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

The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis ( talk) 02:28, 31 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Mesfer Al-Qahtani

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

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

Contested PROD.. Different DoB on FIFA site 15 Jan 1984 than the article, can we assume this is the same person? fails WP:GNG JMHamo ( talk) 22:53, 24 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 22:56, 24 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 22:56, 24 October 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete as I first found this while searching for orphans and suspected it was not acceptable so I notified GiantSnowman as there was not anything currently suggesting better improvement. SwisterTwister talk 22:57, 24 October 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 23:49, 24 October 2015 (UTC) reply

• Keep - meets NFOOTBALL. My advice to you @ Nfitz: would be to find evidence of notability before contesting a PROD, rather than after, to save everyone's time. Giant Snowman 12:24, 25 October 2015 (UTC) reply

• 'Comment - the evidence pointing to notability was always in the reference that had been in the article for 5 years, (though not clearly asserted in the text), which made it clear that the player had an appearance for a team in a fully professional league listed in WP:FPL in the 2005 FIFA Club World Championship. I HAD added enough text to the article to make that clear when I removed the Prod (see my edit here [1]); however another user then deleted that text before creating the AFD (quite validly questioning whether the information was for the correct person). I'd also made a very clear edit summary when removing the prod (Remove prod - 3rd place match report from the 2005 FIFA Club World Championship shows he made appearance in 69th minutes against Deportivo Saprissa http://www.fifa.com/clubworldcup/matches/round=47350500/match=47350006/index.html#nosticky) . My advice to you would be to check the references carefully before creating a prod. And also follow WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL rather than launching a personal attack on the person who removes the prof. Nfitz ( talk) 14:05, 25 October 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete - No indication that he has played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik ( talk) 00:17, 25 October 2015 (UTC) reply
• Keep - meets WP:NFOOTBALL. Page claims that he has been member of three teams that play in the Saudi Premier League listed as fully professional in WP:FPL. These teams are Al-Shabab, Al-Ittihad, and Al-Hilal. While at Ittihad he appeared in the third place match of the 2005 FIFA Club World Championship against Deportivo Saprissa in Yokohama, Japan ( match report). It's been suggested that there is no evidence that the player who played in that match, is the same one who later joined Al-Hilal - however a copy of an extensive 2008 newspaper interview appears on Al-Hilal's website. In the interview it mentions his play for both Al-Ittihad, and Al-Hilal in addition to Al-Shabab. A couple of other articles that mention his play for both teams are [2] and [3]. Less reliable sources with discussion of him can also be found, including a mention that he retired in 2009. [4]. Nfitz ( talk) 00:43, 25 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. JMHamo ( talk) 01:12, 25 October 2015 (UTC) reply

• Keep - as per Nfitz Spiderone 09:51, 25 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. —  Jkudlick  ^t c _s 11:15, 25 October 2015 (UTC) reply

• Keep as per Nfitz, nice work on establishing notability. IgnorantArmies (talk) 11:18, 25 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:21, 1 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Robert Campbell (Musician)

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

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

Ostensibly a WP:BLP of a musician, this is actually a WP:COATRACK for his album instead of an article about him. The problem, however, is that WP:NALBUMS specifies that an album cannot have an article if the musician or band who recorded it doesn't have an article first — and moving the album's article so that it's simultaneously serving as an "article" about the musician is not a bypass around that if the content is all about the album. Furthermore, the article is resting entirely on primary and unreliable sources, with no evidence of coverage in any reliable sources to confer notability on either the musician or the album. Delete, without prejudice against recreation if somebody can find enough sources to do this properly next time (i.e. a BLP of the musician as an actual topic in his own right, and then a separate article about the album.) Bearcat ( talk) 22:33, 24 October 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete: as WP:COATRACK as per @Bearcat's rationale which I adopt. Quis separabit? 13:27, 1 November 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete as per Bearcat's analysis. Pure WP:COATRACK, in addition, searches did not turn up anything to show that this musician passes WP:GNG. News turned up a bunch of hits, but none seem to be about this particular musician (although they turned up at least 4 other musicians of this same name). Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:30, 1 November 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete No RS for subject of article. Only 3rd party source is an individual's blog. LaMona ( talk) 19:47, 1 November 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was Withdrawn - discussion on splitting the history or not can continue on the article's talk page. ( non-admin closure) davidwr/( talk)/( contribs) 01:21, 25 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Francisco Santos (footballer)

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

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

Possible hoax-based off of the years he would of been 11 when he started playing-though the link on the Italian wiki linked to a guy born in 1904-not sure what to say about this. Wgolf ( talk) 20:35, 24 October 2015 (UTC)Withdrawn reply

okay I just went through the history-it was vandalized over the Summer it looks like-surprise nobody caught that first hand. Wgolf ( talk) 20:36, 24 October 2015 (UTC) reply

• Withdrawn-was vandalized, didn't notice it till after I put this up. Wgolf ( talk) 20:39, 24 October 2015 (UTC) reply
• Split histories. The article was originally about this Portuguese footballer and then got repurposed as a Mexican footballer. It was originally titled Francisco Santos (Portuguese footballer) but got moved to its current title and then got inadvertently repurposed to the Mexican footballer. This has caused a great deal of confusion amongst editors with a period where there is a mix of information on the page. The articles should be separated into two pages, the two persons need to be considered separately, if indeed either of them are deletable. Spinning Spark 23:44, 24 October 2015 (UTC) reply

And even worse, the full name of the Portuguese player is Francisco Dos Santos, but that page is about a Brazilian footballer. Spinning Spark 23:48, 24 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:22, 1 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Eurovision Song Contest records

Eurovision Song Contest records (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Creator removed my PROD. Very few reliable sources. Presents little to no additional useful information beyond what is already available in each country's participation article. Includes non-notable trivia, against WP:NOTSTATSBOOK, and violates WP:ICONDECORATION. Same content from the same editor was recently removed from the List of countries in the Eurovision Song Contest page. If there is consensus for this to be kept, I would advocate applying WP:BLOWITUP. —⁠ 烏⁠Γ ^{( kaw)}, 19:13, 24 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. —⁠ 烏⁠Γ ^{( kaw)}, 19:19, 24 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —⁠ 烏⁠Γ ^{( kaw)}, 19:19, 24 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. —⁠ 烏⁠Γ ^{( kaw)}, 19:19, 24 October 2015 (UTC) reply

• Speedy delete. Article clearly violates WP:NOTSTATSBOOK and the icons are purely decorative. The creator has recently changed flags to the EuroHeart icons across several other Eurovision articles, which have all been reverted on the grounds of WP:ICONDECORATION. Wes Mouse  ✒ 10:35, 25 October 2015 (UTC) reply
• Comment I was just wondering if anyone could explain to me what the difference is between an article such as this, and an article such as 'United Kingdom by-election records'. Red v Blue 14:27, 28 October 2015 (UTC) reply

  Because, RedvBlue, all of the information on the nominated article has already been summarised in prose format on the main Eurovision Song Contest article. But I would say that United Kingdom by-election records would be against WP:NOTSTATSBOOK too. Wes Mouse  ✒ 14:34, 28 October 2015 (UTC) reply

  I have a few things to respond to.

  • Firstly, I'm not sure that all the information on this article is available in the main 'Eurovision Song Contest' article. In fact, a statistic about the exchanging of points between the likes of Cyprus and Greece might be quite useful for the main 'Eurovision Song Contest' article. Unfortunately, I can't find the quoted statistic in the source provided. However, there is actually no source at the moment for when those two countries are mentioned in the 'Political and geographical voting' section in the main 'Eurovision Song Contest' article. At this point, I must say that I dislike the name of that section, owing to factors discussed on other websites (bbc.co.uk/blogs/eurovision/entries/18aa5cc2-0f94-3882-9c57-07fdec46dc5b).
  • Secondly, I think that it would be better if Wikipedia policies were applied consistently. So, if this article is 'in the same boat' as the 'United Kingdom by-election records' article, then I would suppose that it would be better if they were treated with a degree of equality.

  Also, while I am here, and I realise that this is not the best place to point this out, but last year you moved a discussion about navigational boxes to 'Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Eurovision' in order to seek "a wider scope from members". I duly responded, but no action was taken. Seeing as you moved the discussion, I wondered whether this was on your radar, at all. Red v Blue 15:59, 28 October 2015 (UTC) reply

  In response to the exchange of points between countries, RedvBlue, they are shown in the voting history sections on each respective [Country] in the Eurovision Song Contest article, based on the calculations obtained via the ESC Database and comes under WP:CALC (exempt from original research). Also the nominated articles contains icons within the prose which goes very much against WP:ICONDECORATION. As for your second point, I'm in the middle of the fence, as the UK by-election article is a topic of no personal interest to myself. So if the wider community felt that it too went against WP:NOTSTATSBOOK then so be it, but that would be a different AfD for whoever feels it should be nominated. In reply to your third point, that discussion resulted in a no consensus being reached due to a lack on participation, and has subsequently been archived. Wes Mouse  ✒ 18:55, 28 October 2015 (UTC) reply

  Alright, so a number of things have come up now. For ease of reference, this time I'll number my responses.

  1. I mentioned the statistic from this article about Cyprus and Greece because you said that all the information from this article was already in the main 'Eurovision Song Contest' article. I wanted to point out that not everything was covered in that article. However, I used this particular statistic because I was also able to make a further point about it and the main 'Eurovision Song Contest' article…
  2. The main 'Eurovision Song Contest' article's 'Political and geographical voting' section mentions Cyprus and Greece. In doing so, there is no reference. What I was suggesting could be quite useful for the main 'Eurovision Song Contest' article was for a referenced statistic to be used to illustrate that some countries may have voted for each other more than others. Using evidence to demonstrate a point is usually very helpful. As I mentioned before, I do realise that this article's reference for the statistic in question does not seem to provide the figure given.
  3. I can't really mention the 'Political and geographical voting' section in the main 'Eurovision Song Contest' article without noting the fact that I think that it could be named better. This is for reasons discussed in the website provided above.
  4. The icon decoration problem, in itself, cannot be a reason to delete the whole article. It is the substance of the article that matters, and if that is not a problem then the icons could simply be changed to regular flags.
  5. I understand that you may not have a personal interest in topics such as 'United Kingdom by-election records', but, in relation to this article, I'm not sure that it matters whether it is a personal interest or not. You are proposing to delete this article for a reason that could be used for proposing to delete an article such as that. It seems to me, therefore, that if you support deleting one article for a given reason, then you should support the same action on other such articles where that reason applies, regardless of whether you're interested in those articles or not.
  6. You may have determined that there was no consensus about the navigational boxes, but I fear that that may have been a conclusion that was reached prematurely. There was no indication that my proposals were considered, or even read. I do understand that I can't compel editors to reply to every contribution that I make, but the fact that the discussion ended with my involvement does not mean that there was no consensus, and that the issue should be dead and buried. I still find the template as it is hugely unsatisfactory. Red v Blue 00:00, 29 October 2015 (UTC) reply

  It's been split off, but there is more content about Cyprus/Greece and similar topics at Voting at the Eurovision Song Contest.

  @ RedvBlue: See the above line; I forgot to sign it when I first posted that. —⁠ 烏⁠Γ ^{( kaw)} │ 03:38, 30 October 2015 (UTC) reply

  WP:OTHERSTUFF is not a valid reason to retain an article. If there are other articles on the encyclopedia which need to be deleted, they will be deleted in good time. This AfD is about this article and nothing else. CT Cooper · talk 23:50, 29 October 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete - At present, this is not an encyclopedic article; more a random list of statistics gathered by one editor. These statistics appear to be trivial ( WP:NOTSTATSBOOK) and use a ranking system which is not reflected in the sources (those that work, anyway), so this article therefore violates WP:NOR. The scope of this article is unclear, with a lack of a lead section or any real prose not helping matters. However, as it stands, the evidence suggests, that this article was created in good faith to act as a content fork of List of countries in the Eurovision Song Contest. If there is disagreement over the content of an article, then the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution policy must be followed. Circumventing dispute resolution by creating fork articles is not appropriate, and perhaps RyanHarmy ( talk · contribs) should be counselled on this matter after this AfD is closed. CT Cooper · talk 00:30, 30 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 keep per #1 ( non-admin closure) Mdann52 ( talk) 21:33, 24 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Christopher Burnham

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

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

Fails WP:GNG - Lack of reliable sources Pizzole ( talk) 18:07, 24 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Human3015 ^TALK  18:37, 24 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 18:39, 24 October 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete as I'm not seeing anything to suggest better. SwisterTwister talk 18:39, 24 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. Human3015 ^TALK  18:39, 24 October 2015 (UTC) reply

• SNOW KEEP - another retaliatory nomination by an editor upset with comments made on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Internet Horror Movie Database. SwisterTwister. Have made the suggestion on another of these nominations that they withdraw all of the retaliatory nominations. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:43, 24 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Your "keep" is evident. This is one of your pages. ( Pizzole ( talk) 18:55, 24 October 2015 (UTC)) reply

What are you talking about? I have nothing to do with this article, only commenting on your bad faith nominations. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:12, 24 October 2015 (UTC) reply

• Keep This is ridiculous! He easily passes WP:POLITICIAN "Politicians and judges who have held international, national or sub-national (statewide/provincewide) office, and members or former members of a national, state or provincial legislature". He served three terms in the Connecticut House of Representatives, where he served as assistant minority leader and was Treasurer of Connecticut. Voceditenore ( talk) 19:04, 24 October 2015 (UTC) reply
• Keep as per Voceditenore above. Better sourcing would be good, but this is obviously verifiable. I see bad faith in the clear lack of any WP:BEFORE work here. DES ^(talk) 19:42, 24 October 2015 (UTC) reply
• Keep per snowball clause , subject meets WP:POLITICIAN. -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 20:09, 24 October 2015 (UTC) reply
• Speedy Keep per the SNG for Politicians as a 3-time member of the Connecticut House of Representatives. Carrite ( talk) 20:36, 24 October 2015 (UTC) reply
•  I withdraw my nomination Pizzole ( talk) 21:18, 24 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 keep per #2 Mdann52 ( talk) 21:31, 24 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Thaddeus Seymour

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

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

Fails WP:GNG Pizzole ( talk) 18:02, 24 October 2015 (UTC) reply

• Meets Notability College President, Dean at an Ivy League university - Dartmouth. Note that there is an eensy possibility that the nominator is deliberately nominating many articles started by those who found his favoured article should be deleted. Collect ( talk) 18:18, 24 October 2015 (UTC) reply

*Redirect and merge to American Bar Association.( Pizzole ( talk) 18:32, 24 October 2015 (UTC)) striking bad-faith post here - see all the other AfDs Collect ( talk) 18:36, 24 October 2015 (UTC) reply

• SNOW KEEP - retaliatory nomination in bad faith. Might I suggest to the nominator that he withdraw all of the bad faith nominations they have recently made? That would go a long way to re-establishing your good faith on Wikipedia? Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:40, 24 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Human3015 ^TALK  18:43, 24 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Human3015 ^TALK  18:43, 24 October 2015 (UTC) reply

I'm in good faith for sure. You and Collect, no. You are clearly friends because the one help the other with the AfD nominations. ( Pizzole ( talk) 18:44, 24 October 2015 (UTC)) reply

I have no article overlap with OneL of any significance whatsoever. OTOH, I recall an SPI investigation where you were the one remaining account. And are you asserting tat you did not just accidentally nominate a slew of articles without notifying the article creators at all -- and you accidentally chose ones who you disagree with at an AfD? Collect ( talk) 18:49, 24 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Please stop with your persecution. ( Pizzole ( talk) 18:52, 24 October 2015 (UTC)) reply

• Keep Good Grief! President of a notable college and GNG coverage as well [5]. Voceditenore ( talk) 18:45, 24 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Yes, it's time to merge the article to the College page. ( Pizzole ( talk) 18:47, 24 October 2015 (UTC)) reply

No. He passes the notability guidelines for a stand-alone article. Voceditenore ( talk) 18:55, 24 October 2015 (UTC) reply

• Keep seems obvious, meets GNG. I wonder if any WP:BEFORE was truly done on this nomination. DES ^(talk) 19:28, 24 October 2015 (UTC) reply
• Keep per snowball clause , subject meets WP:PROF x4 if I can count. Frivolous nomination. AFD is not a weapon to be wielded in personal disputes. -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 20:14, 24 October 2015 (UTC) reply
• Keep - Inherently notable as a college president, in my view. Meets GNG on top of that. Carrite ( talk) 20:34, 24 October 2015 (UTC) reply
•  I withdraw my nomination Pizzole ( talk) 21:19, 24 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 keep per #1 ( non-admin closure) Mdann52 ( talk) 21:32, 24 October 2015 (UTC) reply

David P. Levin

David P. Levin (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:GNG. No reliable sources. Pizzole ( talk) 17:41, 24 October 2015 (UTC) reply

• Keep - And would request a speedy close. Rather transparent retaliatory nomination for my vote on his article, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Internet Horror Movie Database, and most likely my pointing out his pretty obvious use of the stick. Which I am sure he will once again engage in. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:54, 24 October 2015 (UTC) reply

*Redirect and merge to MTV Sorry, we can't find no more about Mr. Levin. Google show only 200 results and a lot of these are from social. I see no news and no newspaper talking about it.( Pizzole ( talk) 18:22, 24 October 2015 (UTC))Nominator does not get to !vote a second time. Feel free to comment. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:28, 24 October 2015 (UTC) reply

• Keep [6], [7] establishes him as a co-author of a published book, [8] establishes "Hollywood.com" as RS for the claims made at [9] etc. There are some worthless sources in use (like the NYT one used), but the claim made by the OP is incorrect, and the person clearly meets WP notability requirements. Collect ( talk) 17:59, 24 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Sources aren't reliable and from poor websites. There are Blogs, link to Amazon and resources no more available. ( Pizzole ( talk) 18:13, 24 October 2015 (UTC)) reply

Really? And you nominate multiple articles for deletion without making any notifications to people? You find the "first African-American letter carrier" is "not notable"? You find a person who was a Dean of Dartmouth and a college [resident "not notable"? An assistant Secretary-General of the United Nations is "not notable"? The publisher of the major reference work on artists is "not notable"? And all of the articles you rapidly find are just accidentally written by those who say the brand-new Italian horrordatabase site should be deleted? Accidentally? You, sir, are a vandal in the old Roman sense of the word. Collect ( talk) 18:33, 24 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Please excuse me, Onel5969, you can delete my last vote (Redirect and merge). It was a mistake. ( Pizzole ( talk) 18:39, 24 October 2015 (UTC)) reply

Comment - Can't delete it Pizzole, but did strike it through, which is the proper procedure. And please, take my suggestion to heart about withdrawing your recent spate of nominations targeting editors who didn't agree with your position on the Horror article. That would really help begin re-establishing your good faith. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:48, 24 October 2015 (UTC) reply

I'm in good faith, Onel5969. It's not a debat about me but about the article.( Pizzole ( talk) 18:50, 24 October 2015 (UTC)) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Human3015 ^TALK  18:53, 24 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Human3015 ^TALK  18:53, 24 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Human3015 ^TALK  18:53, 24 October 2015 (UTC) reply

• Keep as this is sourced and seems acceptable. SwisterTwister talk 19:08, 24 October 2015 (UTC) reply
• Keep clearly passes the GNG just from sources in the article, and more could be found. Very well known directory and producer. No plausible reason for deletion or redirection. DES ^(talk) 19:33, 24 October 2015 (UTC) reply
• Keep: sufficient reliable sources exist to verify that subject meets WP:BASIC. -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 20:07, 24 October 2015 (UTC) reply
•  I withdraw my nomination Pizzole ( talk) 21:16, 24 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:22, 1 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Ossett Town Ladies FC

Ossett Town Ladies FC (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

No indication that this club passes WP:NFOOTBALL or WP:GNG JMHamo ( talk) 16:48, 24 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. JMHamo ( talk) 16:49, 24 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. —  Jkudlick  ^t c _s 17:55, 24 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —  Jkudlick  ^t c _s 17:55, 24 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. —  Jkudlick  ^t c _s 17:55, 24 October 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete - WP:NFOOTY does not apply, as that refers to individuals. We can, however, refer to WP:FOOTYN, WP:ORG, and WP:GNG, which this club currently fails. —  Jkudlick  ^t c _s 18:02, 24 October 2015 (UTC) reply

  Comment - article creator has requested article be moved to draft or to userspace pending location of a reliable source that the club does meet WP:FOOTYN. I am not opposed to granting that request. —  Jkudlick  ^t c _s 19:56, 27 October 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete until there is better improvement. Pinging GiantSnowman. SwisterTwister talk 18:33, 24 October 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 19:06, 24 October 2015 (UTC) reply
• Merge - into Ossett Town F.C. 5.65.78.215 ( talk) 19:38, 25 October 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete - Per FOOTYN, assuming this is not the same club as Ossett Albion (and I have no reason to think they are). They have not played in a national competition for women in the UK. No indication of any wider GNG. Would oppose merge with Ossett Town F.C. as there is indication only of links rather than formal association. No enWIki article for the league they play in either so ne real plausible redirect. Fenix down ( talk) 12:15, 26 October 2015 (UTC) reply
• Please could the article be moved into draft? The Club has participated in a national cup competition so does meet WP:FOOTYN but I would like to take some time to gather this information and really expand the history section. I can't envisage having time to do that over the next three weeks however. Many thanks! -- Minnowfire ( talk) 09:17, 27 October 2015 (UTC) reply

@ Minnowfire: can you provide a link to show which national competition they have played in? I looked at the women's FA Cup season articles and couldn't see their name. to my mind, that would be enough for a keep per WP:FOOTYN. Fenix down ( talk) 10:10, 27 October 2015 (UTC) reply

@ Fenix down: That's the thing, I can't find any links or sources at the moment plus I'm not entirely sure how reliable that information is hence why I'd rather move the article into draft for now until I can be completely sure and provide all of the relevant sources. I appreciate that a lot of people have been involved in the discussion process so far and I don't want to waste anymore of anyone's time. -- Minnowfire ( talk) 12:57, 27 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Like the comment above, I have no problem with this being moved to draft when this is closed to allow time to find sourcing to establish notability. Fenix down ( talk) 09:19, 28 October 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was snowball keep. (If anyone can write a script to remove the AfD templates and put {{ Old AfD multi}} onto their talk pages, that'll be appreciated.) Der yck C. 09:39, 26 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Pages in Category:Lists of airline destinations

Per WP:IINFO and WP:NOTTRAVEL – These seem far more about being a flight booker or guidebook than useful encyclopedic articles. Additionally, there appears to be quite a bit of unsourced or WP:CRYSTAL material in some of these. Other ones are several years out of date, which is counter-intuitive for pages like this. Overall, these are almost all unsuitable for the site. Mdann52 ( talk) 15:48, 24 October 2015 (UTC) reply

• Keep all. Have existed for years based on wide participant consensus. One (still ongoing) discussion doesn't change that. Presumptive and premature, while the broader question of the nature of Wikipedia's coverage of aiviation is still being discussed. oknazevad ( talk) 18:05, 24 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • based on wide participant consensus Fancy linking me to the discussion showing widespread consensus for these page? Mdann52 ( talk) 21:01, 24 October 2015 (UTC) reply
• Keep all these all provide useful information in greater detail than would normally be appropriate in the airlines' main articles, but still is encyclopedic and informative and in scope of inclusion. Aude ( talk) 18:09, 24 October 2015 (UTC) reply
• Keep all Useful information to have and are generally too long to be in the airline's main article. VG31-irl 19:02, 24 October 2015 (UTC) reply
• Keep Destinations are a notable aspect of an airline, but should not bloat an article unnecessarily (see WP:IINFO, point 3) and consequently these articles are appropriate Wikipedia:Summary style sub-articles of the main article for the associated airlines. Destinations served is of comparable notability to the following stand-alone list articles "List of active [country] military aircraft", "List of [aircraft] operators", and "List of [award/prize/honor] recipients". The airline destination lists complement the airlines & destinations lists in airport articles. If there are issues with some airline destination articles, such as too short of a list that could be merged into the airline article, they should be dealt with individually.

These articles do not meet any of the criteria listed in WP:IINFO, provided that the list is introduced with information for context. These articles are not indiscriminate as they cover all destinations, past and present, and have a narrow scope that is notable. The nom mentions that some "are several years out of date, which is counter-intuitive for pages like this." It would only be counter-intuitive if the articles only listed current destinations, but the articles list both past and current destinations; being out of date is not an argument for deletion (see WP:OUTDATED) and whether a destination is a current or former destination is a minor difference. The only way an out-of-date article would be counter-intuitive would be if these articles were travel guides, but they're not! Due to extensive codeshare agreements in the airline industry, most airlines sell tickets to many more destinations than they serve with their aircraft (airline destination lists do not include codeshare destinations, they only include destinations the airline serves with their aircraft). For travel purposes, more information is needed than just destinations, mainly the origin & destination, frequency of flights (1/week vs. 4/day), and other factors such as freedoms of the air & cabotage. For example, because of US cabotage laws/regulations, a Canadian airline can't sell a ticket from New York to Chicago with a layover in Toronto ( [10]); travelers would have to buy separate tickets for each leg or book with a US carrier (eg. book a United flight and fly NY-Toronto on Air Canada as a codeshare flight then Toronto-Chicago on United). The bottom line is that while the list may be helpful in some circumstances, they are a poor source of information for travelers in most circumstances. The nom says "there appears to be quite a bit of unsourced or WP:CRYSTAL material in some of these." Among the arguments to avoid in deletion discussions is WP:MUST. Since destinations are readily verifiable, deletion on unsourced grounds is not appropriate and the articles should be tagged with the appropriate cleanup templates. Finally, I don't understand how WP:CRYSTAL applies to these articles? Since WP:CRYSTAL concerns future events, it would seem that this is a reference to future destinations. However, there is a lot of logistics behind airline schedules and new routes/destinations are, in almost all cases, announced with a specific start date and less than a year before their launch. These schedules are unlikely to change. Including future destinations is akin to including the dates of future events, eg. 2020 Summer Olympics (24 July-9 August) or Super Bowl 50 (7 February 2016). AHeneen ( talk) 19:21, 24 October 2015 (UTC) reply

• @ AHeneen: With IINFO, I was more referring to the overall point of As explained...above, merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. AS for the CYRSTAL point, a lot of these have unsourced claims to future flights, some of which I could not easily source (other were easily sourced, but bear in mind it is the responsibility of the user adding the information to source it). I would also argue there isn't enough context here - as you've said, the routes that airlines can serve vary, so maybe that should be included to make sure there is enough context? I'm not making the final decision here, just throwing my opinions out. Mdann52 ( talk) 21:01, 24 October 2015 (UTC) reply

• Keep all. Your nominated reason is irrational. Why not nominate in other languages?-- Shwangtianyuan ( talk) 00:48, 25 October 2015 (UTC) reply
• Keep all. Would you agree if tomorrow I nominate the entire project for deletion just because I don't like it?-- Jetstreamer  ^Talk 01:58, 25 October 2015 (UTC) reply
• Strong Keep All All are well within project guidelines and are supported by various projects. Irrational nomination! —  LeoFrank  ^Talk 12:20, 25 October 2015 (UTC) reply
• Keep I always felt they were unnecessary at first, initially they used to be mentioned as prose in main article in most cases some times just by region not country or city i.e ABC airline flies to so many points in North America, Caribbean Middle East and so on, but now they are an integral part of the project and need to remain, the only negative is that many go neglected for years because they are not popular airlines, and theres the issue of unreferenced content. Mustangmanxxx ( talk) 12:53, 25 October 2015 (UTC) reply

The editor is so new what made him start this deletion thing? his talk page has almost nothing plus some critiques of his actions related to other things Mustangmanxxx ( talk) 13:01, 25 October 2015 (UTC) reply

• Can we split this up please? There's Trade-Air destinations which makes no sense without Trade-Air; Dubrovnik Airline which isn't necessarily referenced to reliable sources. The nomination was worthwhile insofar as me noticing this, but if it gets closed as snow-keep we'll gloss over these individual issues. -- Joy [shallot] ( talk) 14:15, 25 October 2015 (UTC) reply

• Agree, this should be split up into bite sized bundles in the off chance there is something worth keeping. If it is 'all or nothing' I say Delete them all per WP:NOT and WP:NLIST since the individual components of these lists are not, in and of themselves, notable per WP:GNG or any other specific criteria I can think of nor is there anything notable about any particular airline's routs as a group unless there is discussion in independent reliable sources to pass WP:GNG. I guess I can throw out WP:NOTINHERITED as well since just because an airline is notable does not mean the fact it flies from East-nowhere to Brigadoon is.

  This will be an interesting exercise in the idea that AfDs are closed on policy arguments alone. I see a lot of keeps, enough that unless a lot of other people comment that 'no consensus/keep' would be an easy close, but not one good policy based argument to keep has been made. Jbh ^Talk 15:23, 25 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 15:27, 25 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 15:27, 25 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 15:27, 25 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 15:27, 25 October 2015 (UTC) reply

• Strong Keep All No compelling reason to delete all these articles and very useful for cross-referencing. Pmbma ( talk) 15:36, 25 October 2015 (UTC) reply
• Keep these are all sub-article of the related airline that have grown to be to large for the parent, so they are not unlike similar child-articles and provide supportive information on the size and scope of the airlines operations. MilborneOne ( talk) 15:52, 25 October 2015 (UTC) reply

• Strong Keep All Are you kidding? This is meant to reflect the history of airlines, removing this would cause chaos. 87.112.66.233 ( talk) 18:22, 25 October 2015 (UTC) reply

• Keep. These are very useful listings.-- RioHondo ( talk) 02:48, 26 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) DavidLeighEllis ( talk) 02:30, 31 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Cholmondeley Cello

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

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

No sources, Notability? A1 ( talk) 15:55, 24 October 2015 (UTC) reply

• Keep, a little work prior to nomination goes a long way, I will add some sources. They are not difficult to find. -- kelapstick^{( bainuu)} 16:00, 24 October 2015 (UTC) reply
• Keep Clearly notable. No compliance with WP:Before. 7&6=thirteen ( ☎) 16:10, 24 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 18:39, 24 October 2015 (UTC) reply

• Keep as this seems historically noticeable. SwisterTwister talk 18:40, 24 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Human3015 ^TALK  18:56, 24 October 2015 (UTC) reply

• Keep. A quick search shows plenty of sources. Most are just about the record sale price, but some give detailed descriptions and/or history. The subject is clearly notable. Aymatth2 ( talk) 02:31, 25 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. KTC ( talk) 00:36, 1 November 2015 (UTC) reply

PJ Collins

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

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

Zero notability here: leader of a super-fringe party with no individual coverage. The Drover's Wife ( talk) 15:32, 24 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 18:38, 24 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 18:38, 24 October 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete as unless this can be better improved, I'm not seeing much at this time. SwisterTwister talk 18:38, 24 October 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete - yes, nothing here. Doesn't come close to the relevant guidelines. Frickeg ( talk) 21:36, 24 October 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete, no independent coverage, fails the GNG. Don't think a redirect is necessary either. IgnorantArmies (talk) 11:26, 25 October 2015 (UTC) reply
• A leader of a minor fringe party can get into Wikipedia as a topic in their own right if enough reliable source coverage is present to get them over WP:GNG — but indeed, it's not a role that gets a person an automatic WP:NPOL pass, and this is parked on a single source. Delete. Bearcat ( talk) 15:44, 25 October 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete I agree with IgnorantArmies above, except to say that a redirect would not hurt too much as it is possible a reader may search for him. AtHomeIn神戸 ( talk) 02:21, 26 October 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete: Highest claim is as losing candidate to a state legislature, with 0.01% support. Doesn't seem to have enough independent third-party coverage to meet WP:GNG, but I didn't dive in too deeply. Maybe redirect to Arts Party, but that itself seems to be of uncertain notability under WP:GNG also. -- Closeapple ( talk) 13:34, 31 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 keep as no valid reason for deletion was provided by nominator and subject clearly passes WP:NFOOTY. ( non-admin closure) —  Jkudlick  ^t c _s 11:35, 25 October 2015 (UTC) reply

James Dawson (footballer, born 1890)

James Dawson (footballer, born 1890) (  | 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 find it very unlikely that anyone known independent of longevity will live to be 125; thus I find this article (saying a footballer born in 1890 is still alive at the age of 125) difficult to believe. Georgia guy ( talk) 14:45, 24 October 2015 (UTC) reply

• Comment As far as I can tell, the article makes no claim that he is still alive. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 17:02, 24 October 2015 (UTC) reply

  If there's a proof that he's dead, you'll have to include his death date in the article. Georgia guy ( talk) 17:06, 24 October 2015 (UTC) reply

But that's not a reason for deletion. He clearly meets the notability requirements for a footballer (playing at least 1 match for a professional club). Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 17:42, 24 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Oh, and if you bothered to look at the external link, you'll see he died in 1933.... Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 17:43, 24 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 09:54, 25 October 2015 (UTC) reply

• Keep - passes WP:NFOOTY Spiderone 09:55, 25 October 2015 (UTC) reply
• Keep - passes WP:NFOOTBALL. One of the most ridiculous AFD I've ever seen. Giant Snowman 09:57, 25 October 2015 (UTC) reply

@ GiantSnowman: Agreed. Does it qualify for any form of speedy keep, given that no reason has been provided for deletion? Spiderone 10:26, 25 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. KTC ( talk) 00:36, 1 November 2015 (UTC) reply

ColorMango

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

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

Not notable as per WP:ORG Zpeopleheart ( talk) 14:16, 24 October 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete as nominator. Zpeopleheart ( talk) 14:18, 24 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 18:42, 24 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 18:42, 24 October 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete as I see no better improvement. SwisterTwister talk 18:42, 24 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. KTC ( talk) 00:37, 1 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Conny Harris

Conny Harris (  | 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 meet WP:POLITICIAN; all but three of the listed sources are to election results. Of the others, one is to the Australian Women's Register, which has entries for every woman who has ever contested a NSW state election; the other two are articles in the local paper in which she is quoted. Further searches on my part have pulled up small amounts of coverage, the usual kind of thing for a local candidate, but nothing that brings her close to WP:GNG. Frickeg ( talk) 14:01, 24 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Frickeg ( talk) 14:02, 24 October 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete. She was a deputy mayor of a suburban local council: that's not even a claim of notability, let alone notability, and the sources definitely don't make out any individual notability. The Drover's Wife ( talk) 15:29, 24 October 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete. Agree, even though I'm the author, I guess I had to test the notability of the subject. CLearly doesnt meet the criteria in this case. Siegfried Nugent ( talk) 01:54, 25 October 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete – hesitantly, as Siegfried's done quite a good job with the limited sourcing available, but unsuccessful candidate and suburban councillor just doesn't cut it for notability. IgnorantArmies (talk) 11:29, 25 October 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete per the nomination. AtHomeIn神戸 ( talk) 02:22, 26 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. Deleted by RHaworth - G1: Patent nonsense, meaningless, or incomprehensible ( non-admin closure) Rainbow unicorn ( talk) 02:05, 25 October 2015 (UTC) reply

ALPHABETICAL LIST of REAL 3D & FAKE 3D MOVIES

ALPHABETICAL LIST of REAL 3D & FAKE 3D MOVIES (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Original research? Further, uncertain criteria for classing a piece as fake 3D. Oscarthecat ( talk) 12:51, 24 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Speedied. Looks more like nonsense. Clubjustin ( talk) 12:54, 24 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Also, WTF is fake 3D? Does it even exist? Clubjustin ( talk) 13:01, 24 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 Chagossians. ( non-admin closure) – Davey2010 ^Talk 11:57, 31 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Women in the British Indian Ocean Territory

Women in the British Indian Ocean Territory (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

No information specific to women: may as well have an article on any other subsection of that previous population. Anyone for People over 5' 9" in the British Indian Ocean Territory? Just because the category of articles is justified, it does not mean that every article in the category is. Kevin McE ( talk) 11:55, 24 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete or turn into an article about the people of the British Indian Ocean Territory. Eman235/ talk 13:14, 24 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 13:27, 24 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 13:27, 24 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 13:28, 24 October 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete These people are covered in Chagossians. Note that they are no longer in the British Indian Ocean Territory, mostly. Borock ( talk) 13:41, 24 October 2015 (UTC) reply
• Redirect to Chagossians, without prejudice to recreation as a better sourced page, akin to example at United States women. — Cirt ( talk) 11:06, 25 October 2015 (UTC) reply

  You know what? I agree. Redirect. Eman235/ talk 13:35, 25 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. postdlf ( talk) 12:00, 27 October 2015 (UTC) reply

List of 22nd-century lunar eclipses

List of 22nd-century lunar eclipses (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

No problem with lists of eclipses in the past (as they may be relevant for historical facts, and received sufficient attention on their own), or for the near future (being of general interest to many people). But lists of lunar eclipses for the next 9 centuries? While the entries are presumably correct, almost certain to happen, and will be notable at that time, they are now and for the next decades / centuries nothing but WP:NOT lists of statistics about for now utterly non-notable events.

Also nominated are:

• List of 23rd-century lunar eclipses
• List of 24th-century lunar eclipses
• List of 25th-century lunar eclipses
• List of 26th-century lunar eclipses
• List of 27th-century lunar eclipses
• List of 28th-century lunar eclipses
• List of 29th-century lunar eclipses
• List of 30th-century lunar eclipses Fram ( talk) 12:58, 16 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Human3015 ^TALK  13:01, 16 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Human3015 ^TALK  13:01, 16 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Keep all - I don't know how to argue about notability. Eclipses repeat in cycles that repeat over hundreds of years, and these cycles have been analyzed and given nice summaries we can look at. There are also long term statistical patterns like tetrads and central eclipses that have statistical significance and can link back to such tables like this. I'd agree having ONE ARTICLE per event about things hundreds of years in the future would be very excessive, but a summary table is notable and at worse harmless to readers who are not forced to look at it against their will. Tom Ruen ( talk) 13:08, 16 October 2015 (UTC) reply

no one is forced to look at any article, that's a non-argument. And the rest just describes why we can make these articles (because they are predictable), not why they are notable. The cycles are pretty clear from the articles we already have, and the statistics (after all, the articles under discussion are nothing but statistics) do nothing to learn anyone anyting new. It's a database of future eclipses, not an article about anything. Fram ( talk) 13:39, 16 October 2015 (UTC) reply

One of the long periods is inex which interacts with the saros cycle, like shown in this graphic for eclipses from 1000-2500 and eclipses from 1900-2100 in yellow. Here you can start to see some long term patterns that vary over time, why the number of total vs partial eclipses vary by century for instance. So the century listings end up as diagonal in this chart. Tom Ruen ( talk) 15:17, 16 October 2015 (UTC) reply

(Comment) Ah, but you see, what you have just written above is (a) interesting and (b) encyclopedic. Although very short, it tells us something. Whereas the tables in the articles under discussion are simply not encyclopedic articles, by any stretch of the imagination; they are raw data, which in a Proper Printed encyclopedia would belong in an Appendix. I think the current strategy of trying to pretend that all information can be sliced into WP article size is a bad one: it would be much better to find ways of offering tabular appendices. Amongst other disadvantages: this table is only available in WP:en (and WP:zh), and requires manual work to port to other languages; it is susceptible to vandalism, while allowing free text-editing is of essentially no value; the full list of eclipses is chopped into century-size pieces, to no logical advantage; it is not very amenable to machine-reading. In other words, I am not against offering this information (of course, "Science. Can't beat it."), but I do not think this style of "article" is appropriate. Imaginatorium ( talk) 06:14, 26 October 2015 (UTC) reply

• Keep all: Astronomy is all about predicting future. Nominator is saying "No problem with lists of eclipses in the past". But no one interested in eclipses of past, all people or researchers look for eclipses or astronomical events of future. These lists are encyclopedic as far as "Astronomy" is concerned. There are already lists giving astronomical predictions of 27th century, 28th century, 29th century and so on. Number of Lunar eclipses is large so they deserve separate list. -- Human3015 ^TALK  13:13, 16 October 2015 (UTC) reply

  p.s. past eclipses could be considered more important since they can relate to past historical events, and including influencing those events, like a rather small sampling current at Historically significant lunar eclipses. Tom Ruen ( talk) 13:19, 16 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Any evidence that e.g. 28th-century eclipses are currently of any interest to anyone, beyond compiling the list? Will anyone, even an astronomer, come looking on Wikipedia for a list of 28th-century lunar eclipses? And if so, why? What purpose does it serve? Fram ( talk) 13:39, 16 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Tom, I'm not saying that past eclipses are not important but future eclipses also have same or even more importance. Fram, you are saying "28th-century eclipses are currently of any interest to anyone?". That can be your view, article Stevens–Johnson syndrome may not useful for 99% of the human beings but it is useful for medical students. Considering the huge scope of Astronomy these lists are highly useful for students of Astrophysics/Astronomy or even Astrologists. Moreover, these topics are also of interest of general public. -- Human3015 ^TALK  15:23, 16 October 2015 (UTC) reply

• Comment: all these eclipses are also listed in articles like Lunar Saros 145 and the other 63 lists in Category:Lunar saros series. So it's not as if the information is gone from Wikipedia if these articles are deleted. Fram ( talk) 13:39, 16 October 2015 (UTC) reply

  Saros cycle listings are useful because they are of finite duration, <500 years. Chronological listings are useful for finding specific events in specific time intervals without having to search through n-lists of saros cycles. Having both lists with dates and saros numbers means you can move between lists. You could argue that for example event times belong in the chronological lists and can be given as cross-referencing in the saros lists, although that would require a large number of internal anchor links to be friendly. Tom Ruen ( talk) 17:33, 16 October 2015 (UTC) reply

• Keep Science. Can't beat it. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 14:20, 16 October 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete Otherwise there is (literally!) no end to it. List of lunar eclipses in the 31st to 40th centuries List of lunar eclipses in the 41st to 50th centuries... Basically such things are not notable. What would be more sensible would be a reference to the algorithm for generating these, and /or a site that will generate a list for a desired time interval. Imaginatorium ( talk) 15:05, 16 October 2015 (UTC) reply

  Relax, apparently 3000AD was good enough for NASA, so we can rest on that limit as well. And long term orbital mechanics is an n-body problem and isn't going to be solved by simple algorithms. And chaos actually takes over at some point where we actually don't have accurate enough measurements to extrapolate past a certain point. So there are undefined error bars in these calculations, and NASA might come up with an updated dataset. The main variable actually arises from classifications, whether an event is total or partial in limiting cases, or partial vs penumbral. Tom Ruen ( talk) 15:10, 16 October 2015 (UTC) reply

  @Imaginatorium: Up to 3000AD is ok. Age of Earth or Moon is between 4 to 5 billion years, still few billion years of life is remained for Earth, so writing eclipses for next 1000 years is very minor thing. 1000 years is very minor time in Astronomical studies. On lighter note, my name is Human3015 because I'm Human from 3015AD, from future. See, anyone from this era thinks up to next 1000 years. We can keep Astronomical predictions till next 1000 years, it is very obvious thing with Astronomical perspective. -- Human3015 ^TALK  19:24, 16 October 2015 (UTC) reply

• Keep. This request, fundamentally, seeks to replace a non-arbitrary cutoff for lunar eclipse coverage (3000 CE, where the current NASA tables end, likely for reasons of precision and complications of long-term orbital mechanics) with an essentially arbitrary cutoff (the current century, apparently on the grounds that it is the limit of "general interest"). I understand the "Wikipedia is not a collection of statistics" argument here; I just don't think that well-studied astronomical phenomena of this nature are what that is intended to exclude. Squeamish Ossifrage ( talk) 17:16, 16 October 2015 (UTC) reply

• keep all - whether or not WP is an ephemeris is not in published policies. Seems like very useful knowledge. DangerDogWest ( talk) 05:17, 26 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. KTC ( talk) 00:38, 1 November 2015 (UTC) reply

HOTSHOT (band)

HOTSHOT (band) (  | 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 initially thought of tagging the article with CSD but then I thought there maybe Korean sources available. I can't read Korean language. So far, in English, I didn't found any good source. No significant coverage other than passing mentions. Fails WP:NBAND. Jim Carter 11:00, 24 October 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom. Oddly enough the Arabic Wikipedia has an article: ar:هوتشوت. Eman235/ talk 13:19, 24 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 13:30, 24 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 13:30, 24 October 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete for now as I'm also not familiar with this but it seems too soon at best. SwisterTwister talk 18:31, 24 October 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was merge to GoldenEye. Don't usually close on one !vote but both nom & SC prefer Merge so Merge it shall be. ( non-admin closure) – Davey2010 ^Talk 11:59, 31 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Alec Trevelyan

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

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

No sources cited to provide notability. Should be merged into the Goldeneye article. RealDealBillMcNeal ( talk) 14:05, 17 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Human3015 ^TALK  01:09, 18 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Human3015 ^TALK  01:10, 18 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Human3015 ^TALK  01:10, 18 October 2015 (UTC) reply

• Merge a one-off villain without much in the way of notability for a stand-alone article. – SchroCat ( talk) 14:39, 28 October 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. KTC ( talk) 00:40, 1 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Ancestors of the Counts of Siruela

Ancestors of the Counts of Siruela (  | 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 feel like there might be a topic here, but I don't understand what this article is about. It appears to be something about Spanish counts, but I'm not quite sure. I feel like it would need to be heavily rewritten to be encyclopedic. WP:TNT. Natg 19 ( talk) 07:17, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 ( talk) 07:17, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 ( talk) 07:17, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 ( talk) 07:18, 10 October 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete - possibly userify This is an article that might usefully appear on a genealogical website, but it does not belong in WP; certainly not in its present form. Peterkingiron ( talk) 17:57, 11 October 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete: some of the individuals listed have articles in enwiki, more in eswiki. This article lacks coherence and is a type of content fork. Vrac ( talk) 00:11, 25 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. KTC ( talk) 00:41, 1 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Best Movies Ever Entertainment News