comment now; there's simply nothing to suggest better and it's worth noting this was actually tagged for speedy shortly after starting and was apparently wanted for deletion again in December 2013 when Timtrent removed the user's "request". SwisterTwister talk 07:38, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@SwisterTwister: I make no apology for CSD removal at that time. There was hope of improvement, and I viewed CSD as an imperfect avenue then. The time has now come to discuss it and reach consensus. Fiddle Faddle 09:05, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:39, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:39, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:39, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:39, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, appears to be article spam by single-purpose account with little to no encyclopedic value. Citobun (talk) 07:44, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:04, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Statitics provided at Revision history statistics challenge the assumption the assumption that the article is a paid advertorial:
- Edits total 73
- Different users 40
- Edits per user 1.83 Ottawahitech (talk) 17:06, 8 November 2015 (UTC)please ping me[reply]
Delete WP:ADVERT, and it seems like most of the edits to the article were by SPAs. Jim Carter 17:10, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Promotional article that doesn't demonstrate notability. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:31, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. with no prejudice against speedy renomination (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:06, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Stoddart[edit]

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

Questionably notable and improvable as the best I instantly found was this, this and this (this last one is Scotsman and searches at The Herald, The Courier and The Press and Journal found nothing) and this seems rather obvious overall. Pinging Joe Decker and Paste. SwisterTwister talk 17:45, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 17:48, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 17:48, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 17:48, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:25, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 18:59, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I have given the article a fairly extensive overhaul- this improvement was much needed and long overdue. I have added a range of references. There are several newspaper articles covering him and his work. He has an item in the Scottish Parliament collection. I'm happy that he meets WP:GNG through the combination of his well received works as a furniture designer, overcoming the obstacles of dyslexia and charitable work. Drchriswilliams (talk) 17:10, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:47, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mubaligh-e-azam Maulana Muhammad Ismael Deobandi[edit]

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

Uncertain notability. Oscarthecat (talk) 19:28, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 22:05, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 22:06, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 22:06, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 22:06, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The only source I can find is this [4]. If it's kept it needs to be moved to Muhammad Ismail Deobandi, because "Mubaligh-e-azam" and "Maulana" are titles. --Samuel J. Howard (talk) 14:32, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:23, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 18:57, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails GNG and ANYBIO. Cavarrone 22:01, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:40, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per the current info in the article, not sure there's even an assertion of notability there. Regardless, searches turned up nothing to show they meet WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:57, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 14:54, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Virtonomics[edit]

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

Unsourced and fails WP:N. Soetermans. T / C 18:10, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - while the concept of business-based games are way cool in my book, this company just doesn't have enough coverage in independent, reliable sources to meet notability threshold. Best found is stuff like these: [5][6] -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 20:02, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- note - do note that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Virtonomics back in 2010 was a keep, and some discussion of russian-language sources. I'd probably change my mind if someone else reviewed the russian sources and found them reliable. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 20:06, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 20:03, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 20:03, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 20:03, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:N and WP:V. Most of the Russian sources mentioned above (and in the previous AfD) were in the article, but I removed them as unreliable, mostly press releases, that didn't even support the claims made. The sites haven't been vetted by WPVG–which isn't unusual, especially for non-English sources–but if they were brought to WP:VG/RS I can guarantee that they would be judged as unreliable. We're talking blogs without mastheads or any indication of editorial control, most without even author by-lines, but prominent "advertise here" links. I couldn't say that the articles were advertisements, of course, but they're just like what we see on advert-ridden pay-to-review browser game sites. There is zero indication that this game has been featured or reviewed by any sort of legitimate gaming press. Woodroar (talk) 01:02, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Diannaa deleted it per WP:G4. (NAC) Jim Carter 12:10, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Humza Bin Masood[edit]

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

Previously deleted in June of 2014. Sources supplied do not establish notability - aside from links to 3 publications, the other 7 sources are little blurbs from his college's website and are cited for claims which the sources do not support e.g. a link to some college students being certified as first responders is cited as him being a "social worker and community rescuer" Cannolis (talk) 18:08, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt: A WP:SPA article recreating the biography of a student who is involved in student societies and inter-block speech competitions. No evidence of attained biographical notability. AllyD (talk) 19:04, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As it was deleted at Afd in 2014, I've requested a possible G4 speedy deletion. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:06, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:07, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Roland Edgar Cooper[edit]

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

References lack independence from subject, does not appear to qualify as a notable person. KDS4444^Talk 17:23, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He has described several plant species and has an author abbreviation. There seems to a general consensus at WikiProject Plants that possessing an author abbreviation is a mark of notability to an extent. The issue most recently came up in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Plants#Help at AfC. I'm not necessarily opposed to trying to tighten up that standard, and set a higher bar for botanist notability. However, I think Cooper can pass a higher bar. Plantdrew (talk) 03:59, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Plantdrew. His life is quite well documented by the various Royal societies. —Мандичка^YO 😜 10:00, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:35, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:35, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:35, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:35, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: "References lack independence from subject" seems to be simply untrue, unless you demand that the references are not actually about plants or the Royal Society. (The Daily Mail??) Given his achievements, deletion would be quite strange I think. Imaginatorium (talk) 18:49, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I added a handful of {{cite book}}s and there's more if needed. Meets WP:BASIC and WP:ANYBIO #2. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 19:25, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was userfied JohnCD (talk) 15:44, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2015 Lista cu protestele locale/internationale pentru victimele din clubul Colectiv[edit]

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

I am not sure what to do with this one, but I am certain that the title at least needs to be written in English and I THINK it also requires some kind of references. Failing these, I propose it be deleted. KDS4444^Talk 17:14, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy - I don't think the creator meant to make this a live page, and as it's clearly a work in progress it should be moved back to their userspace. It's basically a listing of the various protests scheduled following the Colectiv nightclub fire (that had massive impact, causing the president to resign). It's doubtful it merits its own article but who knows where the author is going with it, and portions of it could be merged into the Colectiv nightclub fire article, so as a courtesy I suggest moving it back. —Мандичка^YO 😜 18:08, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Author of the article: hi guys. I'm quite new to Wikipedia. What I wanted to create was a simple page linked to that of the Colectiv nightclub fire which lists all the upcoming locations for protests in Ro and abroad. I tried creating the page but apparently I created a "live page". What can I do to right all the wrongs? What are your suggestions.

It looks like you now have all of this information in your userpage, yes? Then this page will soon be deleted from the mainspace, and I have marked it for speedy deletion— no worries. KDS4444^Talk 15:09, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy withdrawn. Page speedied. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 17:07, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mukumbusu Fighting Style[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to meet WP:MANOTE; rampant close paraphrasing of http://mukumbusu.com/; other sources just show existence or are press releases; written by an author with an apparent conflict of interest. Drm310 (talk) 16:41, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator Another editor tagged it for WP:G12 speedy deletion. --Drm310 (talk) 16:43, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Euryalus (talk) 08:05, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Virginia Muise[edit]

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

The subject of this article fails to meet the standards of WP:N due to lack of multiple, non-trivial references in reliable, third-party sources - all I could find were obituaries, which do not satisfy the requirement. There's no Wikipedia policy or consensus that states that the oldest anything is automatically notable by the encyclopedia's standards; numerous recent AfDs on the "oldest" individuals have been kept or deleted based on their individual merits. Thus we default to the general notability guidelines and any material of encyclopedic merit can be included on the many longevity-related lists on Wikipedia. Canadian Paul 16:11, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. sst✈^discuss 16:33, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. sst✈^discuss 16:33, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. sst✈^discuss 16:33, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete "at her death probably the oldest living New Englander" -- WTF, "probably"??? Other than born-married-worked-died, the only thing the article actually says about her is, "She was also a lifelong Boston Red Sox fan, and the staff of the nursing home where she lived reported her delight at the team winning the 2004 World Series." Fascinating. WP:NOPAGE. EEng (talk) 14:18, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Concur with nom and EEng. It's probably worth noting that this article has been tagged for a lack of notability for more than half a decade. Maybe we should start a study of the longevity of notability tags on longevity-related articles. David in DC (talk) 18:31, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree with editors above.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:54, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nova Scotia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:09, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:09, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Redirect There must be some reason why there is such a large number of obituaries. And the "probably the oldest" could be replaced with "believed to be the oldest". The thing with longevity is that there is always the chance that there was someone even older. And I find it highly disrespectful of [[User:EEng] to use terms such as 'WTF' when speaking about deceased people. 930310 (talk) 16:34, 15 November 2015 (UTC) This editor has made few or no other edits outside this topic.[reply]

"WTF" has nothing to do with disrespect for the subject, but with the mushy thinking of editors who think an unexplained "probably" belongs in an article. EEng (talk) 04:26, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Obituaries don't establish notability as they are considered WP:ROUTINE coverage. CommanderLinx (talk) 18:00, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Usually a person only has one or two obituaries in a newspaper. Mrs. Muise had over 20. 930310 (talk) 19:54, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wire service articles and so on are not independent of one another and only count once. EEng (talk) 04:29, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Obituary notices, typically placed by survivors, usually do nothing to establish notability. But obits written by journalistic staff should be evaluated like other press coverage, and the number of different papers a wire service obit runs in usually indicates to some degree the stature the subject had. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 17:11, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - RIP Bazj (talk) 20:05, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:54, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Miss World Romania[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:GNG due to lack of independent coverage. No reliable sources for the pageant itself as both sources are about the contestants. The Banner talk 16:13, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:53, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:53, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:53, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - events that lead to a national title are normally notable and we don't delete likely notable subjects for lack of sources; rather we tag them for improvement (that I have just done). In this case the sources are likely to be in Romanian and, to avoid systemic bias we need to allow time for searches to be carried out of Romanian sources. Just Chilling (talk) 22:32, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Quite a few third-party sources on the competition, almost exclusively in Romanian. Very likely to be notable, as above user noted. I've added at least one citation, and there's a lot of articles on this pageant lately (due to the winner being selected and moving into international competitions).Appable (talk) 13:12, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
delete again still the spam recreation without significant coverage in reliably published third party sources, merely press release regurgitation services. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:12, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How do you know they are press release services? To me, at least, the sources have some significant differences. With a quick search online, I can find that there are quite a lot on this subject and it's doubtful that they are all press releases. It's a national, major event and therefore almost certainly notable.Appable (talk) 18:45, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you giving sources to the contestants? It is the pageants that needs sources. As long as it stays unclear how important the pageant is (confirmed by reliable sources conform WP:RS), the notability is also unclear. The Banner talk 23:09, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:35, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:55, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as fails GNG - The Romania-Insider looks alright but the rest just look like spam and to be totally honest look like they were done by Miss Romania themselves!, The sooner these crappy Miss X articles are deleted the better!, Anyway no evidence of notability, Fails GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 19:32, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:52, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Kimball (pianist / composer)[edit]

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

Fails the notability criteria for WP:NMG and WP:BLP for a lack of significant coverage in independent reliable sources. (A small community newspaper and a promotional blurb from a non-notable music contest at a local music school do not meet RS coverage standards.) Music CDs are self-published through CD Baby. Awards are 1) a student award while at Julliard and 2) a citizen's award from a non-notable local community group.) I have been unable to find any significant demonstration of notability. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 15:47, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 15:56, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 15:56, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I reviewed there and I simply see nothing better. SwisterTwister talk 06:13, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. On the one hand, this is subject to CSD G5 as creator was a sockpuppet. See here. On the other, it might be good to reach a decision on the merits since this is already open and would subject this to CSD G4 upon any further creation that did not address the deletion basis. As to the merits, I see very little an article could be based upon but passing mention when searching Google Books (though there's lots of apparent false-positives to sort through, despite a targeted search).--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:57, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:07, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom's excellent summary. Fuhghettaboutit brings up very salient points as well. Searches turned up nothing to show they pass WP:GNG or WP:NMUSIC. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:40, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:52, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Expert Drones[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)

PROD was removed by article creator. While at first glance there does seem to be coverage for the company, they all consist of "interviews with employees", which isn't exactly what you would call independent coverage. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 14:49, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Expert Drones appears notable and the company seems to be a mover and shaker in the drone market. This article should be kept as they are making a name for themselves in the new drone industry. It is worth keeping it because there will be a lot more information about this company coming out with some of the investment capital they have raised and activities occurring in the entertainment industry about their founders, which will be added when that information is released to the public. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdwicker12 (talk • contribs) 18:13, 28 October 2015 (UTC) — Jdwicker12 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep got the bare minimum coverage but if it doesn't get more sources it should be up for deletion again sooner rather than later .Also is one of the more notable drone marketplaces TypingInTheSky (talk) 18:17, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Struck above comment from blocked sock per WP:SOCKSTRIKE - Sam Sailor ^Talk! 16:56, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The refs cited only interview the company CEO on regulatory issues, there is no significant coverage of the company itself, its history, operations, etc. There isn't enough here from non-primary refs to sustain an article. The article creator looks like a WP:COI case here to promote the company. - Ahunt (talk) 21:33, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep clearly meets minimum WP:GNG based on multiple news sources citing company's contribution to the drone industry and when discussing drone regulatory requirements. One example is the 10-15 minute interview by ABC news.^[1] Article could include additional info about company operations to expand, but meets minimum standards for notability based on sources provided. Btalred1 (talk) 22:44, 28 October 2015 (UTC) — Btalred1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

References

^ http://wjla.com/news/news-talk/drone-regulations

Comment - Can you point out the "multiple" news sources? Specifically, I am wondering about the ones that talk about the company in depth, not just interviews or passing mentions. --CNMall41 (talk) 00:32, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for failing WP:CORPDEPTH, not really surprising considering the four-store chain only opened this year. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:30, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unfortunately, there are not enough in depth source that can establish WP:GNG.--CNMall41 (talk) 00:32, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A local station in D.C. does not really satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH. Can you point out the coverage you say proves it is a "big player?" I cannot locate anything, including what is already in the article. --CNMall41 (talk) 23:03, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - despite the numerous SPA !votes, searches do not turn up enough to show it passes WP:CORPDEPTH (Clarityfriend's point is pretty clear - no pun intended). Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:29, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:40, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 16:10, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 16:10, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:CORPDEPTH. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 17:33, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, articles are enough to establish WP:GNG. Additionally, WP:CORPDEPTH is met based on the guidelines described in WP:CORPDEPTH that states: "multiple[2] independent sources should be cited to establish notability". Multiple sources are cited in this case.2601:14D:8200:728B:9422:E95F:C11B:C37B (talk) 21:10, 5 November 2015 (UTC)2601:14D:8200:728B:9422:E95F:C11B:C37B (talk · contribs) has only contributed to the article(s) under discussion for deletion and AFD. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 16:56, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Actually it isn't met. If you read the actual third party refs none of them profile the company. They are mostly interviews with the CEO about the nature of drones in general, not about the company. If we had to rely on the third party refs for the article we would only have one sentence. - Ahunt (talk) 21:15, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Comment, Meets Wikipedia:GNG. Just ran a search and found another news source mentioning Expert Drones at an event in Las Vegas.^[1] Jdwicker12 (talk) 21:17, 5 November 2015 (UTC)— Jdwicker12 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. — Duplicate vote: Jdwicker12 (talk • contribs) has already cast a vote above.[reply]

References

^ http://www.eventmarketer.com/article/eventtech-2015-everything-missed-day-one/

Comment: Getting kind of desperate here, aren't we? That ref makes one passing mention that the CEO attended a show, still no profile of the company at all - nothing to base an article on. - Ahunt (talk) 21:21, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment ahunt seemsto not realize that there are verified sources here. This company is one of the few drone companies I have had the opportunity to read about. With FAA regulations coming it is great to understand the history of existing drone companies and their impact. I vote to keep. 166.171.59.74 (talk) 23:52, 6 November 2015 (UTC)166.171.59.74 (talk · contribs) has only contributed to the article(s) under discussion for deletion and AFD. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 16:56, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: My comments stands, there are no sources that profile the company at all here. All sources are just passing mentions, like this one that says the company was at a show, or quoting the CEO on general information about drones. There are no third parties sources on which to base an article. I have to also mention that the number of IPs who pop up here and make their very first edit as a "keep", is a concern that there are WP:COI issues at play. Whois all traces them to the same couple of US-based ISPs. - Ahunt (talk) 00:08, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Like many of the other contributors here, I disagree with ahunts comments, except that the article should reduce a few of the sources where the links only providing passing mention. Outside of that, there are plenty of sources here that describe the company. The article should be kept based on publicity around the general subject as well. If the article wants to add more to it, they can also reference the org website or manufacturer's website as this seems to be ok with ahunt for sources based on previous article he/she has contributed to regarding aircraft. Also, When I looked up the ISPs they resolve to different locations spanning across the U.S., so the odds of WP:COI is low. Still makes sense to keep this one up, but make a note that deletion may be required if articles without sources are deleted.Btalred1 (talk) 22:58, 8 November 2015 (UTC) — Btalred1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment: Which cited refs have a profile of the company? I am not seeing that. As far as your argument, "the article should be kept based on publicity around the general subject as well" goes see WP:Notability is not inherited. Basically just because "drones" are a popular subject does not make a specific company notable. As far as other articles go, see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. - Ahunt (talk) 01:24, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I couldn't find enough reliable coverage to make it pass WP:CORPDEPTH. Fails WP:ORG. Jim Carter 12:20, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: searches suggest that significant coverage in independent, reliable sources sufficient to meet the WP:CORPDEPTH are not found. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 16:12, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:56, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:56, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:56, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:56, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:56, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing administrator. Velic02c, Jdwicker12, and Btalred1 are Confirmed socks. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Velic02c.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:49, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now until a better article can be made. SwisterTwister talk 20:45, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Bahamas Bowl. Redirecting as the content may be suitable for inclusion in the parent article. — foxj 16:25, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of Bahamas Bowl broadcasters[edit]

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

No evidence of notability for this list of broadcasters. Fram (talk) 15:28, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP- Every FBS Bowl game has a list of broadcasters on Wikipedia. Furthermore it is notable in that it was the first International Bowl game. Only one year has occurred, but more references will be posted as more Bahamas Bowls take place. Bigddan11 (talk) 15:59, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:03, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:03, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:03, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:03, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:11, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete List does not establish notability. It's (self-)sourced, but I don't think it's notable. I don't even think it's notable enough to merge into Bahamas Bowl. Broadcast information for each year could probably be merged into each individual game article. — X96lee15 (talk) 16:08, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Merge I appreciate the enthusiasm of the creator of the list, but a list of one occurrence isn't much of a list. The information should be copied to Bahamas Bowl. No prejudice to bring the article back in the future when it makes sense.--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:59, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (or redirect to Bahamas Bowl). I've never grasped the notability of these stand-alone lists of bowl game broadcasters. Even for major bowls, the notability is dubious. In this case, and regardless of notability, the subect doesn't remotely lend itself to "list" treatment, as it only was played once and, accordingly, has only a single entry. Even if it were played in other years, the subject fails Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists and WP:GNG. Cbl62 (talk) 17:02, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This bowl game is barely notable itself; frankly, I had not heard of it until this AfD, and had to google it to convince myself that it was a real bowl game. That said, there is ZERO evidence for significant coverage of "Bahamas Bowl broadcasters" as a group or class. It's enough that we include the names of the broadcasters in the articles about the individual games in the series. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:45, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) ansh 666 11:05, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sukumara Kurup[edit]

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

The only content covers a criminal allegation from which no conviction has yet resulted, so an article about this person would seem like a WP:BLP1E and WP:BLPCRIME violation. If the crime itself is notable, then maybe that itself would warrant an article. (Please note I have twice reverted the addition of a large copyright violation, so if the article is kept then that might need to be dealt with by removal of the revisions?) EightTwoThreeFiveOneZeroSevenThreeOne (talk) 11:12, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, seems notable only for an alleged crime for which a conviction has not yet been secured.--CrystaC (talk) 12:41, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:09, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:09, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:54, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BLPCRIME. Not sure if Murder of Alpesh Chako is notable. Sometimes suspects can be mentioned in those types of articles, but we would need to tread extremely carefully. - Location (talk) 16:03, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as Sukumara Kurup is a wanted criminal by the police, but the page is not well written or constructive. Hope some editors will make the page good enough for wikipedia standard.Rajeshbieee (talk) 12:00, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You cannot state that someone is a "wanted criminal" unless they have actually been convicted (please do read WP:BLPCRIME). By the way, this wouldn't be just a retaliation for my nominating a file of yours for deletion and for opining that all your others up for deletion should also be deleted, would it? It seems to be an uncannily short time between those actions of mine and your happening to find this discussion. 823510731 (talk) 12:10, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The article may be re-written in a non-adhering manner to the conviction. There are some notable sources online (1, 2, 3, 4), and if you go for printed ones, then there are plenty in the forms of magazines and newspapers. If I am not wrong, he is been referred in the some of the movies, that are primarily investigative thrillers. —(harith·discuss) 09:19, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to rewrite it in a way that is compliant with WP:BLPCRIME. Until that happens, the current version is the one up for review, and it clearly is a violation of WP:BLPCRIME - the article covers only one thing, and that is a criminal allegation from which no conviction has resulted. 823510731 (talk) 10:44, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As you mentioned, all are just allegations of crime, based on suspicions on a missing person. I am unable to contribute to this subject constructively at this juncture as I am not in a position to access the sources that were in the period of my childhood. I hope that more people who are knowledgeable in the subject matter could come into this discussion to resolute. Thanks. —(harith·discuss) 03:59, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Meh. Although the crime has been filmed into a major movie, he hasn't been brought to justice as the alleged plotmaster. Bearian (talk) 00:08, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:49, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. - notable, sourced good, this is a typical case of AfD not being a clean-up service.--BabbaQ (talk) 11:27, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The nomination is based on an assertion that the article violates WP:BLPCRIME, so do you have a policy-based argument against that?" Your "notable, sourced good" is certainly not a policy-based argument against WP:BLPCRIME. 823510731 (talk) 11:36, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, based on coverage : [7] in news media.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:03, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A link to a Google search does not represent "coverage", so can you please identify what sources uncovered by that search satisfy Wikipedia's guidelines and are not in violation of WP:BLPCRIME? 823510731 (talk) 22:51, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It does when the first page of the search links, as this one does, to articles with this accused criminal in the headlines in major national dailies. I saw that and realized that this keep was a slam dunk. Technically, however, you are correct. I usually start with a news search as advised in WP:BEFORE. Here is one, [8], and it is dispositive. He has attained national notoriety, coverage continued for years, and two co-conspirators were tried, convicted and sentenced, so it is not the usual BPL violation.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:06, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The link you gave, [9], is not a source, it's just another set of Google search results! Please choose some actual sources that you believe support this article and present them individually for us and explain why they overcome WP:BLPCRIME. 823510731 (talk) 23:27, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Linking to a search showing sources is routine procedure here at AFD. You might want to familiarize yourself with WP:BEFORE and, especially, with WP:GNG.Cheers.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:56, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I did my BEFORE research, and I think the onus on you now really is to provide specific links to reliable sources that overcome the limits of BLPCRIME - it really is *not* good enough to just say "Here's a Google search, go look for yourself". 823510731 (talk) 00:00, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:BLPCRIME does not apply when, as in this case, the crime becomes so well known that the suspect is notorious. Ongoing pblicity, including a motion picture, have long lifted him out of the category of "relatvely unknown" people who are meant to be protected by BLPCRIME.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:17, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:48, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kathy Ferreiro[edit]

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

Non notable model who is only known for being a look alike Gbawden (talk) 14:29, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:44, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:44, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cuba-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:44, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:44, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:46, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 07:27, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:39, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: despite the article saying that she has won several awards and is one of the most searched people on the web, none of the cited sources support this claim. Additionally, the cited sources are tabloids. At best, she has been merely nicknamed Miss Cuban Kardashian for her big booty, ergo only known for one thing. - HyperGaruda (talk) 14:38, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: as non-notable, or barely notable for only one thing. Kind of sad, though, isn't it? Not even a single devoted fan popping up to argue her case... Mabalu (talk) 10:36, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The whole, central point is whether or not she's received notable reliable source coverage about her. That doesn't appear to be the case at all. The article should be deleted. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 17:20, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:48, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Loena Hendrickx[edit]

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

Fails Wikipedia:WikiProject Figure Skating/Notability Hergilei (talk) 05:21, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 06:47, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 06:47, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 06:47, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 01:45, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 07:26, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:39, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom. Borderline case, but in the end failed each figure-skating notability criterium. Also, the creator saw no problem deleting it per talk. - HyperGaruda (talk) 14:59, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - searches did not turn up enough to pass WP:GNG, and she doesn't appear to meet WP:NSKATE. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:21, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) sst✈^discuss 08:09, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Adding closing rationale per request on my user talk page: the article has been overhauled since the start of the AfD, including the addition of a dozen sources, but this does not affect the notability of the subject. Editors voting for deletion noted WP:SYN and WP:OR concerns, reliability of sourcing used in the article, plus the fact that the article was previously deleted in an AfD discussion. Editors voting for keep noted the sources used in the article, the expansion of the article, and how these sources bring the article above the general notability guideline. While the number of "keep" votes are certainly more than the number of "delete" votes, some "keep" votes did not present any policy-based arguments. Since both sides presented valid arguments, I closed this as no consensus, with no prejudice against speedy renomination. sst✈^discuss 16:27, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Flower of Life (geometry)[edit]

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

Already deleted once before because of a lack of reliable sources which actually declaim this shape as special and then recreated out-of-process (there was never a proper deletion review), this new article on the same corrupt subject suffers from even worse problems than the previous one. It promotes a non-notable fringe theory by Drunvalo Melchizadek that has received zero independent notice of the kind we require for stand-alone fringe articles. jps (talk) 13:01, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per G4 - I remember this one, just pure drivel that had fake citations that failed verification. —Мандичка^YO 😜 13:05, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - there are plenty of sources to support this topic. If the article needs work it should be improved, not deleted. Tom Ruen (talk) 14:08, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is no evidence of multiple (or any) WP:RS discussing this in a manner that would make it meet WP:GNG. —Мандичка^YO 😜 14:22, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please, if there are sources independent of Drunvalo Melchizadek that identify this figure as the "flower of life" and as notable, what are they? jps (talk) 14:51, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(Inserted later:) A really independent source is the British newspaper "The Independent", where the name "Flower of Life" was used on Nov 6 (now ref. 15 in the article). -- Karl432 (talk) 21:44, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a few, at least showing Melchizadek's name for this ancient symbol has stuck, and is being propagated. Tom Ruen (talk) 17:07, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wolfram, Stephen (May 14, 2002). A New Kind of Science. online. Champaign, IL: Wolfram Media, Inc. ISBN 1-57955-008-8. OCLC 47831356. {{cite book}}: External link in |others= (help)
Artifacts of the Flower of LifeAugust 29, 2014Marko Manninen
Flower of Life: 5Dzine Lesson
Flower of Life Design in Herod’s Palace

From Google books:

CRC Concise Encyclopedia of Mathematics, Second Edition, Eric W. Weisstein
Modern Esoteric: Beyond Our Senses By Brad Olsen
Meditation and Qigong Mastery By Ricardo B. Serrano
Sedona: Beyond the Vortex: The Ultimate Journey to Your Personal Place of Power By Richard Dannelley
Diamond Light Awareness By Iris Barkhuysen
Ascension Magick: Ritual, Myth & Healing for the New Aeon By Christopher Penczak
The Lotus and the Lily: Access the Wisdom of Buddha and Jesus to Nourish ... By Janet Conner
Sedona: Beyond the Vortex: The Ultimate Journey to Your Personal Place of Power By Richard Dannelley
Aesthetic Cognition and Symbolism: A Hermeneutic Analysis of the "Apprentice ... Doctoral dissertation, B. Marie Brady-Whitcanack, Appendix I: Melchizedek's examples of the flower of life, tree of life, golden spiral,
Lost Technologies of Ancient Egypt: Advanced Engineering in the Temples of ... By Christopher Dunn
UNIVERSAL TRUTH: Thinking outside the Box:, Book 2 By Dr. Peter C. Rogers,
Cosmic Connections:: Ancient Knowledge Meets Spiritual Science By Dr. Cheri St. Arnauld
The Map of the Psyche By Timothy R. Nuske
You Are a Spiritual Being Having a Human Experience By Bob Frissel
The Reawakening of Consciousness By Luis Miguel Falcao
The Devolution of Man By Loren Psaltis
The Grand Illusion: A Synthesis of Science and Spirituality—Book One By Brendan D. Murphy
Rune3Master - Into the Depths Brad Lorenz
Prophecy of Days - Book One by Christy Raedeke

Sorry, blogs don't count as RS. (One of them is partially copied from the Wikipedia entry!!) And the book only has a brief mention, hardly the in-depth coverage required. Please see WP:GNG. —Мандичка^YO 😜 16:55, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm looking and see that the tilings listed at Mathworld, for example, only allow for a single instance of the "flower of life" to be considered as one pattern found at the Temple of Osiris in Abydos ([10]) while other patterns (including others found at the same temple) which are explicitly mentioned in our article are declared by Mathworld to be specifically other patterns. (e.g. the Seed of Life). Making this into a redirect to the Temple article, that would be okay, I guess, but I think that this is largely the arbitrary naming scheme adopted by Weisstein for convenience sake rather than an actual name for the figure. Certainly the academic literature is devoid of reference to this tiling with this particular name. As Wikimandia points out, basically every other source is aping Drunvalo Melchizadek because they are true believers in that fellow. jps (talk) 20:09, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your last argument is a red herring and logically incorrect too, as being a true believer does not imply "aping" Melchidazek and does not prevent somebody from producing external references (otherwise, e.g. regarding the belief of catholic Christians, the relevance of all theological literature from Augustinus to Benedict XVI could be questioned on this base). Here is another source from an (apparently) "true believer" (Ibo Bonilla), who instead of "aping", constructs sculptures 17.8m high referring to the Flower of Life, standing in a prominent place in Costa Rica:

"Conjunto escultórico: Espiral del Èxito" (in Spanish). iboenweb.com. Retrieved January 17, 2014.

-- Karl432 (talk) 12:58, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:50, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:50, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:53, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete WP:G4 due to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flower of Life (2nd nomination). Tagging it as such. Jbh^Talk 18:53, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Appreciate that, but for some reason there are a number of admins who are refusing to accept the G4 rationale for reasons that are close to baffling. I'm in discussion with one right now who claims that the article is substantially different from the deleted one (it's not). Another removed the G4 notice because it the discussion you mention wasn't conclusive enough! I'm not sure exactly what's going on here, but we may with to ask for a salting or a protected redirect to the article on the Temple of Osiris if we agree to adopt Weisstein's scheme, for example. jps (talk) 20:38, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Agreed, the admins are completely failing on this one. The article has already been deleted twice this year alone, and there's nothing new, just more blog posts. I find many of the offline sources (note - no page numbers) to be very suspicious and likely taken directly from Melchizadek's book. —Мандичка^YO 😜 08:32, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - There is something new in the meanwhile, especially the use of the name in the British newspaper "The Independent" on Nov. 6 (now ref. 15 in the article). -- Karl432 (talk) 21:54, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. A speedy deletion has been already declined for this article, so that we need to wait until the end of the 7 days period.--Ymblanter (talk) 00:50, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The decline of the speedy deletion tag is unfortunate, but all of the unreliable-sourcing problems that caused the previous deletion are still present, and the out-of-process recreation is also a problem. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:06, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Hello, friends, and thank you to those who've given constructive feedback. The deletionist crusade is unconscionable and embarrassing to the community. I am gratefully respectful of the detailed rationales given when citing policies about demonstrating WP:N and WP:RS. That has been instructive and motivational, and I'm grateful for them guarding and honing our Wikipedia craft. However, the response to this of wanting to delete it, is not. It's an aggressive deletionist agenda. Especially while the article is under development and the preponderance of sources may require expertise and drive to locate. The given references already existing in the article right now (more than the minimum number required just to keep the article, if you lack a vendetta against it), already demonstrate that the figure is present across countless ancient cultures of the world. That fact alone demonstrates a reasonable expectation that printed, and possibly old, sources exist. And the given references in the article demonstrate that Druvalo's interpretation is only one concept, but is nonetheless widespread throughout culture, and just happens to have recently given us a handy dandy name for it. Furthermore, this is not at all the same article that once was. It was a hot mess that I would have deleted half of. I am a non-deletionist who routinely deletes huge amounts of articles and leaves warnings in order to save the articles. Nonetheless, I repeat that the subject's notability is already substantially demonstrated. People here within this discussion are literally saying that printed books don't exist, which were already references within the article at the time they wrote such comments yesterday. They're saying the ones in the article don't exist, and they're replying to the list of books above to helpfully inform us that those, too, fail to exist. If you think the sources in the article or in this thread truly fail notability, can you enumerate each one and the reason why, as per the policy of WP:RS? That would help the non-deletionists continue to improve the article about the already-notable and non-deletion-worthy subject further. And it would help to improve us as Wikipedians, as the proverbial iron sharpens iron. Even those sources which are works of fiction, serve to demonstrate the notable culture significance of Drunvalo's concept and name of "Flower of Life", let alone the other sources which demonstrate geometric principles and other things. And they're saying if they can't find more reliable sources within a cursory scan of google while holding an agenda against doing so, then it doesn't exist and cannot exist. WP:IDONTLIKEIT WP:ICANTHEARYOU WP:NORUSH #leavebritneyalone #hakunamatata. — Smuckola (talk) 08:21, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is a fact that the geometric ornament exists, and that it is called "Flower of Life" at least by some since the 1990s, when an author from the esoteric scene attributed some properties to it which has given some popularity to it. Now, the name is found not only in the original work, but also in examples of available literature not published by the original propagator (see lists above and the references currently in the article). Thus the name exists. The references thus prove the existence of the name and the existence of the concept. The name is also e.g. used by jewellery vendors which have no direct affiliations to the scene (look e.g. at amazon.com for "flower of life" in the department "Arts, crafts and sewing"). Wikipedia's task to keep knowledge about things and concepts, including referencing judging of such concepts without judging itself, as Wikipedia does e.g. for astrology or the virginity of Mary. (Of course, an article like this is subject to changes by propagators of the esoteric beliefs and has to be watched for this.) -- Karl432 (talk) 09:21, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. I honestly don't know what you guys are on about when you guys say this shape isn't notable. Surely now that Coldplay's brought attention to the Flower of Life, you are willing to conceed that, yeah, people actually do recognize this shape as that cool thing you could do with circles. This is just getting ridiculous. :| Philip Terry Graham 11:04, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. At its current form, it is a well-sourced article about a shape and symbol that seems to exist "out there". Zezen (talk) 14:59, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is part of popular culture, with enough references to prove it, and to show that htis is the common name for it. It should be moved back to the unqualified title. DGG ( talk ) 01:13, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Smuckola wants to know what's wrong with the references. Let's start with the fact you have fake references in there. For example, Ref. 9 "Sightings: The Secret of the Sphinx & Edgar Cayce", as I pointed out in the previous AfD, does NOT contain any mention whatsoever to the statement it supposedly claims to reference! Yet it was very specifically suspiciously added back into this article? That calls into question the other off-line sources. Drunvalo Melchizedek has no credentials (besides selling his services online), and he and his "followers" are not reliable sources and fail WP:FRINGE. The "source" you are using to confirm it is called this who "acknowledges" Melchizedek (Martha Bartfeld) self-published her own book! Fail fail fail WP:RS. —Мандичка^YO 😜 18:24, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I just have replaced the reference "Sightings: The Secret of the Sphinx ..." by a reliable one. Admittedly, some other references seem questionable, which only proves that the (already ongoing) work on the article is not finished yet (not uncommon for Wikipedia articles). Martha Bradfield is only referenced for the geometrical properties (which are there independent of any belief system or theories on their importance) and for having used the naming. Besides that, the subject of the article is not Melchizedek's belief system (personally, I have difficulties to name it a "theory"), but a geometrical pattern, which (as pointed out in the article) now plays a role in popular culture beyond this specific belief system. -- Karl432 (talk) 20:07, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sorry, maybe I wasn't clear. I wasn't asking for a reiteration of a personal agenda in the form of a weasel-worded rant with juvenile chanting, and a single belabored cherry-picked example. I was asking for you to back your extraordinary and counter-factual claim of deletion, by examining and marking each citation. Or else nothing at all, because I know an apology for aggressively wasting all our time is unlikely, although the community has conclusively proven that you were wrong. Doubling down on wrong upon wrong isn't working. If you were to do the civil thing, by actually labeling them here or marking the inline citations with the appropriate tags such as {{better source}}, {{disputed-inline}}, then that would be an encyclopedic contribution. And it would be appreciated because this isn't the easiest thing in the world. It sure isn't as easy as throwing rocks from AfD. Instead, the fact that you weaselword the objective facts with "suspiciousness" instead of making any analysis (policy-based) is unencyclopedic and the opposite of WP:AGF. That is just community abuse. If this article was a person, then that plus the repeatedly egregious deletionism would constitute WP:NPA. This is like barratry, just abusing the blatantly unpoliced deletion process as a personal weapon for WP:IDONTLIKEIT. So if there's no neutrally and encyclopedically policy-driven piece-by-piece evaluation of proposed sources, then please just disregard. Thank you. — Smuckola (talk) 06:06, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There have been three phases in the evolution of the subject. Firstly we had multiple occurrences on/as historical artefacts. These are probably unlinked with likely different meanings. Then New Age author Melchizedek took a shine to this symbol, gave it a catchy name and imbued it with doubtful mysticism. The third phase has been the subsequent 15 years or so when it escaped into the wild and there have been widespread appearances of this pattern in popular culture, fashion, jewellery etc. mostly with the appellation 'Flower of Life'. To take just one example, a Google search for "Flower of Life" produces pages of products of this pattern and with this name. What we have now is a widely used definitive geometric pattern with a generally accepted name. Oh, and before I forget, there are enough sources out there to meet WP:GNG. Yes, the article and a number of the references are flawed but this is progressively being fixed and meanwhile per WP:NEXIST the deficiencies, some of which are highlighted in this discussion, are not grounds for deletion. Just Chilling (talk) 01:09, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this article could really use improvement, but I don't see how the sources found don't show notability. Bearian (talk) 19:59, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is a bit of Synthesis, and OR, and cultural appropriation going on in the article, but there isn't any doubt that the motif that the article describes does exist. But what is the motif? My main issue is with the article's title "Flower of Life" - the article states that it was "coined in the 1990s". This motif, if it has antiquity and has spread amongst many cultures, one would suppose had a name before that, probably several names. There is also what I would call gross ignorance on display in that coining. This pattern is actually composed entirely of compass points / arcs, i.e. it is all construction lines. In that form it exists a preliminary underlying stage (a framework) for the creation/construction of more complicated interlace patterns. See for example pages 120-122 of "Islamic Patterns, an analytical and Cosmological Approach" by Keith Critchlow (from 1976, long before the name "Flower of Live" was coined). Critchlow does not give a name for this motif, because for him it is simply the preliminary laying out phase for constructing more complicated patterns. So there is a question in my mind about whether historically it ever existed as an actual standalone object. Any historical objects might just be practice exercises of the preliminary stage required for the production of more complicated geometric motifs. and since most modern-day viewers would not understand how those more complicated motifs were constructed, they do not realise that this "Flower of Life" is nothing more than layout lines. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 21:03, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Your comment seems to express a nominalistic view, while e.g. I adhere more to Philosophical realism (see Problem of universals for the philosophical problem). Therefore I claim that a "Flower of Life" pattern can "exist as as standalone object" even when not named or even perceived as an entity by a conscious mind. As Wikipedia requests relevance of things rather than the relevance of names, a "bad naming" of a thing (e.g. a naming derived from "gross ignorance") is no counter argument against relevance of the thing if this is perceived now. Moreover, I am not convinced of your claim "if [anything] has antiquity and has spread amongst many cultures, one would suppose [it has] a name" – this is a linguistic theory but not a fact. Thus, I regard your arguments as hints to improve the article, but not against keeping. -- Karl432 (talk) 22:59, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Karl432: Yeah. Aren't you just describing what a geometrical form is, as distinct from what a physical product is? I mean this *is* geometry. So I believe it's as obvious as you say. — Smuckola (talk) 07:24, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And this thing [11] is clearly an ICBM; here is one being launched: [12]. Just because a thing superficially looks the same does not mean it is the same! All the alleged historical precedents presented in the article are just fringe. I don't know whether it is OR fringe, or comes from sources that mention the subject. If the article is kept that content will need to be removed if it is OR, or if from sources will need to be rewritten to make it clear these identifications are just the opinion of non-expert sources. I've yet to see any archaeological or art history source cited that uses the term "Flower of Life". Have yet to vote because I have yet to decide if the subject is notable enough for an article. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 00:58, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Tiptoethrutheminefield: Those examples are exact objects, not forms. So that's another non-sequitur. We're saying that these objects are ancient by all sources and they do obviously match these forms, which doesn't need any more citation than to say that the sky is WP:BLUE. — Smuckola (talk) 07:24, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - All though for some it may seem fringe or syn , there are lot of resources available and even documentaries made on this! and also for all the above reason sake! Shrikanthv (talk) 06:39, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:57, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oliver Farid[edit]

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

Unreferenced bio of a junior athlete, yet to play professionally (only the AFL is fully professional), nor has he received sufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG The-Pope (talk) 13:00, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 20:42, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 20:42, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. While I understand the reasoning behind it, sometimes people like this who just pass the A7 bar end up hanging around longer than is really good for the encyclopedia. Jenks24 (talk) 23:55, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete quite obvious why Jjamesryan (talk) 02:06, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; fails WP:BASIC. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 13:18, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:46, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm Dreaming of… A Winter Wonderland[edit]

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

No references, no claim of notability, fails WP:NSONG and WP:GNG. Prodded and prod removed. Richhoncho (talk) 12:44, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Fails on every level; PROD was the act of a serial PROD IP "editor" with no explanation. No sources, no assertion of notability, does not meet any criteria to keep. Scr★pIron^IV 14:10, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: searches suggest subject fails WP:NSONG and WP:GNG. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 12:46, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 13:19, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - textbook failure of WP:NSONGS. Sergecross73 msg me 14:54, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As written, fails notability for songs as per policies cited. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:24, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - doesn't pass WP:NSONGS, and searches didn't turn up enough to show it meets WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:37, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. There is a clear consensus to keep. The WP:AT questions is referred to the article talk page. (non-admin closure) Sam Sailor ^Talk! 01:00, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cold War II[edit]

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

As it stands, this article is overwhelmingly disputed and has been subject to massive debate and controversy within Wikipedia and especially on the talk page of the article for over a year now. The latest debate was on the article's talkpage: Talk:Cold_War_II#RfC:_Accuracy_of_the_title. There, most of the users expressed that the title was not accurate and should be merged into another article such as Foreign policy of Vladimir Putin or even NATO-Russia relations.

Many users, myself included have stated that this article in itself is moot and way too soon and should either be deleted altogether!

I have only heard a few news sources call this a new cold war, but this is far from a frozen conflict and that's what most are saying.

Here are the reasons why I along with most would see this as not another Cold War:

1. We still have much better diplomatic relations with China, Russia and Iran as opposed to the actual Cold War where civilian travel to these countries were prohibited and due to NATO and the West and the Communists being at each others throats for the most part.

2. Civilian travel is allowed in all of the following countries I have listed, China and Russia except for Iran and the fact that neither side has for the most part shut itself off from one another I.E. like with the Iron curtain and the Berlin Wall and instead we allow media from both sides to come in shows that The United States and Russia are more along the lines of allies with their friendship as of current dangling by a thread rather than bitter enemies like back in 1946-1989!

3. As another user by the name of Kdowns1453 said before me, The Cold War took place in a bipolar world, with the United States and the Soviet Union as the two undisputed superpowers competing for economic, ideological, military, and diplomatic influence on multiple continents and, at times, veering very close to direct war with one another.

4. This article essentially covers Vladimir Putin's foreign policy and international reactions to it. As it stands, it simply does not make a strong case for the use of the term, and it might be better served with another title for the time being.

That said, this is no new Cold War!! Way too soon to call it that and therefore it safe to believe it's time for a support or oppose vote to either keep the article or delete it! Voting to move or Redirect the article with or to another one is also on the table for voting! None of the less, a vote must be held on this!!

I have stated my argument on why it should be deleted already and I essentially speak for a great deal of users who support the deletion of this article! Regards! Kirby (talk) 10:23, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - meets GNG. Something does not have to exist or be proved true to have a Wikipedia article (see Loch Ness Monster), so it doesn't matter whether or not it really is another Cold War, it only matters that the topic has been discussed in broad detail. The article should make it clear what the WP:RS state and the controversy of whether or not there is a second Cold War. A disagreement over the title is also not cause for deletion. [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23] —Мандичка^YO 😜 13:23, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ I digress! The argument that —Мандичка made is an invalid one! What was just said by him with all due respect only legitimatizes that this article it should either be deleted altogether or merged into another article such as these two: Foreign policy of Vladimir Putin or NATO-Russia relations. The fact that some of his sources, at least one of them even talks about the world not going toward a Cold War, but World War III: [24] hampers his argument further! I will give him credit for gathering sources, but there are an equal amount of news outlets and articles from them that talk about the world heading toward WWIII rather than a Second Cold War.

[25], [26], [27], [28], [29]. That's just to list, but a few!

That said, I believe that this article is moot and should be deleted! Hopefully others will come here and way in their positions on this debate!Kirby (talk) 14:36, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You already proposed the article for deletion. You are attempting to !vote twice. I have struck your second one. Additionally, a World War III would certainly be different than a Cold War II, so that argument is invalid. —Мандичка^YO 😜 14:46, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:56, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:56, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — impossible to see any clear valid reason for deletion in highly moot and abstruse verbose "statements" (are we in a court hearing here?) by Kirby. I would also recommend that he speak for oneself rather than for "Many users" and "along with most" -- utterly preposterous and presumptuous claims. His views on the validity of the term (referenced by numerous sources) is his personal opinion that carries no weight.Axxxion (talk) 15:23, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep One of the most ridiculous deletion proposals I've ever seen, based entirely on one user's original research and personal opinion. Joefromrandb (talk) 15:36, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not True: "most of the users expressed that the title was not accurate and should be merged".
Most users did not !vote that the article should be merged. Hollth was ambivalent. Kingofaces43, Orser67 and I suggested it should be renamed. Volunteer Marek and Markbassett !voted that it should be merged. — Ríco 15:45, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So you don't believe that it should be merged with another article! Le'ts wait till others get here! Kirby (talk) 15:49, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say that, although I don't see how something this big could be merged into another article. — Ríco 15:59, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Keeby101: This is not based on !votes but arguments citing policy. You have not demonstrated a valid reason to delete the article and it's been shown the article meets the WP:GNG required. —Мандичка^YO 😜 17:02, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly meets the general notability guidelines. Over 100 refs. I'm not sure what policy would justify removal. Capitalismojo (talk) 16:40, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep That *is* a terrible title, and I expected the article to be terrible WP:NEO, but it actually seems to be a pretty reasonable article. I therefore lean keep, though I am open to the notion that renaming and even merges are possible says forwards AFD doesn't seem like a very good venue for that discussion. Artw (talk) 17:09, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agree with Artw that the title is a terrible WP:NEO, and may well be renamed in due course, but that does not alter the fact that passes WP:GNG. It could be considered a subarticle of Foreign policy of Vladimir Putin but that article is bursting at the seams and has already quite rightly spawned a number of subarticles. Not a WP:POVFORK, so no grounds for deletion. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:33, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless its severely reduced in scope. When we created the article last year, it was about the term "Cold War II", which is all it should stick to. The problem is we have better places for much of the historic information that is on the article now, mainly the article Russia–United States relations. The number of references and reliability of the sourcing shouldn't matter if the material isn't specifically referencing the term "Cold War II". We can reference what Francis Fukuyama said in 1992 in End of History, but he wasn't talking about Cold War II. Move/incorporate information into the many "See also" articles like Russia–United States relations and the ever in need of work NATO–Russia relations, or delete it and redirect to either of those.-- Patrick, _oѺ^∞ 22:36, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:Deletion is not cleanup, you cannot say that it should be deleted unless it is fixed up. Nor is a lousy title (WP:LOUSYTITLE) a reason for deletion. Either the subject is notable or it isn't. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:42, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you're saying, that its an argument to avoid, the trouble is that its two separate issues. The term is notable, like you said it could be a subarticle, certainly its own section on another article, and separately the text of the article is sourced but not actually related to the term. What I'm saying is that I do see an option to keep an article at the title "Cold War II", just not the current one. I think the lazy route might be to rename the article, and have a disambiguation page here, but better to try to move what can be used on other articles to those articles. So too I agree with what Artw (talk · contribs) said about merging being an option, I just think that Delete gives us the best a chance to do that.-- Patrick, _oѺ^∞ 15:59, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I think the events fit under other articles, e.g. syria, ukraine, etcetera; and the overall strategy is just the policy of Putin. I do not see that there is an ongoing event equivqalent to the iron curtain or berlin wall of decades-long duration, nor does this seem to be overall anything other than logical assertion of power on the borders. Nasty maybe, but not an ideological or longstanding thing and not near the level of Cold War where Korea and Vietnam were just sideparts of it. Mostly, just show me the cites where this is the WP:COMMONNAME in use rather than a catchy WP:NEO that some folks use. I think merger the bits elsewhere and delete this article is the best course. Markbassett (talk) 23:00, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the term is extensively used. It's just that this article only had sources describing it as an ongoing event. Therefore, I've now added sources to its definition that describe it as a possible (or very unlikely) future event. Mikael Häggström (talk) 14:10, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

BTW everyone! There is the vote option of Redirect on the table! Just pointing that out to Artw,Patrick and other users who will be participating in this debate!

I am not sure if Artw will change his position from Keep to Redirect, but I do hope he reconsiders! :)

Finally, just because I expressed this article to be deleted on the talk page of the article itself and opened up this AFD debate does not disqualify or render my Delete vote null in anyway! Regards! Kirby (talk) 23:35, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it does. For fuck's sake, read the instructions. Joefromrandb (talk) 07:14, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Apart from what i have said, i would like to note that i find the position of those questioning the title and the very existence of this article quite hypocritical in view of the fact that it had been recently decided (overlooked by me) that the article Russia–Syria–Iran–Iraq Coalition be kept! All the info in that article is duplication; and the heading is a mere invention! And it is not that it is simply not sourced, but, more importantly, it presumes the existence of something that is highly disputable too! (See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Russia-Syria-Iran-Iraq Coalition) Axxxion (talk) 14:46, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This "second cold war" is not happening, so perhaps this is WP:Crystal? RailwayScientist (talk) 17:41, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@RailwayScientist: WP:CRYSTAL generally refers to events and things like that (Fast & Furious 12, Planned Battle of Mosul (2015) etc). There are many things that are not happening or do not exist that have articles on WP. There are enough WP:RS discussing the concept of a second Cold War (why it's happening, why it's not happening, why it's likely to happen, etc) that it meets the notability guidelines. —Мандичка^YO 😜 18:58, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and instead launch a renaming discussion as the original creator of the article, I am willing to concede ground and room for significant change concerning the article itself but I feel outright deleting it would overstep the mark and remove a lot of relevant content concerning the focus of international relations on wikipedia. These events with Russia and the West and not "original research" or a self-made hypothesis or exaggeration, they represent an enormous and significant shift in the scope of relations between the involved parties and global politics as a whole. This is too big to be simply dismissed. The two Ukraine crises, the georgia conflict, the Syrian civil war's escalation into a proxy confict, all of these things knit together into a new and concrete narrative of a new Russian standoff against the Western world, albeit in entirely different conditions to the Cold War. Resultantly, the media have thrown this term about enormously and it is thus not a fictional commentary. To delete this page, or to redirect it to something else where the subject is squashed in, is to seriously under-represent and dismiss a topic which is making global headlines on a near daily basis. Perhaps a title change debate is in order, why not? I understand back when I wrote this I may have jumped the gun a bit. Nonetheless I stand by the fact it is notable of coverage, to consider deleting it? don't be daft. TF92 (talk) 07:41, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and instead launch a renaming discussion - I concur. I found this article well sourced and informative. The title is somehow suspect, though. Zezen (talk) 16:06, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The name of this article is clearly unacceptable given that this is a contested concept, at best. Nick-D (talk) 20:23, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I could not agree more with Nick-D on this one! To TF92, the original creator of the article, with all due respect, you did indeed jump the gun with the title of the Article itself! However, I still stand firm with my position on the Redirect to NATO-Russia relations and/or Foreign Policy of Vladimir Putin. Kirby (talk) 08:48, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and re-name is what needs to happen here. The title is highly questionable. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 22:53, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep—appears to meet GNG.--Surv1v4l1st ^{▌Talk|Contribs▌} 23:11, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:46, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of Australian states and territories by Human Development Index[edit]

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

unreferenced nonsense, incorrect, grossly overinflated figures, etc Epistemos (talk) 09:58, 5 November 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 November 5. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:23, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 01:18, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comment~~Delete The article was created in 2010 with data from this site. I can't find the relevant data, but maybe that's me. In 2011 the NT figure was changed without explanation,[30] and in March 2014 the data values were left in place but the state names were changed, again without explanation.[31] At the very best, the data is 5 years out of date but, because the states were changed, the information could be completely wrong. ~~At this point I'm heading towards a delete based on this.~~I'm now convinced this should be deleted. --AussieLegend (✉) 02:37, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
delete the Human Development Index is intended to compare countries, not states and territories within the same country. LibStar (talk) 09:57, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per LibStar. Ranking apples by their orangeness isn't going to fly. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:12, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the nom. The numbers seem so incredibly wrong when compared to Australia's listings in Human Development Index that there is no point trying to merge it to a different article about the states. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 01:03, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:47, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:48, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per WP:V, not verifiable based on the link in the page. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 22:59, 12 November 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Delete Even if this could be verified, it's not a common or useful way of comparing Australian states and territories given that Australia is a highly developed country, with the only significant differences being at the local community level (eg, remote Indigenous Australian towns vs elsewhere). Nick-D (talk) 00:07, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 14:07, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wang Qun (swimmer)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSPORTS. Outdated claim of "will compete for Team China at the 2008 Summer Olympics" but never did, see link in Chinese [32] and sports-reference.com, where you can't find her profile (had she participated in the Olympics you would.) Only reference seems to build on the "prediction" that she would participate in 2008 Olympics. This link in Chinese [33] says she was overhyped after winning the gold medal at the 2005 East Asian Games, but never realized her potential afterwards, and it also seems to me that this was her only major achievement. (Again, East Asian Games?) As far as I can tell, never participated in World Championships either. Chinese wiki page is basically a mirror of the English wiki page, containing the same (outdated) info. Timmyshin (talk) 09:36, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - silver medalist at 2010 Asian Games, as clearly stated in her official bio linked from the page. —Мандичка^YO 😜 12:49, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- And why does this make her notable? The Asian Games is not considered very prestigious in many Asian countries, and sometimes is participated by younger players looking for exposures. I don't see WP:NSPORTS having guidelines for swimmers, except "has been the subject of multiple published[2] non-trivial[3] secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent,[4] and independent of the subject." which doesn't apply to her. Again, she has never participated in, or I shall say, qualified for the Olympics or World Championships. And if you look at that "official bio" you'd see she never finished better than 2nd in China's national competitions. Timmyshin (talk) 17:40, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - The Asian Games are a very notable event, as continental championships, and the second largest event behind the Olympic Games. Your claim that the Asian Games are not considered prestigious "in many Asian countries" is highly lame - it's second in prestige only to the Olympics. It's a huge deal especially in China, especially in the Asian Games held in Guangzhou! Being second at national championships means you're the second-best in the country in that event, which when it comes to China, is pretty good, so I don't know what your point there is. —Мандичка^YO 😜 18:02, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - How did you come up with "second in prestige to the Olympics"? "Large" doesn't mean "prestigious" or else Chinese domestic events would be more prestigious than, say, African events. I was in Guangzhou in December 2010 so I think I know how prestigious or notable (or not) this event is, and I follow several sports in Asia very closely, so I can tell you that most countries in the sports I follow treat Asian Games far less importantly than Asian Championships (qualifiers for Olympics), and usually send young players to Asian Games only for experience. Some countries consider Asian Games very important, like South Korea, but not China. Second in China may be "pretty good", except when that's your best result considering that a swimmer like her participates in several categories, e.g. medley, breaststroke, freestyle, 100m, 400m, 200m, individual, team relay, etc., in other words, considering there are the 2 major events of the Chinese National Championships and the Chinese National Games, having only 1 second-place finish and 1 third-place finish in several years is I believe mediocre. Timmyshin (talk) 18:19, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      - Your claim that China does not consider the Asian Games very important is totally unfounded. The Asian Games have LONG been of huge importance to China, in some cases, more important than the world championships.[34] You are now trying to argue that (without any evidence) that someone is not notable if they medal at a notable event because certain countries don't consider it notable. For amateur Olympic sports, outside the Olympics, the world championships and continental championships/games are the most prestigious (plus Commonwealth Games for those countries). —Мандичка^YO 😜 08:31, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - WP:NSPORTS does not have explicit criteria for swimmers, but it does consider the Asian Games an "elite international competition". Winning a silver medal at such an event certainly makes her notable. WP:NTRACK considers Asian Games medalists in athletics as notable, and I don't see why swimmers should be treated differently. -Zanhe (talk) 09:24, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:45, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

International Association of Airline Internal Auditors[edit]

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

no actual evidence of importance for this specialized trade group;. DGG ( talk ) 09:34, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 20:06, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 20:06, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 20:06, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 20:06, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as although News, Books, browser and Highbeam all found some links, there's nothing convincingly better but feel welcome to draft and userfy if needed. Pinging the only still active past user CambridgeBayWeather. SwisterTwister talk 20:11, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I really don't see any claim to notability. I didn't keep this on my watchlist which I usually do if I find something interesting. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 05:46, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - 3 brief mentions on News; a handful of mentions on Books, mostly simple listings; same on Highbeam. Newspapers and Scholar returned zilch. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:43, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:02, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Sam Bernstein Law Firm[edit]

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

promotional article, including inappropriate detailed description of their position on various cases, and bios of their principals that duplicate material elsewhere. DGG ( talk ) 09:30, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:58, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:58, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:58, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article is "problematic" (primary author appears to have COI), but the subject is fairly notable. The Bernstein practice is familiar to just about anyone in Lower Michigan who owns a television. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 16:57, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the subject is notable but the details of cases should probably be trimmed heavily. There is no problem mentioning cases or the short bios of prominent lawyers. Rmhermen (talk) 17:09, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep likely as the current version seems acceptable. Pinging interested subject users MBisanz, Bearian, Epeefleche, Cirt, GiantSnowman, HJ Mitchell, Newyorkbrad, Salvio giuliano, Jumplike23, R'n'B, Rich Farmbrough and Basalisk and past users WikiPen313, Eastlaw, tagger JaGa and TheMile (although this one is not considerably active). SwisterTwister talk 20:02, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Play it again!~~Keep Anyone who sues the American Bar Association has to be notable! (Read this !vote to the tune of America! - if you can make it scan.) ~~
Comment: I think the article is very problematic on promotional grounds, but appears notable from google news.--JumpLike23 (talk) 22:34, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - both name partners and their law firm easily pass my standards. For example, both Bernsteins have been active in politics, one as a statewide commissioner and one as a losing candidate for statewide office, have been active in bar association activities, and have become content-area experts through their practice. Plaintiffs' law firms rarely reach more than 20 or 30 attorneys, so this one is especially large for tort law firms. For what it's worth, I don't know them personally. Bearian (talk) 15:00, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:59, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

IChrome Ltd.[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. Refs consist of the program manual, and articles of its use in particular situation. DGG ( talk ) 09:13, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:59, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:59, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I simply found nothing better than a few Books and browser links. Pinging past users WikiDan61, Steven Crossin, Bhny, Objectivesea and Piotrus. SwisterTwister talk 19:54, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Nothing at all on News or Newspapers, a few hits Books and Scholar, and a couple of hits on Highbeam. All brief mentions. Fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:11, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (companies) requirement. " It was deprodded by anon User:2602:30A:2EFE:F050:E52A:8C67:E2A2:B864 with the following rationale "WP:CONTESTED"; that anon deprodded a number of articles with such meaningless rationale before disappearing, likely a WP:POINT disruption or a spammer trying to waste our time. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:17, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:40, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:40, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:45, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

James F. Carberry[edit]

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

Simply questionably notable and improvable as the best I found was this and this. Pinging interested subject users LaMona, Tokyogirl79 and DGG. SwisterTwister talk 08:35, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 08:36, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 08:36, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 08:36, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete His Amazon page [35] seems to confirm that he has been a working journalist and writer, but not a notable one.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:37, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence for notability. DGG ( talk ) 05:47, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a lot on any of the search engines. Except for Books, but what was there for the most part had to do with other people of this same name. Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:48, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:45, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Geoffrey Osei-Bonsu[edit]

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

Questionably notable and improvable as having the first station may be notable and well known locally but my searches actually found nothing better than this (which contains the same one link here) and this isn't encouraging to continue searching including closely at Ghanaian news. Pinging past user J04n and interested subject users Wikicology and DGG. SwisterTwister talk 08:35, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 08:37, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 08:37, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 08:37, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 08:37, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete No clear evidence of notability. I don't know if being the Director of Sankofa Television is enough to meet WP:DIRECTOR. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 20:26, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. "first Ghanian radio station outside Ghana" is not a sufficient distinction, nor is theother material. DGG ( talk ) 06:10, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:37, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Move to draft. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:10, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hasan Ahmed (actor)[edit]

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

Particularly questionably notable and improvable as there's hardly much here and even then the best I found was only this and this. It's worth noting I also tagged his wife's article Sunita Marshall as that one was clear enough for speedy and even then Hasan Ahmed's article is close to speedy and PROD material as well. Pinging past users Captain Assassin! (author) and TheRedPenOfDoom and interested subject users Rms125a@hotmail.com, Yash!, Davey2010, MichaelQSchmidt, Onel5969, DGG, Titodutta, Utcursch and Umais Bin Sajjad. SwisterTwister talk 08:35, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 08:37, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 08:37, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as can't find any evidence of notability, Fails NACTOR & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 09:26, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Checking WP:INDAFD: "Hasan Ahmed"

Delete He seems prolific enough, but the only thing for which he has gotten real coverage is his having been kidnapped and held for ransom in 2012 for almost six weeks. Might almost be argued he tweaks gently at WP:VICTIM but sadly, kidnappings happen all the time in that part of the world. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 12:19, 5 November 2015 (UTC) Okay for draftspace (see below) Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 10:02, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
comment MichaelQSchmidt covers some of my thoughts, too, - it is hard to conceive that an actor of any stature, even in a "kidnap culture", could be held for six weeks and the only coverage is on his release? the press reports name him as "television actor" but dont seem to give it any different weight than they would "baker" or "software developer" or any other occupation and its not framed as "you know this guy from XXXX". -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:47, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the article meets notability now. --Captain Assassin! ^{«T ♦ C ♦ G»} 17:42, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- you have added a bunch of links but they are mostly merely passing mentions - not significant coverage as required for notability to be presumed. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:12, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Searches turned up nothing to show they meet notability criteria. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:20, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment; Move it to draft then, until we find better sources. It is an article about Pakistani actor and you won't find better sources about Pakistani biographies ever. My suggestion is to move it to draft for now. --Captain Assassin! ^{«T ♦ C ♦ G»} 02:31, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I would be okay with draftspace as requested. Though more difficult for many to accept, sometimes actors keep low profiles but can still meet WP:ENT through significant roles in notable projects even without meeting W:GNG. I encourage Captain Assassin! to use the tools at WP:INDAFD and request assistance from Indian and Pakistani Wikipedians with access to hardcopy sources not online. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 04:51, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Move to draft - I agree with Captain Assassin! that it is always tough to find sources for Pakistani actors. There might be offline sources or some online sources hiding in the dark. Either way, a move to draft space seems appropriate so that adequate time can be given for improvements. Ya sh ! 04:59, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Sam Sailor ^Talk! 10:00, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DJ Suketu[edit]

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

Questionably notable and improvable as there's also hardly much here and also the best I found was this, this, this, this and this. Also, this is speedy and PROD material but as AfD are more solid sometimes, here we are. Notifying interested subject users Michig, Walter Görlitz, Yash!, Human3015, AKS.9955, Titodutta, Sitush (who is also a past user) and SpacemanSpiff. SwisterTwister talk 08:35, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 08:37, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 08:37, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He is a notable DJ from India and several independent sources have covered him. Has remixed music for several notable Bollywood movies. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 09:09, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The Times of India article cited states "...the extremely popular DJ Suketu! The King of all DJs, Suketu has churned out some of the most successful and loved remixes of all times...". Other coverage: [36], Daily Fail, "Bollywood's #1 DJ", [37], [38], [39], [40], [41]. --Michig (talk) 08:52, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per TOI source. 24.114.78.27 (talk) 21:23, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:01, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bruna Caram[edit]

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

Surely questionably notable and improvable as there's hardly much so this is even speedy and PROD material with my searches also finding nothing better than this and this. Pinging past user Blanchardb and also interested subject users Michig, Victor Lopes and Walter Görlitz. SwisterTwister talk 08:35, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 08:36, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 08:36, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Got a couple of relevant sources: [42] and [43]. Both are about her debut as an actress. Don't know if it'll help much. Victão Lopes ^Fala! 00:25, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I found so mcuh good content (in Brazilian Portuguese) in the first ten hits in the linked Google source, I can't imagine how anyone could nominate otherwise. Improve the article (and the one on the Portuguese project). Sorry. It was the news search. The regular one doesn't have as many good hits. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:02, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Yes, quite obviously notable from GNews results. --Michig (talk) 09:00, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly just a poorly structured ptwiki article that needs to have citations and links improved to conform better with enwiki standards. giso6150 (talk) 20:11, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:00, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Brenda Watson[edit]

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

Questionably notable and improvable as there's hardly much here and the best I found was this, this, this and this. Pinging past although not considerably active users Skysmith, Bongomatic, Epeefleche, Bearian and TheCatalyst31 as well as interested subject users Doc James, DGG, Anthony Bradbury, Casliber and Drchriswilliams. SwisterTwister talk 08:35, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 08:37, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 08:37, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 08:37, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 08:37, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 08:37, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She is a well-known author of The Fiber35 Diet, New York Times bestselling diet guide. Her first book, Renew Your Life sold over 100,000 copies in 2002. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 10:21, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Anyone with a place on the nYT bestsellers list should be considered a notable author. Her most widely held book, the one on the list, is in over 1100 WorldCat libraries; other books: 833, 460, 315, 206, 171, 117. Anyone with booksthat widely read is a notable author. It would, of course, be good to find reviews. DGG ( talk ) 06:08, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A keep is not an endorsement of this writer or her books. Her leading book has sold well at my current employer that happens to be the biggest bookstore chain in North America, and has been widely reviewed (albeit in consumer-driven venues). She has more than a dozen other books in print and as eBooks. Bearian (talk) 15:08, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — foxj 16:27, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Perici[edit]

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

No indication of meeting any of the BIO notability standards. Local pol, no more. Probably also a NOTMEMORIAL issue too. John from Idegon (talk) 05:57, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 06:41, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:32, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:32, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep, he governed 20,000 people for more than ten years. The article is well developed and well sourced and passes WP:GNG. Antrocent (♫♬) 18:59, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A town of 20,000 people does not confer an inclusion freebie on its mayors per WP:NPOL. A mayor of a place this size can get into Wikipedia if the sourcing and substance is really solid, but the place has to be considerably larger than this before its past or present mayors get an automatic "keep because mayor". And the sourcing here is not solid enough to satisfy WP:GNG: there are just four references here, of which two are deadlinked articles in his own hometown's community weekly newspaper (a class of sourcing that wouldn't be sufficient to satisfy GNG even if the links were still live, because community weeklies are deprecated as unable to carry notability), one is a primary source being cited to confirm that his name is not actually included in the list of recipients of an award that one of the deadlinked sources reportedly claimed that he won (an especially egregious case of failing to constitute coverage of him), and the last is his obituary on legacy.com (a source which doesn't make him special, since that resource just republishes all death notices that appeared in all member publications regardless of whether the deceased met any special notability criteria or not). That's not even remotely close to the volume or quality of sourcing it takes to get a smalltown mayor into Wikipedia — community weekly newspapers and WP:ROUTINE death notices can be used sparingly for some additional confirmation of biographical details after GNG has already been met by stronger sources, but they cannot count toward the initial meeting of GNG. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 16:25, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Yet another NN small-town mayor. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:50, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Being a Mayor for a few years of a town of 20,000 is obviously not grounds for keeping per WP:POLITICIAN. AusLondonder (talk) 22:49, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG (per search engines), and WP:NPOL. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:52, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:43, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kate Lester (courier)[edit]

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

The awards are essentially promotional. So are the references. So is the article, from title downwards. DGG ( talk ) 05:20, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:36, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:36, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:36, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I found nothing better than this and this and I'm simply not seeing anything for a better article. SwisterTwister talk 05:40, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
strong delete obvious AUTOBIO. created by an editor who has only worked on this article and tried to create an article about her company. LibStar (talk) 12:02, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Subject has written about industry in the Guardian and been referenced in the FT - recommend article to be developed further rather than deleted cg6237 (talk) 22:43, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

she is not the subject of the article in the 2nd source and only rates a small mention. LibStar (talk) 06:24, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Subject has written two business books featuring excellent reviews on Amazon [44] [45]and been interviewed twice about entrepreneurship on BBC Radio 4 [46] [47] - recommend article to be developed further rather than deleted — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.7.163.196 (talk) 17:04, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete - looks like a case of Wikipedia:Lankiveil's Second Law. Yeti Hunter (talk) 00:17, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I'm not sure of what qualifies 'dubious notability'? She has two very well received books available to purchase on Amazon and has been interviewed by a prestigious BBC Radio show. I recommend that the article is developed further as required by administrators than deleted completely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.33.146.130 (talk) 09:53, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete - SPA editors aside, this is a promotional piece about a non-notable individual. Searches turned up nothing to show they pass WP:GNG. And thanks for the chuckle, Yeti Hunter - hadn't heard about that "law". Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:55, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:42, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pitching engine[edit]

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

unable to find any independent, reliable sources to show that this term is in common usage. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 04:48, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 04:50, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - only references to "pitching engine" are to really awesome baseball pitchers. —Мандичка^YO 😜 06:31, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:59, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:00, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - sourced material doesn't even refer to itself as "pitching engine" ♜♞ parrotz1461 ♞♜ 22:44, 5 November 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Parrotz1461 (talk • contribs) [reply]
Delete - Hardly much here and a WP:TNT deletion at best. SwisterTwister talk 07:11, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:41, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Princess Eze[edit]

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

Non-notable musician. No evidence of any signficant coverage. Citation for the Independent Music Association Award nomination cannot be verified. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 04:46, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 06:44, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - No evidence of notability, The images and wording are clearly self-promotional!, all images tagged for deletion so this should go with 'em. –Davey2010^Talk 19:38, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of notability. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 04:55, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:35, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Searches did not turn up enough to show they pass either WP:GNG or WP:NMUSIC. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:47, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:41, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Charlotte Proudman[edit]

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

Fails notability guidelines for creative professionals. Veggies (talk) 03:17, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 03:28, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 03:28, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: We're not WP:LINKEDIN, and there are BLP issues as well -- everyone who reports a loser is not made notable.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 03:37, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Milowent - Clearly a LINKEDIN-type article. –Davey2010^Talk 19:49, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I simply see nothing better. Pinging tagger Comatmebro. SwisterTwister talk 06:16, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, a case of WP:ONEEVENT? Coolabahapple (talk) 17:18, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah that too . –Davey2010^Talk 18:30, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:34, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:34, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Totally fails notability criteria. At best, a case of WP:ONEEVENT Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:33, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Sam Sailor ^Talk! 09:53, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Remiro[edit]

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

Seems to be a non-notable criminal, per WP:CRIME and all content in the article can be gone over in the Symbionese Liberation Army article. MB298 (talk) 02:48, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 03:32, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 03:32, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 03:33, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:43, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Marcus Foster#Murder, for now. (I have no strong objections to redirecting to Symbionese Liberation Army, but I think this would be the better target.) Marcus Foster is likely independently notable, and there is enough reliable secondary source coverage of the circumstances surround his murder (i.e. the capture of Remiro and Little, trial, conviction, sentencing, etc) that Murder of Marcus Foster would pass WP:EVENT (e.g. [48]). If this article survives, the crap sourcing will need to be cleaned-up. - Location (talk) 03:51, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Valid, sourced, notable person/issue. per WP:GNG.--BabbaQ (talk) 11:26, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator comment. I support a redirect to either Marcus Foster#Murder or Symbionese Liberation Army. MB298 (talk) 00:44, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This article meets WP:Crime requirements:

For perpetrators "The victim of the crime is a renowned national or international figure, including, but not limited to, politicians or celebrities." - Dr Marcus Foster and (by association with SLA) Patty Hearst - "swap" proposed for Hearst with Remiro and Little. "The motivation for the crime or the execution of the crime is unusual—or has otherwise been considered noteworthy—such that it is a well-documented historic event. Generally, historic significance is indicated by sustained coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources which persists beyond contemporaneous news coverage and devotes significant attention to the individual's role." - Hard not to call this motivation "unusual". Definitely "noteworthy" - copious newspaper articles throughout the 70s but continuing. Several documentaries. Number of books written on the subject, one exclusively on Remiro. Please see updated references (still more improvements could be done by other members of the community.) This article focuses on the unique background of Remiro to help provide a fuller picture of this important historical event. Can't all be added to Marcus Foster#Murder or Symbionese Liberation Army.Emihemi (talk) 12:30, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Historically important figure. The SLA was a major participant in political culture of the period (for cultural & political reasons much greater than its actual deeds) , and its actions and the major figures involved will remain of permanent historical importance DGG ( talk ) 01:00, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notorious crime, notorious criminal, notable radical activist.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:09, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:03, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rick Skene[edit]

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

Fails WP:NACTOR. All I'm seeing is a Winnipeg Free Press article. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:31, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 03:31, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 03:31, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I simply see nothing better. Pinging interested subject users MichaelQSchmidt, Rms125a@hotmail.com and Davey2010. SwisterTwister talk 05:46, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Only thing I'm finding are mentions and blog-type stuff, Considering he's been an actor for 50 odd years I'm surprised there's nothing on him.., Anyway fails GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 09:23, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AKAs per article:

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

Delete for failing WP:ENT, and WP:GNG. Sadly, while he is prolific and the many projects which have used him are themselves notable, he makes no spash. As an actor or stunt person his work might be exemplary, but his role choices (even with named support roles) pretty much guarantees he makes no spalsh. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 12:07, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] ttp://wjla.com/news/news-talk/drone-regulations

[2] ttp://www.eventmarketer.com/article/eventtech-2015-everything-missed-day-one/

[1]

[1]