Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 September 28

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 27 September	29 September >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 23:00, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Krisztián Nagy (footballer, 1995)[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by the article's creator based on the claim that NBII is fully pro, an assertion not supported by reliable sources (see WP:FPL). Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:51, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:52, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 22:55, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 07:42, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 10:13, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 01:48, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Did not play for Kaposvári Rákóczi FC while the club was in NBI, and NBII is not currently recognized as a WP:FPL. Only routine coverage appears to exists. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 02:12, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY Spiderone 18:35, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:45, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 23:00, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Shinto[edit]

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

The good doctor appears not to be sufficiently notable to have an article here. The one apparently independent reference in the page may well in fact be a press release. The content is wholly unsupported by any vestige of an independent reliable source. With all deference to WP:CSB, I can't see how this can be kept unless some real sources are added. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:44, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:37, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:37, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:37, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there's simply nothing aside from some browser press releases. SwisterTwister talk 05:38, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alt:

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

Delete: lacks significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. I can't find a single good source to add. -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 07:28, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:44, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- fails both WP:BLP and WP:GNG requirements. My search found no significant coverage in any independent reliable sources (including Danish-language newspapers and magazines). The only hits appear to be entirely self-promotional. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 14:49, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 23:01, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

John D. Haines[edit]

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

WP:BLP of an addictions counsellor, which rests half on primary sources (own webpage, own LinkedIn, etc.), and half on glancing namechecks in media coverage of other things (thus failing to constitute substantive coverage which has him as its subject.) In addition, the article claims that he previously played for the Canadian Football League — but it fails to specify which CFL team he played for, which immediately twigged my suspicions, and indeed I can't find any verification of that claim anywhere. On a ProQuest "Canadian Newsstand Major Dailies" search, the only John Haines I can find anywhere near the sports pages in any Canadian newspaper published in the entire past 30 years was playing in the non-professional Maritime Football League rather than the CFL — and even Haines' own PR presence in his own primary sources just says he played professional football without specifying the CFL in particular. So I don't know if the CFL was just a faulty but good faith assumption on the part of the article creator, or a deliberate falsehood planted to create the false appearance of a free pass through the WP:ATHLETE gate — but either way, he didn't play in the CFL. But the MFL doesn't get him past ATHLETE, and the volume of reliable source coverage shown here doesn't get him past WP:GNG for his current job either. And furthermore, the article's dancing right on the edge of tipping over into an advertorial tone rather than an encyclopedic one — the "non-profits" section is especially egregious, but the whole thing has WP:NPOV-violating value adjectives and completely unsourced assertions of his personal feelings about things threaded through it. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 22:18, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 22:57, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 15:50, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. 207.102.255.248 (talk) 23:31, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now as I found nothing better. SwisterTwister talk 05:46, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:46, 4 October 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.

Hey, I did find a reference regarding his football career: http://cms.cfl.mrx.ca:81/uploads/assets/TOR/History/All_Time_roster.pdf User:Bearcat — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kalina3112 (talk • contribs) 09:56, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 17:29, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rachel Santesso[edit]

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

Not notable for Wikipedia yet. The subject just founded a local choir in the UK (like many other choirs). Cannot find many reliable sources (that are not from her personal pages, e.g. personal website, etc.) that confirm her encyclopaedic relevance/notability. Just one of many singers. Sheroddy (talk) 17:17, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The subject fails both the General Notability Guidelines and the alternative criteria at WP:MUSICBIO. This version represents everything I could find about the subject that was remotely independently sourced—a piece in the local press of Victoria, British Columbia and a review of one of her CDs (the only review I could find) in a magazine which reviews recordings based on whether or not an ad is also purchased [1]. It still isn't enough to pass the notability criteria. However, all of it was removed by the editor who created the article and who has admitted a close affiliation to Santesso [2], [3]. The editor also wrote the current "PR" version as well as Capital Children's Choir which Santesso founded. The choir itself just about scrapes notability, although in its current state that article is a monument to puffery. Voceditenore (talk) 06:19, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Voceditenore (talk) 06:39, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Voceditenore (talk) 06:47, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. With a quick Google I turn up three separate reviews just of her "Songs of Louis Vierne" album, in Fanfare, the BBC Music Magazine, and International Record Review; there seems to be a chapter, or at least some substantial paragraphs, about her in a biography of Lily Allen (mentor etc.); there are news stories about the choir she directs in NME and elsewhere. The article has her down as conductor on Winter Magic (album). If that's right it's pretty major, although the reviews naturally focus on the singer, not the conductor. I've not spent 5 minutes on this. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 21:08, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Santesso did not conduct the whole Winter Magic album. She conducted the Capital Children's Choir who sang with Westenra on 4 of the tracks. The mentions in the books about Lilly Allen are about how Santesso mentored her when she was 11 years old at a school in Camden where Santesso was a teacher, but are not about Santesso herself. I don't think that establishes independent notability, but interpretations of WP:NOTINHERITED do vary. Nor am I particularly impressed by this short PR blurb from NME in which she gets a passing mention. Voceditenore (talk) 21:56, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Then she seems to half-meet multiple points of WP:MUSICBIO. I'll stick with weak keep, particularly with her really being on four tracks of Winter Magic. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 22:06, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:33, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles (talk) 21:21, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now and restart when better as although I found links at Books, News, browser and highbeam, this would be a WP:TNT and restarted when better. SwisterTwister talk 05:40, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as she has not received the level and the depth of coverage that we usually call significant. Her notability claim is that she founded and currently directs the Capital Children's Choir. I disagree with editor SwisterTwister about WP:TNT. It is not that this composition is particularly badly presented or is so full of promotion and trivia that it cannot be saved, she just hasn't had enough coverage. It may be WP:TOOSOON, but I suspect that she will float under the radar for ever. Time will tell. I would not be adverse to a redirect to Capital Children's Choir, if others prefer that. --Bejnar (talk) 15:13, 6 October 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. While it would certainly be preferable to have a Japanese speaker look for sources to demonstrate notability, notability requires verifiable evidence and an assertion that there may be sources available cannot ultimately counter an argument for deletion based on the notability guidelines. The relative cultural importance of pornography is not relevant here. If a Japanese speaker is able to find sources demonstrating notability then I would be happy to userfy the article for them to be added. Hut 8.5 20:36, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Overturned non-admin close: The result was no consensus without prejudice against speedy renomination. If this is renominated, I recommend that someone starts a discussion on WikiProject Japan's talk page to more accurately gauge the notability. (non-admin closure) Esquivalience ^t 01:55, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Saryu Usui[edit]

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

The only likely source appears to be a reheated press release see here and the award does not appear important or well reported. Plus our own article on the award suggests that became internate advertising before the "award" was given. In short, fails GNG and PORNBIO Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:28, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alts:

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

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

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

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

Comment: I note that Japan does not deal with or consider pornography the same way as is done in the U.S. While here it is generally seen and considered to be a "baser" industry, the adult industry is treated by their media there on a level much closer to that of what we would consider regular film stars. With respects to Spartaz, and as we are not judge the rest of the world by our somewhat narrow and conservative western standards, I would hope we gain input from Japanese Wikipedians better to offer insights as to how that industry is considered and treated in Japan, under their non-Western standards of propriety or lack. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 09:34, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 17:56, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per MichaelQSchmidt's comments. Pornography is a more "notable" industry in Japan than The US. T Kanagawa T (talk) 18:51, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per MichaelQSchmidt's comments. There are quite a few biographies of Japanese porn performers (styled as "AV idols" which report mainstream coverage and crossover roles. This performer, in contrast, appears to be a non-notable advertising model with a small number of very minor TV roles who turned to porn and has had a relatively brief, little-remarked-on career. If porn receives broader and more respectable media coverage in Japan, it should be easier to find sources, not more difficult (as some proponents of such articles seem to imply.) The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 17:17, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:35, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

response: I admit I do not read nor understand Japanese, but at the same time I can grant that WP:UNKNOWNHERE does not mean we automatically delete non-English topics. I suggest this be re-listed as needed until Japanese-reading Wikipedians speak up and, as an AFD is not weight of numbers, a language expertise should weigh stronger to a closer in considering keep or delete !votes than any from myself or other editors unfamiliar with that language. And if WP:BASIC is met,[4][5][6][7][8] {Japanese-language translation needed) we do not look to a narrow SNG to then arbitrarily opine contrary to the the community standards set by WP:GNG & WP:BASIC... and indeed, it appears that in the Japanese Wikipedia they do not judge she or her career as harshly as is done here. Just sayin'. WP:NRVE anyone? Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 21:36, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Michael, you know how much I respect your contributions but we are well past the point of assuming good faith. Its not properly sourced and that should be the end of it. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:29, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well Spartaz, how is it you feel the WP:NONENG sources used (or available) for a non-English topic to be "improper"? And if WP:BASIC is met,[9][10][11][12][13] {Japanese-language translation needed), how do you determine that we cannot allow nor wait for translations? Community standards instruct that IF the many dozens of apparently available sources show WP:BASIC and WP:GNG to be met, we do not go to a lessor SNG to then arbitrarily decide the primary inclusion guidelines may be ignored. Per WP:NRVE and WP:NEXIST being "improperly" sourced is not the deletable issue if sources ARE available. So please, if you do not wish to wait for Japanese-reading Wikipedians to offer translations of the Japanese-language sources that appear available, at least let a possible deletion be without prejudice for a return when such is done. Thanks. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 21:41, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No harm in giving it another week to see if someone who can navigate Japanese shows up. Hint: I can't read a lick of it, either. Courcelles (talk) 21:20, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles (talk) 21:20, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:04, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Carly Craig[edit]

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

Article claims "best known for starring in Role Models and Hall Pass; based on the WP articles, tho she's a named character with a role in the plot, she's very far from "starring in" and nothing else here is more than trivial. DGG ( talk ) 19:22, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:18, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:18, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Probably delete for now as although my searches found a few results here and there (Books and browser) there wasn't anything convincingly good and her IMDb summarizes it well that there's not enough for a better article at this time. SwisterTwister talk 06:08, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 18:04, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:37, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I've added a couple of references to the article. I would give the subject the benefit of the doubt as to notability. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:55, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Per above comment. More discussion would help. Courcelles (talk) 21:10, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles (talk) 21:10, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Seems to have enough credits and sources and no glaring issues. JesseRafe (talk) 21:44, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I think the coverage she has received so far is enough to guarantee an article here. Meets WP:GNG.--Skr15081997 (talk) 03:05, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - her biggest exposure (pardon the pun) has been modeling for Esquire -- I don't see reviews of her acting. Bearian (talk) 16:19, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Courcelles (talk) 23:02, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jaime Zapata (painter)[edit]

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

Nothing notable about this individual Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 18:18, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:07, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:07, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ecuador-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:07, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now maybe simply because I found no coverage unless it's not easy to find such as at local sources. SwisterTwister talk 06:27, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Difficult to find English sources, yes. But this painter appears to be very well known in Ecuador as well as other Latin American countries, with multiple articles about him appearing in reliable secondary sources (i.e. newspapers, etc.) in Spanish. He also received recognition from the president of Ecuador for his work that hangs in a permanent exhibit in the Argentine presidential palace. "Presidente Rafael Correa reconoció labor artística de pintor ecuatoriano Jaime Zapata. Correa Delgado reconoció el trabajo de Zapata, pintor ecuatoriano radicado en Francia, quien participó con sus obras en la inauguración de la Galería de los Patriotas Latinoamericanos, que se encuentra ubicada en el Salón Héroes del Bicentenario, de la Casa Rosada argentina." I would say he definitely passes Wikipedia notability standards. Perhaps this Afd could also be relisted in South America -related deletion discussions for other opinions. ABF99 (talk) 02:41, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 03:17, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:38, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles (talk) 21:09, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 23:02, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Galleria, Al Maryah Island[edit]

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

Non-notable shopping mall,about 1/3 the size of those we usually keep. None of the references are reliable: "Gulf related" is the developer; "Mubadala.ae is the web site for the development in which it is located;" the other is essentially a press release. DGG ( talk ) 18:46, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Probably delete for now as I see no better signs of coverage and improvement and it would be best mentioned elsewhere. SwisterTwister talk 06:12, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:39, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:54, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:54, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:54, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The first four sources are not WP:RS and the last source is written like an advertisement for the mall. I can't find any sources. Fails WP:GNG. Me5000 (talk) 22:31, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - what about a merge to Al Maryah Island. VMS Mosaic (talk) 01:32, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Before we delete, what about the merge idea? Anything worth saving? Courcelles (talk) 21:08, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles (talk) 21:08, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete lacking quality sources. LibStar (talk) 19:03, 2 October 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:44, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tadpoles (band)[edit]

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

No reliable references to establish notability per WP:MUSIC. Kelly ^hi! 21:27, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sufficient coverage exists to satisfy notability guidelines. --Michig (talk) 06:18, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am curious, what coverage are you refering to? All the article lists are external links to related sites, myspace, facebook, Youtube and a directory. That constitutes no coverage. Please read Wikipedia:Reliable sources. --Bejnar (talk) 21:15, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I used Google. What's in the article isn't solely what we judge it on. Do you seriously think I've been here for 10 years, made tens of thousdands of edits and been given admin rights without reading Wikipedia:Reliable sources? --Michig (talk) 21:19, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It was trivially easy to find a biography and five album reviews from Allmusic, coverage from Factsheet Five, an extensive album review from Pitchfork Media, as well as other news articles covering the band to some extent. Considering that most of the band's activities were pre-internet that's a pretty good indication of notability, and that in addition to this more print coverage is likely to exist. --Michig (talk) 21:51, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Comment In looking for coverage, I discovered a book published by Betascript which copied the 2010 version of this article and enough other articles from Wikipedia to make up 68 pages. Needless to say to long-time editors, that is not a reliable source. See Wikipedia:Verifiability#Wikipedia and sources that mirror or use it. --Bejnar (talk) 21:15, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:45, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep: A very weak keep. I looked into some of the sources that Michig brought up above and was able to find some. There's an in-depth Pitchfork review ([14]) and a mention of the Factsheet Five article in an unreliable user-made website (I'm sure it exists in print sources somewhere). There's a passing mention of them in a book about psychedelic rock ([15]). Overall, I'm inclined to keep but barely. Nomader (talk) 17:40, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles (talk) 21:03, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now and restart later if better as I simply found nothing convincingly good. SwisterTwister talk 05:46, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 23:03, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Sublunar Society[edit]

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

Non-notable music label, fails WP:CORP. This appears to be part of an exercise in promotion; other articles affected apparently include Allan Gutheim, Armand Gutheim, Jeff Stonehouse and Samsæri, the other artists signed to this label; and Dr. Shinto, with whom a member of the last group has worked. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:55, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:43, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:43, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:43, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now as there isn't even a Swedish Wiki article and there usually is with overseas subjects and my searches fond absolutely nothing good. SwisterTwister talk 05:44, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: lacks significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 07:16, 4 October 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 Despite the Facebook campaign, no policy-based rationales for keeping the article have been presented. Consensus in favor of deletion is clear. Huon (talk) 21:49, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth South (singer)[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)

Most sources in the article are either affiliated with her or too brief to count as non-trivial.

The article from The News&Observer is probably okay as a source, but the contents of it seems to indicate that this was her 15 minutes of fame. As far as I can tell she has not had significant coverage outside the contest she won, so this seems to fall in under WP:BLP1E. Bjelleklang - talk 20:51, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:27, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:27, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:27, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:27, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now and draft & userfy if necessary as the best I found was this. SwisterTwister talk 05:42, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles (talk) 20:53, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This artist has had more than 15 minutes of fame. More legitimate news sources have been added such as ABC news and Ryan Seacrest news, N& O, and various blogs. The amount of fame is not a reason for deletion anyway and that is a shallow criticism because this artist continues to be a significant person with over 11 million views currently on a more recent video released by Ryan Seacrest and ABC news. Not to mention the fact that whoever Won the best cover of "Let It Go" in a Ryan Seacrest contest should go down in history as significant always as that is a significant accomplishment by this artist that no other artist will ever attain. Also, this artist wrote a song "I Love You" that the greatest country star Emmy winner Vince Gill sang a duet with her and a music video on. This also makes her significant and much more than "15 minutes of fame" person. Let's not give into vain thought as to what makes a person significant and worthy in this world. This artist has done more than many artists whose pages are now on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dehrji45mx (talk • contribs) 01:41, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, this will still need better sourcing (preferably third-party) about her and there's simply not enough with the iTunes links and such taking almost half of it (I know, I know, it's to mention her discography but it's still not third-party coverage). SwisterTwister talk 05:19, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This page has more than enough third party and news sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dehrji45mx (talk • contribs) 12:01, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

_{Note: Previous post moved as to not break up the header of this page. Bjelleklang - talk 12:46, 1 October 2015 (UTC)}[reply]

First of all; of the 31 links currently in the article, the overwhelming majority are related to her:

Her own site
iTunes
Her employers website
Facebook and other social media
Reviews or brief mentions; mostly of her video with multiple princesses or of her winning the competition.

All of these fail the requirement on having reliable sources, and at least one ("From the Chair") doesn't have a clear connection to the article. If she is noteworthy as you say, please go through Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Reliable sources (preferably the whole page, not just that section) and find proper, reliable sources. Of the few remaining sites there is perhaps one (News&Observer) that appears to satisfy the requirements (although it is regional and the article was a blog piece), but more is needed for the article to have a chance at being kept. WP:BLP1E exists for a good reason, and there is nothing here that seems to suggest that doesn't fall outside that rule. She has made some music albums as well as other videos, but the only reason she seems to be getting attention is because she won a contest she didn't even enter.

And please avoid attacking people. SwisterTwister does a great job keeping AfDs in system, and if you should be mad at anyone it should be me as I nominated this page in the first place. Accusations such as the one you made have a tendency to boomerang right back at the accuser, so please be civil. Bjelleklang - talk 12:46, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bjelleklang BTW and FWIW in case you missed it, this author who now confirms it as being the IP (look at the history who also bombed me with different words. Cheers, and thanks to JamesBWatson, one of my favorite longtime colleagues, for tagging a warning.) SwisterTwister talk 19:00, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A classic case of bombarding an article with dozens of references, perhaps in the hope of making it look well sourced, until one actually clicks on the links and looks at those references. Doing so, it turns out that they are YouTube videos, FaceBook, several pages on her own web site, entries on iTunes, the web site of the school she teaches at, at least one page which doesn't even mention her, brief pages not giving her substantial coverage, etc etc, and just one news report in a local newspaper about one incident, when one of her YouTube videos won a contest. I searched for better sources, and found none. For example, the first few hits from a Google search were her YouTube account, one of her YouTube videos, the Wikipedia article about her, her Facebook account, two pages on her own web site, and Twitter. There seems to be no evidence anywhere of her coming anywhere near to satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:57, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Again, there are several news articles and blogs well sourced on the page. She falls into the requirement for being notable on Wikipedia and that is having aired on TV and she has. People do not have to be "Superstars" to be considered notable. That is like saying only the really famous are worthy people. We must put a stop to this shallow and pressurized thinking in our society. It's a poison plain and simple to feel that pressure of having to be Superstars. There is plenty of room for people like Elizabeth South who has touched so many hearts with her music to be on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dehrji45mx (talk • contribs) 21:41, 1 October 2015 (UTC) This is an artist and artists have youtube pages and iTunes. Also, there are lots of sources aside from her website. There is no link that does not mention her on here. And there are entire full articles written on her - not briefly. It seems you have not looked at the links. There are many other artists on Wikipedia who have only one resource and less famous than her and they are accepted. If you believe that someone has to be a "superstar" to be on Wikipedia? Wikipedia clearly states that if an artist has been on National TV, they qualify as notable. This artist ran in rotation on a National Music television station for a good amount of time. She played on the same station as other notable artists - alongside and with Vince Gill, one of the most famous musicians of all time. Not only did she air on Music TV, but she was featured several times on one of the top TV shows in Nashville, TN. This article has MORE than enough News articles and resources. ABC NEWS, N & O, blogs, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dehrji45mx (talk • contribs) [reply]

_{Previous post moved from the top of the page. Bjelleklang - talk 21:34, 1 October 2015 (UTC)}[reply]

Again; take a look at WP:RS. Also read WP:N and the General Notability Guideline. Being an artist, being famous, appearing on TV and lots of other stuff doesn't make you notable. It does however indicate that you _might_ be notable, but notability can only be indicated by having multiple reliable sources writing about you. Being on iTunes or Youtube doesn't matter; I can probably find myself on both venues if I look hard enough, but that doesn't make me famous in any way. If there are lots of sources available, please list them for us if they are reliable; ie. with editorial oversight, not related to her and not local, and also if they can show that she doesn't come under the section for people only known for a single event. Bjelleklang - talk 21:34, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think people need to grow up and stop being petty. Elizabeth South is a genuine person, and she's a awesome singer with many accolades. She is deserving of a Wikipedia page because of the sources in which relate to her. She's amazing and she's going to one day smash it really big! Keep Elizabeth South on Wikipedia!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxrobbo90 (talk • contribs)— Maxrobbo90 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 22:07, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep.Elizabeth South is a singer, teacher, and musician. Many albums on iTunes. A duet with Vince Gill. A teacher of Elementary School music. 11 million plus You Tube views. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.98.182.70 (talk) 22:22, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure i have this in the right place but I am not sure why this is even up gor deletion. The information in here is accurate and worthy to be listed in Wikipedia. I really hope you reconsider your actions. Elizabeth definitely belongs in here and personally has moved my spirit and keeping it here will definitely help others! Paul — Preceding unsigned comment added by Selectman13 (talk • contribs)— Selectman13 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 22:29, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You seriously need to get a life!! It is truly pathetic that you have such a thing against Elizabeth that you would campaign just to delete her Wikipedia page. I've got news for you buddy, you are the ONLY one who doesn't think what you're doing is completely ridiculous! You don't like her music? Fine. You don't like her voice? Fine. There are many artists I don't like, but I don't try to delete their Wikipedia page! Also, the reasons you have given for deleting this page are some of the worst I have ever seen! You say she hasn't had enough coverage to deserve a Wikipedia page? Well I beg to differ. Search "Elizabeth South" in Google. If you don't think any of that counts as coverage, then I don't know how you graduated Primary School And you say she isn't "famous enough" to have a Wiki page? 1) Fame doesn't decide whether you have a Wikipedia page. If someone thinks you have earned a Wikipedia page, they will create you a Wikipedia page. It doesn't matter if you are known world wide, or have a small fan base in one country, if you deserve a Wikipedia page, you get a Wikipedia page. 2) I think having numerous reliable sources write articles on you, appearing on Zuus TV, winning a national competition, having over 15million hits between two videos on YouTube, realising 12 CD's and singles, having 22k Twitter followers, 26k Facebook followers and 77k YouTube subscribers can put you in the class of "fame" Elizabeth has so many accolades they're hard to count! She was worked her heart and soul out for her music. And most importantly she has touched thousands, if not, millions of hearts with her beautiful music, majestic voice and kind and caring personality, and yet she remains humble and never puts anyone else down with her success! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tombaker97 (talk • contribs)— Tombaker97 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 22:50, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no sufficiently robust sources. The addition of so many trivial sources may have dulled my judgement but I don't see notability here. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 22:57, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Just a comment to everyone coming here after seeing the discussions on her Facebook page: Please take a minute before posting to familiarize yourself with Wikipedia requirements, and contribute to the article if you have any reliable sources to add. Arguing against deletion without posting links or other evidence that isn't verifiable by others doesn't help the discussion at all, and won't prevent the article from being deleted. If the article can be improved it's great; but if not it kind of proves the point in that it doesn't belong here. What makes Wikipedia special is the fact that there are requirements; otherwise it would just be another directory of no importance at all. Bjelleklang - talk 10:42, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is too much evidence to post here proving Elizabeth belongs here! As I said before, just Google her name, there are numerous articles about her. Anyway, I shouldn't even need to provide any further evidence that Elizabeth deserves her Wikipedia page for two reasons. 1) It doesn't matter how many sources you have writing articles on you. If someone thinks you have earned a Wikipedia page, they will create you a Wikipedia page, no matter how many articles have been written about you. 2) Elizabeth has had numerous articles written about her, if you want me to link them all here, fine I will but it would take me a hell of a long time. Just because not every article has been inculded in the Wikipedia page doesn't instantly mean she doesn't deserve to be on Wikipedia. All it means is that whoever made the page for Elizabeth just didn't include every article written about her. You can argue all you want about Elizabeth not deserving this Wikipedia page, but the fact is, no matter what you say she deserves to be on Wikipedia. You haven't even got a genuine arguement. The only reason you say she doesn't deserve to be on Wiki is because you aren't a fan of hers, which is the worst excuse to delete a Wikipedia page I have ever seen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tombaker97 (talk • contribs) 11:14, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per poor claim to notability and sources. James' assessment of ref-bombing seems accurate. Agricola44 (talk) 15:23, 2 October 2015 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 23:04, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

6S Marketing Inc[edit]

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

This company is only notable for some PR they generated due to the iPhone 6S having a similar name to them. Other than that this is the only coverage and it is local and trivial. SmartSE (talk) 20:45, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete, because while I generally agree with the nominator's rationale, the very brief news articles were widely dispersed across the globe. However, it was only one very recent story that was only reported very briefly on the back of coverage about the new gadget. I'd want to see significant coverage about something else over a wider period to convince me the company passed WP:NCORP. Sionk (talk) 20:47, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- It's basically WP:1E, but for a company rather than a person. SmartSE (talk) 15:53, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:49, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:49, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now and restart later if better as although I found links at News, Books, browser and Highbeam, there's nothing to suggest better improvement. SwisterTwister talk 05:50, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:38, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 23:04, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Breikss[edit]

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

Non-notable internet marketer - I can't find any substantial coverage in RS as is required to meet WP:BIO. (Clean up of paid editor Trident13). SmartSE (talk) 20:42, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as the nominator says, there's scant coverage about Breikss (despite his unusual surname). The best is the one article in the Vacouver Sun, which is largely about his grandparents. The other sources are either by him, or about something else other than him. Fails WP:GNG. Sionk (talk) 00:17, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:53, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:53, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:53, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:53, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as although I found links at News, Books and browser, there's nothing to suggest better but feel free to draft and userfy if needed. SwisterTwister talk 05:54, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Promotional and badly sourced, without evidence of passing either WP:PROF or WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:47, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 23:04, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alexandru Balanici[edit]

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

Seems entirely non-notable, and all of the content likely machine-translated from Moldovan or Romanian or what-have-you, as seen in section headings like "Steps" which makes no sense compared to a job title like "Rector of Academic" which sounds like someone who doesn't speak English. I don't doubt he exists and everything understandable on this page is true, just not encyclopedic. JesseRafe (talk) 20:39, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing WP:PROF. From what I can see, he appears to be some kind of mid-level manager at a small college. Bearian (talk) 16:21, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:04, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Moldova-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:04, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:04, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now and restart later if better as I found nothing better than a few News and browser links and the overseas Wikis are no better of course. SwisterTwister talk 05:48, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 23:04, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Edmund Keli’i Silva Jr.[edit]

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

Biographical article about (living) claimant to Hawai'ian Throne. May not be irreparably propagandist (article is in support of his claim), if somebody wants to put in many hours of work on tone, and can find quality sources to back up our information. All supporting sources seem to be self-published, either by the subject or his partisans. Without any outside sources, notability is also a matter of question. Chamberlian (talk) 20:04, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TNT. Too long, I could not finish reading this soapboxing essay. Bearian (talk) 16:23, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hawaii-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:01, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:01, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now as I found some links at Books, News and browser but this is best restarted later when better. SwisterTwister talk 05:58, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 23:04, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

IBZL[edit]

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

Article about a "thought experiment" on Internet bandwith, with unclear notability. The article has a few sources, but #1 is SPS, #2-5 source the NGA background (which is a separate topic), and #6-7 seem to focus not directly on IBZL, but on succeeding related topics and applications that may use results from IBZL workshops. Concerns about notability have been raised on the talkpage 2 years ago, but haven't been addressed. Disclaimer: I am no scientist, so this should have a close and thorough look by topic experts. But without additional sources the topic seems to fail WP:GNG. See also the closely related article Triple Task Method, that has been created by the same SPA editor. Google search has a few more hits compared with TTM, but nothing in-depth - and the search is conflated with other IBZL abbrevations. GermanJoe (talk) 19:37, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:58, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:58, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now as I see nothing to suggest better. SwisterTwister talk 05:55, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 23:04, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Free Anonymous Internet Φ[edit]

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

Article doesn't meet WP:GNG -- Kethrus |talk to me 19:31, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the idea of anonymous Internet browsing using the same technology as bitcoins is intriguing, but most of the current sources talk only about further uses for blockchain technology without being explicitly about the subject of this article. There are only two references directly related to this software, both of which are primary. So, as it is, it fails to establish notability per both WP:WEB and WP:GNG. clpo13_(talk) 08:06, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:57, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:57, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now' as I simply found nothing better than some browser links. SwisterTwister talk 06:02, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 23:05, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sajib Kumar Mitra[edit]

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

Fails general notability. Autobiography with zero secondary coverage. Blackguard 19:25, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 00:55, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 00:55, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -No reliable secondary sources, autobiographical, reads like a resume. ABF99 (talk) 02:10, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. First, we are not a resume host. Secondly, the sources are self-created social media and a single doi article on Google scholar. Finally, even if everything was true, the subject is just an ordinary engineer and is far from a well-known researcher. Maybe in a few years. Bearian (talk) 16:26, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:A7, obviously WP:AUTOBIO. --nafSadh did say 14:52, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:55, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there's nothing to suggest better. SwisterTwister talk 06:03, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 23:06, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Triple Task Method[edit]

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

Article about research method solely based on book sources of the two original researchers. Without any 3rd party sources this looks like a self-presentation of this research approach from a possible COI-editor (SPA). Google search revealed no in-depth coverage. Disclaimer: I am no scientist, so this should have a close and thorough look by topic expert. But without additional sources the topic plainly fails WP:GNG (and WP:PROMO). See also the closely related article IBZL in a separate nomination. GermanJoe (talk) 19:23, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I concur with the nomination and note that I couldn't find anything approaching widespread use other than by the two original authors raising WP:NEO and WP:OR concerns. SmartSE (talk) 21:40, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well yes. And I've just added a peacock tag to the article on author Morse's WP article. Tony (talk) 13:27, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:54, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:54, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I suppose although I would explore the chance of mentioning this at Stephen P. Morse's article and the best links I found were some at Books and browser. SwisterTwister talk 06:00, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 23:06, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sonny Ayon[edit]

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

No matches found for "Sonny Ayon" and "Sonny Valens" on Google News and Books. There's a filmography page on NYTimes.com, but all of his credits are minor ones. Even the video song appearance is minor. Fails WP:GNG and WP:ENTERTAINER. Skr15081997 (talk) 16:40, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Skr15081997 (talk) 16:42, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Skr15081997 (talk) 16:43, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Rubbish computer 17:06, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there's simply no better improvement here and IMDb summarizes it well. SwisterTwister talk 06:12, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 17:29, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Luca del Bono[edit]

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

Non-notable hotel manager. References are almost all dead links, aside from one primary source (the subject's purported company website) and two mentions in gossip-type columns that contain the subject's name only once, in articles that only tangentially mention him. Google Trends search[16] turns up "Not enough search volume to show results." Searching for subject mentions, I found only one additional reliable secondary source hit, a fluff piece promoting a new club in a hotel he was managing, in Travel and Leisure Online. I don't believe this rises to any level of notability. Rockypedia (talk) 17:22, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He's an entrepreneur not a "hotel manager." He's interviewed in the Italian business newspaper Il Sole 24 Ore.[17]. There's an article in Italian Vogue[18]. An Evening Standard article includes significant coverage.[19] His newest venture gets him a mention in the New York Times that discusses him.[20] He has a Bloomberg profile page.[21]--Samuel J. Howard (talk) 14:52, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Response: I take issue with calling him an "entrepreneur" - I know that whoever wrote this article called him that, but not one source calls him that. He's ID'd as either a "manager" or "advisor" to hotel management. At best you could make an argument that he's a consultant in the hospitality business. Just my two cents, on that term only. Rockypedia (talk) 17:43, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete ~~or TNT~~ See comment below. There is virtually nothing salvable in the article, although the sources found by Samuel J. Howard give a glimmer of notability. I find no mention of him in the list of "references" -- in fact, some of the links there are so irrelevant that I have no idea what was intended. If someone wants to completely re-do the article, it could be saved. But if it is in its current state at the end of the AfD process, my vote is Delete. LaMona (talk) 16:35, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"I find no mention of him in the list of 'references'" Yeah, he's definitely there if you work through the list of sources. If you're concerned about the state of the article, you should improve it rather than blow it up. --Samuel J. Howard (talk) 20:46, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, as I stated in the initial nomination - he's definitely there in exactly two of the sources - and in both of them, he's mentioned only briefly, and he's not even close to being the subject of the article. Hence the nomination. Rockypedia (talk) 00:02, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps @LaMona: can weigh in again now that its been revised?--Samuel J. Howard (talk) 16:37, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:15, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:15, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:15, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 16:31, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TNT. --Rubbish computer 17:08, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Rubbish computer:Ok, so I'm going to admit that this kind of annoys me. I've cleaned up, sourced and NPOVd the article since it was nominated and you'd still prefer it be TNTd? Note that TNT means you think the subject is notable and is verifiable and you still want to delete the article? So what's the issue you are trying to fix?--Samuel J. Howard (talk) 17:37, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Samuel J. Howard: The complete lack of verifiability in secondary sources. --Rubbish computer 17:46, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thanks for pinging me after changes. Admittedly the article is much improved, but I still find it a stretch to declare notability for this person. He mostly appears in articles about others. This may be a case of too soon, since many of his ventures are new and haven't yet had an impact. I'm changing my !vote to weak delete because I'm still not convinced that he's notable, yet. LaMona (talk) 18:24, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like some of the information cited is tenuous, and this article needs revision, not deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Silvester53 (talk • contribs) 18:58, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Rubbish computer: What do you think about rewriting this article? I am going to research some sources online. Silvester53 (talk) 18:02, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Silvester53: Go for it. --Rubbish computer 19:00, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now and restart later if better as I found nothing better than some links at Books, browser and Highbeam. SwisterTwister talk 06:07, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@SwisterTwister:, there are no links to Books or Highbeam in the sourcing? I'm not sure what you mean by "browser". Did you post this on the right AFD entry?--Samuel J. Howard (talk) 17:26, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they were my own searches and browser is Google browser. SwisterTwister talk 17:35, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Can't see any real notability. Just a relatively young businessman. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:25, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (1) no claim to notability (2) for lack of significant coverage. Fails WP:BLPNOTE. Better than most of the bios that come here, at he has a start on substantive coverage, but only that. --Bejnar (talk) 15:03, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Britt Daniel. (non-admin closure) Yash! 01:52, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Skellington (band)[edit]

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

This is Britt Daniel's first band. Normally I'd redirect there, but the "(band)" disambiguator means its an unlikely search term. A brief mention on the band could be made in Daniel's article (and indeed there is already), but nothing else. We don't have articles on Mable Greer's Toyshop or The Empty Vessels so there would seem to be precedent not to include early bands of musicians who later became notable without independent sourcing. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:47, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I agree ths band would need to independently notable to merit an article, though coverage of the band included in Spoon articles could count. I've considered writing The Dancing Hoods before, but its luckily already covered at Mark_Linkous#Dancing_Hoods. So, even if merged somewhere, I'd rather the content be kept than removed.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 13:28, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 16:44, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:29, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:29, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Britt Daniel where although this is briefly mentioned, there could be a better section and I'm willing or to look into this later. My first searches at News and Books found some links but nothing to suggest better improvement. SwisterTwister talk 21:57, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 16:28, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. Agreed with SwisterTwister: This info would fit well with the Britt Daniel article and it's interesting information that isn't there already, but doesn't necessarily need its own article. Fuzchia (talk) 17:29, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per SisterTwister. --Rubbish computer 18:05, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 23:07, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sunny Channel[edit]

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

Notability not established Action Hero Shoot! 06:49, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 09:38, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 09:38, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete likely if this can't be improved as I found nothing to suggest improvement. SwisterTwister talk 07:49, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 16:17, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 16:26, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above points, little if any indication of notability. --Rubbish computer 18:06, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 23:07, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lawson's Cup[edit]

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

Not notable. Drewziii (talk) 06:39, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 09:37, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 09:37, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 09:37, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Very clearly fails WP:GNG. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 16:53, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 09:48, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 09:49, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 16:16, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 16:26, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above points. --Rubbish computer 18:07, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: In addition to what's been said above, all sources are first-party, and only link to the main sites. Supernerd11 _{Firemind ^_^ Pokedex} 01:16, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 23:08, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sheila Dewey[edit]

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

I can't find sources for most of the big claims in this article or any sources at all for that matter. Article has been practically unsourced since 2006. Brustopher (talk) 16:16, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete although I would be glad to keep if someone can find better sources. I can find a few mentions, and one possible review (London theatre record), but not more. However, if someone in the UK has access to 70's theatre magazines, there might well be more. LaMona (talk) 17:12, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:04, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:04, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 16:25, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete per above points: weak as staying open to possibility of new sources. --Rubbish computer 18:09, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now likely as I found links at Books, News and browser but this can be restarted later if better. SwisterTwister talk 06:16, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 23:08, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

News World@ 11[edit]

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

My searches simply found nothing and much less something to suggest mentioning at MediaCorp Channel U's article, there's simply nothing to suggest keeping this sparsely edited article that has existed since September 2006. SwisterTwister talk 06:13, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:15, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:15, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:15, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Completely unsourced and, even if it were to be sourced, there is no claim to notability. NewYorkActuary (talk) 23:19, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 16:15, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 16:25, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above points. --Rubbish computer 18:08, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 17:31, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Talia Lavin[edit]

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

Only notable for one event, and as such does not appear to meet the notability guidelines. Article is mostly a play-by-play of her Jeopardy! game. Perhaps deserves a mention on the corresponding Celebrity Jeopardy! page, but nothing more. Oneforfortytwo (talk) 15:21, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

*Weak keep - The fact that she was a Fulbright fellow may make her notable. Gparyani (talk) 02:46, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect or simply delete as I watched this as I usually watch Jeopardy! but I'm split if this should be a separate article simply because of an attempt at humor. SwisterTwister talk 06:18, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 16:24, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect per WP:ONEEVENT. --Rubbish computer 18:11, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Modify the article to focus mostly on her background and her winning a Fulbright scholarship, which IMO establishes notability (but some people may say otherwise, but it certainly does establish significance), and whatever else is in the Personal life section, and less so on her Jeopardy event. Gparyani (talk) 16:47, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:1EVENT the rest is just filler, no real coverage otherwise (had it not been for ...) --Bejnar (talk) 02:50, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per WP:1EVENT. Not enough else to show any notability outside that event. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:55, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 23:08, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Faculty of Science and Technology, Aarhus University[edit]

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

Non-notable university faculty. I have doubts about the value of redirects in cases like this. TheLongTone (talk) 14:38, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TNT. It could be notable, especially if the faculty got major awards, but this appears to be little more than a bad translation of their home page in the form of lists. Bearian (talk) 20:30, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Ottawahitech (talk) 11:55, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 16:23, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I found some links at Books and browser but nothing to suggest better at this time. SwisterTwister talk 06:17, 4 October 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. The editors calling for deletion make the powerful argument that independent, reliable sources are lacking. Those opining for "Keep" counter with subjective claims of importance and concerns about systematic bias. Though such claims are tenuous without at least a some sourcing to back them up they cannot be completely discounted and at least a couple of mentions have been adduced. Given the tenor of the discussion, therefor cannot see that a consensus for deletion has been established at the present time. Eluchil404 (talk) 03:17, 8 October 2015 (UTC) [reply]

The Burning Bush[edit]

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

Article PRODded with reason: "Non-notable journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG." DePRODded by article creator with reason "it is the only reformed theological journal in singapore", which does not show notability. PROD reason still stands, hence: Delete. Randykitty (talk) 09:06, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

it is in the Christian periodical index http://cpi.acl.org/cpititles.html

WP:NJournals has the provisions:

"Note that as this is a guideline and not a rule; exceptions may well exist. Some journals may not meet any of these criteria, but may still be notable for the work they have published. It is important to note that it is very difficult to make clear requirements in terms of quality of publications: The criteria, in practice, vary greatly by field. Also, this proposal sets the bar fairly low, which is natural: To a degree, journals are the sources upon which much of Wikipedia's contents are built. It is natural that successful ones should be considered notable."

Considering its worldwide circulation, 20 year history, and 1 of the 2 theological journals in Singapore, out of over a dozen institutions, I'd say it's pretty successful. Further, it contains a ton of historically and ecclesiastically valuable content such as a primer on the doctrine of preservation, festschrifts, memoirs, chronological milestones, legal exchanges (with reference to Singapore Judiciary), and annotated critiques of academics' works in universities and seminaries.

"It is possible for a journal to be notable according to this standard and yet not be an appropriate topic for an article in Wikipedia because of a lack of reliable, independent sources on the subject. Every topic on Wikipedia must be one for which sources exist (see Wikipedia:Verifiability); however, most journals nowadays have home pages which may be used as sources for uncontroversial information. Often, this will be sufficient to create a stub on a particular journal, even in the absence of other sources."

for these reasons, I propose KEEP Bpc.sg (talk) 17:17, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Bpc.sg, in your first point you seem to argue that NJournals is only an essay. That is correct, but if we choose to ignore NJournals and apply WP:GNG instead, then The Burning Bush fails even more. A 20-year history does not necessarily make something notable, if it hasn't been noted in all that time. This seems to be the case here, as GScholar indicates just a few citations to articles in this journal. The "worldwide distribution" is rather modest, I fear. WorldCat indicates that just 5 US libaries list it in their holdings (with a world-wide count of 8 or so). Being one of only 2 theological journals in Singapore is not a valid claim to notability. And whether or not we find the content valuable is besides the point: what we need is that independent reliable sources remark on the content (whether in a positive or a negative way). The second point you quote from NJournals is irrelevant if the journal is not notable (it just says that the journal's homepage can be used as a source for non-controversial info if the journal is notable). --Randykitty (talk) 17:40, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah ok I get your point on the independent reliable sources now. Actually it is very hard to find them because there are no independent historians at the moment. Everything, usually positive contributions, is usually done under the auspices of the church, college or denomination. More often than not, it is only when there are negative remarks that such sources surface. Have added in. Bpc.sg (talk) 02:47, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. To be honest, if I had thought it was notable, I would have created the article myself. I saw it listed as a redlink at List of theology journals, and considered creating it, but I didn't think it would meet the notability threshold. Its publisher, Far Eastern Bible College, certainly does, and I created that article instead. St Anselm (talk) 19:01, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 22:27, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Interesting list there. Perhaps, the publication, given its representation of the college and prodigious output on VPP, could have some "imputed" notability? Bpc.sg (talk) 02:53, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Far Eastern Bible College.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:42, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- This has the feel of a minor (but regionally significant) theological journal. Theology being something of a niche subject cannot be expected to appear in general arts citation indices, which are in any event much less well developed than scientific ones. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:16, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Notable theology journals aqre routinely included in, for example, Scopus of the Arts and Humanities Citation Index. There is also the specialized ATLA Religion Database, which contains many small theology journals and is specialized in this "niche subject". This journal is in none of these databases, not even the ATLA one. --Randykitty (talk) 07:44, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Peterkingiron. This is the most important source for the (admittedly small) field of Asian Calvinism. The essay WP:NJournals says "Data on library holdings need to be interpreted in the light of what can be expected for the specific subject". Now, worldcat only shows 8 holdings, but that does include institutions in the Netherlands and Taiwan, and it's missing Harvest Bible College. St Anselm (talk) 22:24, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WorldCat is notoriously unreliable. But even if we assume that only 1 in 3 libraries is actually correctly listing their holdings of BB, we still have only 24 libraries subscribing worldwide, which is really a negligible number, even for a very specialized subject. There are quite a number of Calvinist theology libraries in the Netherlands, for example. --Randykitty (talk) 07:44, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 16:21, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ -- Independent sources added. Scholarly articles are representative of college and has historical and eccleasiastical value. The journal also contain a wealth of articles relating to the Verbal Plenary Preservation debate. See **http://www.standardbearers.net/uploads/Textual_Criticism_101_Theological_Faith_Based_versus_Naturalistic_Rationalistic_Louis_M_Kole.pdf
- Jeffrey Khoo, "Bob Jones University and the KJV: A Critique of From the Mind of God to the Mind of Man," The Burning Bush 7 (2001): 1-24.
- Timothy Tow, "Death in the Pot!," The Burning Bush 7 (2001): 35-37.
- Jeffrey Khoo, "A Plea for a Perfect Bible," The Burning Bush 9 (2003): 1-15.
- Jeffrey Khoo, "The Emergence of Neo-Fundamentalism: One Bible Only? or "Yea Hath God Said?," The Burning Bush 10 (2004): 2-47.
- Quek Suan Yew, "Judges 18:30: Moses or Manasseh?," The Burning Bush 10 (2004): 48-53.
- Jeffrey Khoo, "John Owen on the Perfect Bible," The Burning Bush 10 (2004): 74-85.
- Prabhudas Koshy, "Did Jesus and the Apostles Rely on the Corrupt Septuagint," The Burning Bush 10 (2004): 93-95.
- Quek Suan Yew, "Did God Promise to Preserve His Words?: Interpreting Psalm 12:6-7," The Burning Bush 10 (2004): 96-98.
- Jeffrey Khoo, "Sola Autographa or Sola Apographa?: A Case for the Present Perfection and Authority of the Holy Scriptures," The Burning Bush 11 (2005): 3-19.
- Timothy Tow, "‘My Glory Will I Not Give to Another’ (Isaiah 42:8)," The Burning Bush 11 (2005): 67-68.
- Carol Lee, "A Child of God Looks at the Doctrine of Verbal Plenary Preservation," The Burning Bush 11 (2005): 69-81.
- Jeffrey Khoo, "Bob Jones University, Neo-Fundamentalism, and Biblical Preservation," The Burning Bush 11 (2005): 82-97. Bpc.sg (talk) 03:06, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm sorry, but I don't see any "independent sources" that you mention above in the article. The list of articles that appeared in BB does not prove anything either. GScholar (which does include even minor theological journals, because it strives to be complete) does not show any evidence that any of these articles have been noted outside of the BB itself. --Randykitty (talk) 07:54, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I had not been aware of this journal until I found a notice that this article was nominated for deletion. I find the journal to be a distinctive and significant voice for a specific theological circle. I have already cited journal in a Wikipedia article and expect to cite the journal again. It is linked to a number of other articles here. I may not agree with all of it, but I think it deserves a place here in Wikipedia. Pete unseth (talk) 22:00, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Would you by any chance have any policy-based reason to keep this article, apart from the fact that you like it? --Randykitty (talk) 07:51, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - File this under the policy of iAR if you wish, but I am loath to delete articles on journals. We are a source-driven website, and if any journal is used as a source there should exist an opportunity to make that title a blue link with at least a minimal explanation of the nature of the journal being cited. Since this publication has, in one form or another, been around since 1971, it is not one of those less defensible promotional pieces for brand new academic journals, but is rather a good faith effort at providing historical coverage. For this reason, I advise we look the other way on sourcing in this specific case for the good of the encyclopedia. Carrite (talk) 12:20, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wile I sympathize with this sentiment, it makes deciding which journals to keep and which ones not a very difficult and subjective one: all one needs to do is create some references here and there on WP and, presto! A notable journal is born. In the present case, I think some of today's edits argue that this is merely the house journal of a (small) seminary. --Randykitty (talk) 15:10, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Peterkingiron, (talk), Pete unseth, and Carrite for your appraisal. I think there is no question on the historical and ecclesiastical value. To build on Carrite's point, I think Wikipedia does allow for subjective appraisal since a given set of "objective" rules cannot be all-encompassing. What Carrite said echoes the expert opinion of professional archivists I've spoken to in real life. Because appraisal is both an art and a science, a checklist, while it is good, can only provide a guideline. It is ultimately up to humans to make the call. I applaud Randykitty's call to stay objective but not everyone is as objective as you are. For example, Calvary Baptist Church in Bucyrus, Ohio [22] chose to link to [23] instead of [24]. The same goes for [25] (p3) (it's reproduced).

[26] does link to them on at least 4 items under on the left navigation menu: Dr Jeffrey Khoo, Divine Inspiration, Divine Preservation, Divine Identification. [27] (p5) is not listed in any citation count. Also, [28], [29] (p349), [30] (p116)

I think this journal is quite influential in the subject area of verbal plenary preservation, given the prodigious output on the topic so much so that it has been criticized. With regards to the articles, topics relating to John Sung, Calvin [31] (from Calvin Seminary!), confessionalism and revivalism in the BPC by third party (http://www.febc.edu.sg/assets/pdfs/bbush/The%20Burning%20Bush%20Vol%203%20No%202.pdf), as well as timelines in http://www.febc.edu.sg/assets/pdfs/bbush/TheBurningBushVol18No2.pdf all have rich historical value to Singapore church history and ecclesiastical importance to Calvinist and reformed circles in the region.

Since under WP:NJournals, only one criteria needs to be met:

The journal is considered by reliable sources to be influential in its subject area.
The journal is frequently cited by other reliable sources.
The journal has an historic purpose or a significant history.

Based on the aforementioned reasons, I would say it pretty much hits 1 and 3: influential in VPP subject, serves a historical purpose to Singapore church history.

Bpc.sg (talk) 17:16, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Bpc.sg, but given there is only a handful of citations and such, I cannot consider this influential and even less historical. It's as wide a miss of NJournals as can be, not to mention GNG. --Randykitty (talk) 17:47, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The policy regarding WP:NJournals mentions being "influential in its subject area". If we use metrics that focus on theology in North America and Europe, it will rank lower. But I believe it is influential and authoritative in documenting a stream of churches and theology in Singapore. I have argued elsewhere for a greater number of articles on non-North American topics. By these, and other criteria, I believe the article on The Burning Bush should be retained. There are not many voices on this page, but the number of people calling for deletion are not overwhelming. I vote to keep it Pete unseth (talk) 19:33, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

NJournals indeed mentions that, but in order for that to apply, we need objective evidence that it is indeed influential, for example by being highly cited (relative to its field). Theoloy is a low citation-density field, but even taking that into account, I don't see any evidence that this has any influence on the field of theology at all, not even in its narrow subject matter. I am all for a greater number of articles on non North American topics, but in order to remain a serious encyclopedia, we need sources and independent evidence. --Randykitty (talk) 06:37, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete would be my recommendation, I would have expected some decent coverage after twenty years. I reject the non-standard approach that the keepers are trying to apply. Yes, there can be exceptions in exceptional cases, I don't see any evidence that this is one of them. --Bejnar (talk) 02:57, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 23:11, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keith Fitchett[edit]

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

Article about a non-notable local councillor, who fails WP:POLITICIAN and WP:BIO. The only sources in the article and which I can find, are from local press sources relating to a local political scandal which he was implicated in, but never convicted of, so this could also be a WP:BLP1E case. The article also mentions that he was a parliamentary election candidate, however, in both cases he was totally unsuccessful. Finishing a distant second in Banbury and third, with 9% in Luton South, neither of which satisfy WP:POLITICIAN and also mean that there is no clear possible redirect target. Valenciano (talk) 15:17, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Under WP:NPOL, Wikipedia accepts members of the citywide London Assembly as being notable, but we do not extend that to members of the individual borough councils — and unsuccessful candidates for election to Parliament are also not eligible for articles on that basis either. Per WP:PERP, further, we do not create articles about people who were accused, but not convicted, of a crime. And finally, the volume of sourcing here just isn't adequate to claim that he passes WP:GNG despite failing several subject-specific inclusion criteria. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 23:45, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Just a local councillor. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:56, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:35, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:21, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I found nothing better than some Books links. SwisterTwister talk 06:22, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 23:11, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of devices supported by CyanogenMod[edit]

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

Completely un-referenced list of un-encyclopedic information. If this list were referenced, the references would likely come from the CyanogenMod project, and all be on their website. That's the more appropriate place for this list, where it can be maintained and kept completely current. A list of compatible devices for any software product doesn't belong on Wikipedia. The list can be distilled to "CyanogenMod is compatible with <number> devices from <number> vendors", given a link to this information back at the project website, and updated every once in a while. Mikeblas (talk) 14:43, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and WP:NOTCATALOG. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:22, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:33, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:33, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:33, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I'm not seeing much of a need for a separate article. SwisterTwister talk 06:19, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is a shame that there are people that want useful information removed from Wikipedia. I do not know how do you expect for people to want to support Wikipedia. The original article is already too big and Wikipedia suggests making a separate article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.44.115.94 (talk) 09:34, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well, first of all, it's not unreferenced. As the template right under the afd notice says, there are refs but it primarily uses a list instead of in-line citations. If you scroll down to the bottom of the page, you see it right there. As the list history shows, these were formatted as a list of refs in advance of this deletion discussion.

As you suggested, the entirely of the refs are from the Cyanogen official site. Logically this would be the only reliable source for this info. This usage of a primary source to provide support for statements of fact would be acceptable and in line with WP:PRIMARYSOURCES. Indeed, even entries in WP:FL (e.g. List of Nintendo 64 games and List of WWE Intercontinental Champions) use official, first party sources as their main line of info.

I had previously removed the notability template because a list of supported devices is necessary information. This point stands. This is not merely a catalog of items. One of defining characteristics of Cyanogenmod is the multitude of devices it supports across versions, so a list of supported devices is essential information. --Jtalledo (talk) 19:15, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per reasons outlined by the nominator and WP:NOTCATALOG. This list is basically a hard-to-maintain mirror of download.cyanogenmod.org without the direct download links. --Dodi 8238 (talk) 19:37, 5 October 2015 (UTC) [edited 19:55, 5 October 2015 (UTC)][reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 23:12, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Love story majhi anni tichi[edit]

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

Unsourced article about a future film. No evidence of WP:GNG notability. - Mr X 14:17, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No layout to article, seems to be fictional. Icematikx (talk) 15:28, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No sources, not notable, not released yet. ABF99 (talk) 01:58, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:25, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:25, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I simply see no better improvement. SwisterTwister talk 06:28, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alts:

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

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

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

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

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

WP:INDAFD: "Love Story Majhi Snni Tichi" "Majid Parvez" "Nilesh Kasbe" "Whispering Souls" "Yatin Karyekar" "Trupti Shinde" "Vikas Patil"

Delete per being (at best) TOO SOON. It was really pretty easy to address the article's format per MOS:FILM, and cast and crew are not imaginary persons, but I have been unable to verify the film. Delete for now, but allow an undeletion when or if we have confirmation of filming and the production gets coverage. Best, Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 07:45, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep as geographic places such as villages are almost always kept so unless this has further issues needing attention, it can be mentioned later but this seems acceptable for now. (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 06:26, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sivasailam[edit]

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

The article has no valid source and no EV Antan O 14:08, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: It is unclear whether this article is meant to be about a village or a temple. It does not establish the notability of either. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 00:34, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep villages are inherently notable per WP:GEOLAND. The simplest Google search shows a map, a postal code, "Sivasailam, Tamil Nadu 627412, India", and more about the village. It exists so passes the threshold, the above folks fail utterly to understand policy here and haven't even bothered to look before they leaped. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:36, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Carlossuarez46 I am aware that, as WP:GEOLAND says, "legally recognized places are typically considered notable". But are we sure this is a legally recognized place? According to this page, the Sivasailam post office is just one of 5 post offices which share the postal code you've mentioned above. Further, it suggests that it is within the legal municipality (Town/Taluk) of Tirunelveli. On the other hand, our article says it is within the Ambasamudram Taluk. I've got no idea whether this page is reliable, but it says it is within Kadayam Taluk. Some other pages say that also.

So could this village fall into the second category of "Populated places without legal recognition"? AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 00:59, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at Tehsil, where Taluk redirects, you'll see that Taluk is an administrative subdivision that contains cities, towns, villages. As would be a county in the United States or a kreis in Germany. That doesn't bear upon whether anything is legally recognized. The fact that the postal service of India determined that a postal code is useable by more than one location, doesn't deny that the postal service (an official organ of the Indian government) recognizes this place as "real" such that mail addressed to it will (presumably) be deliverable. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:31, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Moreover, if you look at the Indian census bureau plugging in the state of Tamil Nadu, the district of Tirunelveli, the subdistrict=taluk of Ambasamudran and hit enter, you'll get a list of the villages recognized by the Indian government for census purposes (similar to US's Census designated places probably). In any event, at unique village code 642940 you find Sivasaailam, undoubtedly the same place with a spelling variation. If we need to move the article to the official English-language spelling (which I gather is transliterated from Hindi, rather than the state language of Tamil) then do so, but in no event delete this real place. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:38, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:07, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Settlements are notable, the census reference in the article checks out and a search for the usual sources for Indian villages confirm its existence. • Gene93k (talk) 03:19, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Now the article has been modified as EV and it seems to me notable work. --Antan O 04:10, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 23:13, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alana Locke[edit]

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

This girl appeared in just 2 films and made 1 minor TV appearance. She hasn't received extensive coverage in multiple, reliable and independent sources. Fails WP:NACTOR. Skr15081997 (talk) 13:49, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Skr15081997 (talk) 13:49, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Skr15081997 (talk) 13:49, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Skr15081997 (talk) 13:49, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There's no reliable independent sourcing at all, which isn't acceptable for a BLP. The small number of small roles listed in the article, and the subject's IMDb page, are very far from WP:NACTOR's "significant roles in multiple notable films". -- Finlay McWalterᚠTalk 13:59, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now as there's almost nothing here and nothing to suggest keeping. SwisterTwister talk 23:45, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment She's not a 'girl.' Please use appropriate language in AfD. Thank you.Megalibrarygirl (talk) 03:03, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm so sorry for the above comment. I made a mistake and spoke wrongly. I did have a different thread in mind when I wrote. Comment struck, carry on.Megalibrarygirl (talk) 12:16, 2 October 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: Better to invest time in other things. (Non-admin closure). §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 04:38, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Singh Is Bliing[edit]

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

Unreleased Bollywood film with no explanation of notability. AfD per WP:FUTURE and WP:NFF samtar ^(msg) 12:11, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. samtar ^(msg) 12:12, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: A nonsense attempt to delete the page. Yet it has significant coverage Derevation^{Give Me Five} 13:25, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Derevation: minor localized coverage is not sufficient per WP:NFF. samtar ^(msg) 14:44, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep – Seriously? It clearly passes WP:NFF. The film is scheduled for release on 2 October 2015; the official trailer was released last month. —Vensatry _(ping) 15:33, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I advise you re-read WP:NFF and explain your reasoning as to how this film passes "Additionally, films that have already begun shooting, but have not yet been publicly released (theatres or video), should generally not have their own articles unless the production itself is notable per the notability guidelines." Thanks! samtar ^(msg) 15:42, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No comment on the outcome of this AFD per se, but it strikes me as requiring an overly pedantic reading of the rules to take a film article to AFD for being a "future release" when its advertised release date is prior to the conclusion of the AFD listing period... Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:52, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Admittedly yes - however if/when it does get released, I strongly doubt it'll become any more notable. samtar ^(msg) 15:58, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, how does uploading a video to YouTube make something notable? Anyone can upload (almost) anything. Please see the guidelines relating to using YouTube videos as references. samtar ^(msg) 15:49, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The guideline says Additionally, films that have already begun shooting, but have not yet been publicly released (theatres or video), should generally not have their own articles unless the production itself is notable per the notability guidelines. In this case, the production is clearly notable. Coming to YouTube, the relevant essay says There are channels for videos uploaded by agencies and organizations generally considered reliable such as that of the Associated Press on YouTube. As for this film, the trailer was uploaded by a channel owned by the production company itself. The prod. house seems to have an article over here (GA). —Vensatry _(ping) 17:53, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —SpacemanSpiff 08:17, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Checking WP:INDAFD: "Singh Is Bliing"

STRONG Keep per meeting applicable inclusion criteria. Filming has begun (finished actually) and production has the coverage to meet WP:NFF (paragraph 3). Even when nominated] the article's sourcing reflected this. Sorry nominator, this was not the best AFD nomination. And nice to invoke WP:CBALL, but that policy does not say we cannot have forward-looking articles, and it instructs that they must be well and properly sourced and avoid unverifiable statements: "All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable, and the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred. It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced." Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 21:02, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

...and @Samtar: just a word of advice... please take a long look at the definition of film production. IF a film's production processes is spoken of in multiple reliable sources, WP:GNG may be seen as met. And please, WP:CBALL does not forbid forward-looking topics and simply cautions editors on how to deal with them. And lastly... as a topic's notability is found through sourcing being available even if not used, NO article ever has to say blatantly say "this topic is notable because". Please study WP:NRV, WP:NEXIST, WP:NOTEWORTHY, and WP:ARTN. Thanks and cheers, Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 00:32, 1 October 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. —SpacemanSpiff 07:09, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sir Shah Sulaiman Hall[edit]

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

A non-notable hostel within Aligarh Muslim University. Can't find anything other than passing mentions, similar to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Indira Gandhi Hall. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 11:17, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 11:20, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 11:20, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 11:20, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails the notability guideline. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 22:41, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It is a historical building built in the colonial era. Arifjwadder (talk) 22:13, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note @Arifjwadder: Claiming it's an historical building is by itself not a valid argument, please see WP:OLDAGE. -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 10:51, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:GEOFEAT. A building is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the bodies which have a vested interest in them. Here the significant coverage by reliable, third-party sources required to establish notability is not present. -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 10:52, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete although this could be mentioned briefly at the university's article. SwisterTwister talk 06:30, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. @Sam Sailor: @SwisterTwister: @Rsrikanth05: have found some sources as of now and cited. Please have a look and help in improve it. Thanks.- Arifjwadder (talk) 08:46, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How many of those are published by AMU and other non-independent publishers? And how many of those left out discuss the building in depth? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 09:41, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

redirect/merge to the main university article, nothing substantial about the building as a building. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:20, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of significant coverage. It fails the building guidelines at WP:GEOFEAT. No need for a redirect, it is mentioned in the Shah Sulaiman article, which one should get to before typing in "Hall". --Bejnar (talk) 03:01, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 23:14, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Chae Soo-bin[edit]

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

Fails WP:NACTOR, largely empty article with a reference to only two appearances. No indication of any notability. Karst (talk) 09:48, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TOOSOON. Bearian (talk) 16:16, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:56, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:56, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Seemingly easy case here and there's no improvement. SwisterTwister talk 06:31, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deleteper - Im live in korea now , but i don't know her and her name, too. Wikipedia is the best widely encyclopedia. so we will filter something out

the more important data than her. Unfortunately she is not correct in wikipedia not yet. Jeje1991 (talk) 13:04, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was : Speedily deleted for a lack of any claim of notability, and as a borderline hoax. The references are completely unrelated, and with misleading descriptions. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 18:17, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Zach Boyle[edit]

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

At best a non-notable MMA fighter but I am calling hoax. The article is a recreation of a PROD for the same issues so a simple Db-hoax wont do. All of the references cited have no bearing on the subject with the fighter specific links being to a different fighter. Normally I would be patient, delete the errors, and give the article a bit of time to show notability but in this case I think the errors are deliberate. Peter Rehse (talk) 09:37, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 09:37, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The "references" are totally unrelated. The subject might be real, but at a level that doesn't come close to meeting WP:N or WP:V. Calamondin12 (talk) 14:32, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as none the links here or from my searches mention him and there's simply nothing to suggest keeping or if this is an actual person (no signs of social media, websites, etc.). SwisterTwister talk 15:39, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 23:14, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kurd State[edit]

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

Violates WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. —Eat me, I'm a red bean (talk · contribs · email) 08:55, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete : No source no fact. Only editor's opinion. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 06:48, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:55, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:55, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:55, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I see no better improvement here. SwisterTwister talk 06:27, 4 October 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 Userfy to User:Tokyogirl79/Money (2016 film).. Randykitty (talk) 17:21, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Money (2016 film)[edit]

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

Article on a yet to be release film, under production. Notability under WP:GNG and WP:FILM may be weak for things that do not exist yet. Has two decent sources that refer to it being under production. Suggest we delete now and wait to see if film gets any coverage once it is actually made. New Media Theorist (talk) 16:29, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's in production, and not a major film. Not notable yet. Can't find the movie (even searching for "Martin Rosete") in The Hollywood Reporter. WP:CRYSTAL applies. John Nagle (talk) 18:32, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(Keep) Do not delete The film is in post-production and was announced exclusively on Variety. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ban003 (talk • contribs) 05:30, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm cleaning the article of any of the promotional fluff. If I can find coverage for this then this might pass NFF if the production has been extensively covered. If not, then I'd suggest userfication. Sorry Ban003, but this is very promotional and given that your contributions have been brought up at the COI and ANI boards, I'm not sure that I can trust you to take care of the article. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:36, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify/Userfy to User:Tokyogirl79/Money (2016 film). My search for sources was actually quite short because the two sources on the article are really the only places where this film has received coverage. It's possible that this could receive coverage in the future and towards that end, I volunteer to take this into my userspace and wait for sourcing. Right now it's just too soon for an entry since the production hasn't really received that much coverage, not enough to warrant an entry per WP:NFF. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:39, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy if Tokyogirl79 wants to take this one on. Otherwise, I'd say Delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:22, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:08, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:08, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alts:

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

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

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

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

Keep per meeting WP:NFF (paragraph 3). Entering post-production means that filming has completed and production has thus moved into editing and audio correction, etc. When that happens and we have supporting coverage in reliable sources, we CAN have an article on a yet-to-release film. Being "major" is not the determinant... coverage IS. Sorry, but when a new stub can certainly be improved, needing work is not a reason to delete.The Dissolve Short Film The Wrap Just Film Variety Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 01:47, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Userfy: do not delete, unless it isn't real, but also not keep, this article is earlier. 333 -blue 10:21, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Userfied as this is an autobiography. Guy (Help!) 08:27, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Mc Kevitt[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)

Non-notable academic -- the list of references shows no indication of secondary sources. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:13, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete per proposer. Might be possible to stubify this autobiography if notability is established. -Roxy the dog™ (Resonate) 07:39, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Subject of article is clearly very green, and unaware of wikipedia policy and process. He has engaged on his Talk page, and I'll try to explain. Have withdrawn my vote. (It appears that I have slightly messed with the formatting of this page. If you are competent, please feel free to correct!) -Roxy the dog™ (Resonate) 14:58, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If this had come through AfC I would have had an embarasse de richesse in sending it back for more editing: large sections are un-referenced; it contains a lot of extraneous information (his former students); it doesn't demonstrate wp:academics; and the creator needs to study wp:rs to know that a LinkedIn page and the subject's own writings are not RS; and reads like a CV, not a WP article. Add to that that one of the authors is the subject himself, and others have admitted to COI here: COI:Paul Mc Kevitt. In terms of notability, he may be marginal -- his work is cited, but I don't see evidence of the kinds of significant awards or illustrious positions that would make that obvious. LaMona (talk) 18:59, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per the nominator as well as being the person who originally nominated this for Speedy Deletion. GamerPro64 01:39, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep:

Notable-academic (Professor Test wp:academics): Subject clearly satisfies the wp:academics Professor Test for notability; the article clearly demonstrates wp:academics under "Criteria" for notability on a number of fronts (conditions) and only one is required (QUOTE: ″Academics/professors meeting any one of the following conditions, as substantiated through reliable sources, are notable″....); in fact, the subject matches MOST of the 9 conditions for notability, not just one; Secondary sources which discuss the subject's academic work as a primary focal topic are included in the list of references such as e.g. the University homepage: http://www.ulster.ac.uk/staff/p.mckevitt.html http://academy.bcs.org/content/distinguished-dissertations-2013 (British Computer Society) (BCS) and recent newspaper article (Irish Times) http://www.irishtimes.com/sponsored/blis-where-imagination-meets-engineering-1.2340485 and University Convocation Executive: http://www.ulster.ac.uk/secretary/secretariat/convocation/convocationmembers.html; more are included under "Interviews"; even more are being added --c.f. a simple Google search on "Paul Mc Kevitt"

Notable-academic (Professor Test wp:academics): A reference link to Google scholar http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=U5bPoGgAAAAJ&hl=en (independent source by Google) has been added showing a list of ~200 peer-reviewed publications in international academic journals, conferences and books with associated citations: Google Scholar Citation indices All Since 2010; Citations 1744 1243; h-index 17 10; i10-index 34 11

Notable-academic (Professor Test wp:academics): More references are being added to ALL sections; the Research work of a Full Professor with his/her Ph.D. students is very relevant (NOT extraneous), particularly in the field of Computer Science; and if you care to look at/study other notable biographies (particularly in Computer Science) you will see that they ALL include research work with former Ph.D. students; how could one possibly be Editor-in-Chief of a key academic journal in the field (Artificial Intelligence Review, Springer) for 12 years (1996-2008) and publish 7 peer-reviewed books with key academic publishers (John Benjamins; Springer) and over 200 peer-reviewed publications in international academic journals, conferences and books and organise the key British (10th Anniversary AISB-1995) and Irish (AICS-97) conferences and 2 workshops at the main USA conference (AAAI-94) and the key international contest (23rd International Loebner Prize Contest, 2013) together with international invited keynote lectures in the field and international education & appointments (Ireland, USA, England, Denmark, France) and research paper, ″Digital image steganography: Survey and analysis of current methods″, ranking as second most downloaded article in the International Journal, ″Signal Processing″ (Elsevier) otherwise; link to LinkedIn page and social network pages are allowed if referring to the subject; --the creators have studied wp:rs and know that a LinkedIn page and the subject's own academic peer-reviewed writings are RS when backed-up with many other RS citations, patents, newspaper articles, press releases, interviews in relation to the subject's work described as a primary focal topic; the vast majority of the 57 Reference citations given in the article conform to wp:rs; how does it read like a CV any more than others' biographies ? --over 200 peer-reviewed academic publications and 3 peer-reviewed patents with RS citations is clearly NOT marginal nor is Google scholar: Citation indices All Since 2010; Citations 1744 1243; h-index 17 10; i10-index 34 11; as for significant awards/illustrious positions, these are also listed on the page:

Whilst at University of Sheffield, Mc Kevitt was awarded one of two 5-year UK EPSRC Advanced Fellowships in Information Technology (1994), the other being awarded to Jon Oberlander at University of Edinburgh, Scotland. The focus of the fellowship was research on integration of natural language, speech and vision processing.

--this is a significant award !

New Mexico State University Centennial Researcher Award (1988); New Mexico Legislature Research Fellowship (1986-1988)

--this are also awards ! Also, this too:

He was awarded (with Dr. Abbas Cheddad, Dr. Kevin Curran & Dr. Joan Condell) the Northern Ireland Science Park (NISP) 25K Awards, Hi-Tech category award (2009) for Steganoflage (SDW digital watermarking), [24] a demo of which can be seen here: Steganoflage

The article and its reliable sources clearly demonstrate the notability of the subject's academic work as well as the subject himself and, more importantly, subject as notable as 100s of Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons already existing in Wikipedia -- Wikipedia must strive for a level playing field and equitability if it is to be considered a fair encyclopedic knowledge representation without prejudice...

REMINDER: Subject clearly satisfies the wp:academics Professor Test for notability; (QUOTE from wp:academics under ″Criteria″ for notability: ″Academics/professors meeting any one of the following conditions, as substantiated through reliable sources, are notable″....); in fact, the subject satisfies MOST of the 9 conditions for notability, not just one !! :)

Paulmckevitt (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:30, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sorry Professor, I just spent a goodly amount of time browsing for sources and looking into the sources that are presented. While there are some reliable sources, these sources do not discuss the subject as a primary focal topic. University statements and releases that don't cover the person as a significant topic are even less an indicator of notability.

There's a lot of, for want of a better word, "stuff" that while academically interesting does not explain why he is notable.

Presenting awards does not make one notable. Simply receiving awards also does not confer notability unless the award is of significant notability that it receives substantial press outside of the field. There is no indicator as to why the awards received are of significance, except within the field of study. Without that sort of indicator, how can we assess notability?

The academic contribution section again doesn't impart notability unless the research has made some impact on the field.

Some looking about for Artificial Intelligence review reveals that the journal impact factor is on average fairly low when compared to, say,the Journal of Artificial Intelligence which has a consistent impact factor. In all, I just can't see how this article and its sources clearly demonstrate the notability of the subject. Blackmane (talk) 03:11, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 09:30, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Felicia (pharmacy)[edit]

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

Delete: small pharmacy chain. Seems like promo/advert. to me. Quis separabit? 15:37, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Moldova-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:52, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:52, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:52, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:52, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:54, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Advertisement.—Eat me, I'm a red bean (talk · contribs · email) 09:48, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I found no better signs of improvement. Pinging past users BeenAroundAWhile and Biruitorul. SwisterTwister talk 06:45, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as I noted at the previous AfD, I really couldn't find evidence of significant coverage in any language, Romanian included. It sounds notable, but our standards are a little higher than that, so unless some substantial coverage emerges, we should delete. - Biruitorul ^Talk 14:18, 4 October 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 00:06, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Allen Johnson (activist)[edit]

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

Not a single one of the references is significantly about him; some, like the first, barely mention him. DGG ( talk ) 05:32, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He is mentioned by several sources in very historically significant events. The first source is when the US Congress honored him. I believe the article is worth having to allow readers to know about his significant life and role in the African American Civil rights movement.--JumpLike23 (talk) 05:40, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I would like to make it known that @ DGG has proposed half a dozen of my articles for deletion (several unsuccessfully) and is attacking my writing as promotional. Please help; this experience with this user is my first very negative experience on wikipedia.--JumpLike23 (talk) 05:43, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is a well written article, with sources. Wayne Jayes (talk) 13:05, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Reliable sources are included that prove this person notable in the Civil Rights movement. Other sources such as this one can also be found with a quick search of Google Books. ABF99 (talk) 13:30, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mississippi-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Excellent, sourced article on a lesser-known black civil rights activist. Passes GNG from sources showing. Preservation and digitization of Mississippi newspapers is notoriously bad, by the way, I have no doubt that sources showing are not exhaustive... Carrite (talk) 12:44, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
'Comment Having a member of congress read some remarks into the Congressional Record, is not a honor that shows notability, but a purely trivial compliment to a constituent. "Mentions" by significant sources or elsewhere are not references providing substantial coverage. The Google books source listed above is an excellent example of such a mention, where he is specified as being a friend of someone actually famous. Hosted a conference where notable people attended, all of which are listed and linked, is linkspam. That's not exactly promotionalism , and I didn ot usethe word here, but it is certainly a promotional technique. I do not consider it a good idea to make articles on such weak foundations. I of course recognize the difficulties of finding criteria for activists--essentially one needs, just as the GNG says, a significant work about them, and that is fairly uncommon. I I recognize the good fiath in making the article, and the importance of covering this area, but I do not agree with making an article on the basis of someone we would like to consider notable. DGG ( talk ) 13:19, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

calling him a friend of others based on the sources is inaccurate. He was a leader in the civil rights movement and that is clear based on the sources.--JumpLike23 (talk) 15:01, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - From the sources listed and others available online, Johnson appears to be notable not for who he was friends with, but for what he actually did during the Civil rights movement, which included: organizing political campaigns, relief programs, and marches. and speaking out after receiving beatings for his activism. The KKK bombing of the parsonage where his family slept received national coverage in several newspapers at that time, as found here here, here, here and here, which supports WP:GNG. Here there is quite a bit of information with citations on what effect the bombing had on both Johnson and the Civil Rights movement, which included a march and resolution, as well as more detailed information on Johnson himself. Although i agree that Johnson did not achieve the level of notability of many of the other people mentioned here, when taken together, the sources for him are not trivial and provide enough justification and detail for a Wiki article. ABF99 (talk) 15:41, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment wow, that is excellent research. Thank you, @ABF99. IF you feel comfortable adding those sources to the article, please do. If not, I will do it soon. Thanks again. --JumpLike23 (talk) 03:32, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 23:18, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

LearnDiscovery – mindmap of Wikipedia (software)[edit]

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

No coverage whatsoever can be found in reliable sources. GNG is clearly not met and the sources present in the article (none of which are reliable) don't even mention LearnDiscovery itself. Satellizer (´ ･ ω ･ `) 04:11, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Satellizer (´ ･ ω ･ `) 04:12, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Only one independent hit that is in a language I can't read [32], and that it is not in the title it is probably too passing a mention to matter the notability. 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 04:37, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Don't Delete Tried to checked with "LearnDiscovery" or "Learn Discovery". Found results in English.

Google: web: ^[1] - images

^[2].

Also one word (no white space) bring pertinent results ^[3]

Bing: ^[4] or ^[5]

Found videos with ^[6]

However the word "software" can be misleading: the item is a mobile app.

Googling with keyword "software" does not lead to matching results, while with the keyword "app" it does.

About source not mentioning LearnDiscovery itself: edited article with app producer.

Article is modeled with "Discovr" article as mockup.

References

Gg4u (talk) 12:52, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

None of the pages you linked to are reliable sources. Satellizer (´ ･ ω ･ `) 01:37, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Pretty well junk from obvious COI. Pinkbeast (talk) 15:02, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I don't see any reliable source coverage to meet the WP:GNG. Article seems promotional in nature and was written by someone whose vast majority of edits are to this article as well... Sergecross73 msg me 14:23, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 23:18, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wedholms AB[edit]

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

Swedish manufacturer of milk cooling tanks - probably a non-notable specialized company (SPA-created article). No independent sources (in en-Wiki and sv-Wiki), and Google-search revealed only a few passing mentions and catalogue entries. A fish restaurant named "Wedholms Fisk" and a person with the same name are taking up a lot of the Google hits. GermanJoe (talk) 20:57, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now unless it can be actually be improved as I found nothing better than listings at Books and it would seem likely notable given its age but this will need familiar attention. SwisterTwister talk 06:21, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:21, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:21, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:21, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:40, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:15, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - searches turned up nothing to show it meets either WP:GNG or WP:NCORP. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:26, 5 October 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. Consensus herein is that this software presently does not meet notability guidelines to qualify for an article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:30, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Concerto Projects[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Article about a product, created by an WP:SPA, with typical characteristics of a product promotion article (a lead followed by a list of features and "recognition"). Insufficient sources to satisfy WP:GNG. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:27, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is specialized software solution created for use in the United Kingdom as an asset management and ticketing system used by many local government agencies and educational institutions. As this is used by many government agencies in the UK and elsewhere It is important to keep material such as this so that the public can research and be informed on the software and services their money helps pay for. As such I respectfully disagree with Rhododendrites and feel that upon rereading WP:GNG that this article meets the 5 requirements. Andrdema (talk) 07:47, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:27, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:27, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:11, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No search returns on Highbeam, Questia, Google Books or The Guardian where I might have expected to find something on UK public sector software. (Note there are some false positives for an EU funding programme of the same name.) I recognise User:Andrdema's argument above, and have considered the same in the past for pages on EU funding projects (coincidentally). However I don't think a potential for spend-checking function is sufficient; this article really needs more than the given references and currently fails WP:NSOFT, WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 06:17, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now likely and restart if and when better as I found nothing to suggest better sourcing and improvement. SwisterTwister talk 06:37, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. My searches turned up nothing which would have this meet the notability requirements. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:23, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 02:52, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

James DuMont[edit]

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

Delete: as non-notable actor. Quis separabit? 17:58, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:47, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:47, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now as although he's certainly accumulated roles, they're aren't any outstanding and break-through ones and the one award IMDb lists is a Shriekfest and seems non-significant. SwisterTwister talk 06:48, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles (talk) 22:05, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:10, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom & SwisterTwister - I can't find anything either, Fails NACTOR & GNG, –Davey2010^Talk 00:08, 5 October 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. Courcelles (talk) 23:20, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Thomas (motivational speaker)[edit]

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

promotional article on a motivational speaker.There is no notability here in the first place--the references are almost entirely local. There are no publications or other accomplishments.The promotional element is seen most clear in the section on quotes; what has this individual said or done so important that an encycopedia should include them? DGG ( talk ) 02:22, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 03:47, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep clearly meets qualification for inclusion based on the sources.--JumpLike23 (talk) 05:32, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I would like to make it known that @ DGG has proposed half a dozen of my articles for deletion (several unsuccessfully) and is attacking my writing as promotional. Please help; this experience with this user is my first very negative experience on wikipedia.--JumpLike23 (talk) 05:43, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

see the coi noticeboard at [33] Not that all of these are necessarily coi, but I can;t find a better place, and they all have similar problems. I'd use the BLPN, except they are not all bios. DGG ( talk ) 05:51, 28 September 2015 (UTC).[reply]

If Wikipedia was only about reporting "almost entirely global" information, that would probably save 90% of disc space ;). Motivation is nothing local. That's something that need to be shared across cultures, continents.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:02, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:02, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:02, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for clear reasons given by DGG. Promotional puffery. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:30, 2 October 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Keep - Easily passes GNG based on he sources already showing in the footnotes, including a feature article on mlive.com, which is the website of a group of very, very mainstream Michigan newspapers. If here is puffery in the tone, that is an editing matter — but this is a very, very clear keep under our General Notability Guideline, which calls for multiple examples of substantial coverage in independently published sources of presumed reliability. We see these here. Carrite (talk) 12:38, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now I suppose as although the article could be better, I found links at Books, News, browser and Highbeam the current article at least seems acceptable for now. SwisterTwister talk 06:50, 4 October 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. Np prejudice against recreation if the references demonstrating notability has been found. Even links in Georgian are fine, provided they are reliable and demonstrate notability.--Ymblanter (talk) 02:50, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nestan Bagration-Davitashvili[edit]

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

Fails Google test. Has {{notability}} tag. I dream of horses (T) @ 01:45, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (T) @ 01:45, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (T) @ 01:46, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not meet any of the notability criteria under WP:MUSICBIO. NewYorkActuary (talk) 20:45, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I simply see no signs of better improvement and it's worth mentioning User:Nestan Bagration-Davitashvili also exists. Pinging tagger Ita140188. SwisterTwister talk 06:46, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I agree with NewYorkActuary. --Ita140188 (talk) 00:21, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn and no outstanding delete votes Non-Admin Closure. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 12:58, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wild Field[edit]

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

Unreferenced article about a Russian film which does not seem to meet WP:GNG or WP:MOVIE. My searches bring up zero reliable hits. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 00:39, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 00:40, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 00:40, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, a major award-winning film from the great Lutsik-Samoryadov tandem. It has been reviewed by every major Russian-language media outlet. --Ghirla^-трёп- 07:19, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Keep award-winning Russian language film. Lacking sources when nominated is a reason to look and add them (even if non-English) (thanks for doing so Oakshade), not delete simply because they were lacking. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 07:33, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad you read my rationale through, as I had said I couldn't find any reliable sources, which means I did look. As I see others had better luck and this article now meets all inclusion criterias I WITHDRAW the nomination and will close this as such if not done by the time I get to an actual computer.- McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 12:18, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] ttps://www.google.com/search?q=%22learn%20discovery%22&oq=%22learn%20discovery%22

[2] ttps://www.google.com/search?q=%22learn+discovery+wikipedia%22&num=100&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=

[3] ttps://www.google.com/search?num=100&espv=2&q=learndiscovery

[4] ttp://www.bing.com/search?q=learn+discovery

[5] ttp://www.bing.com/search?q=learndiscovery

[6] ttps://www.google.com/search?q=LearnDiscovery+%E2%80%93+mindmap+of+Wikipedia+(software)&num=100&biw=1151&bih=588&tbm=vid&source=lnms&sa=X&ved=

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]