The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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/archive as a blatant hoax. There's zero references for this on the Internet and the sources in the article (the ones that can be reviewed) do not mention this show. If anyone can show proof that this show actually existed, I'll restore the article and bring it back to AfD, however all that a search brings up are mirrors of this site and joking forum threads. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:15, 13 October 2015 (UTC) reply

The Siccness Network

The Siccness 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)

This article is a hoax originating from the siccness.net forums, the sources are all falsified or don't contain the cited material. — east718 | talk | 23:20, 12 October 2015 (UTC) 23:20, 12 October 2015 (UTC) reply

• This looks to be a pretty obvious hoax. There's nothing coming up in a search and threads like this one give off the strong impression that this was done as an in-joke by someone on the forum. I'm going to close this as a hoax and archive the material. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:11, 13 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. JohnCD ( talk) 13:49, 20 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Tom Caplan

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

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

Poorly sourced WP:BLP of a psychotherapist, actually more of a chimera split halfway between a primary-sourced repost of his résumé (complete with a directory, larded with WP:ELNO-violating offlinks, of every individual article he ever wrote for an academic journal or a newspaper) and a completely unsourced WP:COATRACK essay about his self-designed counselling model. An academic isn't automatically entitled to have or keep a Wikipedia article just because he exists — it takes reliable source coverage, supporting a claim of notability that would satisfy WP:NACADEMICS, for him to earn inclusion here. There's also a likely WP:COI, as the single most frequent editor of the article since its creation has been User:Needs-abc. Delete. Bearcat ( talk) 23:13, 28 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 23:44, 28 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 23:45, 28 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:46, 5 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:46, 5 October 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete. I'm seeing some trivial coverage in newspaper articles but nothing about him, just some quotes by him on different topics. Nothing meets notability requirements. The self-promotion on the page definitely does not help. mikeman67 ( talk) 02:58, 16 October 2015 (UTC) reply
• Speedy delete. Not notable and a borderline case of advertising. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 04:39, 19 October 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete-searches did not turn up anything to show notability. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:33, 20 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. JohnCD ( talk) 13:50, 20 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Ready set rocket

Ready set rocket (  | 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 google test. I dream of horses ( T) @ 20:11, 28 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses ( T) @ 20:11, 28 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses ( T) @ 20:11, 28 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 04:02, 4 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 04:02, 4 October 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete for now and restart later if better as I found nothing better than a few browser links. SwisterTwister talk 05:52, 4 October 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete. Just a usual company doing everyday business. Company does not have significant or demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 04:37, 19 October 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete fails to make a claim of notability. See A7. -- Bejnar ( talk) 05:19, 19 October 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete - searches did not find anything which meets the criteria for WP:GNG or WP:NCORP. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:43, 20 October 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. MBisanz ^talk 16:15, 21 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Count de Salis-Seewis

Count de Salis-Seewis (  | 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 haven't found much good for this aside from these links and there's not much withbaside from Johann Gaudenz von Salis-Seewis's article. This has stayed the same and was tagged as having original research. Count de Salis-Soglio was also tagged but that one seems better and may not actually need to be deleted. Pinging tagger ZH8000 and author Rodolph. SwisterTwister talk 15:50, 28 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 15:51, 28 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 15:51, 28 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 15:51, 28 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 15:51, 28 September 2015 (UTC) reply

this is a good article? Why would you want to delete it? Please don't. Rodolph ( talk) 18:57, 28 September 2015 (UTC) reply

• Comment The citation style is extremely vague. No page numbers or ISBN are cited nor even article names. This makes it very hard to verify the sources or to determine the extent of coverage. I have removed the "Hoax" tag for want of any evidence supporting that claim. My gut says the article subject may be notable enough to pass GNG. Aristocratic families are frequently kept in AfD discussions. But this one needs serious work and does not at present demonstrate an unimpeachable case for notability given its poor referencing. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 21:07, 28 September 2015 (UTC) reply

The contributor who started the article is I think is working from what I understood based on past experience,were original manuscripts or rarer works held in a private collection, which given the age of the sources would explain the absence of ISBN's for the sources quoted. It may not be up to the quality of Burke's (which I will note is a source that could be used) but I would be wary about deletion purely on the citation style. Whilst Wikipedia would obviously prefer recent sources, for subject like this, the verifiable sources ARE going to be "older works in obscure collections". Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 00:09, 29 September 2015 (UTC) reply

I think that is a good point and I note that the article's creator has been diligently working on the article. At the moment I am leaning towards a Keep !vote. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 01:23, 29 September 2015 (UTC) reply

• Redirect to Johann Gaudenz von Salis-Seewis, who seems to be the only notable person in the whole article. The rest seems to be about NN descendants. The title seems to be a French one for a Swiss soldier in French pay for a short period before the French Revolution. We do not even seem to have an article on the person for whom the Austrian title was re-created in 1915, presumably being abolished with the end of the Austrian Empire. Peterkingiron ( talk) 17:21, 4 October 2015 (UTC) reply

• I've added some citations to English-language books published by university presses. 86.24.88.241 ( talk) 08:20, 17 October 2015 (UTC) reply
• Inclined to keep it, although it needs a LOT of work. I am somewhat confused about the use of Comte and Graf, which the article page suggests to be different even though they mean exactly the same: count. The Britannica page on poet Johan Gaudenz von Salis-Seewis only attributes the title Freiherr to him, as does the German wiki-page and the en-wiki version before Rodolph started editing. I assume that he mis-translated Freiherr as Comte/Count, while it should be Baron (not exactly, but it's the general equivalent). This might also explain the remarkable mention of two creation dates: one for Freiherr, the other for Graf. If that is true, Apparently we're dealing with a number of separate comital titles bestowed upon the family "de/von Salis-Seewis" rather than with "the Count of Salis-Seewis"; in other words, they're non- landed nobility. Hence, the page might be better moved to something like "House of Salis-Seewis", or simply "Salis-Seewis". - HyperGaruda ( talk) 17:23, 20 October 2015 (UTC) reply
• Keep. on the basis of the explanation just above. The possible merge/move should be decided later. DGG ( talk ) 22:08, 20 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. JohnCD ( talk) 13:51, 20 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Jam Of Rukrani

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

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

Badly translated it's not even clear what the subject is, basically nonsense Jac16888 ^Talk 16:23, 5 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 19:18, 9 October 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete as this would simply need to be restarted with better English and composition to be even minimally acceptable. SwisterTwister talk 05:50, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete. .The topic is clear enough--it's a family, but there isn't enough standard for that. DGG ( talk ) 20:24, 18 October 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete. No notability asserted in the article, and there don't seem to be any reliable sources discussing anything that would lead to a future finding of notability. /wia /tlk /cntrb 13:40, 19 October 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete It's unclear what the subject of this article is, although I'm sure that some of the content could be merged into Jam (title of nobility). I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam ^Talk 01:33, 20 October 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete. I am not clear how this article managed to survive for so long on Wikipedia and went to old AfD log. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 05:22, 20 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. MBisanz ^talk 16:15, 21 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Open Journal of Psychiatry & Allied Sciences

Open Journal of Psychiatry & Allied Sciences (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Nominating for other's opinion. The Amazing Spiderman ( talk) 14:11, 5 October 2015 (UTC) reply

• Comment I am unclear on this one. The journal shows to have existed since 2010 as "Dysphrenia", and the issues are online. However, the early issues are far, far from scholarly. After the name change, the articles took on a scholarly appearance. I looked at some issues trying to see if the articles were real. In many of the bogus open access journals, you find that the articles have been copied from articles elsewhere, with only the author's names changed, and maybe a word or two changed in the title. I didn't find this to be the case for this one. However, the PDFs are created in such a way that there is no underlying text that could be run against a plagiarism detection machine -- and does not allow copy/paste -- and this concerns me. It is possible that they wanted to prevent copying, but this is an uncommon measure. Other than saying that the journal exists, however, I find no other information. It appears in Worldcat, but all of the libraries listed are in a single German consortium, and since the journal is online it appears to be "held" by all of them. (~30). I find no third-party information about it, but I don't know if that is unusual for a journal. I looked at the domain for the journal (hpage.com) and it's a freebie web site. This journal links to http://indianjournals.com, but I'm not sure what the connection is. The journal is not on the predatory publishers list, although the publisher, Academy Publisher, is very close in name to Academy Publish, which is a publisher on that list. The link from the journal to Academy Publisher, however, goes to indianjournals.com and is basically a blank page ("No journals for this publisher"). I'm stumped as to whether this is an actual academic journal or not. LaMona ( talk) 21:21, 5 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 04:31, 8 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 04:31, 8 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 04:31, 8 October 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete Although this is not on Beall's list, it has many of the characteristics of a predatory journal: bad English on the website, editorial board of mainly unknown people (the editor-in-chief is an assistant professor), advertising listings on several bogus "impact factor" websites (CiteFactor, Index Copernicus, and such), proudly claiming to be "indexed" in the catalogue of the National Library of Medicine (which shows that the journal is not even on PubMed Central, despite being OA), etc. GScholar shows only a smattering of citations (also under the former title). In short, this is a non-notable journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. -- Randykitty ( talk) 07:29, 11 October 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete: Per nomination. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 05:23, 20 October 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete as a non-notable journal, not widely cited despite being open source, and not indexed by reliable (read selective) databases. In fact the only citations that I found to articles in this journal were contained within other articles also published by it (either the new name or the old name). -- Bejnar ( talk) 21:52, 20 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 speedy delete as G7, user request. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:47, 14 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Dylan Connolly

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

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

Recreation of an article previously deleted by PROD. Concern was that he Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. This remains valid. Sir Sputnik ( talk) 22:40, 12 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik ( talk) 22:40, 12 October 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down ( talk) 23:09, 12 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. —  Jkudlick  ^t c _s 13:49, 13 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. —  Jkudlick  ^t c _s 13:50, 13 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. —  Jkudlick  ^t c _s 13:52, 13 October 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete - fails NFOOTY and GNG. —  Jkudlick  ^t c _s 13:54, 13 October 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 17:40, 13 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 Speedy Delete per WP:G3, a blatant hoax — CactusWriter ^(talk) 23:53, 13 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Chad Berryman

Chad Berryman (  | 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 WP:HOAX The 1942 game in which he supposedly made his debut (it was against the Dodgers, not the Reds) doesn't mention him. Also, he doesn't appear in the 1942 Phillies season either. MrLinkinPark333 ( talk) 22:37, 12 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 22:59, 12 October 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete. This is clearly a long-lived hoax. Print and online sources such as Baseball-Reference.com, which contains data for all Major League players, nowhere mention this individual. The only recorded professional baseball player named Chad Berryman played briefly in the low minor leagues from 1998-2000 and never reached the major leagues; see this Baseball-Reference.com entry for more details. An early version of this article, created by a single-purpose account, included a deliberately misleading Baseball-Reference.com link to Charlie Berry, a link that was removed in 2014 when an editor noticed it didn't match the subject. Calamondin12 ( talk) 12:52, 13 October 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete. Obvious hoax. Actually very disappointed that this lasted so long. Penale52 ( talk) 15:12, 13 October 2015 (UTC) reply
• Tagged as G3 as he obviously never existed but it's worth noting my searches found some links here for two Chad Berryman who actually existed for Lake Elsinore Storm and also another for Lawrence County High School in Moulton, Alabama. I would've likely found this myself but I have't searched much for 2012 orphaned articles as I likely would've reviewed then when started (though that's not to say something slips by). SwisterTwister talk 17:15, 13 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. JohnCD ( talk) 13:52, 20 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Brwa Nouri

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

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

Recreation of an article previously deleted by PROD. Concern was that he Never played a match in a fully pro league (only played in Superettan) and fails WP:NFOOTY. This remains valid. Sir Sputnik ( talk) 21:55, 12 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik ( talk) 21:56, 12 October 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down ( talk) 23:08, 12 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. —  Jkudlick  ^t c _s 13:42, 13 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. —  Jkudlick  ^t c _s 13:42, 13 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. —  Jkudlick  ^t c _s 13:43, 13 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. —  Jkudlick  ^t c _s 13:43, 13 October 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete - has played in neither a WP:FPL nor any senior international football. Not enough significant coverage to pass WP:GNG. —  Jkudlick  ^t c _s 13:48, 13 October 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 17:40, 13 October 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 05:25, 20 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 speedy delete. Obvious spam and probably non-notable Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:58, 16 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Charles Gator Moore

Charles Gator Moore (  | 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 pass WP:MUSICBIO, not indepedently notable from The Transitions, which itself is not highly notable. Lacks WP:RS as well. ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 21:45, 12 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 Speedy Deleted (G120 by Anthony Bradbury.. ( non-admin closure) – Davey2010 ^Talk 15:14, 18 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Oblique lumbar lateral interbody fusion

Oblique lumbar lateral interbody fusion (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

A neologism about a surgical procedure that doesn't meet the general notability guideline. The article appears to have been written by the doctor who developed it raising WP:OR concerns. SmartSE ( talk) 21:11, 12 October 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete There are 7 primary sources on this per pubmed and no reviews. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 21:18, 12 October 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete This item is already well placed on Spinal fusion page. A little of the page info could be added to there. This procedure does not warrant its own page. The paragraph on the economics is totally unnecessary.-- Iztwoz ( talk) 16:35, 13 October 2015 (UTC) reply
• Note The article has been deleted as a copyright violation, but I'm not sure where it is copied from. I've asked User:Anthony Bradbury for more details, but in the meantime, can we keep this open? SmartSE ( talk) 16:48, 13 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. MBisanz ^talk 16:16, 21 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Shiraz and Suburbs Bus Organization

Shiraz and Suburbs Bus Organization (  | 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 bus company, Can't find anything notability-wise, Fails NCORP & GNG – Davey2010 ^Talk 20:43, 12 October 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete. Can't find anything to demonstrate notability up to the WP:CORP standard. I don't read Farsi but I'm not seeing any Farsi-language sources that would seem to assert notability either. /wia /tlk /cntrb 13:44, 19 October 2015 (UTC) reply
• Comment: this article used to be called "Shiraz bus network" until recently, which is more in line with the information currently present. Nontheless, it is completely unsourced and a mess, so Delete. - HyperGaruda ( talk) 08:12, 21 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. JohnCD ( talk) 13:52, 20 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Mesriani Law Group

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

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

Probably non-notable American law firm. Almost all sources are SPS, trivial directory listings, or profiles in affiliated branche-internal websites. Ref #3 is a bit more detailed, but focusses on 1 specific lawyer, not on the company as a whole. Google search reveals a few passing mentions in case descriptions and some PR activity, but nothing really in-depth. GermanJoe ( talk) 20:01, 12 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:17, 12 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:17, 12 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:17, 12 October 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete for now until better can be applied. SwisterTwister talk 04:28, 14 October 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Current sources are primary/trivial/unreliable. A reference search hasn't turned up anything that would demonstrate notability. /wia /tlk /cntrb 13:46, 19 October 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete - searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage from independent sources to show they meet either WP:GNG or WP:NCORP. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:05, 20 October 2015 (UTC) reply
• Speedy Delete as promotional and failing GNG.-- JumpLike23 (talk) 03:25, 20 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. JohnCD ( talk) 13:53, 20 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Nationwide Metal Recycling Limited

Nationwide Metal Recycling Limited (  | 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:NCORP. No independent sources listed and a search only revealed passing mentions, nothing in-depth. shoy ( reactions) 19:42, 12 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:18, 12 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:18, 12 October 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete. Not only does this article fail the notability guidelines for corporations (as noted by the nominator), it likely qualifies for speedy deletion for its advertising and promotional tone. NewYorkActuary ( talk) 08:04, 13 October 2015 (UTC) reply

I agree that it's a borderline speedy, but in cases where the article is a little more put-together and doesn't read like a promo brochure, I like to give them the benefit of the doubt in case they have access to sources that I don't. shoy ( reactions) 13:04, 13 October 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete for now and draft and userfy if needed as I actually reviewed this at AfC and knew it wouldn't be entirely acceptable yet. SwisterTwister talk 04:39, 14 October 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete - as per nom and above editors. Nothing on the searches to show this meets either WP:GNG or WP:NCORP. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:25, 20 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 Snow Keep. ( non-admin closure) – Davey2010 ^Talk 15:15, 18 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Anti (Rihanna album)

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

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

Don't be fooled by the references currently used; this doesn't meet notability criteria for albums since there is no confirmed release date or tracklist. It therefore is too early for this to have an article per WP:Notability (music)#Unreleased material and WP:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Snuggums ( talk / edits) 19:00, 12 October 2015 (UTC) reply

• Definitely NOT delete, but Incubate, until we get more details regarding the actual release date and the track listing. Apart of that the article can be standalone, because we already have enough information for the development, writing, artwork, obviously singles and etc. — Tom ^(T2ME) 19:02, 12 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:21, 12 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Barbados-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:21, 12 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:21, 12 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 20:26, 12 October 2015 (UTC) reply

• Speedy Keep it's an upcoming notable album and there's already a lot of (sourced) information on it, including the name, tracks, etc. This is a misuse of WP:CRYSTAL as this is both a certian event and what is included in the article is quite a bit of the non-speculative portions of the future albums. If there's anything speculative, it should be remove but the article on the whole is notable and fairly well sourced. --  R45  ^talk! 20:46, 12 October 2015 (UTC) reply

• First of all, this isn't exactly a "speedy keep". Secondly, WP:CRYSTAL is based on unconfirmed release date. Third, see WP:Notability (music)#Unreleased material; albums should not have articles when there is no confirmed release date or official tracklist, so it on the contrary is NOT (yet) notable. Specific criteria for upcoming albums exists for a reason and should be put to use. Snuggums ( talk / edits) 21:32, 12 October 2015 (UTC) reply

• From your link at WP:Notability (music)#Unreleased material:

Unreleased material (including demos, mixtapes, bootlegs, promo-only recordings) is only notable if it has significant independent coverage in reliable sources.

It does not say it has to have a track listing and release date are absolutely required (the words "in general" is used, and in the past there have been exceptions to this), but the principle is it should be notable and have reliable independent coverage. The article has a lot of reliable indepedent sources (72 references) discussing the album and the confirmed tracks, as well as its development. Given the scope and breath, it doesn't make sense to merge this into Rihanna's main article and frankly some common sense would suggest that this is one of those exceptional cases of a notable artist with reliable information out there on her next album. --  R45  ^talk! 21:50, 12 October 2015 (UTC) reply

"Common sense" is a meaningless argument and a cop-out response at best. Even if it wasn't, "common sense" if anything would actually not support including items without confirmed release dates. However, I might understand having an article on an album with a confirmed title, official release date, and many tracks confirmed. It would be more ideal to incubate this as Tomica points out than keeping it in mainspace. In fact, incubation is frequently used for albums ins like this before all the necessary details are confirmed. Snuggums ( talk / edits) 23:59, 12 October 2015 (UTC) reply

• I'm not sure what your point is, I'm allowed to express my opinion. I don't think it should be deleted, and I expressed my point. Others will chime in, and either there'll be consensus to keep the article or not. You've stated your case, so just let the process work. --  R45  ^talk! 04:05, 13 October 2015 (UTC) reply

• My point was that albums don't warrant articles without confirmed release dates. Also, I never explicitly said it had to be deleted, only that it shouldn't be in mainspace. Remember there is a difference between incubating an article (moving it away from mainspace) and deleting it. Snuggums ( talk / edits) 04:44, 13 October 2015 (UTC) reply

• My "your point" comment was directed at your need to keep trying to refute my opinion. You created this AFD with your case and stated your point - I simply don't agree with you. As such, I voted Keep. I've read the policies you cited, and I don't believe this nomination is in the spirit of why the guidelines exist. Personally I think you're Wikilawyering a bit here, and this article is probably a very good example of the exceptional circumstances where we keep an unreleased album without a release date. I am only one voice and there's no need to get defensive because I disagree with the nomination. --  R45  ^talk! 05:18, 13 October 2015 (UTC) reply

• Keep there is enough non-speculation content for an article. sst ✈ 04:06, 13 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Note that WP:NALBUMS is meant to be a supplement to the WP:GNG requirements. In this case, the article topic has received significant independent reliable coverage. If content in the article may be considered WP:CRYSTAL, the correct approach is to remove it from the article while keeping verifiable information. See WP:ARTN. sst ✈ 04:21, 13 October 2015 (UTC) reply

The fact that it fails WP:NALBUMS for having no confirmed release date or tracklist is why it doesn't (yet) warrant an article, regardless of how much coverage it has received. Snuggums ( talk / edits) 04:25, 13 October 2015 (UTC) reply

An article does not need to meet WP:NALBUMS as long as it meets WP:GNG. sstflyer alt 05:06, 13 October 2015 (UTC) reply

No, it actually 'DOES need to meet WP:NALBUMS, which is the specific notability criterion for albums. Specific criteria exists for a reason and should be put to use. Snuggums ( talk / edits) 05:10, 13 October 2015 (UTC) reply

• Keep. Plenty of source material to draw from... Binksternet ( talk) 04:42, 13 October 2015 (UTC) reply

• .....Except the prerequisites of release date and tracklist..... Snuggums ( talk / edits) 05:10, 13 October 2015 (UTC) reply

• The WP:GNG guideline does not need anything except significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. Binksternet ( talk) 05:30, 13 October 2015 (UTC) reply

• The relevant notability criteria for albums is WP:NALBUMS, which requires a confirmed title, official release date, and full track list in addition to coverage in multiple reliable sources. Snuggums ( talk / edits) 05:32, 13 October 2015 (UTC) reply

• You are mistaken in believing that WP:NALBUMS must be met. If a topic meets any of the relevant notability guideline, then it is notable. NALBUMS co-exists with GNG; either one will suffice. GNG is a catch-all which opens the door for topics that are widely discussed in sources. Binksternet ( talk) 06:09, 14 October 2015 (UTC) reply

• On the contrary, WP:NALBUMS was made specifically for albums and requires more nuance. It exists for very good reason and is what should be applied. Meeting GNG—which is only a bare minimum threshold for any type of article—doesn't necessarily warrant an article when it fails criteria specifically made for certain types of articles. Snuggums ( talk / edits) 06:28, 14 October 2015 (UTC) reply

• If that's your position (and it appears to be your main argument here) then you will want to point everybody to the policy page stating that NALBUMS is required even when GNG is met. Everywhere else, a GNG article is perfectly suitable. Binksternet ( talk) 23:35, 15 October 2015 (UTC) reply

• I wouldn't go so far as to say "everywhere else"; for example, WP:NFF states "Films that have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography should not have their own articles", and WP:BIOFAMILY states "Being related to a notable person in itself confers no degree of notability upon that person". Focusing back on WP:NALBUMS, it also states "Separate articles should not be created until there is sufficient reliably sourced information about a future release". Simply stating that an album is being released sometime in the future is definitely not sufficient enough. Snuggums ( talk / edits) 02:10, 16 October 2015 (UTC) reply

• Keep - There is a lot of info for this album. I know there's no official track list or release date, but Rihanna releasing the artwork shows intent that those bits of info will come available very shortly. There is so much commentary here that it is actually useful for readers want info. This is an encyclopedia after all... However, I would also not be oppose to Incubate either. But deleting this wealth of well written and well sourced material is a complete no-no.  —  Calvin999 11:04, 13 October 2015 (UTC) reply
• Keep the artwork, title and details are all official and reliable. There's no point in deleting the article at this stage when it will obviously be recreated and/or expanded with info like the track listing and release date in due course anyway. Cool Marc 11:58, 13 October 2015 (UTC) reply
• Keep. I don't know why we waste time deleting or even incubating articles about upcoming album's by major recording artists that have received a lot of press coverage (even if they don't have a confirmed track list and release date). Let articles snowball! --- Another Believer _{( Talk)} 18:54, 13 October 2015 (UTC) reply

• You've been told before by others that we aren't supposed to "let it snowball" when it doesn't meet notability criteria, regardless of who the artist is, and very well know better than to do that. WP:NALBUMS exists for good reason. Incubation is also most certainly NOT a "waste" of time. Snuggums ( talk / edits) 19:47, 13 October 2015 (UTC) reply

• I think this can arguably be speedily kept per WP:SK#1, since the nominator fails to advance an argument why this article fails the general notability guideline. sstflyer alt 01:05, 14 October 2015 (UTC) reply

• That's absurd; not only has there already been an "incubate" vote, but my rationale examined quite well how it doesn't meet WP:NALBUMS, which is the criterion that applies for albums. Meeting general notability guideline doesn't necessarily mean it warrants an article if it fails criteria specifically made for the type of article. When a more specific criterion exists for an article, which is WP:NALBUMS in this case, the more specific criterion should be applied since it was specifically made for that type of article. Snuggums ( talk / edits) 02:04, 14 October 2015 (UTC) reply

• Keep — Per arguments above. Enough significant coverage by third-party reliable sources to constitute a valid article on Wikipedia. livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 02:37, 14 October 2015 (UTC) reply
• Keep — Though no official release date nor track-listing (probably to prevent a leakage/immediate release), there is a significant amount of coverage for the article to sustain notability. However, the lead must at least reflect the contents of the article (So far the lead only has a single sentence). Chihciboy ( talk) 21:10, 15 October 2015 (UTC) reply

• I've said it before and I will say it again; the fact that it doesn't have an official tracklist or release date means it in fact is NOT notable enough for an article. Don't let the sheer number of references or what they say fool you when none of them confirm a tracklist or release date. Snuggums ( talk / edits) 21:55, 15 October 2015 (UTC) reply

• Not having a release date or track listing doesn't make it notable, despite being discussed extensively in reliable third-party publications, before and after its title was revealed? Yes, it is preferred that an album have a title, release date, and track list before having a standalone article, but that is only a guideline, to which there are occasional exceptions. This is an obvious one. Chase ( talk | contributions) 19:22, 16 October 2015 (UTC) reply

• "Only a guideline" is discouraged as an argument in AFD's and shouldn't be used as a cop-out like that. Snuggums ( talk / edits) 19:29, 16 October 2015 (UTC) reply

• I'm not using it as a cop-out. I'm saying that as a guideline and not a hard rule, there are exceptions. The beauty of Wikipedia is that our guidelines and policies aren't hard rules, and topics that are obviously notable in the media that interest our readers can have articles even in unusual circumstances. I think you've made your point, Snuggums; there's no need to aggressively respond to everyone who disagrees with you. Chase ( talk | contributions) 19:38, 16 October 2015 (UTC) reply

• For once I actually agree with everything Chase is saying here, Snuggums. There is so much info present which is linked to a large amount of high quality sources which pretty much makes it notable despite the absence of a confirmed tracklist. In this circumstance, deletion is not necessary. It's a unanimous keep amongst voters, so I think it would be best if you took it down a notch. I do see why you nominated it for deletion for that reason though, but as Chase said, they are guidelines, not rules. This article is an exception.  —  Calvin999 19:47, 16 October 2015 (UTC) reply

• The reason I took to AFD is because original incubation was erroneously reverted. I would ideally have left it stay in draft space until it met all the WP:NALBUMS criteria. Snuggums ( talk / edits) 20:02, 16 October 2015 (UTC) reply

• The article incubation was reverted because it was undiscussed and lacked consensus. You could have at least started a move discussion, since obviously something like that is going to be contested, as evidenced by the keep votes in this AfD discussion. sst ✈ 04:15, 17 October 2015 (UTC) reply

• Keep. The notion that this doesn't meet notability criteria is absurd. As one of the most anticipated album releases of 2015, there is an abundance of coverage in reliable sources. Chase ( talk | contributions) 19:20, 16 October 2015 (UTC) reply

• Anticipated doesn't automatically mean it meets WP:NALBUMS. Besides, there isn't even any official confirmation it'll even be released in 2015. Snuggums ( talk / edits) 19:29, 16 October 2015 (UTC) reply

• The sources present are more than enough to meet the GNG. As someone said above, you're just wikilawyering over one small detail (which isn't an end-all-be-all rule) and failing to understand the spirit of the title-tracklist-release guideline. Ever heard of Chinese Democracy? This is a very similar case. Chase ( talk | contributions) 19:38, 16 October 2015 (UTC) reply

• Keep - we know from the sources that the album exists, has a title, and will be released, just not when. Passes the WP:CRYSTAL test, and is clearly notable per WP:NMUSIC. It's snowing in here. Ivanvector 🍁 ( talk) 02:13, 17 October 2015 (UTC) reply
• Keep—Majority of the sources listed comply to original research. Years later the album has got a title, the official artwork is out, there were promotions by Rihanna a few weeks back. Ok, the speculated track listing may be removed as there isn't confirmation what tracks are sure to be on the record. Surely, the context on this page is relevant to the upcoming album. There may be issues like unrefined prose or improper MOS but deletion? No, not at all. Don't delete the page, please. Arjann ( talk)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. JohnCD ( talk) 13:54, 20 October 2015 (UTC) reply

SE&CV

SE&CV (  | 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 sources that suggests this model railroad as notable. It was proposed for deletion exactly 7 years ago and got cancelled, so that's why I'm here nominating it for deletion. TheGGoose ( talk) 17:34, 12 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:23, 12 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arkansas-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:24, 12 October 2015 (UTC) reply

As the creator of the page, I second his motion to delete this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vchapman ( talk • contribs) 20:58, 12 October 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete as unless this can actually be improved, I'm not seeing anything here. Pinging past users Nick Number, The ed17 and Optimist on the run. here and the best my searches found were here. SwisterTwister talk 17:22, 13 October 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete per my PROD in 2013. Ed  ^{[talk]  [majestic titan]} 18:12, 13 October 2015 (UTC) reply
• Comment - I'm neutral. My decline of the 2013 PROD was purely procedural. Optimist on the run ( talk) 18:49, 13 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 Snow Keep. ( non-admin closure) – Davey2010 ^Talk 15:16, 18 October 2015 (UTC) reply

List of Jewish Nobel laureates

List of Jewish Nobel laureates (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

According to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of atheist Nobel laureates (2nd nomination), this article was to be deleted. The consensus was to delete all such lists. It was recreated without any deletion review discussion and the issues outlined at that deletion discussion are not addressed in the recreation of the content. It appears that the Wikipedians who commented on the last discussion were not aware of this previous discussion. The appropriate thing to do is remove this list from articlespace, clean it up, and then bring this list to WP:DRV for recreation. That is what is occurring at User:Bharatiya29/List of Hindu Nobel laureates which is the appropriate solution. If someone would like the list userfied, that would be acceptable to me. There, he or she could work on the real problems associated with WP:NOR, WP:BLP and WP:RNPOV that are being violated here and once those problems are fixed we can have a proper discussion about whether the proposed content is encyclopedic. jps ( talk) 17:11, 12 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 17:31, 12 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 17:31, 12 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 17:31, 12 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 17:35, 12 October 2015 (UTC) reply

• Comment The decision for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Jewish Nobel laureates (December 2010) postdates Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of atheist Nobel laureates (2nd nomination) (July 2007), so the latter is no longer relevant. The 2010 decision was no consensus. Therefore, the rationale for this debate should be more specific about how the list is violating various policies. RockMagnetist( talk) 17:56, 12 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • The 2007 AfD is superseded by the 2010 AfD on this specific article, so it has no bearing on this discussion. Alansohn ( talk) 18:04, 12 October 2015 (UTC) reply
    • Praytell, how does "no consensus" supersede a documented consensus? jps ( talk) 18:11, 12 October 2015 (UTC) reply
      • Why wouldn't it? A no consensus is an equally valid decision, and more recent decisions are more valid because Wikipedia's policies have developed over time. At the time of the 2007 decision was made, there was no notability criterion for stand-alone lists (see this version of Wikipedia:Notability). RockMagnetist( talk) 18:22, 12 October 2015 (UTC) reply
        • I don't see that WP:NOTESAL ever came into consideration during the "no consensus" discussion. I have never heard someone argue that a discussion which was closed as "no consensus" actually could overturn a consensus. That's a completely new one to me! If you think that notability rules have changed to become more inclusive of lists that try to identify people's religions, go ahead and say that. I don't see much evidence for it. jps ( talk) 18:28, 12 October 2015 (UTC) reply
• Keep The only relevant question here is if Nobel Prize laureates are identified in the real world by their shared Jewish religion and the evidence is that they are, both as individuals and as a group. Burton Feldman's The Nobel Prize: A History of Genius, Controversy, and Prestige, appendices are provided listing and grouping by country, by women, by family and Jewish laureates; no other religious scheme is identified, and we do identify Nobel laureates by nation, by sex and by family. In "Interview: Richard Dawkins Keeps Making New Enemies; The famed atheist talks about the Pope, fiction, and why Jews win Nobel Prizes", an interview of Richard Dawkins published in The Atlantic, Dawkins notes at length that "I should have compared religion with religion and compared Islam not with Trinity College but with Jews, because the number of Jews who have won Nobel Prizes is phenomenally high.' and "... I don’t think it is a minor thing; it is colossal. I think more than 20 percent of Nobel Prizes have been won by Jews". The David Duke web site points to The Jewish Bias of the Nobel Prize, which documents the phenomenon. I could also point to the dozens of sources available online showing "Jewish Nobel laureates" as a real-world means of categorization, but the more than 250 sources included in the article should stand as further evidence. It seems that people of all religions join atheists and anti-Semites in recognizing this as an appropriate grouping mechanism. Alansohn ( talk) 18:04, 12 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Wow. Anyone who uses David Duke as an argument to keep this page should be dismissed out of hand and probably indefinitely banned from Wikipedia. WP:BADSITES indeed! jps ( talk) 18:12, 12 October 2015 (UTC) reply
    • • Settle down, jps. Alansohn is a reliable and diligent editor who works on geography. He seems to have googled around to discover how widepresd the Jewish Nobel Prize lists are, and I suspect that Duke googles well (alas). Alansohn may not have even known who David Duke is. Or he may have been citing Duke as an extreme example. I prefer to WP:AGF. We all tend to write carelessly at times. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 18:59, 12 October 2015 (UTC) reply
        • I don't think it is unreasonable to ask people not to base their arguments on David Duke and to completely discount anyone who bases their arguments for keeping content on Wikipedia on a source written by David Duke. jps ( talk) 19:10, 12 October 2015 (UTC) reply
          • Alansohn was making the quite reasonable point that even anti-Semites recognise this as a category, as well as atheists and people of various religions. Of course David Duke would not be an appropriate source for article content, but it is perfectly valid to mention him in a discussion. 86.24.88.241 ( talk) 09:06, 17 October 2015 (UTC) reply
• Keep My scholarly reason for voting KEEP is that there is a burgeoning body of research supporting the idea that the cultural tradition in which an individual is reared have an impact on what an individual does adult life on many levels, including the production of ideas. i.e., your ethnic heritage may have an impact on whether you are likely to engage in the kind of thought production that wins a Nobel Prize. I do not see that this body of work was discussed in the 2007 debate. My more straightforward reason is that the world has moved on, Wikipedia has long included articles on Muslim and of Hindu prize winners. Makes it hard to delete the article on Jewish ones. I am also persuaded by User:Alansohn's point, the lists and articles on the predominance of Jews among winners of the Nobel Prizes makes this a topic of patent and demonstrable significance. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 18:59, 12 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • To be fair, we are currently discussing every single list of Nobel laureates based on WP:CAT/R arguments. The last time we had an omnibus discussion on the subject, the consensus was to delete all. It may be that consensus changed, but we have the firm opportunity now to either confirm or deny the outcome of the previous discussion. jps ( talk) 19:10, 12 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:25, 12 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:25, 12 October 2015 (UTC) reply

• Keep. There are many hundred publications which mention "Jewish Nobel Prize winners" in Google books alone [1]. Why can't we have a page about it? This could be even a regular page. The criteria for creating lists are less strict. Here, it would be enough to have a "notable intersection" of two categories, which we also have. The nominator did not provide any arguments why such list would not be appropriate for encyclopedia. My very best wishes ( talk) 21:03, 12 October 2015 (UTC) reply
• Keep Sources such as this indicate that the topic passes WP:LISTN. Andrew D. ( talk) 22:43, 12 October 2015 (UTC) reply
• Comment There was another discussion of this list in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Muslim Nobel Laureates with a no consensus decision in March 2012. I have added it in a somewhat awkward fashion to the box at the top. RockMagnetist( talk) 23:07, 12 October 2015 (UTC) reply
• Keep Been there done that. Scholarly subject matter as established ad nauseum here and in prior afd's. -- brew crewer (yada, yada) 01:10, 13 October 2015 (UTC) reply
• Keep as notable and properly sourced. VMS Mosaic ( talk) 01:14, 13 October 2015 (UTC) reply
• Keep because it's an important part of Jewish history and world history, many books written about this topic, and it's all backed up by WP:N & WP:RS. IZAK ( talk) 05:45, 13 October 2015 (UTC) reply
• Keep the arguments by My very best wishes seem convincing here. Dorpater ( talk) 17:22, 13 October 2015 (UTC) reply
• Keep. It's not us making the call about whether or not to discuss this thing, it's the sources, so it's not original synthesis. – Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 21:05, 14 October 2015 (UTC) reply
• Keep as notable topic and there been a several studies about it.-- Jobas ( talk) 11:55, 17 October 2015 (UTC) reply
• Agree with proposer the WP policies appear to support the article's form and the above arguments opposing all are saying basically the same thing, that the article is consistent with WP guidelines. The article falls short on at least one glaring misconception. It is an accepted convention today that one's religion is that which has been professed or announced. A great number of the subjects of the article make/made no such revelation and on the talk page numerous examples have been raised of laureates who maintained no personal connection or interest with Judaism. The verified content is misleading as the statements used for reference are in the main assumptions based on ancestry. The article content does not address this confusion except for a footnote, rather it repeatedly courts controversy by failing to clearly define its subject area.-- Mevagiss ( talk) 12:34, 17 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 procedural keep. While it is true that the article was previously deleted in 2007 and was recreated without a DRV, the consensus here is that this argument was already deployed in the most recent AFD, which closed "no consensus", and that it is therefore inappropriate to re-run the same argument so soon afterwards in search of a different outcome. The underlying "no consensus" decision of the most recent AFD stands. Bencherlite ^Talk 15:53, 15 October 2015 (UTC) reply

List of Christian Nobel laureates

List of Christian Nobel laureates (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

According to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of atheist Nobel laureates (2nd nomination), this article was to be deleted. The closing administrator at the last deletion discussion suggested an RfC which, essentially, already occurred in the AfD linked above! The consensus was to delete all such lists. It was recreated without any deletion review discussion and the issues outlined at that deletion discussion are not addressed in the recreation of the content. It appears that the Wikipedians who commented on the last discussion were not aware of this previous discussion. The appropriate thing to do is remove this list from articlespace, clean it up, and then bring this list to WP:DRV for recreation. That is what is occurring at User:Bharatiya29/List of Hindu Nobel laureates which is the appropriate solution. If the creator of this list who did it out-of-process would like the list userfied, that would be acceptable to me. There, he could work on the real problems associated with WP:NOR, WP:BLP and WP:RNPOV that are being violated here and once those problems are fixed we can have a proper discussion about whether the proposed content is encyclopedic. Note that a "no consensus" closure default to keep is not a protection against future AfDs. jps ( talk) 17:06, 12 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 17:33, 12 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 17:33, 12 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 17:34, 12 October 2015 (UTC) reply

• Keep. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of atheist Nobel laureates (2nd nomination) was decided in July 2007 while Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Christian Nobel laureates was just a week ago and had a no consensu result. Trying to overturn such a recent decision by appealing to an eight year old decision is just wikilawyering. RockMagnetist( talk) 18:11, 12 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • How is it Wikilawyering? The consensus to delete was clear. There was never a consensus to recreate. You can argue that we should ignore all rules in this case or that we shouldn't be beholden to process, but at least be honest that this is what you are appealing to. I'm pointing out that the community did have consensus on such religion-tagging lists and that these lists were recreated out-of-process and without regard to the previous discussion's documented consensus. jps ( talk) 18:16, 12 October 2015 (UTC) reply
    • It's wikilawyering because you're not identifying any arguments from the old discussion that were missed in the recent decision. The lack of consensus in the more recent discussion was also clear, and Wikipedia policies have developed over time. At the time of the 2007 decision, there was no notability criterion for stand-alone lists (see this version of Wikipedia:Notability). RockMagnetist( talk) 18:28, 12 October 2015 (UTC) reply
      • All of the arguments in the old discussion seemed to be missed. Read the nominator's rationale. Now see if it is reflected in the last discussion. It isn't. Re-discussing a discussion which was closed with clear consensus effectively seems to me to be a waste of time, yet here we are. jps ( talk) 18:30, 12 October 2015 (UTC) reply
        • You're the one re-opening the discussion. The burden is on you to identify the arguments that were overlooked and show they apply to the current version of the article. RockMagnetist( talk) 18:38, 12 October 2015 (UTC) reply
          • I think I did that. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree as to whether that was done or not. jps ( talk) 18:47, 12 October 2015 (UTC) reply
• Oppose I was ready to reconsider until I realized that the debate being cited took place in 2007. A long discussion has gone on here that was closed just a few days ago as no consensus. Frankly, I fail to see the point of doing this all over again. But if we do, my vote will still be to KEEP, and my rationale will not have changed. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 18:34, 12 October 2015 (UTC) reply

  My scholarly reason for voting KEEP is that there is a burgeoning body of research supporting the idea that the cultural tradition in which an individual is reared have an impact on what an individual does adult life on many levels, including the production of ideas. i.e., your ethnic heritage may have an impact on whether you are likely to engage in the kind of thought production that wins a Nobel Prize. I do not see that this body of work was discussed in the 2007 debate. My more straightforward reason is that the world has moved on, Wikipedia has long included article son Muslim, Hindu, and Jewish prize winners. Makes it hard to delete the article on Christian ones. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 18:45, 12 October 2015 (UTC) reply

  Fair enough, but just to be clear the only reason I'm reopening this is because I was surprised that there was never a proper WP:DRV which dealt substantially with the claims of the 2007 discussion, which, I think, is still a valid discussion to consider in light of the current state of the article. If this AfD turns into a de facto WP:DRV discussion, so be it. However, I don't see this point being discussed at all in the previous discussion which worried me greatly since it is such a clean decision and seems to have caused problems elsewhere. To be sure, I think writing an article on religious identity and Nobel Prizes might be worthwhile, but the listicle fashion that we are seeing here looks to be extremely problematic to me. jps ( talk) 18:50, 12 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:27, 12 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:27, 12 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:28, 12 October 2015 (UTC) reply

• Oppose I'm not voting keep based on any rationale, but I'm opposed to attempting a second run at deletion so soon after a previous discussion resulted in no consensus. Drop the stick and stop wasting our time. Chris Troutman ( talk) 20:50, 12 October 2015 (UTC) reply
• Keep. There was a large majority vote for keep the last time around and the reasons remain valid. Please stop wasting our time with tendentious nominations. Xxanthippe ( talk) 21:43, 12 October 2015 (UTC). reply
• Speedy Keep A vexatious renomination contrary to WP:DELAFD, "It can be disruptive to repeatedly nominate a page in the hope of getting a different outcome." Andrew D. ( talk) 22:38, 12 October 2015 (UTC) reply

So, it was re-created out of process and now it's vexatious to AfD it again? How does that work? Guy ( Help!) 02:35, 15 October 2015 (UTC) reply

The point of SK is to avoid wasting time on such unproductive discussion. Andrew D. ( talk) 07:36, 15 October 2015 (UTC) reply

• Keep as the first AfD was closed correctly. VMS Mosaic ( talk) 01:12, 13 October 2015 (UTC) reply
• Keep. This is a legitimate and sourced list related to the subject of Science and religion. Nominator did not provide any valid (content-based) arguments for deletion. My very best wishes ( talk) 16:28, 13 October 2015 (UTC) reply
• Keep. Per last nomination, this page is an FYI page and is useful for those interested in the intersection of science and religion, considering that some popular writings have used such info to generate discourse on it. Mayan1990 ( talk) 19:23, 13 October 2015 (UTC) reply
• Keep I think Xxanthippe makes a good case. FreeKnowledgeCreator ( talk) 03:47, 14 October 2015 (UTC) reply
• Keep! Absolutely NO reason to delete such an article, especially one well-sourced and of good length and relevance like this. In fact, the mere nomination is exposing the agendas of many of the users on this site. Good to see some of us have good sense at least.-- Sιgε |д･) 16:07, 14 October 2015 (UTC) reply
• Speedy keep. Per WP:DELAFD cited above. Roches ( talk) 17:06, 14 October 2015 (UTC) reply
• Speedy Keep per Andrew D. above: A vexatious renomination contrary to WP:DELAFD, "It can be disruptive to repeatedly nominate a page in the hope of getting a different outcome." I can't say it any better than that. What I can do is to add WP:SOAPBOX and WP:PUSH as a reminder to why it can be disruptive. Come once, have your say, and let the outcome rest. Personal advocacy and opinion has its place and its time in WP decision-making processes (like a first-time nomination), but repeated pushing of agenda becomes a form of incivility. It is no longer about a decision made in 2007. There has been an update now. A failure to reach a consensus does not constitute an excuse for failing to recognize the support that each side has, and to respect the impasse. Evensteven ( talk) 20:15, 14 October 2015 (UTC) reply
• Speedy keep/snow close per outcome of last week's Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Christian Nobel laureates. The nominator should know better than to renominate this a week after the last AFD. Edgeweyes ( talk) 02:03, 15 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. JohnCD ( talk) 13:56, 20 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Liste des Youtubeurs francophones

Liste des Youtubeurs francophones (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Machine translation:This is a list of non-

The term YouTubers designate users who post videos on YouTube and have a few thousand subscribers to their credit. Some YouTube personalities have partnerships with brands, their videos are monetized. The YouTubeurs can have multiple channels, including chains Vlogs, videos showing moments of their daily lives.

This is a list of non-notable people and fails WP:NLIST. Individually there is no claim of significance that would pass WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO Jbh ^Talk 16:36, 12 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 16:45, 12 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 16:45, 12 October 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete. I know this doesn't sound very guideline based, but why should we be interested in a list in French a bout French Youtubers? It's almost certain to be a list of non notable people per WP:LISTPEOPLE anyway. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 17:28, 12 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 17:36, 12 October 2015 (UTC) reply

• Comment This has just been deleted CSD A12 twice on the French Wikipedia. I'm not sure if the same policy applies here, though there appears to be some similarities to our CSD A11. Adam9007 ( talk) 17:47, 12 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:30, 12 October 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete per WP:LISTCRUFT. Any YouTubers here with sufficient demonstration of notability should simply be added to List of YouTubers. But no one deserves to be on any Wikipedia list merely by existing, no matter what language they speak. --Animalparty! ( talk) 02:13, 13 October 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete. I think this one is pretty obvious. No encyclopedic content whatsoever, it's not even in English. r a y u k k. 20:59, 14 October 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom and above editors. WP:LISTCRUFT. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:31, 20 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. JohnCD ( talk) 13:58, 20 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Pavel Los

Pavel Los (  | 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 martial artist. Junior athletes are not generally considered notable. Peter Rehse ( talk) 16:08, 12 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse ( talk) 16:08, 12 October 2015 (UTC) reply

• Strong Delete Teenage karateka who competes as a blue belt. No significant coverage to meet WP:GNG and clearly isn't close to meeting WP:MANOTE. Papaursa ( talk) 18:03, 12 October 2015 (UTC) reply
• Don't Delete I know this guy. And he wins on European Championships of Shotokan Karate. What prevents us write Wikipedia about the juniors European champions? He has a lot of gold medals. Bennort ( talk) 18:12, 12 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Accomplishments as a junior are almost never considered notable, certainly not winning a medal in a 11-12 (or 13-14) year old blue belt division. WP:NSPORTS requires competing at the highest level, and that he hasn't done. Most martial arts competitors I know have more medals and trophies than they have room to store them, so that doesn't meet any notability criteria. WP:ILIKEIT is not a sufficient reason for keeping an article. Papaursa ( talk) 18:34, 12 October 2015 (UTC) reply

It's a pity. But I can't argue with the criteria. Bennort ( talk) 18:37, 12 October 2015 (UTC) reply

But I'm writed about Pavel in Japanesse and Belarusian Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bennort ( talk • contribs) 19:00, 12 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Different WIki have different notability requirements or are less strict. In this case it makes more sense to have it in the Belarus wiki. Peter Rehse ( talk) 12:15, 13 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belarus-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:31, 12 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:32, 12 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 redirect to Mersenne prime. ( non-admin closure) – Davey2010 ^Talk 15:17, 18 October 2015 (UTC) reply

8191 (number)

8191 (number) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Unremarkable number. Per WP:CRYSTAL: "Individual items from a predetermined list or a systematic pattern of names, pre-assigned to future events or discoveries, are not suitable article topics, if only generic information is known about the item." -- Non-Dropframe _talk 15:42, 12 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 16:48, 12 October 2015 (UTC) reply

@ Non-dropframe: Copied from page on Mersenne primes. Omega Buddy ¹³ _{find me here}

• Redirect to Mersenne prime. The correct criterion is not CRYSTAL (this is not a likely future discovery but rather something discovered in the 15th century), but Wikipedia:Notability (numbers): we need "at least three unrelated interesting mathematical properties" (or clear cultural significance). Although 8191 is listed in several important sequences in OEIS, they all relate closely to the same fact, that it is one less than a power of two, so they are not unrelated. But as a Mersenne prime it is important enough (one of the first five) to warrant a redirect. — David Eppstein ( talk) 17:06, 12 October 2015 (UTC) reply
• Redirect to Mersenne prime. I thought about this, and I will allow my article to be deleted. Omega Buddy ¹³ _{find me here} @ David Eppstein: Agree with you. -- OmegaBuddy13 ( talk) 20:00, 12 October 2015 (UTC) reply

P.S We should maybe make it a redirect until someone can actually take the time to write an article on a number that has nothing special about it, other than the fact that it's just another M_p, anyways. Omega Buddy ¹³ _{find me here}

• Redirect to 8000 (number) where it is already mentioned as a Mersenne prime. Praemonitus ( talk) 22:32, 12 October 2015 (UTC) reply
• Redirect to 8000 (number) per Praemonitus. Pam D 14:24, 13 October 2015 (UTC) reply

@ Praemonitus: That redirect wouldn't be the most reasonable thing to do, and it simply supports the page being its own thing. As I said earlier, I do still agree that it should be redirected. Omega Buddy ¹³ _{find me here} 20:08, 14 October 2015 (UTC) reply

If additional facts are discovered that can be mentioned for this number, then it can be readily inserted onto the '8000 (number)' article. The same can not be said for the 'Mersenne prime' article. Praemonitus ( talk) 20:39, 14 October 2015 (UTC) reply

• Redirect to Mersenne prime as long as that is the only thing the number is known for. Readers will most likely be looking for that connection when looking up 8191, and avoiding 8000 (number) saves them a step. If other facts concerning 8191 are added to 8000 (number), then redirect 8191 (number) to 8000 (number), as Praemonitus proposed. I'd say being a Mersenne prime is important enough fro the article not to be deleted altogether. Gap9551 ( talk) 06:11, 18 October 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) – Davey2010 ^Talk 15:18, 18 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Wincenty of Kielcza

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

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

Definitely existed, but nothing to show notability. There were several hits on the different search engines (scholar and books in particular), but all were brief mentions. Article has existed since 2007 without a single reference added. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:40, 12 October 2015 (UTC) reply

• Note that Medieval and ancient historical figures can often be notable for accomplishments of enduring note, even though we often do not know things like where and in what year they were born. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 20:39, 12 October 2015 (UTC) reply

• Comment: Wincenty and his works seem to be discussed in some detail in 19th-century journals, see for example [2]. הסרפד ( call me Hasirpad) 15:01, 12 October 2015 (UTC) reply
• Speedy keep Deletion of a Polish priest living in the 1200s for lack of extensive Google footprint is ludicrous. Inactivity rationale has no basis in deletion policy. There is no WP:deadline. Furthermore, a simple check on the Polish wiki page reveals plenty of references that the nominee could have added to improve the article instead of booting it. What an encyclopedic counterproductive nomination AccidentRecorder ( talk) 16:02, 12 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 16:52, 12 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 16:52, 12 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:34, 12 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:35, 12 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:35, 12 October 2015 (UTC) reply

• Keep. I've added a citation to the article.-- Samuel J. Howard ( talk) 01:23, 13 October 2015 (UTC) reply
• Keep on the basis of his creation of a major, significant work of literature: the first distinctly Polish hymn. Here's a source that can be added [3]. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 20:36, 12 October 2015 (UTC) reply
• Keep, definitely notable as is evident from the corresponding article in Polish Wikipedia. — Kpalion ^(talk) 20:48, 12 October 2015 (UTC) reply
• Keep for same reasons listed above by others, and a quick search revealed there is more info available that can be used to expand this stub. I intend to work on it. Rockypedia ( talk) 17:07, 14 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. Spinning Spark 20:24, 22 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Words of Farewell

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

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

Can't find anything which will satisfy WP:BAND although I could be wrong. scope_creep ( talk) 15:45, 26 September 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete, difficult to research, since the name is such a common term, but searches on the engines appear not to have any results. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:57, 26 September 2015 (UTC) reply
• Objection to deletion action. This page used to be a redirect to an anime episode. At some point it was converted to an article on a metal band. It would need to be reverted to that redirect version instead of a deletion. It would be best to retain the full article history which has been migrated to the list as legally required by the free license. -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 10:06, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
• Objection* Please note the following for your convenience:
  

1. The band is in fact easy to research. Go to Google and type in the band's name. You simply come up with hundreds of results regarding the band. Go to YouTube and type in Words of Farewell. The first several results are songs of the band. You can also check it out on any of the external links that have been provided on the article page.
2. There is a Full Metal Alchemist episode of the same name - however there has never been a page for it. Instead the "Words of Farewell" page redirected to the full list of the anime's episodes. A disambiguation page has been created and placed on the article page so it can link to the anime episode as well. -- ShockD ( talk) 17:14, 27 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 22:35, 28 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 22:35, 28 September 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete for now as they're simply no signs of better improvement. SwisterTwister talk 22:35, 28 September 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete for lack of coverage in independent reliable sources. The existing sources are exactly the type of sources that don't make for notability. As to the redirect, the redirect to the anime episode can be restored afterward. -- Bejnar ( talk) 02:53, 5 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Type of sources that don't make for notability? Again with the double standards I see. But don't get me wrong - I don't care whether these 4kb deleted or not. It's just the double standards of Wikipedia. Tell me, if there should be only notable artists on here reviewed by your favorite websites why don't you go ahead and delete 80% of Wikipedia's artist pages because they are not notable? -- ShockD ( talk) 22:26, 9 October 2015 (UTC) reply

The type of sources that don't make for notability include press-releases, blogs, forums and fan-sites. See WP:V#Reliable sources. Reliable sources are third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. -- Bejnar ( talk) 17:07, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply

It seems that I have posted reliable sources then. Also I'm left with the impression that you think that reliability and notability are the same thing. And since everybody has an opinion and WP is not a place of opinions you can go ahead and post all of the reliable sources allowed for artist-related pages. Otherwise if one's word overrides another one's word then it's pure bias. I'll ask again - why don't you go ahead and delete most of WP's artist pages for not being notable enough? -- ShockD ( talk) 18:31, 11 October 2015 (UTC) reply

@ ShockD: I'm sorry, what specific sources did you think were reliable and substantive?  -- Bejnar ( talk) 07:41, 12 October 2015 (UTC) reply

The ones I used have actually been used on numerous artist pages all around Wikipedia. That's why I'm asking about the double standards. Or it's just that there are random articles that get picked for review? And what are your reliable sources? -- ShockD ( talk) 10:31, 12 October 2015 (UTC) reply

@ ShockD: I'm sorry, what specific sources with relation to the article under discussion, Words of Farewell, did you think were reliable and substantive?  -- Bejnar ( talk) 07:41, 12 October 2015 (UTC) reply

What specific sources do you think are reliable and substantive with a reputation for fact-checking? -- ShockD ( talk) 14:52, 14 October 2015 (UTC) reply

The answer is that with regard to Words of Farewell I found none. Of the three cited in the article, (1) AFM Records is not an independent source, it is the label for Words of Farewell. (2) metal-archives.com is nothing more than a directory listing. (3) "Interview with Words Of Farewell" from The Grim Towere is an interview, see the discussion at the essay WP:Interviews for the infirmaties of interviews. As to others, listing of lyrics such as at darylyrics is not one, neither are PR releases like thee one at metalstorm. If you mean other than in reference to Words of Farewell, that question really isn't relevant here, but in general see things like the book Guida al Nuovo Progressive Rock 1990-2008. -- Bejnar ( talk) 04:12, 17 October 2015 (UTC) reply

If I can cite sources in foreign languages would it be a problem if I just copy the sources from the German article then? -- ShockD ( talk) 14:25, 17 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Copying without evaluation is not proper. See WP:Citing sources: Don't cite a source unless you've seen it for yourself. Citing less than reliable sources is problematic. -- Bejnar ( talk) 04:52, 18 October 2015 (UTC) reply

If it's there and it hasn't been marked for deletion then this means it's reliable enough. Unless we're applying WP:Double standards again. -- ShockD ( talk) 18:59, 18 October 2015 (UTC) reply

No double standard. Everything is subject to review, allowing time between reviews for conditions to change, tempers to cool, etc. See, for example, WP:RELIST. Your statement If it's there and it hasn't been marked for deletion then this means it's reliable enough. is patently false as WP:Afd demonstrates everyday. This encyclopaedia is primarily staffed by volunteers, who are not everywhere at once. That is why at WP:Afd we focus on the sprcific article in front of us and not on WP:OTHERSTUFF. -- Bejnar ( talk) 00:24, 19 October 2015 (UTC) reply

This is all wrong. I have created enough articles to know that not everything is reviewed, even in years. Not that it matters... -- ShockD ( talk) 13:24, 19 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. As this was the fifth deletion, I have also salted the title (protected it against re-creation). That does not prevent creation of an article if in future he becomes notable: protection can be removed by any administrator if an acceptable draft is accepted at WP:Articles for creation. JohnCD ( talk) 14:00, 20 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Jamal Lasri

Jamal Lasri (  | 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 is more or less the same article that went through an AFD almost three years ago. The original author has had a major issue with COI and sockpuppetry, and right now this page is almost identical with the one found on User:Jamal Lasri (Chemist); although the two articles haven't been edited by the same IP or user as far as I can tell. I've done a couple of checks, but I see nothing that changes the outcome of the previous AFD. Just about all sources in the article seems to be either citations from his published papers, or links to biography pages on various University websites. The only reason I'm not CSD'ing this is the three years span since the last AFD. Bjelleklang - talk 07:12, 4 October 2015 (UTC) reply

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}}.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:30, 8 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Morocco-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:30, 8 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:30, 8 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:30, 8 October 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete. Despite being full professor now the citation counts are too low for WP:PROF#C1 and I don't see anything else. So even if there weren't the sockpuppetry/COI problems, I don't see a reason to keep. — David Eppstein ( talk) 05:51, 8 October 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete. I looked at it and I agree, I can't find anything that meets the WP:PROF criteria. RegistryKey ^(RegEdit) 06:00, 8 October 2015 (UTC) reply
• Keep. He is a brilliant scientist who works in different universities: Morocco, Spain, Portugal and Saudi Arabia. In Portugal, he published several research articles in collaboration with the Ex-Minister of Education and Universities (VIII constitutional government of Portugal) Prof. João J. R. Fraústo da Silva. He also speaks 5 languages, and published in different fiels of research (organic and coordination chemistry and catalysis), he has articles in the top chemistry journals. Moreover, the current article is a notable topic of high interest to the general public with enough available sources. Neverthelesss, some other references/publications are needed though (which is not a case of deleting the article but of improving it). elisabete alegria ( talk) 18:12, 8 October 2015 (UTC) — elisabete alegria ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply

• Delete. I did a somewhat careful search using WoS and, after removing quite a few high-citation publications from Jacob Lasri (who was at Technion, Northwestern, et al, and who is a different person from the subject), I find a publication list having citations: 38, 35, 31, 29 (h-index 14). The highest citation papers in this list have many authors and seem to come from the lab of Armando Pombeiro. That is, it does not appear that Lasri was the PI or sole investigator, but rather a lab member of some kind. He may be a "brilliant scientist", as our colleague asserts above, but the standard metrics by which a scientist in a high-citation discipline is assessed here at WP do not yet indicate notability. This is probably WP:TOOSOON. The history of the article does not help. I would suggest that proponents and other interested editors revisit this entry once Lasri has a higher scientific impact that can clearly be associated with him as an individual. Agricola44 ( talk) 16:38, 13 October 2015 (UTC). reply
• Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:PROF. Not notable. Article has been deleted four times in the past and hence an admin should consider WP:SALT. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 05:29, 20 October 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus was that this passes WP:GNG. ( non-admin closure) Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:52, 20 October 2015 (UTC) reply

The Read House Hotel, Chattanooga, TN

The Read House Hotel, Chattanooga, TN (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Article on this "historic" hotel appears to lack evidence of realworld notability in terms of being supported by multiple, reliable, independent sources that cover it in non-trivial manner. Current article appears to be a promotional piece for the hotel, probably written by someone who works there but has not self-identified as having a COI. KDS4444 ^Talk 11:43, 12 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 13:44, 12 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:36, 12 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:36, 12 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:36, 12 October 2015 (UTC) reply

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

• Keep – The topic meets WP:GNG. Most news sources are local, however book sources and a source from AOL Travel surmounts this. Source examples include: ^[1], ^[2], ^[3], ^[4], ^[5]. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:49, 12 October 2015 (UTC) reply

• Keep: I cannot believe the nominator originally put this up for speedy deletion. A regular prod would have been completely fine, but it was apparent from the first edit that the creator was a making a claim for notability, which it indeed seems to meet.-- Milowent • ^{has spoken} 03:50, 15 October 2015 (UTC) reply

• ETA: Its on the National Register of Historic Places listings in Hamilton County, Tennessee, I added an infobox with link. [4]. After AFD is closed let's move to something like The Read House.-- Milowent • ^{has spoken} 04:12, 15 October 2015 (UTC) reply

• Keep. I have added a handful of {{ cite book}}s, and there's plenty more. Subject meets WP:GEOFEAT. -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 01:50, 20 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. MBisanz ^talk 16:17, 21 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Kristiansand Bus Sogndalen Lines

Kristiansand Bus Sogndalen Lines (  | 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 bus line. Rettetast ( talk) 10:37, 12 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 13:49, 12 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:06, 12 October 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom. Note also that same user has created multiple similar articles on seemingly non-notable local bus lines in Kristiansand. Manxruler ( talk) 05:05, 13 October 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete: Non-notable, local bus lines, delete per WP:BUSOUTCOMES. -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 01:16, 20 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. MBisanz ^talk 16:17, 21 October 2015 (UTC) reply

List of Khmer words of Chinese origin

List of Khmer words of Chinese origin (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Multiple good reasons: 1) all original research, no sources 2) of all the languages influencing Khmer, Chinese probably had the least influence...all of the words in the list are merely transliterations of Proper Nouns (given names or surnames), or names for specifically Chinese things, not organic borrowings or loanwords per se. They aren't "Khmer words", they are still recognized as being Chinese. The only words on this list that are actual borrowings that replaced native words are the numbers, but they were borrowed from Thai (which ultimately did borrow them from Chinese, but they were borrowed into Khmer after they were fully "Thai-ified"), making this list meaningless William Thweatt ^{Talk Contribs} 10:07, 12 October 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete - as nominator.-- William Thweatt ^{Talk Contribs} 10:16, 12 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 13:50, 12 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 13:50, 12 October 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete by WP:Not a dictionary. Kitfoxxe ( talk) 14:38, 12 October 2015 (UTC) reply
• delete as original research and an unencyclopaedic topic per WP:Not a dictionary.-- JohnBlackburne ^words _deeds 14:48, 12 October 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete. WP:NOTDICTIONARY applies. /wia /tlk /cntrb 13:59, 19 October 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete per WP:TNT. While, in theory, such an article or list could be created, as written it has no way to source: it's pure WP:OR. Bearian ( talk) 00:27, 21 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. MBisanz ^talk 16:18, 21 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Kristen Darling

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

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

Self-published author with minimal coverage. Fails general notability. Blackguard 07:49, 12 October 2015 (UTC) reply

All edits are made by a single account, which refuses to respond to requests regarding connection to the subject person of the page.

I apologize and I did not refuse requests about connection - I am new and just learning this system - when I joined Wikipedia as an assignment for one of my college writing classes, Wikipedia suggested for me to view a list of pages marked "to be added". I went down the list and searched until I found one with sources and information. I have no prior knowledge of this author, but when I read her bio and history and found several links to person, I decided to use for my first page creation as it struck me as interesting and unusual, per Wiki guidelines: "worthy of notice"[1] or "note"[2] – that is, "remarkable"[2] or "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded"[1] within Wikipedia as a written account of that person's life. "Notable" in the sense of being "famous" or "popular" – although not irrelevant – is secondary. I sent an email to author requesting permission to create a page with her bio. I was given permission to use photos. Also email included the fact that she was not an "Established author" but up and coming author who would be signed and published by the end of 2015. Also informed that several interviews would be published with the author, both locally and one national coverage when her second novel was published. She was extremely grateful and very responsive to my inquiries.

I thought the point of Wiki was to create pages of up-and-coming pages of interest, in which people might search based on recent events.

Not personally caring whether the page stays or goes, but not clear based on Wiki guidelines why a page would be deleted if it is listed on the page suggestions for new users like me to actually pick one from the list, research it and create a page? -- SusanJenkins ( talk) 18:50, 12 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Mgs2804 ( talk) 08:43, 12 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 13:53, 12 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 13:53, 12 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 13:53, 12 October 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete . Searches produced noting. this is classic self-promotion for first-time author of new work of genre fiction with no evidence of notability found of either author or book. The most generous thing that can be said here is WP:TOOSOON. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 20:31, 12 October 2015 (UTC) reply

• It looks like this was done as a student assignment rather than self-promotion. Offhand I'm inclined to believe them, since the page does give off student vibes. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:20, 13 October 2015 (UTC) reply

I see. I do wish students would use their access to university library archives to write up the many people of significant accomplishment figures who don't have articles because they lived in the pre-internet world. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 18:47, 14 October 2015 (UTC) reply

• delete-I did put a prod up for this earlier, I can't find much notability for her at the moment. Wgolf ( talk) 05:28, 13 October 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete per above. Slightly off-topic comment: I didn't know there was something like a list of pages marked "to be added"; anyone care to share directions? - HyperGaruda ( talk) 07:40, 21 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. MBisanz ^talk 16:19, 21 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Journal of Skyscape Archaeology

Journal of Skyscape Archaeology (  | 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 new journal claiming it has notability under "historic purpose" because of it being the only journal covering a certain specialized subject. With one issue published, it's perhaps a wee bit too soon to speak about "historic". PROD reason stand: "Non-notable new journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG." Hence: Delete. Randykitty ( talk) 07:35, 12 October 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete as WP:TOOSOON. Fails all three criteria at WP:JOURNALCRIT: it doesn't have an impact factor and isn't included in selective databases, per Criterion 1; it's too new to have been frequently cited, per Criterion 2; likewise, it's too new to have had any historic impact, per Criterion 3. The lack of any independent sources makes it fall afoul of WP:GNG, as well. An article might be fitting a few years from now, once the journal has had a chance to make an impact. clpo13_{( talk)} 07:41, 12 October 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete, per Randykitty and Clpo13's comments above. -- Notecardforfree ( talk) 08:25, 12 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 13:55, 12 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 13:55, 12 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:38, 12 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:38, 12 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:38, 12 October 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete per above, with a partial move of the main points to some overarching article. - HyperGaruda ( talk) 07:27, 21 October 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig ( talk) 06:52, 19 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Vinodh Reddy Chennu

Vinodh Reddy Chennu (  | 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 self-published piece about someone with no notability. Searches turned up nothing about this individual. The current sources are all primary. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 04:44, 12 October 2015 (UTC) reply

• Keep Those are not self-published piece. He was student coordinator at NSS in 2013. Look at citations once — Preceding unsigned comment added by Santhoshred ( talk • contribs) 05:49, 12 October 2015 (UTC) Struck sockpuppet comment. — Psychonaut ( talk) 11:24, 12 October 2015 (UTC) reply
• Yes, it is not self-published. citation shows he is also editor-in-chief for Mechanical Magazine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Venkatdude ( talk • contribs) 06:22, 12 October 2015 (UTC) Struck sockpuppet comment. — Psychonaut ( talk) 11:24, 12 October 2015 (UTC) reply

The author of the article stated on his talk page that he is Vinodh Reddy Chennu, as you can see here, so I think we can accept that it is self-published. 80.168.236.223 ( talk) 11:51, 12 October 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom. FYI, Vrc123 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (with the same initials as the article's subject) removed the AFD notice and Santhoshred ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Venkatdude ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and Indianhamara ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) vandalized this page (the latter also untranscluded it).   — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 07:14, 12 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 12. — ^{cyberbot I} _{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:17, 12 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • It was indeed correctly transcluded; the problem is that User:Venkatdude removed it. — Psychonaut ( talk) 07:56, 12 October 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete; the sources are not reliable and/or do not support a claim of notability. See also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Vinodhchennu. — Psychonaut ( talk) 07:32, 12 October 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete, per nom. Non-notable individual. - KH-1 ( talk) 08:09, 12 October 2015 (UTC) reply
• Keep, Sources are reliable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vinodhchennu ( talk • contribs) 09:18, 12 October 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete - WP:NOTRESUME. No evidence of notability. No in-depth coverage from independent reliable sources. GermanJoe ( talk) 13:47, 12 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 13:56, 12 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 13:56, 12 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 13:56, 12 October 2015 (UTC) reply

• SNOW delete as there's simply nothing to suggest acception at this time. SwisterTwister talk 17:50, 12 October 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete - as per nomination. — Sanskari ^Hangout 17:57, 12 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 N/A. Don't know what a strong merge is, but please discuss that on the article talk page. Drmies ( talk) 02:42, 13 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Mann Vasanai (TV series)

Mann Vasanai (TV series) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Dubbed in Tamil, this article should Strongly merged in Balika Vadhu Derevation ^{Give Me Five} 06:16, 12 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Derevation ^{Give Me Five} 07:23, 12 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. §§ Dharmadhyaksha§§ { Talk / Edits} 08:52, 12 October 2015 (UTC) reply

• @ Derevation: If you are proposing merger, why raise AfD? §§ Dharmadhyaksha§§ { Talk / Edits} 08:53, 12 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Meets both, because Tamil dub doesn't signifies much plus no other sources are found in it. Well seemingly if deleted, it wont be a big issue my friend! Derevation ^{Give Me Five} 08:58, 12 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Comment: And how come dub article is created? Does it really make a sense? Derevation ^{Give Me Five} 09:01, 12 October 2015 (UTC) reply

You can't do both. If you want it merged, start a merger discussion. If you want it deleted, continue with this AfD. Make up your mind and state what you want. §§ Dharmadhyaksha§§ { Talk / Edits} 09:11, 12 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. MBisanz ^talk 16:19, 21 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Kaushik Banerjee

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

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

Don't believe this person is notable. Lots of unsubstantiated claims in the article and dead links. The abilityfoundation links given don't even mention him. Can't find any RS. And this article was the authors one and only contribution to WP Gbawden ( talk) 08:18, 5 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:53, 9 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:53, 9 October 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete for now likely as Books, News, browser and WP:INDAFD found some links but likely not enough for a better article. SwisterTwister talk 06:09, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete. from what is said, the film is probably not notable and he almsot certainly isn't. DGG ( talk ) 20:07, 18 October 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Both the person and the film are not notable. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 13:33, 20 October 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete seems to be a lack of coverage. Deadlinks seemed to be blogs. The film does not appear to be notable either. -- Bejnar ( talk) 21:59, 20 October 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete per all the above. - HyperGaruda ( talk) 07:16, 21 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. MBisanz ^talk 16:19, 21 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Jill Gloster

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

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

Don't believe this person meets GNG. The only references for her are the scouting sites. Being awarded an OBE doesn't make her notable either Gbawden ( talk) 08:10, 5 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:07, 9 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:07, 9 October 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete as I'm not seeing any improvement here. SwisterTwister talk 06:10, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete. We have agre\eed in many discussion not to accept OBE as sufficient proof. I remain uncertain about that, but there's been a clear consensus DGG ( talk ) 20:26, 18 October 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete: can't find "significant coverage in reliable sources". Might be worthy of a mention in a list, but not of a stand-alone article. - HyperGaruda ( talk) 07:06, 21 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.