The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Biblio worm 16:35, 9 November 2015 (UTC) reply

David Hacker (sculptor)

David Hacker (sculptor) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

BLP with sourcing issues - unsourced sections, can't easily verify and due to a removed prod without a given reason, just because this needs eyeballs. Widefox; talk 23:09, 2 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. Human3015 ^TALK  23:36, 2 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Human3015 ^TALK  23:36, 2 November 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete I prodded this with the reason "Fails WP:ARTIST." I also suspect autobio or a least a close COI. I've looked again and stand by my prod. He's got a few works in a couple galleries: [1], [2], he did indeed curate an exhibition in 1986 with passing mentions in the New York Times and New York magazine: [3], [4], NYT, New York, and a bizarre passing mention in the National Enquirer [5]. Even with the things mentioned in the article (many of the links are currently broken), none of this adds up to meeting notability for a biography which needs multiple independent reliable third party sources. Valfontis ( talk) 16:36, 3 November 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete. no evidence of works in permanent collection of major museum or evidence of substantial critical work on the artist. DGG ( talk ) 09:44, 5 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:33, 5 November 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete - Searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage to show it doesn't pass WP:GNG, and they don't appear to meet WP:NARTIST, as pointed out by DGG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:55, 9 November 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Biblio worm 16:35, 9 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Luke McGee (footballer)

Luke McGee (footballer) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

(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 an IP without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik ( talk) 22:58, 2 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik ( talk) 22:58, 2 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Human3015 ^TALK  23:37, 2 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Human3015 ^TALK  23:37, 2 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Human3015 ^TALK  23:37, 2 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Human3015 ^TALK  23:37, 2 November 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete - Fails 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. A case of WP:TOOSOON at best. Fenix down ( talk) 09:05, 3 November 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete - Has not played in a WP:FPL (the 2015 MLS All-Star Game doesn't count as an FPL match), thus fails WP:NFOOTY. Not enough significant coverage to meet WP:GNG. This is a bit WP:TOOSOON. —  Jkudlick  ^t c _s 12:10, 3 November 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete as WP:TOOSOON and failing WP:NFOOTY per above. clpo13_{( talk)} 16:48, 3 November 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 18:10, 3 November 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Biblio worm 16:36, 9 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Rebaz Abdulla

Rebaz Abdulla (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

(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 an IP without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik ( talk) 22:56, 2 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik ( talk) 22:56, 2 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Human3015 ^TALK  23:37, 2 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Human3015 ^TALK  23:37, 2 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. Human3015 ^TALK  23:38, 2 November 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete - Fails 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) 09:04, 3 November 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete Fails NFOOTY and GNG. —  Jkudlick  ^t c _s 12:03, 3 November 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete fails WP:NFOOTY per nom. clpo13_{( talk)} 16:43, 3 November 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 18:10, 3 November 2015 (UTC) reply
• Comment - I note that the article was deprodded by an IP user subsequently rangeblocked at ANI due to serial vexatious deprodding. —  Jkudlick  ^t c _s 09:00, 6 November 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. I'm afraid being a class project (if that's the case) is not a sufficient reason for an article to be kept. There has been no work done on the article since nomination to suggest improvements is being attempted. Having said that, if this is indeed work done for a class, I'm willing to userfy it by request later if needed. KTC ( talk) 12:22, 10 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Peter Kuttner

Peter Kuttner (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Does not appear to have the sourcing to meet either WP:GNG or WP:CREATIVE. John from Idegon ( talk) 22:42, 2 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Human3015 ^TALK  23:40, 2 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Human3015 ^TALK  23:40, 2 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Human3015 ^TALK  23:40, 2 November 2015 (UTC) reply

• Speedy Delete - not even close to meeting WP:CREATIVE, and searches turned up virtually nothing on this person with that name (there was more coverage for an artist and an architect with the same name). Books had some trivial mentions, but he clearly does not pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:31, 3 November 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete as I simply see nothing better. SwisterTwister talk 02:20, 3 November 2015 (UTC) reply

• Keep: I think this is being worked on as part of a class project, let's look at the contributors and offer them a hand; there may be more to this than meets the eye. Montanabw ^(talk) 04:26, 3 November 2015 (UTC) reply

• Snow delete. Not even close to WP:GNG or WP:CREATIVE. By the way, here is his IMDB listing: [6]. Softlavender ( talk) 05:25, 3 November 2015 (UTC) reply
• Comment I find a lot of material on a Boston architect by the same name who is not the subject and some passing mentions relating to films which may be the subject. The detail in the article tends to indicate there may be some offline sources. I would like to see the titles of the cites which are simply to ProQuest search. If this is being used as a school project it would be nest to first ask the author on the talk page to list their sources. If they do not post some then I say delete. Jbh ^Talk 14:17, 3 November 2015 (UTC) ce Jbh ^Talk 18:13, 3 November 2015 (UTC) reply

• Keep for limited time only This article seems to be 1 involved in a class project. 146.200.163.2 ( talk) 17:32, 3 November 2015 (UTC) reply
• Neutral, leaning delete I'm not sure this will meet the GNG. There are a few sources out there not cited in the article, but I'm not sure how reliable they are (e.g. an interview in a newsletter which is somehow indexed in google scholar). However I'm a bit disheartened at the calls to speedily delete something made in good faith w/ an attempt at sourcing. Adam (Wiki Ed) ( talk) 17:58, 3 November 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete, with a caveat. I don't see and can't find the sourcing needed to make this pass WP:GNG or WP:CREATIVE, and the fact that it looks like a class project doesn't automatically give it a free pass. Nonetheless, while my efforts to find WP:RS were fruitless, there is the off-chance that the collaborative effort of this class might find other sources, so I wouldn't object to seeing this moved to the Draft namespace for the time being. -- Kinu  ^t/ _c 18:12, 3 November 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete Being an assistant camera technician in a bunch of films does not quite satisfy WP:GNG criteria. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:22, 3 November 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete While he has been involved in many films 'Assistant Camera Operator' and his other roles in the productions are not significant. I can find nothing of significance on this person and the author has provided no indication of offline sources. Jbh ^Talk 12:32, 4 November 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was redirect to Villain#Sympathetic villain. KTC ( talk) 12:24, 10 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Antivillain

Antivillain (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Appears to be a non-notable neologism. The book cited is a thesis, not a normal published book. I see occasional uses of the word "antivillain" but no literature about what it means. The search "antihero is" OR "anti-hero is" gets >9,000 hits in Google Books; the search "antivillain is" OR "anti-villain is" gets 33. Another article on the same topic (different content) was deleted in 2008 for essentially the same reason. This was recently discussed (but without discussion of possible sources) at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2015_October_17#Antivillain. Calliopejen1 ( talk) 22:12, 2 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Human3015 ^TALK  23:41, 2 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Human3015 ^TALK  23:41, 2 November 2015 (UTC) reply

• Comment There also appears to have been a 2007 deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anti-villain (not sure how to add it to the box on the right). Calliopejen1 ( talk) 15:16, 3 November 2015 (UTC) reply

I added that one to the list of past discussions. Calathan ( talk) 18:46, 3 November 2015 (UTC) reply

• Redirect to Villain#Sympathetic villain. I commented on the source used here during the RfD. The reason why I said it's probably not reliable is because it's someone's M.A. thesis. WP:SCHOLARSHIP says: Masters dissertations and theses are considered reliable only if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence. I originally advocated a redirect to antihero, but now I think maybe Villain#Sympathetic villain is a better choice. I think "antivillain" is mostly a TV Tropes neologism, and while I think it's a legitimate concept, reliable sources are lagging behind my trailblazing opinions. There are many sources for discussions of sympathetic villains, such as [7] (requires JSTOR subscription to read), but there just isn't enough for an article on antivillains. It does get used occasionally in reliable sources: this article from The Philadelphia Inquirer, this article from Philadelphia Weekly, and this article from Collider.com. However, this is not enough to pass WP:NEO. NinjaRobotPirate ( talk) 21:08, 5 November 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Just a note about that JSTOR source I mentioned above: it's basically a passing mention about the use of sympathetic villains in popular culture. I forgot to say this. I brought it up as an example of how the underlying concept is discussed in academic papers, not as any kind of proof of notability of anything. I wanted to make that clear, since it's not freely accessible. NinjaRobotPirate ( talk) 22:39, 7 November 2015 (UTC) reply
• Redirect to Villain#Sympathetic villain, as per NinjaRobotPirate's excellent analysis. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:57, 9 November 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was speedy deleted by Jimfbleak. G11 ( non-admin closure) shoy ( reactions) 15:31, 3 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Partners for a Green Hill

Partners for a Green Hill (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Questionably notable and improvable as the best I found was this and this and with no signs of better improvement and a move target, there's nothing to suggest keeping this as it hasn't changed much since October 2008. Pinging past users Geo Swan and Ground Zero, environmentalist Velella and lastly also DGG and Bearcat who may want to comment. SwisterTwister talk 22:09, 2 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 22:10, 2 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 22:10, 2 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 22:10, 2 November 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was speedy deleted by Iridescent. A7 ( non-admin closure) shoy ( reactions) 15:32, 3 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Faik Al-Aboudi

Faik Al-Aboudi (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Quite questionably notable as there's hardly much here with my best search links only this so unless there's some archived coverage I'm missing, there's not much salvageable for this article from May 2009. Pinging Vrac (nos encontramos otra ves ) and Wikimandia who may be able to help search and lastly DGG who may want to comment. SwisterTwister talk 22:09, 2 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 22:10, 2 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 22:10, 2 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 22:10, 2 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 22:10, 2 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Comment I think this is a clear A7. Rather than use speedy delete myself, I'm listing it to see if another admin agrees. DGG ( talk ) 00:53, 3 November 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. Given the unanimous "keep" !votes, there doesn't appear to be much use in keeping this open any longer and I withdraw the nomination. Randykitty ( talk) 17:20, 5 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Research School for Socio-Economic and Natural Sciences of the Environment

Research School for Socio-Economic and Natural Sciences of the Environment (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Coatrack article to promote studies showing that Nova Publishers are a top publisher. Not a single one of the references is actually about this "research school". Randykitty ( talk) 22:08, 2 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Randykitty ( talk) 22:38, 2 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Human3015 ^TALK  23:43, 2 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Human3015 ^TALK  23:43, 2 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Human3015 ^TALK  23:43, 2 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Human3015 ^TALK  23:44, 2 November 2015 (UTC) reply

• Keep, obviously. This is a valid, significant joint program providing Ph.D. education in the Netherlands. Secondary schools world-wide are recogized as Wikipedia-notable. It was (and I presume is) an accredited program, per this accreditation re-application document, which provides much detail useful for developing the article. The accusation in the nomination, that this article is somehow a "coatrack" to support recognition of Nova Publishers as a top publisher, is not supported by the article, which does not mention Nova. To the nominator, could you please explain how you derived your opinion that way?

But I will surmise that somewhere else there is a battle about Nova Publishing, and the ranking here is cited as support for Nova being a good publisher. That would be perfectly valid support, although it is not relevant for evaluating the Wikipedia notability of this higher education program.

The current version of the article does have a relatively long passage about a quality rating system for evaluating academic book publishers which the school supports, which is probably intended for use in evaluating academics for hiring, tenure and promotion decisions in the multiple programs participating in SENSE. That is an entirely appropriate endeavor of a research school, to make such a list, but like other such rating systems used in evaluating publications of academics for tenure and promotion decisions, it is not the purpose of the school per se. By the way there is a quite large literature on Journal ranking and Impact factors and so on about academic journals; it is often relevant to say what any respected institution officially recognizes about journals and also about book publishers. This version of a rating system about academic books is perhaps more significant, as a joint, nation-wide consortium's opinion, than the published ratings of any one school. It would be okay for an article about any one of the higher ranked publishers to cite this SENSE rating as documentation that the consortium of Dutch environmental research departments rates the publisher highly.

However, that passage does not detract from the validity of this article article, which is pretty much a stub otherwise, but which is obviously valid as an article, being about a higher education entity. I look forward to the nominator explaining their view and I could change my opinion about the following. But as of now this AFD smacks of the same kind of nefarious thing that the nomination asserts about the article; it appears that the AFD is an attempt to influence something else somewhere else, and is not about the explicit topic. -- do ncr am 01:06, 3 November 2015 (UTC) reply

• Comment: this is not an ordinary secondary school as you think. Dutch "research schools" are more comparable to " graduate schools" in the US, for which we usually do not create articles separate from the particular institution to which the school belongs. The one thing particular to the Dutch system is that often several institutions collaborate in one of these grad schools. Also, these schools are not necessarily enduring: after some time has elapsed, it may be closed and replaced by another entity. This can be done easily, because in contrast to an ordinary school, this is not a physical entity (even though the institutions participating in it are physical entities themselves). Also note that, in contrast to what is suggested by the article, these schools are not consortia of whole universities. Rather, fromp each participating institution, just one or a few research groups/departments participate in such a "research school" (Dutch: "onderzoeksschool"). (BTW, I think that puts the book ranking issue in quite a different light, too). So I could see a separate article on the Dutch concept of "research school", but I don't think that we should create articles on each and every one of these "schools", just was we don't do this for grad schools in the US. Hope this doesn't sound too muddled... As for the Nova connection, Andyjsmith has removed the coatrack part, so I'll let that rest for the moment. As the article currently stands, there are hardly any sources, which is rather what I would expect, given the foregoing. -- Randykitty ( talk) 14:54, 3 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Okay, thank you for explaining. I agree about this being a joint venture of departments, not whole universities, which could be clarified in the article. And I have heard that courses for European Ph.D. education programs are loosely cobbled together, in order to offer courses for students spanning across schools from different countries, because their schools are smaller than large U.S. universities which can offer multiple Ph.D. courses. So [at least in one case that I know about] students literally fly in from other countries to attend a class or a few days of classes, then return home, and come back again for the next class session. The Netherlands is a small area and I speculate that students could commute in easily from anywhere in the Netherlands to a Ph.D. course offered in Amsterdam. Perhaps an important difference for this one, vs. other Dutch or pan-European joint ventures, is that this program is formal and accredited. It was accredited for 1997-2001 initially, then reaccredited for 2002-2006, then applied for reaccreditation for another period from 2008 to 2012 or 2013, which it apparently received. This makes it a major formal endeavor and appears not temporary at all. And covering it does not fit within just one university's article like how U.S. Ph.D or masters programs can be covered. About number of sources, I don't perceive that there are a lot of sources used in covering any U.S. graduate program either, even for ones that in fact are of pretty major importance, we just don't cover them much AFAIK. (I don't think we have anything like "List of Ph.D. programs" or "List of environmental sciences graduate programs" type articles.) We often/usually do not create sections about graduate programs within university articles and thus they are not incubated and eventually split out to separate articles. Here, there is no one university article to serve as host for a section that could eventually be split out; it is proper to open it as a separate stub. -- do ncr am 16:37, 3 November 2015 (UTC) reply

• All these programs have to be accredited, otherwise they cannot hand out PhD degrees. Each university will be part of several of these grad schools. Grad schools are hardly ever a section in university articles, at best they're just mentioned. There are some international programs, but they are few and usually located in border regions. I don't think any students fly in for a "few days". Some schools/universities/institutes organize a summer course which can be attended by students from all over Europe, but those are generally a couple of weeks, so flying in is economic (but that is not really relevant here). Schools like SENSE are temporary in the sense that their funding depends on performance (i.e., number of grad students trained successfully within a certain limited time period) and renewal of funding is anything but automatic. Should funding not be renewed, the school is not continued (I'm not using the word "closed" deliberately, as this is not a physical entity). There is something weird about the accrediting, but as they don't have a Dutch version of their website, I cannot see whether this is due to an incorrect translation or something else. ("Accrediting" is done at the institutional level and not by the KNAW but by the Education Ministry). -- Randykitty ( talk) 16:55, 3 November 2015 (UTC) reply

• Keep - although there's nothing obvious about it and I note the somewhat checkered history of doncram's interventions. I've taken a knife to the article - one section is a probably copyvio and the other is incoherent, largely irrelevant and a clumsy coatrack attempt (both sections added by doncram, btw). If this material is restored my !vote changes to Delete. Have a nice day. Andyjsmith ( talk) 10:41, 3 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Huh? I think the school / joint program is a large-size Ph.D. program which is obviously to be kept as a Wikipedia topic, as it is much higher level and larger in scope than tiny, obscure high schools that we routinely cover.

Andysmith is incorrect in believing that I was the one who contributed the material about SENSE's rating scheme for academic book publishers, the material that the nominator finds controversial. I commented above about it but it was not mine. I tried to be clear before that it is not the purpose of a school to do rankings like that. It does somewhat appear from the sources that the publication of its ranking is unusual and useful, but the material is not about the school per se. And is best used somewhere else in articles about journal ranking and academic book ranking, and I do not object to it being removed from here. I do now see over at Talk:Nova Science Publishing that the SENSE ranking was indeed used (perhaps over-used) by one or more persons in arguing about the quality of that publisher. I agree with editor DGG there that "It is not a general rating scheme for publications, but a rating scheme for publications to the extent relevant to the Dutch Research School for Socio-Economic and Natural Sciences of the Environment-- that is, in one particular (but fairly wide) subject area." Simply it is not very important, it is one school's ranking scheme devised for its own purposes which happens to be published and seized upon by others. It is fine for editors over there to argue about Nova; it is not relevant to this article about SENSE.

I restored two inline references that I had added but Andyjsmith removed. About one, yes the website is included as an external link but it was the specific source about the fact of accreditation so the inline reference is appropriate. About the second, apparently Andyjsmith did not see that the 600 phD student count was sourced from it.

Also I just restored, but moved and revised, a couple sentences based on the second source about use of Ph.D. students in a crowd-sourcing effort. It is factual and I find it interesting and I think it is unusual, worth mentioning. It could only happen because of the scale of the program, because most Ph.D. programs have only a handful of students. I believe that is one of two passages that Andyjsmith states is a "coatrack" and a deal-breaker for him somehow. I fail to see how addition of an interesting factoid like that makes someone think an article must be deleted, but a closer could choose to interpret Andyjsmith's view as a Delete vote per his instructions. It is not a "coatrack" about anything, anyhow...it does not support adding any material anywhere else in Wikipedia which is what a "coatrack" would do.

I also re-removed the "third-party" tag, as I do not see a single assertion in the article that is questionable [at least now after the ranking passage was removed], and it is fine to use an organization's website to support basics like whether the program is accredited or not. If someone else wants to argue that sources used are biased somehow and that an outside source is needed to support something, I won't remove it again without discussion on the Talk page, but I hope you will please explain which assertion you think needs more support. -- do ncr am 15:18, 3 November 2015 (UTC) reply

• Keep. per Randkitty and doncram, who explain it in detail. Its a European pattern to have these cooperative doctoral programs, especially in smaller countries, which can be very extensive and very important. I agree we should not automatically have every one of them as a matter of course, but this is an example of the ones we should definitely have. 6000 PhD students is a very major educational institution by any standards, there's no way of covering this otherwise, for there is no plausible merge or redirect. Their rating of book publishers was coatrack, and was properly removed--its inclusion was part of a campaign to justify a particular rather low quality publisher as being important by the very strained application of bibliometric data outside their area of validity, but it has been removed. DGG ( talk ) 09:59, 5 November 2015 (UTC) reply
• Keep. Article needs further development and improved use of reliable, third-party sources, but is worth keeping in my opinion. Thanks, DA Sonnenfeld ( talk) 17:10, 5 November 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was speedy deleted by Jimfbleak. A7 ( non-admin closure) shoy ( reactions) 15:33, 3 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Sammy Keogh

Sammy Keogh (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable blogger. Oscarthecat ( talk) 22:05, 2 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Human3015 ^TALK  00:00, 3 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. Human3015 ^TALK  00:00, 3 November 2015 (UTC) reply

• Tagged as A7 as this clearly has no better signs of better improvement. SwisterTwister talk 06:45, 3 November 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Biblio worm 16:41, 9 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Organizational Healing

Organizational Healing (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Possible original research. Lack of sources. Oscarthecat ( talk) 21:57, 2 November 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete: Agreed. Without references, how can facts be verified or notability be established? ubiquity ( talk) 22:55, 2 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Human3015 ^TALK  23:51, 2 November 2015 (UTC) reply

• Speedy Delete: Meets A7 in my view. No indication of importance. It is also unsourced. Drchriswilliams ( talk) 09:10, 3 November 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete - clearly a term, but per WP:NOTDICT, doesn't belong here. And the assertion of who coined the term is completely unsourced. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:08, 9 November 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Biblio worm 16:42, 9 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Charis Katakis

Charis Katakis (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

BLP fails WP:GNG. Don't know if this resume style article meets WP:PROF but eyeballs needed to assess. Widefox; talk 21:17, 2 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Human3015 ^TALK  00:12, 3 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Human3015 ^TALK  00:12, 3 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Human3015 ^TALK  00:12, 3 November 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete for now as I simply found no better improvement aside from a few Scholar links. Pinging interested subject users Doc James, Drchriswilliams, Casliber, DGG and Anthony Bradbury. SwisterTwister talk 06:48, 3 November 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete. no evidence of notability as scholar or as writer or a therapist. DGG ( talk ) 06:59, 3 November 2015 (UTC) reply
• Would need sources to show notability. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 07:16, 3 November 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete There is no evidence within the article of significant notability, and as all of the references are self-published living persons biography policy is breached.-- Anthony Bradbury ^"talk" 10:56, 3 November 2015 (UTC) reply

I found an article in a peer-reviewed journal from 2008 that provides some verification about the various board roles that she had: Softas-Nall, Lia (January 2008). "A View of Systemic Therapy in Greece: An Interview With Charis Katakis". The Family Journal. 16 (1): 87−91. doi: 10.1177/1066480707309125. I have also tried to tidy up the article where I can- some of the text was quite muddled. Without further sources it may be difficult to make progress towards establishing notability. Drchriswilliams ( talk) 11:20, 5 November 2015 (UTC) reply

BLP where the best source is an interview so not fully independent. Underscores borderline N/ WP:TOOSOON. Thnx all for checking sources. Widefox; talk 12:24, 6 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — David Eppstein ( talk) 07:25, 9 November 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton |  ^Talk 03:37, 14 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Sherry Wolf (activist)

Sherry Wolf (activist) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Page about a political activist. Article was PRODded in 2013, objections were raised on talk page on the grounds that she is a well-known activist, but no actual evidence or sources supporting notability were given. Reliable sourcing consists of a single, 3-sentence article in the The Austin Chronicle, here: [8], it is effectively a caption for a videotape in which she introduces a fellow political activist. Page also has a link to a TV appearance as an activist in a political controversy, here: [9], she appears ~ 3 minutes in. She has also published 2 books with the small, political press, Haymarket Books, but the books do not seem to have gotten any attention (except in the non-notable partisan journal of which she was an editor. here: [10]). There is a list of articles she has published, but I cannot find evidence of notability independent of her own website, her own publications, and the publications of the very small Socialist faction in which she was (is?) active. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 20:39, 2 November 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete - Fails WP:Notability. Fails WP:RS. Fails WP:Author PeterWesco ( talk) 22:18, 2 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Human3015 ^TALK  00:17, 3 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Gender-related deletion discussions. Human3015 ^TALK  00:17, 3 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Human3015 ^TALK  00:17, 3 November 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete as I simply see no better improvement. SwisterTwister talk 06:49, 3 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:50, 3 November 2015 (UTC) reply

• Strong Keep. While some of her views are controversial, Sherry Wolf is clearly notable, meeting criteria WP:BASIC. She has published articles in several leading left/progressive magazines, including the The Advocate (print circulation 175,000, online rank 1051 in US [11]), The Nation (print circulation 113,000, online rank 2731 in US [12]), and CounterPunch (online rank 9814 in US [13]). While these publications may not be famliar to everyone, those online numbers are in the neighborhood of e.g the Christian Science Monitor (1174), Scientific American (1546), the New England Journal of Medicine (4305), and BillOReilly.com (7988). The first book listed has not only been reviewed by the journal where she is an editor, but also for example here [14], here [15] here [16] and here [17]. The book has also attracted several reviews on Amazon and Google Books, and it has been cited multiple times in academic journals [18]. The second listed book is an edited volume where she has contributed a chapter, so that one does not count as much. In addition to her writing, she has had several in-depth interviews about her activism, such as here [19] here [20] here [21] and here [22]. A simple google search on her name or book title will generate many more secondary sources as evidence of her notability, not counting the hits generated by her handbag making namesake ( Sherry Wolf (artist)).

While notability is a property of the subject and independent of the references provided in the article ( WP:ARTN), it should be noted that User:E.M.Gregory, the proposer of this AfD, removed four informative references back in May, that linked to coverage of Ms. Wolf in secondary sources ( compare [23] and [24]). Hence, contrary to his/her statement above, he/she had clearly found "evidence of notability independent of her own website", but chose to remove them from the article. Martinogk ( talk) 07:55, 9 November 2015 (UTC) reply

• Starting at the bottom, I went to look at what Martinogk calls "four informative references" [25] deleted from what was, a year ago, an extremely bloated article from which I and others removed a great deal of puffery. The 4 were, in order, a link to an article Wolf wrote for a webzine called "Gaper's Block", a link to article by Wolf in Socialist Worker, a link to her author's page in The Nation and a link to her book's page at her publisher's website. Problem, of course, is that these sources are not independent of Wolf; having articles/books published does not confer notability. Few working journalists are notable, and books confer notability only if the books attract attention in reliable, secondary sources.

Back to the top of Martinogk's argument. The fact that Wolf has written articles does not confer notability on Wikipedia. For a journalist to have a page, we need to find articles that are about her, not articles she wrote. (see WP:AUTHOR).

Which brings us to Martinogk's evidence of the attention garnered by her book, Sexuality and Socialism. Here we can hope find something pertinent. The question, of course, is are these sources independent of Wolf and are they significant publications. Link #9 is to an article by Wolf about her own book. Interestingly, "The Platypus Affiliated Society" (link #7) is the subject of a stale sandbox draft [26]; it seems to be part of the circle of small, Socialist organizations centered in Chicago of which Wolf is part. So it may not be independent, and it certainly was obscure. Link #8 is to a review in International Viewpoint, (someone should query whether that publication passes WP:GNG) But in source #10, a review in Monthly Review Martinogk finally brings a source that counts towards notability. Source #11 shows that Wolf's book is cited in discussions of social activism and sexuality.

Source #13 is part of the ISO, and, therefore not independent. Source #12 is an obscure publication. But I thank Martinogk for bringing sources # 14 and 15. While profile articles would be better, these are published Q & As with Wolf.

Summing up, I still have doubts about whether there is sufficient mention of her to pass WP:GNG, but sources #14, 15, and the book review at source #10 do offer support for an article.@ PeterWesco:, @ SisterTwister:, do you want to take another look at this? E.M.Gregory ( talk) 12:02, 9 November 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete - The book review speaks to the notability of the book, not the author. The VV piece is an interview, and therefore a primary source, and invalid for establishing notability, as is the Advocate piece. Searches did not turn up enough to show they pass WP:GNG, and the citation #'s for her work are very low. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:31, 9 November 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. joe decker ^talk 01:01, 10 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Sara Berg

Sara Berg (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Actress who falls under too soon-only one film it seems so far with no page Wgolf ( talk) 20:35, 2 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Human3015 ^TALK  00:45, 3 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Human3015 ^TALK  00:45, 3 November 2015 (UTC) reply

• Clearly Delete - searches don't show they pass WP:GNG, and they obviously don't pass WP:NACTOR. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:38, 9 November 2015 (UTC) reply
• Speedy delete, WP:CSD#A7, no claim of significance. Tagged. — Kusma ( t· c) 19:33, 9 November 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. Whether a product is/was successful or a complete failure does not affect its notability, nor for that matter whether it is still in sale. It would really helps if keep !voters put in the sources that are obviously there into the article rather than just point *hey look there*, but nevertheless their arguments does have a basis from glances at Google. KTC ( talk) 12:31, 10 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Trump Ice

Trump Ice (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Was this ever really notable? p b p 20:11, 2 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Mr RD 20:14, 2 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Mr RD 20:16, 2 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Mr RD 20:16, 2 November 2015 (UTC) reply

• Keep but source (or if deleted, without prejudice to recreation with proper sourcing) — passes GNG and WP:CORP due to widespread major mentions in mainstream publications over time. It's a real brand that had real promotion, distribution, and sales, even if a minor one. Admittedly, nobody would care if it were not Donald Trump. If it is part of a Trump family of similar retail brands, or if the maker also licenses other famous names, it could also be merged into a group article listing multiple brands. - Wikidemon ( talk) 20:25, 2 November 2015 (UTC) reply
• Keep - receives significant coverage in reliable sources. -- William S. Saturn ( talk) 21:42, 2 November 2015 (UTC) reply
• Maybe keep if it can be improved somewhat more or also simply redirect to his article. SwisterTwister talk 06:36, 3 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:52, 5 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:53, 5 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:56, 5 November 2015 (UTC) reply

• Comment I'm confused by the Keep votes saying there are sources. What sources? The article has none, and none have been provided in this AfD. -- Green C 18:22, 5 November 2015 (UTC) reply

You shouldn't base your vote on the article itself. Click the "find sources" link above.-- William S. Saturn ( talk) 18:47, 5 November 2015 (UTC) reply

What sources show this is a notable business? -- Green C 18:49, 5 November 2015 (UTC) reply

It's not a business. It's a product. Look at all the sources concerning the "care package" Trump recently sent to Marco Rubio. That's not even the half of it.-- William S. Saturn ( talk) 18:57, 5 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Trump Ice was a company (Google "Trump Ice LLC") selling a product under the same name. Water bottles to Rubio sounds like a case of NOTNEWS cycle.. are there any sources about the company or its product? -- Green C 19:57, 5 November 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Biblio worm 16:44, 9 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Tax Defense Network

Tax Defense Network (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

From WP:OTRS, a contributor writes, "Please review this page for removal, it is clearly a company attempting to promote its business." I am passing this message to reviewers. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:09, 2 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Mr RD 20:18, 2 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Mr RD 20:19, 2 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Mr RD 20:19, 2 November 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete as although News, Highbeam and browser found some links, there's nothing to suggest convincingly better. Pinging interested subject users Bearian and MBisanz. SwisterTwister talk 06:40, 3 November 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete Agreed, does not seem to meet any qualifications of a wiki article of substance other than to promote their business. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.139.51.178 ( talk) 00:06, 4 November 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete or userfy - while the subject is arguably notable as a firm, this page is so badly written as to require a rewrite from scratch. Bearian ( talk) 17:44, 4 November 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) – Davey2010 ^Talk 01:59, 9 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Maharashtra Kesari

Maharashtra Kesari (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

No indication this is anywhere close to being a notable wrestling competition. Peter Rehse ( talk) 14:51, 26 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse ( talk) 14:51, 26 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:53, 27 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:53, 27 October 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete unless this can be better improved. SwisterTwister talk 04:54, 27 October 2015 (UTC) reply
• Keep Notable in the region. Already being improved. There are a number of references available. Shyamsunder ( talk) 06:42, 27 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:46, 27 October 2015 (UTC) reply

• Keep: There is large coverage of this event in state and national level Marathi news papers. For example Sakal news has plenty of news related to this event read here list of annual news. Also Maharashtra Times, Lokmat, Loksatta all of these dailies covers this event annually. -- Human3015 ^TALK  13:03, 27 October 2015 (UTC) reply
• Keep: Event is notable & article is already marked as a Stub article. - Ninney ( talk) 05:57, 28 October 2015 (UTC) reply

• Keep: Passes WP:GNG. Article also improved now with multiple sources of news coverage from regional papers. §§ Dharmadhyaksha§§ { Talk / Edits} 09:08, 3 November 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. KTC ( talk) 12:33, 10 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Zombinatrix

Zombinatrix (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

non-notable low-budget film, no indication filming has begun —Мандичка ^YO 😜 01:40, 19 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 01:54, 19 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Alts:

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

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

actress:(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)

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

• temporary delete While we do have reports of filming locations, their own "Official Facebook" has October reports that casting is still taking place. As its production is getting coverage we can allow a return under WP:NFF (paragraph 3) once we finally have filming confirmed. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 04:54, 19 October 2015 (UTC) reply

None of the "press" coverage meets requirements for WP:RS. There's no links, but they all appear to be horror blogs. —Мандичка ^YO 😜 05:12, 19 October 2015 (UTC) reply

No one is saying that crappy sources do not exist. Acceptable genre sources JobLo [27] and Dread Central [28] speaking toward plans and Back Stage [29] speaking toward casting simply represent its production is getting some coverage. We can certainly wait until filming begins and it gets more. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 12:54, 19 October 2015 (UTC) reply

• Userfy, if creator or editor(s) wish to continue quality improvement efforts on the page. — Cirt ( talk) 09:38, 20 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 21:58, 25 October 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete as fails GNG, No point userfying considering the sources aren't User can visit refund when the film's released. – Davey2010 ^Talk 02:02, 9 November 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was no consensus. WP:NPASR KTC ( talk) 12:35, 10 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Broadway.com Audience Awards

Broadway.com Audience Awards (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

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

{{ notability}} tag added by Animalparty. I couldn't find any references on Google. I dream of horses ( C) @ 21:13, 11 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses ( C) @ 21:14, 11 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Comment. Apparently these awards are now called Broadway.com Audience Choice Award [30] (added to Find Sources above) and as its name implies it's awarded by fans (not judges, critics, academy members, etc). While of course notable plays and actors receive the awards, the notability of the awards themselves is dubious (note that Broadway.com is a redirect to its parent company.) The winners are apparently cataloged in at least one exhaustive annual compendium: Theatre World: The Most Complete Record of the American Theatre (e.g. 2006-2007, 2008-2009), which in those two editions simply state: "The Broadway.com Audience Awards give real theatergoers a chance to honor their favorite Broadway and Off-Broadway shows and performers." followed by a list of winners. Seems to me like statistics that are verifiable but not necessarily notable, per WP:NOTDIR and WP:NOTSTATSBOOK. Most news coverage I could find was from Broadway.com itself, and the unaffiliated sources seem to be brief mentions that award was given (e.g. "The production was honored with a 2010 Broadway.com Audience Award as well as a prestigious Drama Desk Award", and "starring Broadway.com Audience Choice Award winners..." but I haven't found evidence the award carries much prestige. I'd say notability is potentially there, but needs stronger demonstration (non-trivial coverage in reliable third-party sources.), otherwise a simple External link to http://awards.broadway.com (which lists all winners) may suffice. People at Wikipedia:WikiProject Theatre might be able to give better perspective on the notability of these awards. --Animalparty! ( talk) 00:16, 12 October 2015 (UTC) reply

delete - no sources. DangerDogWest ( talk) 02:42, 26 October 2015 (UTC) reply

• Struck content from confirmed sock above, per WP:SOCKSTRIKE. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:27, 31 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:47, 27 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:47, 27 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:48, 27 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. joe decker ^talk 01:01, 10 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Rowan M. Ashe

Rowan M. Ashe (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable individual lacking non-trivial support. One "references" des not even mention article subject. reddogsix ( talk) 01:21, 26 October 2015 (UTC) reply

• delete - does not meet notability threshhold. DangerDogWest ( talk) 02:55, 26 October 2015 (UTC) reply

• Struck content from confirmed sock above, per WP:SOCKSTRIKE. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:20, 31 October 2015 (UTC) reply

• Keep The article subject meets WP:GNG by having significant coverage across numerous WP:RS References do include article subject. for example:

- http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/coventry-news/celebrities-line-up-stratford-film-3073017 "Festival director Rowan M Ashe said: “Stratford gave the world Shakespeare. His importance in the role of film as a medium of storytelling is unquestionably enormous." Please check the article and its references on your own. The nominator's statement, '"References" do not even mention article subject." is simply not true. Zpeopleheart ( talk) 03:17, 26 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Not sure how you can avoid the fact that the "references" are trivial. (e.g., lists, primary, or a single quote - the example you listed above) The references hardly support inclusion into Wikipedia. I'll concede only one reference lacks a mention of the subject. reddogsix ( talk) 03:38, 26 October 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete - The reference linked by Zpeopleheart is the only reference currently in the article that is reliable and independent, and it's a passing mention. All the other references are either primary sources or unreliable (IMDb), except the Birmingham Mail source which doesn't mention him. I can't find anything to indicate he meets WP:GNG. Sarahj2107 ( talk) 12:08, 26 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:49, 27 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:49, 27 October 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete for now and draft and userfy if needed as I see no better obvious improvement. SwisterTwister talk 05:04, 28 October 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete. I checked a few of the refs and he's nowhere to be seen in them. Szzuk ( talk) 19:47, 7 November 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. KTC ( talk) 12:39, 10 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Naila Nayem

Naila Nayem (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Hopefully we can get clearer consensus for this as the past two nominations were not exactly acceptable and the best my searches found were this, this, this and this (Bangladesh Today), this (Dhaka Tribune), this (The Daily Star) and this (New Age) and also Dhaka Courier, Daily Sun, The Independent, Weekly Blitz and News Today all found nothing. Pinging Ibrahim Husain Meraj, Kmzayeem, Nafsadh, Davey2010, Pharaoh of the Wizards, Vinegarymass911, Panyd, Omnipaedista, MusikAnimal and Jubair1985. SwisterTwister talk 23:17, 19 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Please do not invite me in anything related to Naila Nayem, since I have conflicting interest about her. -- nafSadh did say 13:25, 20 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:20, 19 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:20, 19 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:20, 19 October 2015 (UTC) reply

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log ( step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 October 19. — ^{cyberbot I} _{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:32, 19 October 2015 (UTC) reply
• Keep. She is the Kim Kardashian of Bangladesh. She has done some drama, movie, advertisements and music videos. She is notable regardless how one views her. Vinegarymass911 ( talk) 03:45, 20 October 2015 (UTC) reply
• Keep as per these results [31], Seems to meet GNG (Sorry I've just woke up so cant be arsed to add individual news stories, Thanks ST for the ping.). – Davey2010 ^Talk 07:59, 20 October 2015 (UTC) reply
• Keep as per Davey re:GNG and if you search for 'নায়লা নাঈম' rather than 'Naila Nayem' you can see that she meets the criteria for notability for entertainers. Unfortunately, I'd love to expand it based on that search but I'm lacking the language skills :( Panyd ^{The muffin is not subtle} 19:15, 20 October 2015 (UTC) reply
• Strong Delete, She appeared in item song in a movie and a single drama. And thats it. She is popular through her facebook page although she does not hold the highest fan base in facebook from Bangladesh, for that I don't think she passes the notability for entertainers criteria. She has not acted any drama or movie. As a editor from Bangladesh, I can vouch for the Deletion of the article. Ibrahim Husain Meraj ( talk) 16:00, 23 October 2015 (UTC) reply

• Well she's starred in a few films & music videos & Google seems to prove she's notable... – Davey2010 ^Talk 12:04, 1 November 2015 (UTC) reply

• She did not acted any movie rather dance item song in a movie ( Run Out (film)) and a single drama [32]. Frankly She gained our attention for her bikini poses as a first Bangladeshi model. Ibrahim Husain Meraj ( talk) 01:30, 4 November 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was no consensus. KTC ( talk) 12:40, 10 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Eli Northrup

Eli Northrup (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:GNG and for too promotional, which raises some potential WP:COI concerns (e.g. "As a varsity athlete at Cornell, Northrup was able to maintain a perfect 4.0 GPA during the Fall 2005 semester", "became well known as a rapper", "that became a YouTube sensation", "it became a big story in the legal community") Plot Spoiler ( talk) 23:29, 19 October 2015 (UTC) reply

• Speedy keep the article clearly meets GNG for a figure in the legal/music community. mentions of Northrup on Above the Law at Above the Law (blog); America Lawyer Media article about him at ALM (company); ABA journal article at American Bar Association Journal; washington post article on RG3 and him; Article on music career; Another article on music career. USA Today on his music career at USA Today; Article from NYU law school; NYU Law Magazine spotlight on Northrup. It amuses me, when rather than make minor edits to an article, someone proposes it for deletion. I have corrected the weasel words that you pointed out. -- JumpLike23 (talk) 23:45, 19 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Above The Law and Careerist are blogs and do not qualify as WP:RS. The ABA link is just a re-posting of the material from Above The Law and Careerist. The Washington Post story does nothing to establish notability -- only that he is a big fan of RGIII. The Cornell University website and alumni website do not exactly qualify as independent, reliable media sources. Plot Spoiler ( talk) 23:53, 19 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Note, however, that these are not personal blogs and thus they are reliable sources because these are professional journalists--per the guideline. The Cornell stories actually do establiish notability and are further supported by USA today and broadway world. The article is well-written and sourced. Not mention he clerked for the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit cf. List of law clerks of the Supreme Court of the United States, and that he was a Prettyman fellow -- JumpLike23 (talk) 23:59, 19 October 2015 (UTC) reply

• Comment It is no wonder to me why experts become frustrated with wikipedia, having written the majority of content on public defenders for wikipedia. Northrup is a notable defender. The nominating user seems to have very little experience in law-related articles, completely brushing aside the ABA journal, the careerist and above the law. See also the discussion on the talk page regarding a revert by the nominating editor. -- JumpLike23 (talk) 00:21, 20 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Human3015 ^TALK  01:16, 20 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Human3015 ^TALK  01:16, 20 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Human3015 ^TALK  01:16, 20 October 2015 (UTC) reply

• Draft and userfy if needed for now then as Books, News, browser and Highbeam all seemed to have found links but nothing to suggest outstandingly better improvement. SwisterTwister talk 04:43, 20 October 2015 (UTC) reply

If you would like to discuss changes to the article, I would appreciate that. I don't think it needs to become a draft. Of course, those engines reveal sources because he is clearly notable.-- JumpLike23 (talk) 04:56, 20 October 2015 (UTC) reply

• Weak keep - meets some (but not enough) of the factors of my standards for lawyers. His article may be WP:TOOSOON. Bearian ( talk) 13:49, 28 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. Sarah-Jane ( talk) 13:17, 13 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Serban Ghenea

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}}.

Serban Ghenea (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

I'm unable to find any sources providing anything close to the coverage required to meet WP:BIO. Several albums that he has worked on have won Grammys but from my reading of WP:NMUSIC this doesn't confer notability on the audio engineer. Searching for sources I came across this which I think mentions him in passing and sums things up quite nicely (my emphasis): "chances are you’ve never heard of ... Serban Ghenea ... Without engineers working in obscurity, an album like Bangerz wouldn’t be anywhere near the charts." He's worked on many notable works, but without any sources discussing how that was anything exceptional, I don't think the subject is notable. SmartSE ( talk) 18:10, 2 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete having a small role on a notable album does not address WP:GNG, especially the "significant coverage" part. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:33, 4 November 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete: perceived importance ≠ notability as defined by Wikipedia. See WP:GNG. Vrac ( talk) 02:42, 6 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 06:42, 8 November 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete - Searches did not turn up anything to show they pass the notability criteria. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:49, 10 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:04, 10 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:04, 10 November 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete for now as I see nothing better than some behind the scenes work and nothing to suggest a currently better article. SwisterTwister talk 06:35, 11 November 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Biblio worm 17:00, 9 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Con of the North

Con of the North (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

This has been tagged for notability for 8 years (on and off). It has been to AfD twice with no consensus - the last time it had poor participation (only nominator and creator). If there is no consensus and reasonable participation, I think it would be best to remove notability tag. However, I couldn't verify that this is WP:NOTABLE in any way. No suitable redirect targets as the Lists of x require an aritcle for inclusion. Boleyn ( talk) 17:44, 2 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. FuriouslySerene ( talk) 16:54, 4 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. FuriouslySerene ( talk) 16:55, 4 November 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete - Pretty clearly non-notable. Citations on the page are all non-reliable or primary source, except for that single article by the local newspaper. But that article is just run of the mill coverage for a local event, which of course you would find in any community newspaper in most cities in the world. My own searches turned up nothing better with which to expand the article. Even that community newspaper doesn't seem to cover this event every year, the article is from 2008. FuriouslySerene ( talk) 16:58, 4 November 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete – Looks like a lovely local event, but the references are all either primary sources, self-published, or fairly trivial coverage in local press. I can't find anything better. Doesn't meet WP:GNG. Nsteffel ( talk) 17:52, 5 November 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete Clearly fails WP:GNG, as the majority of sources are not WP:RS (or minor coverage in local news) and other, better sources could not be found through an internet search. Johanna (formerly BenLinus1214) ^{talk to me!} _{see my work} 02:33, 6 November 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. The scope of the article obviously needs to be more clearly defined, but there's no consensus for deletion. – Juliancolton |  ^Talk 03:40, 14 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Comeback (sports)

Comeback (sports) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Comeback can be used not just for sports, and let me point out there there isn't an article on it for non sports instances. What constitutes a sports comeback is also a matter of opinion. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:41, 2 November 2015 (UTC) reply

• Keep. It's one of those "unofficial" statistics, isn't it? Not kept by leagues, but fastidiously, by fans. Pandeist ( talk) 18:24, 2 November 2015 (UTC) reply
  • In fact we could have a page on fourth-quarter comebacks alone!! Pandeist ( talk) 18:30, 2 November 2015 (UTC) reply

delete. It's subjective, encyclopedias are objective. In order to keep this, we need a definition of "greatest", within the context of sports comebacks, that's what most people would consider indisputable.-- John, AF4JM ( talk) 18:57, 2 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Why? We have pages on thinks like List of films considered the best do we not? "We" don't need a definition, we simply need to point to a definition supplied by somebody else of the sort we'd normally point to for this sort of thing. Pandeist ( talk) 19:03, 2 November 2015 (UTC) reply

By way of example, here's what I believe is generally considered a good source for this site -- Bleacher Report, listing its picks for "greatest sports comeback".

Bleacher Report fails WP:RS. You also link to a blog up above. That isn't a RS either per WP:SPS. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 19:20, 2 November 2015 (UTC) reply

why does Bleacher Report fail RS? What makes it unreliable? It's used thousands of times on Wikipedia pages. Anyway, I'm sure you could find RS sources even you couldn't pan which account "greatest comebacks." How about USA Today? Huffington Post? Pandeist ( talk) 19:23, 2 November 2015 (UTC) reply

• Keep. Also the Telegraph and MSN (although they mix together career and event comebacks). In fact, career comebacks might also be included (I'm looking at you, Michael Jordan and Brett Favre). Clarityfiend ( talk) 23:12, 2 November 2015 (UTC) reply
• Keep. There seems to be some misunderstanding as to the intent of this article. It is not a list article, and is not intended to list the "greatest comebacks"; it is merely intended to explain what a "comeback" is in the context of sports competitions, and how and why they happen. A comparable article would be home advantage. It can and should include examples of events identified as significant comebacks, for the purpose of illustrating what would constitute a comeback in various sports where such a thing is possible. I have added some references to actual academic studies, which should aptly demonstrate that the "comeback" in sports is a phenomenon worthy of examination. This also meets the "objectiveness" criteria suggested by User:AF4JM. Cheers! bd2412 T 05:01, 3 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Point taken. In that context I can agree with keep, although I think the prose in the article as it is today needs a little more work to get there.-- John, AF4JM ( talk) 14:13, 3 November 2015 (UTC) reply

• Keep - Notable and well-sourced. shoy ( reactions) 15:35, 3 November 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete – we deleted Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Collapse_(sports) a few months ago (although I can't see the debate at the page for some reason), and comeback falls into the same category of a subjective sports statistic. What I see at the moment is a dictionary definition of a comeback, and a grab-bag of semi-relevant statistics attempting to draw some trends. Then I see sport-by-sport sections which give a brief introduction then launch straight into the subjective/unofficial lists of examples. I don't see a basis for an encyclopedic article here. Aspirex ( talk) 06:25, 4 November 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Unlike "collapse" (and comparable to Choke (sports)), this phenomenon has been the subject of peer-reviewed published academic examination, cited in the article. If it is suitable for an academic paper topic for multiple papers, then it is suitable for an encyclopedia topic. bd2412 T 14:14, 4 November 2015 (UTC) reply
    • No, I disagree. So an academic paper has done a statistical analysis and concluded that there are final period comebacks of indeterminate size (presumably 1-point three-quarter-time basketball deficits are counted in that) in 20% of games in three unrelated cherry-picked sports – that's just WP:INDISCRIMINATE statistical material which, in the article right now, fails to support any meaningful point; the fact that it's come from an academic source instead of a newspaper or online sports blog does not impress me. Aspirex ( talk) 06:12, 5 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 04:22, 9 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 04:22, 9 November 2015 (UTC) reply

• Keep - Clearly passes WP:GNG, but I do think there's potential to convert this to a broader article about the concept of a comeback in general (i.e. not limited to sports, but the narrative device/trope that applies to sports -- after all, sport is drama)to avoid becoming a coatrack/collection of ideas united only by a term (rather than a single concept). But that's not directly relevant to this AfD, which is about sports comebacks -- and sports comebacks look to be supported by quite a lot of sources. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 04:23, 13 November 2015 (UTC) reply
• The key challenge I perceive is a lack of a underlying common concept, beyond the dictionary definition. Going into details for each sport regarding how a comeback can occur feels a lot like an exploration of the rules for each, which seems like a lot of detail for a general concept article. Listing specific comeback instances seems like giving undue weight to hand-picked examples. isaacl ( talk) 04:31, 13 November 2015 (UTC) reply
  • The examples are generally those "hand-picked" by independent reliable sources, not by Wikipedians. Several of those sources have compiled overlapping lists of notable comebacks, so whatever weight is given is the weight these sources have given. The common concept is not merely the definition of what a comeback is, but the sourced description of the phenomenon as one of the most dramatic things in sports. bd2412 T 05:18, 13 November 2015 (UTC) reply
    • The tricky aspect of using sports journalism as sources is that it has a promotional aspect to it that isn't well-suited for a neutral point of view. "Greatest X" lists are notorious for this, often being written as human-interest stories rather than expressing a serious editorial viewpoint. Perhaps more emphasis should be placed on an analysis of the emotional tension and release of the phenomenon, as this would better unify the concept across sports. isaacl ( talk) 05:37, 13 November 2015 (UTC) reply
      • I agree that additional discussion of the emotional nature of the event would improve the article, and will look for sources on that aspect. I also agree that sports journalism has a promotional element, but it is still journalism. The point of including examples from those lists is not to showcase the "greatest" comebacks in the sports represented, but to provide an unequivocal example of what constitutes a comeback in various sports (in much the same way Score (sport) lists the kinds of scores tallied in various sports). Cheers! bd2412 T 17:09, 13 November 2015 (UTC) reply
        • Note though that even a run-of-the-mill comeback is still a comeback; focusing solely on exceptional ones is misleading with respect to the overall concept. I suggest the text should avoid describing examples as "greatest", to avoid the impression that the article is a compendium of the greatest comebacks. isaacl ( talk) 17:38, 13 November 2015 (UTC) reply
          • Unfortunately, there are no compilations of run-of-the-mill comebacks, so selecting examples of those would be a bit trickier. In most sports, a team that is down by a score or two at the half, and prevails, could be described as having made a comeback, but there is definitely a gray area as the disadvantage overcome gets smaller. However, no sports writer will dispute that the 2004 American League Championship Series, the 2013 America's Cup, or the 1993 Bills-Oilers playoff game, were examples of a "comeback" within those sports. That said, here is an example of a rather run-of-the-mill comeback being described by the writer as one where "[t]here could not be a better example of a comeback after having their backs against the wall in the first innings than this". bd2412 T 18:10, 13 November 2015 (UTC) reply
            • Finding ordinary comebacks is easy and doesn't require a special compilation source as they happen every day. There is a potential due weight concern in singling some out, but even everyday occurrences can benefit from real examples. But honestly I don't see a lot of explanation required for sports with an ongoing scoreboard—the history of the score illustrates if a team came back from a disadvantage. More interesting would be a sport like sailing, I think, where the relative positions of the boats with respect to each other and the wind determine who has an advantage. isaacl ( talk) 03:23, 14 November 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was deleted by Liz. ( non-admin closure) shoy ( reactions) 20:07, 2 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Ethnographic Museum of Lefkasio

Ethnographic Museum of Lefkasio (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

I could verify that this exists, and could find it listed on a couple of websites which list all museums in Greece (or at least a large number of them). I could not find anything like the kind of coverage to meet WP:GNG or any other aspect of WP:NOTABILITY. I added its first reference today and it has been tagged for notability (by Edison) for over 7 years. I contacted relevant Wikiprojects and creator months ago about this and a series of others, but as I can't establish its notability, feel it's time for AfD. I always hope to be proved wrong with museums and worthy organisations though. Boleyn ( talk) 16:59, 2 November 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Biblio worm 16:58, 9 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Malcolm Campbell (film editor)

Malcolm Campbell (film editor) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

As it stands, the article is basically a list of films cribbed from IMDB. There are a few works on this list that may establish notability via criterion 3 of WP:CREATIVE, but there are no reliable sources to show what exact role he played in creating those works. clpo13_{( talk)} 16:21, 2 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. clpo13_{( talk)} 16:21, 2 November 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete - Simply nothing better. Pinging tagger Piotrus and likely interested users [email protected] and Onel5969. SwisterTwister talk 02:21, 3 November 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete – no evidence of notability. Quis separabit? 02:24, 3 November 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete. The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (biographies) requirement. Thanks for AfDing this, the prod was removed by an anon who mass deprodded a number of articles, probably a marketing spam / paid editor / sock trying to make our life more difficult. -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:19, 3 November 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Biblio worm 16:59, 9 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Alliance Semiconductor

Alliance Semiconductor (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable per WP:COMPANY. I can't find any independent news sources on this organization to fulfill WP:CORPDEPTH criteria. clpo13_{( talk)} 16:15, 2 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. clpo13_{( talk)} 16:15, 2 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. clpo13_{( talk)} 16:15, 2 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. clpo13_{( talk)} 16:15, 2 November 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete as I see nothing better. Pinging past user DGG. SwisterTwister talk 02:29, 3 November 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete. there is no single successor to merge to -- it was sold off in parts. DGG ( talk ) 06:28, 3 November 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was nomination withdrawn clpo13_{( talk)} 20:09, 2 November 2015 (UTC) reply

HDMK

HDMK (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

The main claim to notability in the article is the firm's relationship with Chad Kolton. Per WP:COMPANY, notability for companies can't be inherited from people related to them, and there is nothing to suggest this company is notable on its own. clpo13_{( talk)} 15:49, 2 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Withdrawn as there's information to suggest notability. clpo13_{( talk)} 20:09, 2 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. clpo13_{( talk)} 15:50, 2 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. clpo13_{( talk)} 15:50, 2 November 2015 (UTC) reply

• Huh? I see nothing in the article to that effect. It is the references which attest to the notability. -- Kendrick7 ^talk 19:29, 2 November 2015 (UTC) reply

I meant that in reference to the fact that the article is almost entirely a mention of people involved in it, implying that it's notable because of them. That's not enough to satisfy WP:COMPANY, which requires more than being associated with notable (or semi-notable) people. clpo13_{( talk)} 19:36, 2 November 2015 (UTC) reply

The point was to explain where the initials H, D, M, and K originally came from. The firm does still make the news in Washington on a semi-regular basis. [33] Frankly, I only stubbed this out because they were related to the Special Operations OPSEC Education Fund back during the 2012 U.S. Presidential election. It's not like they just bake cookies or anything, and I'm sure they'll get up to some sort of hijinks during the election cycle in 2016. If not, I'm happy to revisit this a couple of years from now. -- Kendrick7 ^talk 20:04, 2 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Huh, well that makes sense. I'm going to go ahead and withdraw this AfD for now. clpo13_{( talk)} 20:09, 2 November 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Biblio worm 17:00, 9 November 2015 (UTC) reply

LeylandAlliance

LeylandAlliance (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Doesn't meet notability requirements per WP:COMPANY. clpo13_{( talk)} 15:47, 2 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. clpo13_{( talk)} 15:50, 2 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. clpo13_{( talk)} 15:50, 2 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. clpo13_{( talk)} 15:50, 2 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 02:26, 3 November 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete as I simply see nothing better. Pinging tagger Piotrus. SwisterTwister talk 02:27, 3 November 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete. The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (companies) requirement. Thanks for AfDing this, the prod was removed by an anon who mass deprodded a number of articles, probably a marketing spam sock trying to make our life more difficult. -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:59, 3 November 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete. one minor award--not sufficient for notability DGG ( talk ) 07:10, 3 November 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Biblio worm 16:58, 9 November 2015 (UTC) reply

XEMGT-TV

XEMGT-TV (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Call sign doesn't exist, this is an automated translation of an article that was speedy-deleted from eswiki: es:XEMGT-TV. Delete as hoax. Vrac ( talk) 15:28, 2 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 17:21, 2 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 17:21, 2 November 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete as I see nothing better. SwisterTwister talk 17:21, 2 November 2015 (UTC) reply
• As at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/XHUGTO-TV, this is an evident hoax created by an editor who's already been blocked on es: for creating hoax articles about nonexistent Mexican television stations. As just one example of the obvious problem here, TBS is a single cable channel, not a network which has separate individual affiliated television stations — and it's an American service, so even if it were a network in the latter sense the only way it would ever have any affiliate in Mexico would be on the Tijuana-San Diego loophole. But this station isn't claimed as being in Tijuana. Plus there's the matter of the almost completely incomprehensible writing style. Delete, and give strong consideration to blocking the creator as a hoaxing hoaxer who hoaxes. Bearcat ( talk) 16:14, 3 November 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete Alexf ^(talk) 15:54, 2 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Amjad Shahzad Tariq

Amjad Shahzad Tariq (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

That seems weird, references without reference links. 333 -blue 13:45, 2 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Speedy delete, it's just a copy of Mohammed Yusuf (Boko Haram) with one or two names changed. -- McGeddon ( talk) 13:47, 2 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Speedy delete Looks like a hoax. Google searches on the name just find this article and various social media entries relating to people with this, or similar, names. No evidence of notability. Neiltonks ( talk) 14:04, 2 November 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Biblio worm 16:53, 9 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Kirtida Gautam

Kirtida Gautam (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:AUTHOR. Though there are many references on the page, only a few blogs actually mention the person. The author has one recently written self-published book and nothing else and - by all appearances - is using Wikipedia for promotional purposes. regentspark ( comment) 13:38, 2 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. FuriouslySerene ( talk) 15:58, 2 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. FuriouslySerene ( talk) 15:58, 2 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Comment There are serious issues here regarding WP:COI and the use of multiple accounts for promotional purposes on related articles. 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 ( talk) 21:29, 2 November 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete for now at least as News and browser found a few links but certainly not enough. Pinging tagger Nepaxt and interested subject users LaMona, Tokyogirl79, Yash!, AKS.9955 and Human3015. SwisterTwister talk 06:44, 3 November 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete for now. There is an assertion of notability here via her writing for various TV shows, but I can't really find anything to show how involved she was in the process. There can be many, many writers on a team, some that take major roles while others do cleanup. Unfortunately it can be difficult to find information on people in India, especially if they're not mainstream. Other than a notification of an event, I can't really find anythign to show that she's ultimately notable enough for an article at this point in time. It also doesn't help that the article history was almost entirely written by a sockpuppet and was likely created by another. I have no true issue with this being recreated if WP:RS can be provided that back up the claims of notability, but this looks to be too soon for an entry. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:34, 3 November 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete the person's not notable. And, the author has a conflict of interest issue. //nepaxt 15:05, 3 November 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete. I am inclined to say that this is WP:TOOSOON and not notable at the moment. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 15:13, 3 November 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete. Doesn't meet WP:GNG. -- Softlavender ( talk) 15:54, 3 November 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Ignoring the sock puppetry and promotional edits, it seems too soon for an article right now. Being featured in The New Indian Express is a good start, but it's not yet a strong enough claim to notability. NinjaRobotPirate ( talk) 21:31, 5 November 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete - per NinjaRobotPirate. Ya sh ! 04:51, 8 November 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Almost entirely a copyvio from their website. We can not keep this, either in mainspace or as a draft. With respect to promotionalism, it is only a little more promotional than many university articles, most of which seem to be written by the PR staff--though a few are from alumni, usually over-enthusiastic alumni. Cleaning all these up will be a long business, but this article, particularly outrageous in both the promotionalism and the copyvio, is a good place to start. Reducing to a stub is an option for copyvio, but when its bad as here, it is better to start over. It would merit an article: major campus of large universities always are considered notable. DGG ( talk ) 17:04, 2 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Virginia Tech National Capital Region

Virginia Tech National Capital Region (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Promo failing WP:GNG. WP:TNT. Note creator has copyvios in other VT articles, unknown if this has one but tagging as such for checking. Widefox; talk 10:22, 2 November 2015 (UTC) reply

This important article should not be deleted. Thousands of students attend courses within the Virginia Tech National Capital Region. Recommend edits updating the article as needed. Huskers110110 ( talk) 12:10, 2 November 2015 (UTC) reply

• Cleanup Seems a legitimate campus of Virginia Tech. The actual article is a copyvio and spammy nightmare, but that can be fixed via normal editing and cleanup. -- Jayron 32 12:16, 2 November 2015 (UTC) reply

There's several of these articles based solely on primary sources, cleanup would remove the WP:BLUDGEON of sources but a stub with primaries still fails GNG. Draft seems preferable, especially considering user has created 10 articles, and is a 90% SPA. Widefox; talk 12:56, 2 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Reducing to a stub and moving to a draft space is also a good idea. -- Jayron 32 13:00, 2 November 2015 (UTC) reply

• Move to draft. Currently a load of promotional bullshit. It doesn't even say what it is about: is its subject a university? It should be removed from article space until it starts to resemble an encyclopedia article. Maproom ( talk) 12:46, 2 November 2015 (UTC) reply

My feeling too, and currently the 90% SPA promo account is not claiming a COI, so I'm resisting calling it what it appears to be. Underneath the promo, there may be a notable topic, and Draft would separate wheat from chaff. Widefox; talk 12:51, 2 November 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Biblio worm 16:53, 9 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Malik Junaid Ishtiaq Ali

Malik Junaid Ishtiaq Ali (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

The subject does not appear to be notable. The only references are FaceBook and a Google search for the subject's name - which does not find anything notable. I can't see coverage in the usual sources. Note that the username of the editor who wrote it is the same as the subject's name, who has never worked on any other articles, and this article refers several time to terms such as "striving my best" which lead me to suspect this is an autobiographical article. Gronk Oz ( talk) 10:21, 2 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra ( talk) 10:42, 2 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra ( talk) 10:42, 2 November 2015 (UTC) reply

• Speedy delete Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:28, 2 November 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nominator Umais Bin Sajjad ( talk) 12:59, 2 November 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nominator - more references have been added but these seem to refer to someone else (maybe a relative of the subject?) No evidence of notability of subject Neiltonks ( talk) 13:01, 2 November 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete Seems to be an autobiography of a nonnotable person. The author does not seem to be fluent enough in English to make clear what the claim to notability is. He does not appear to have served in a legislature, which would greatly aid the claim of notability. Edison ( talk) 16:31, 3 November 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was redirect to Virginia Tech. ( non-admin closure) – Davey2010 ^Talk 02:04, 9 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Center for Public Administration and Policy

Center for Public Administration and Policy (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Advert pretending to be an article. not-quite WP:SPA writing/creating promo only articles on VT - may have copyvio corrupted a weak article fundamentally we have a topic that should be notable hidden behind an an advert. Support moving to draft as this weakly sourced article is since 2007 or before. Widefox; talk 10:09, 2 November 2015 (UTC) reply

• This important article has been on Wikipedia since 2006. Recommend edits updating the article as needed. Huskers110110 ( talk) 12:11, 2 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Yes, it's been recognised as lacking sources since 2007. Widefox; talk 18:49, 2 November 2015 (UTC) reply

• redirect to Virginia Tech. sources quote people with relationship to this department, but no significant coverage of the department itself. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:06, 2 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Redirect seems equitable. Widefox; talk 18:49, 2 November 2015 (UTC) reply

• Redirect' as for most other such centers. DGG ( talk ) 19:52, 2 November 2015 (UTC) reply
• Redirect - along with any other related entities with articles that have no legitimate sourcing and read as advertisements. Czoal ( talk) 02:28, 3 November 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Biblio worm 16:54, 9 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Yasmin Pathan

Yasmin Pathan (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Another article related to Teen Kaminay. I just can't find anything to show that she's particularly noteworthy at this point in time. A search using Google and the WP:INDIA search engine brings up nothing to show that she's noteworthy at this point in time.

On a side note, all of these articles have to do with the Mumbai Film Academy, who created the film. This looks like it's turning into a bit of a WP:WALLEDGARDEN here, although this one was made by another editor. I'm starting to suspect that this might also be a way to try to promote the company. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:16, 2 November 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom - Non notable actress, Fails NACTOR & GNG. – Davey2010 ^Talk 09:30, 2 November 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete : Not significant for encyclopedic on Wikipedia Josu4u ( talk) 10:03, 2 November 2015 (UTC). reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra ( talk) 10:38, 2 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra ( talk) 10:39, 2 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra ( talk) 10:39, 2 November 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete as I simply see nothing better. Pinging Onel5969 who may want to comment. SwisterTwister talk 02:22, 3 November 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Biblio worm 16:55, 9 November 2015 (UTC) reply