From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 24 September 26 September >
Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 23:36, 2 October 2015 (UTC) reply

NintendoFuse

NintendoFuse (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Refunded PROD, but the article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. ( ?) It had no meaningful hits in a video game reliable sources custom Google search. There are no worthwhile redirect targets (site owner is also at AfD). If someone finds more (non-English and offline) sources, please {{ ping}} me. –  czar 23:55, 25 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:51, 28 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:51, 28 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:51, 28 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as the best links I found were passing mentions at Books, News and browser thus simply nothing to suggest this is better known or one of the major websites about Nintendo. SwisterTwister talk 04:52, 28 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - some hits on the search engines, but not enough to show notability. Onel5969 TT me 13:14, 2 October 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 23:38, 2 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Capt. Anurag Mishra (Manjhi for Pilots)

Capt. Anurag Mishra (Manjhi for Pilots) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Notable for only one event. I dream of horses ( T) @ 23:40, 25 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Vote DELETE - Not Notable based on one event. What does Manjhi mean? Lack of referencing showing applicability of rank 'CAPT' Css1986 ( T) @ 11:35, 26 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:01, 28 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:01, 28 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:01, 28 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete for now as I found nothing good aside from more news links at News and browser along with what seemed one link for someone else at Books. SwisterTwister talk 05:01, 28 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. One event and that not particularly notable. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 14:20, 30 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - searches turned up nothing that would make this subject meet the notability requirements. Onel5969 TT me 13:40, 2 October 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  Sandstein  18:58, 3 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Thai university undergraduate student uniforms

Thai university undergraduate student uniforms (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Wikipedia is not a how-to guide. I dream of horses ( T) @ 23:32, 25 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:04, 28 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:04, 28 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:04, 28 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as there's simply nothing to suggest better improvement and a need for a separate article (if necessary, would be best at a section of Thailand school clothing or something). SwisterTwister talk 05:05, 28 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: A lot could be written about the subject that warrants a standalone article. Much has been said about the place of university uniforms in Thai society; most of these are political pieces. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] However, the article as it currently stands doesn't have any relevant content on the matter. -- Paul_012 ( talk) 05:19, 28 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp ( talk) 14:02, 30 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - agree with SwisterTwister - not enough for it's own article. Onel5969 TT me 13:58, 2 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete for lack of a proper basis for an article. As editors Paul_012 and SwisterTwister mentioned, a general article on school clothing in Thailand might have an adequate basis for an article, but this is not it. WP:TNT. -- Bejnar ( talk) 05:47, 3 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. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 23:39, 2 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Kristy Stott

Kristy Stott (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Failed google test. I dream of horses ( T) @ 23:07, 25 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:03, 28 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:03, 28 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:03, 28 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:03, 28 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as there's simply nothing to suggest better improvement. SwisterTwister talk 05:03, 28 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - run of the mill freelance journalist/blogger. Bearian ( talk) 18:24, 2 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - It is straightforward to find articles that she has written but, as a creative professional, nothing to indicate that she is notable according to the criteria set out in WP:JOURNALIST. Drchriswilliams ( talk) 18:27, 2 October 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 23:40, 2 October 2015 (UTC) reply

MGA News Agency

MGA News Agency (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:N. No indication of importance. Pahlevun ( talk) 22:11, 25 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 22:42, 25 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 03:51, 26 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete it appears to be an in-house organ for Sharif University of Technology, in other words the campus newsletter. I could find no coverage. Not only was it not listed in Wikipedia's list of Newspapers in Iran, as per Heyyouoverthere above, but it is not listed in ABYZ's News Links for Iran. Fails WP:GNG. -- Bejnar ( talk) 21:21, 26 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Do not seem to be WP:RS to establish notability. Google searches turn up different organizations with similar names. -- Jersey92 ( talk) 14:21, 27 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete for now as WP:TNT and restart when better as although news media

is thought to be notable and such, there's simply no better improvement and the best my searches found was one blogspot link. SwisterTwister talk 05:08, 28 September 2015 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 23:42, 2 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Bitaraf.com News Agency

Bitaraf.com News Agency (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:N. No indication of importance. Pahlevun ( talk) 22:11, 25 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 03:52, 26 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 03:54, 26 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 03:54, 26 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I couldn't find any websites or books which mention this website. I'm not even sure if this 'news agency' exists - the website cited on the article is apparently meant for Habibollah Bitaraf (his name comes up next to the website's name in a Google search). Elspamo4 ( talk) 01:52, 28 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete for now as I also found results for that man butnfound no better sourcing for this website. SwisterTwister talk 05:10, 28 September 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  Sandstein  18:58, 3 October 2015 (UTC) reply

List of VFL/AFL players who have played with three or more clubs

List of VFL/AFL players who have played with three or more clubs (  | 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 list – falling under WP:LISTCRUFT No. 3, WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Qualification for this list is by virtue of a mundane statistical curiosity, and does not add any encyclopedic value. Contested PROD on the weak basis of "the phenomenon is described in multiple secondary sources": but the sole reference given is a stat-of-the-day type article listing a journalist's opinion on the ten best three-club players, which is hardly a strong supporting reference to establish the notability of this concept as a whole. I would not be averse to putting a small table listing the four 5-club players in a new subsection of List of VFL/AFL records under "Most clubs in a career" (i.e. a minor partial merge), but I would delete this article without retaining any other content. Aspirex ( talk) 22:05, 25 September 2015 (UTC) reply

  • Keep. A well-known phenomenon in Australian rules football, with a notable threshold. The article cited is related to a book which expands on the concept. This article also discusses three-club players (in the context of club loyalty, etc.), while this one looks at four-club players. St Anselm ( talk) 22:31, 25 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Comment The Mark Fine book linked to is called "The Book of Footy Lists" – a book whose sole purpose is as a collection of WP:INDISCRIMINATE information, and therefore weak evidence to support notability for Wikipedia. The second article mentions three-club players, but it also mentions four-club players, two-club players and one-club players no less prominently; there's nothing in it to back StAnselm's suggestion that three clubs is the threshold of notability; and in any case, if it's all in the context of the describing club loyalty, then it supports the notability of an article about club loyalty, not a bare list of players who fit the three-club criterion. Aspirex ( talk) 22:59, 25 September 2015 (UTC) reply
No, it is not true to say that this article "mentions two-club players no less prominently" - the context clearly suggests that three clubs is the threshold - the second and third subheadings focus exclusively on three clubs as the benchmark for the phenomenon. (E.g. Denis Lanigan as "the man who started it all".) St Anselm ( talk) 00:58, 26 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 03:54, 26 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 03:54, 26 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 03:55, 26 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 03:55, 26 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Absolute WP:LISTCRUFT trivia, about as useful as "AFL players who have three children or more". What is encyclopedic about being a journeyman footballer who cannot hold down a job with one club? WWGB ( talk) 04:35, 26 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Pure WP:LISTCRUFT. There is no encyclopedic value to a list of players who have played for 'x' number of teams, regardless of sport. —  Jkudlick  t c s 05:46, 26 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, essentially per Aspirex above; this is not a notable or widely discussed statistic, nor is it a useful way to categorise or compare players. Lankiveil ( speak to me) 12:41, 26 September 2015 (UTC). reply
  • Delete common in major professional sports to play for 3 or more teams in a career, not a defining feature. LibStar ( talk) 07:02, 29 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete This is listcruft and not at all an unusual event. ~ EDDY ( talk/ contribs)~ 22:06, 30 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as stated by editors Aspirex and Lankiveil this is not a notable or widely discussed statistic, nor is it a useful way to categorise or compare players hence it is indescriminate info and violates WP:NOT. -- Bejnar ( talk) 05:50, 3 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as per nom and above editors, WP:LISTCRUFT. Onel5969 TT me 17:34, 3 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 Hannah Arendt#Arendt's Critique of Human Rights. ( non-admin closure) Kharkiv07 ( T) 23:32, 2 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Arendt on Human Rights

Arendt on Human Rights (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:OR, reads like a book report/essay. Versa geek 21:21, 25 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 03:56, 26 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete/redirect to Hannah_Arendt#Arendt.27s_Critique_of_Human_Rights. This is already covered in her article and is better summarized. (It was written by the same person, but this looks far less OR - although it does need to be sourced.) This is just too OR to be kept on Wikipedia, although it does offhand seem like it'd make a nice paper elsewhere. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:16, 26 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy Delete - Per nominators nomination comment. Olowe2011 Talk 20:49, 26 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • OR and essay style don't qualify for Speedy Deletion, which is why I created this AfD rather than just deleting it myself. -- Versa geek 20:38, 28 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect as this seems best and there's nothing to suggest a better article at this time. SwisterTwister talk 05:14, 28 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - Citations have been added. None of the content is OR. Passages have been re-worded to reduce appearance of OR. Datracy59 ( talk) 18:03, 28 September 2015 (UTC)Datracy59 reply
  • Keep As it happens I have read the book by Arendt under discussion and this article's references to it are clearly a summary, not original research. The added citations help a lot in this regard. With them, this is a high quality entry. Porphyry Jones ( talk) 04:03, 29 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:58, 2 October 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete Anthony Appleyard ( talk) 09:15, 26 September 2015 (UTC) reply

The Newbie

The Newbie (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Supposed future Disney Channel television show with no evidence of notability. Cursory web search shows no information corresponding to a TV series of this name for Disney or any other channel. RA0808 talk contribs 21:12, 25 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 21:40, 25 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete. Not notable. If it is going to air in 2016, there's no coverage on it now, so that's WP:TOOSOON. Fuzchia ( talk) 22:40, 25 September 2015 (UTC) reply

  • Delete as hoax: I kind of have some serious doubts as to whether or not this show even exists as a concept. If the article is to be believed this is a show that already has an order for 13 episodes and a launch date that's less than a year away. The problem with this is that this is also a Disney show and Disney isn't exactly shy about promoting their new shows. There would be some coverage somewhere about this show that mentions it by name or at least a news story that mentions that a big name Disney star is making a new TV show. The lack of coverage is especially suspicious given both Peyton List and Kylie Rogers are currently working on different TV shows, both of which are on high profile channels (The Whispers is on ABC, Bunk'd is on Disney). Assuming that either actress would be able to step away from their current schedules to make a new show, it's unlikely that this would not be reported on by the media. Even if we ignore the lack of media coverage on an upcoming Disney show, the lack of fan chatter is especially suspicious. Disney Channel fans are pretty gung ho and if this was even a whisper, it'd be all over the Internet. A search for the stars' names and Disney brings up nothing. Even if the show was an unnamed pilot there would still be some mention of them filming for Disney - especially after one of them announced that Disney had ordered episodes and announced a release date. I'm going to tag it accordingly. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:32, 26 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • There are a couple of past users that have a history of creating hoax Disney pages, so I'll have to perform a search to see if this might be them coming back under a new account. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:35, 26 September 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) Kharkiv07 ( T) 23:35, 2 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Breast milk jewelry

Breast milk jewelry (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

As the creator of the article says on the article's talk page, doesn't seem to meet the notability guidelines. The three citations all mention the same maker of breast milk jewelry - a mother from Rhode Island who sells her products on Etsy, not exactly an established business. Could also be seen as promotional. Oneforfortytwo ( talk) 20:58, 25 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 03:57, 26 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 03:58, 26 September 2015 (UTC) reply

References

  1. ^ "Breast milk jewelry helps mothers preserve memories". CBS News.
  2. ^ "New trend: Moms saving breast milk in jewelry". Fox News.
  3. ^ Kavita Varma-White. "Mom's newest bling: breast milk jewelry". TODAY.com.
  4. ^ "Breast-Milk Jewelry: The Must-Have Mommy Memento". TIME.com.
  5. ^ "Breast Milk Jewelry the Latest for Nursing Moms". ABC News.
  6. ^ "How jewelry made from breast milk has become an unlikely trend among new mothers (but is it adorable or gross?)". Mail Online.
  7. ^ "11 moms complain about Rhode Island breast milk jewelry firm". The Washingtion Times.
  8. ^ Lindsey Robertson (4 August 2015). "Mothers create jewelry with breast milk". Mashable.
  9. ^ "R.I. Moms Feel Scammed Waiting For Breast Milk Jewelry". The Huffington Post.
  • Keep as this seems acceptable. SwisterTwister talk 05:13, 28 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - Passes GNG from sources showing in footnote. Weird, wacky stuff, Mildred... Carrite ( talk) 23:22, 2 October 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  Sandstein  18:59, 3 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Usage of the terms railroad and railway

Usage of the terms railroad and railway (  | 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 or verifiable, full of OR.

  • Notability: not every pair of related words in English deserves their own article on Wikipedia.
  • Verifiability: what references discuss these two words? Is that why there are no references other than a Gordon Lightfoot song?
  • WP:OR This is original research from beginning to end.

A worse than useless compendium of original research, guesswork, and misinformation. Hurts more than it helps. The one footnote is about which term singer Gordon Lightfoot uses in a song. The article was tagged OR in 2009 but there has been no discussion and no attempt to resolve it since. The only thing possibly worth keeping in this article is the first paragraph (unsourced) dealing with definition and etymology, however Wiktionary already has articles for wikt:railroad and wikt:railway. Mathglot ( talk) 20:22, 25 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Notified: Cecropia, Duncharris (retired), JackLumber, Alanmak. Mathglot ( talk) 20:41, 25 September 2015 (UTC) reply

  • delete not on an encyclopaedic topic, or at least not on a new one when we have rail transport. The different things that railways have been called down the years is not a topic; many things have different names though their history, or geographical variations, but this merits only a brief mention in the article if that. Per WP:COMMONALITY we try and use names that mean the same thing in different English speaking territories, so 'rail transport', and try not to emphasise minor naming variations. Certainly not an topic in its own right.-- JohnBlackburne words deeds 22:03, 25 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 04:12, 26 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 04:12, 26 September 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Nozzle#Jet. This is a plausible search term and is mentioned at the redirect target. ( non-admin closure) sst ✈ 02:47, 3 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Foam jet nozzle

Foam jet nozzle (  | 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, little more than a definition. Article would fit better on wiktionary --   Kethrus | talk to me  20:02, 25 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 04:15, 26 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as per nom CoffeeWithMarkets ( talk) 03:22, 28 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as not only is there not much, I found some links at the usual searches but nothing to suggest better improvement. Please feel free to restart when better. SwisterTwister talk 05:23, 28 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect Nozzle#Jet because this is a jet nozzle and what it nozzes or is made of does not appear specially notable. 野狼院ひさし u/ t/ c 11:16, 28 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - dicdef with little room for expansion. shoy ( reactions) 16:19, 28 September 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Nabinagar Thermal Power Project. A selective merge may be appropriate, if an editor thinks any content would be appropriate. ( non-admin closure) Kharkiv07 ( T) 23:37, 2 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Bhartiya Rail Bijlee Company Limited

Bhartiya Rail Bijlee Company 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)

Poorly sourced, only reference is the own website. Does not meet WP:GNG. --   Kethrus | talk to me  19:42, 25 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 04:17, 26 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 04:17, 26 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 04:17, 26 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 04:17, 26 September 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  Sandstein  18:59, 3 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Into the Bermuda Triangle

Into the Bermuda Triangle (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Apparently non-notable, Google search revealed several bookseller descriptions, but no significant in-depth coverage from independent sources. I couldn't find anything meeting WP:BKCRIT. The article is orphaned and unsourced since creation in 2013. Maybe it's more notable with Bermuda triangle enthusiasts, but I wouldn't know where to look for such coverage. GermanJoe ( talk) 19:29, 25 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 04:18, 26 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: This one is a little frustrating since I'm finding name drops here and there like these sources, but not really anything major. I might check to see if the author might warrant an article. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:52, 26 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. This is referenced in a handful of places, but not really to the point where this could show enough notability for it to be kept. I have no problem with this being a soft delete if someone can provide sources in the future, though. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:11, 26 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as per nom CoffeeWithMarkets ( talk) 12:13, 26 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete for now but this would've been good to mention at an article for this subject (but I'm not seeing a move target) and although my searches found some results at News and Books, there's nothing to suggest better improvement at this time. SwisterTwister talk 05:36, 28 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:54, 2 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Not seeing enough on the search engines to show notability. Onel5969 TT me 17:29, 3 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 A& by RHAWorth. – Davey2010 Talk 21:56, 25 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Sonali Verma, Actor

Sonali Verma, Actor (  | 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:NACTOR. Bharatiya29 ( talk) 18:51, 25 September 2015 (UTC) reply

  • Speedy Delete (A7) - Tagged as such as obviously non notable actor, I originally closed as Speedy Delete but seeing as the page's not been deleted yet I know some moron will end up reverting me!. – Davey2010 Talk 19:14, 25 September 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  Sandstein  18:59, 3 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Anna Jack

Anna Jack (  | 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, unsourced article. RF23 ( talk) 18:46, 25 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 04:28, 26 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: as utterly non-notable. Quis separabit? 15:37, 26 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete for now as there's simply not much for a better article yet and I only found few links at Books, browser and Highbeam. SwisterTwister talk 05:43, 28 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:52, 2 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:52, 2 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:52, 2 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as per nom and above editors. Can't find enough to show it meets notability criteria. Onel5969 TT me 17:30, 3 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) -- Sam Sailor Talk! 08:00, 2 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Chicken parmigiana

Chicken parmigiana (  | 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 is heavily slanted towards Australia despite the dish not being Australian in origin (it was created as a variation of the older eggplant dish by Italian immigrants who came to the United States), and much of the information on the dish can be found in the parmigiana article ANDROS1337 TALK 18:19, 25 September 2015 (UTC) reply

  • Keep Significant dish in Australia - one of the best known meals, and well sourced. If there is material available to expand outside of the Australian region (noting that there is some coverage of such already, with articles describing other regional dishes) then it can be added. Merging with Parmigiana, a different dish, would result in undue coverage of a single regional meal. - Bilby ( talk) 18:29, 25 September 2015 (UTC) reply
But the dish is far more popular in the United States than it is in Australia, since practically every major Italian restaurant serves it (as do most family-owned Italian restaurants). In Australia it seems its popularity is more spotty. ANDROS1337 TALK 18:40, 25 September 2015 (UTC) reply
If it is the same dish, you are more than welcome to expand the article to match. It would be great to see the content further developed. - Bilby ( talk) 18:50, 25 September 2015 (UTC) reply
It's not just the same dish, it's American in origin. oknazevad ( talk) 23:42, 25 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Great. Add that. I have no problem with more detail at all. :) - Bilby ( talk) 05:45, 27 September 2015 (UTC) reply
How popular is this dish really in Australia? Is it found exclusively in Italian restaurants, as in the United States, as suggested by a fellow editor? Or is it served in some mainstream Australian restaurants like some of the references hinted at? Why are there websites for Aussie expats on how to find Aussie style chicken parm in London? Is the dish as popular as chicken fingers? 64.134.34.28 ( talk)
There was no suggestion that it is found exclusively in Italian restaurants in the U.S. Andros was noting that every Italian restaurant serves it, both major chains and small family owned joints. I'm the one who noted that it's so common that diners almost always have it. oknazevad ( talk) 04:51, 27 September 2015 (UTC) reply
It is one of the most common pub meals in Australia. With that said, if it is common (or even more common) elsewhere, we should expand the article to cover other regions where it is served. I don't understand the argument that because it is available in many countries we need to delete the article. If it is available in many countries, we need to cover that as well. - Bilby ( talk) 05:45, 27 September 2015 (UTC) reply
I think we can all agree that chicken parmigiana is not uncommon in both North America and Australia and can be found in non-Italian restaurants. Should chicken parmigiana be lumped with all of the other variants? Unlike chicken, I have hardly seen either veal or eggplant being served outside of an Italian restaurant. Yet, I have even seen hamburger parmigiana (i.e., pizza cheese and sauce over breaded hamburger patties) being served at school cafeterias, but not in any kind of restaurant that I have seen (yet the U.S. Army does have a recipe that can serve large groups [6]. yes, the Army does have a recipe for the chicken variant [7]). If I go to the frozen food section of the nearest Ralphs or Kroger supermarket, I can find nearly half-a-dozen varieties of chicken parmigiana ( Healthy Choice, Marie Callender's, Smart Ones, etc.) but one eggplant (Michael Angelos) and no veal. I think chicken is so common outside of Italian communities that it has been adopted by the mainstream culture like pizza and burritos while veal and eggplant is relegated to more ethnic Italian outlets, at least in the U.S. 108.71.214.235 ( talk) 08:31, 27 September 2015 (UTC) reply
In fact, even veal parmigiana is not very common in Italy, as with chicken parmigiana it was created by Italian-American immigrants who came to the United States. Only eggplant parmigiana is the truly Italian version. ANDROS1337 TALK 21:15, 29 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Keep There are plenty of reliable sources identifying it as a distinctive dish. Any Australian bias can be toned down. Rwxrwxrwx ( talk) 18:31, 25 September 2015 (UTC) reply

So, should we also make a veal parmigiana article? Veal parmigiana, while less popular than chicken or eggplant parmigiana in the United States and Australia, is very popular in South America. ANDROS1337 TALK 18:42, 25 September 2015 (UTC) reply
There is an article about the South American version of veal parmigiana called Milanesa. Should that article also be merged into parmigiana? I suggest Keep. 64.134.34.28 ( talk) 01:54, 27 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 18:46, 25 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. It just needs fleshing out on the dish's importance in other regions. Fuzchia ( talk) 22:38, 25 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Merge (back) to parmigiana. Was forked off, but given an overly Australian slant. Notably the common abbreviated name chicken parm has always been a redirect to parmigiana, as this article had been until it was split based on flimsy reasoning, with only a few editors filibustering any merger discussion, well overstating its supposed national importance (which isn't really supported by the sources), as it's not Aussie in origin, nor it isn't as ubiquitous as they claim (which is what the sources actually say), nor is it any way, shape, or form particular to Australia (any diner in the U.S. will have it on their menu, and it remains a very popular dish), nor is is it really distinct from the veal or eggplant versions (parmigiana is a method of preparation; the filling can vary, but it's still breaded, fried, then baked with tomato sauce and cheese.) In short, it shouldn't be a separate article. oknazevad ( talk) 23:42, 25 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Merge: to parmigiana per the detailed analysis above. Who knew chicken parm could inspire such passionate debate. Vrac ( talk) 02:03, 26 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. I agreed that it need to be fleshed out more. 64.134.34.28 ( talk)
  • Keep It is independently notable as a distinctive dish. As an aside, I think it would be very difficult to find a pub in Australia which does not sell it; hence the current Australian slant to the article. That means the other sections need fleshing out. AtHomeIn神戸 ( talk) 01:12, 28 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep as this seems acceptable and I'm not seeing any serious need for deletion. SwisterTwister talk 05:37, 28 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep without prejudice about merging it to parmigiana, per the comments made above. The bias towards the dish in Australia can be responded to by expansion of the other sections, rather than article deletion. Thine Antique Pen ( talk) 15:55, 29 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per WP:SNOW. We almost always keep popular food dishes. Bearian ( talk) 00:10, 30 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per precedent. Kharkiv07 ( T) 00:57, 2 October 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. And salt.  Sandstein  19:00, 3 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Ajumogobia & Okeke

AfDs for this article:
Ajumogobia & Okeke (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete This article was previously nominated for deletion on 3 September 2015 by editor Wikicology. The result of that discussion was to redirect to the senior partner Henry Odein Ajumogobia about whom there is significant coverage. Almost immediately after the "redirect" was made, an WP:SPA editor restored the article unchanged. It was again redirected. Now, an WP:SPA editor Lupin13noble has restored the article with four additional citations and the summary adding article with info and more references. Unfortunately there is still not significant coverage of this law firm and the article still fails to make a claim of notability. Of the four new references, three are just passing mentions (one line about sponsoring an event, one line about being one of six law firms that completed the final draft of the model Nigerian mortgage foreclosure law, and one noting Mr. Shasore, who is also a senior partner in a Lagos-based law firm, Ajumogobia & Okeke,) The fourth citation was to a review of oil & gas law firms in Nigeria by Law Business Research Ltd. (Who's Who Legal). It has two sentences about the firm: C Nonyelum Okeke at Ajumogobia & Okeke specialises in oil and gas law and is an “excellent” project finance lawyer. He is joined by Ovie Ukiri, a “true specialist” who is “highly rated” by peers and clients alike. That at least is in the direction of substantive coverage, and if it were combined with other substantive coverage could reach the level of significant coverage. But it stands out as the only substnative coverage of the firm. The other mentions at Who's Who Legal, uncited in the article, are about specific individuals and only mention the firm in passing. Undoubtedly the firm is a pretigious law firm in Nigeria, it just lacks coverage. All of the older citations were just directory or incidental listings, some incidental mentions of the law firm in passing were when discussing Henry Odein Ajumogobia. Fails WP:GNG, fails WP:ORG. I would ask anyone reviewing this nomination who is not familiar with the " Depth of coverage" section of Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) to review that section before commenting. While I still feel that a redirect is acceptable, I am asking for deletion to remove the platform for additional non-helpful revisions. -- Bejnar ( talk) 18:12, 25 September 2015 (UTC) reply

 Comment: I usually don't like giving spammers a chance, I described them as WP:MOSQUITOES. Nonetheless, since I was pinged on this, I say (1) Delete (2) Block WP:SPA editor (3) Salt page. Finally, "Ajumogobia & Okeke" should kindly be patient enough to wait until their law firm becomes notable and someone with no WP:COI who knows how to write an encyclopedic article will writes about it here. Wikic¤l¤gy t@lk to M£ 18:44, 25 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 04:33, 26 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 04:33, 26 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 04:33, 26 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete and salt - It's pretty frustrating how sometimes people play games with Wikipedia. CoffeeWithMarkets ( talk) 09:31, 27 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete and salt - Like the above editors, I don't like taking these types of measures (in fact I think this is my first salt recommendation). However, it gets frustrating at times dealing with editors like this. I also agree with Wikicology that the SPA editor should be blocked. Onel5969 TT me 17:33, 3 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. Just because it's not on Google doesn't mean it's not notable, Anyway consensus is to keep ( non-admin closure) – Davey2010 Talk 23:48, 1 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Charles Wenner House

Charles Wenner House (  | 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, lacks context. I dream of horses ( T) @ 17:15, 25 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Withdraw my !vote. Rwxrwxrwx ( talk) 10:50, 28 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep As the author recently uploaded a photo of the same site, this appears to be the Charles Wenner House which is listed on the National Register of Historic Places in Galena, Illinois; I added some basic context and a source to reflect this, and I'll expand the article soon. Given that new context, the subject is notable, as any site on the National Register has met a higher standard of notability than the one Wikipedia uses. TheCatalyst31 Reaction• Creation 00:40, 26 September 2015 (UTC) reply
I don't think that is the right house. It doesn't look like the poor photos in the nomination form. It says that it was demolished, but the photo was taken a few days ago. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 03:36, 28 September 2015 (UTC) reply
As far as I can tell, the photo was taken of the former site of the house, after it was demolished (and apparently replaced with a new house). TheCatalyst31 Reaction• Creation 03:40, 28 September 2015 (UTC) reply
The article says that the former site is now part of a cornfield. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 03:42, 28 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 04:33, 26 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 04:33, 26 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 04:33, 26 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Comment -- I am far from sure that we need an article on every building on NRHP. We certainly do not allow one on every UK listed building, as there are 1000s of them. Peterkingiron ( talk) 16:59, 27 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Yes, WP:NRHP's approach does indicate a rather vast number of potential articles - there are 90,000+ individual listings on the National Register. However, I would suggest that editors interested in UK historic preservation are being too modest. Sure it's a big goal, but why wouldn't each Listed Building or Scheduled Ancient Monument be worthy of individual coverage? Surely the listing process generates documentation sufficient to meet the general notability guideline? (These questions are rhetorical. This discussion surely isn't the most appropriate place to dig into the answers.) —  Ipoellet ( talk) 03:10, 28 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Note that there are over 374,000 listed buildings in England alone! At the moment we generally only assume that Grade I and II* buildings (about 8% of the total) are inherently notable, but many Grade II buildings do have articles and it's certainly a contributory factor to notability. I have actually seen very few Grade II listed buildings deleted at AfD. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 13:24, 30 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, assuming this house was NRHP-listed. Do we have access to the nomination form? --- Another Believer ( Talk) 18:03, 27 September 2015 (UTC) reply
    • Yes, we do. TheCatalyst31 Reaction• Creation 18:17, 27 September 2015 (UTC) reply
      • Well, then, case closed (imho). Seems this could be a short article to expand and promote to GA status. --- Another Believer ( Talk) 18:31, 27 September 2015 (UTC) reply
    • The description in that document does not remotely match the photo in the article. The description says it's made of solid limestone but the photo shows wood, etc. Rwxrwxrwx ( talk) 19:36, 27 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • The caption of the image in the article says it's from the site of the house in September 2015. I don't trust it since the subject building has been demolished and photos are available in the NRHP nomination document. With the documents available, I'd go with them. • Gene93k ( talk) 19:43, 27 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. How many of the "delete" voters are familiar with print research? Google yields nothing much, but that's because the sourcing is a mixture of deep web and print resources. Illinois has set up its state historic preservation website in a way that's not friendly to search engines, so you'd never find the nomination form with a Google search. The nomination form provides information about additional sources, including an 1870s book about the county, of a sort that was commonly published at the time with extensive text and imagery for rural farmsteads. While relevant census records are primary sources, not stuff we'd depend on, they're listed as being in the county library's historical collection: major buildings, like this farmstead was, will be covered in county histories and similar locally published documents that, while reliable, won't be the kind of thing indexed by Google. National Register sites are always notable, not because the NR designation makes them notable, but because the National Register's documentation requirements for listing are significantly higher than our documentation requirements for notability. This may be different from UK listed buildings; I don't know what's involved in the listing process. Nyttend ( talk) 23:06, 27 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • PS, note that the article provided essentially no context at the time the AFD was created. The entire contents were "The Wenner house has been demolished after the walls collapsed, site now part of a cornfield according to township officials." Perhaps I shouldn't have been so hard on the delete voters; both Rwxrwxrwx and Postcard Cathy voted before TheCatalyst31 expanded the article and added proper sourcing. Nyttend ( talk) 23:12, 27 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. The general idea of the "Google test" is that it is a sufficient but not a necessary means of establishing the notability of a topic. Therefore, failing the "Google test" does not demonstrate that a topic is not notable. In the case of the National Register, in certain time periods and certain states, the records of the administrative action of adding a place to the NR are held almost entirely off-line. (Other states may have their NR records almost entirely on-line, so it varies.) So even though Google doesn't return any internet results, there may be other documents available via the research methods of my youth that do establish notability. For National Register properties, the administrative process leading to listing ensures that source documents meeting the general notability guideline are created and available by some means. TheCatalyst31 has provided exactly the necessary document above. —  Ipoellet ( talk) 02:58, 28 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep as this seems acceptable from what I see. SwisterTwister talk 05:43, 28 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I can imagine most structures on the NRHP have enough sources to justify their inclusion, whether on the web or in print. This is no exception, and the article as it stands is a good stub. ~ EDDY ( talk/ contribs)~ 22:33, 1 October 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Courcelles ( talk) 17:19, 2 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Paper Resources

Paper Resources (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The subject does not meet WP:GNG and WP:ORG. No coverage in reliable sources at all. Google searches do not yield anything significant. Lacking references since 2007. Hitro talk 16:52, 25 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 04:34, 26 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 04:34, 26 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as there's simply no better improvement for this article from February 2007. SwisterTwister talk 05:13, 27 September 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Darna. ( non-admin closure) – Davey2010 Talk 23:50, 1 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Cristina Aragón

Cristina Aragón (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete: does not reach the threshold for notability as an actress. Has but five roles to her name per IMDb. Quis separabit? 14:29, 25 September 2015 (UTC) reply

  • Delete Seems to be also known as Cristy Aragón. Regardless, could not find any coverage outside a brief mention in IMDB. Rwxrwxrwx ( talk) 18:40, 25 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. APerson ( talk!) 14:44, 25 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 15:40, 25 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep (!vote amended to Redirect to Darna, for now). iconic role (as the main villain) in the 1951 Filipino film classic Darna directed by Fernando Poe Sr. While the role might seem minor to foreigners, the film is the first superhero[ine] movie produced in the country, and is as culturally significant to Filipinos as Superman is to Americans.--  OBSIDIAN† SOUL 09:08, 27 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Per User:Hariboneagle927, I have amended my vote to redirect. I still stand by my earlier statement of her making a unique culturally significant contribution to Filipino cinema. But unlike other similar 1950s Philippine actors also nominated recently, her notability is not easily provable simply by the number of films to her name. Her stint in the film industry was very very short. Thus WP:NACTOR #1 can not be used for her. She has had a notable role, but her notability itself might not be enough.--  OBSIDIAN† SOUL 10:46, 29 September 2015 (UTC) reply
"While the role might seem minor to foreigners, the film is the first superhero[ine] movie produced in the country, and is as culturally significant to Filipinos" -- in that case keep this joke of an article on Tambayan Wikipedia and not litter up English-language Wikipedia. Quis separabit? 13:30, 27 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Yes. English-language. Not Western Wikipedia. Not American Wikipedia. LOL. You've been here nearly 10 years and you still can not tell the difference? --  OBSIDIAN† SOUL 19:12, 27 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Then redirect her article to Darna, since that is the only thing she is notable for, which is what you appear to be stating, @Obsidian Soul. Quis separabit? 02:11, 28 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Sources provided.-- Jondel ( talk) 12:08, 27 September 2015 (UTC) reply
    @Jondel's vote should be disregarded. He has been twice accused of stalking this nominator's AFDs and "Sources provided" is woefully insufficient with regards to compliance with Wikietiquette (as per WP:AFD, to wit: "Remember that while AfD may look like a voting process, it does not operate like one. Justification and evidence for a response carries far more weight than the response itself"). Quis separabit? 02:11, 28 September 2015 (UTC) reply
You should check the quality of external links before adding them and claiming them as reliable. Two are dead. One is an anonymous blog. One is the IMDB mentioned above. The one remaining link seems to be reliable, but is about a different actress, simply confirming the existence of the 1951 Darma and, in passing, mentions Aragón as co-starring in it. Rwxrwxrwx ( talk) 12:53, 27 September 2015 (UTC) reply
@Rwxrwxrwx -- you don't get it (see Wikipedia Tambayan Project); they have an agenda of keeping every imaginable Philippines-related article on Wikipedia, all churned out boilerplate style with almost identical reflinks provided by entertainment-obsessed gossipy Filipino media, reliable newspapers and otherwise. The same three editors (Obsidian Soul, Rio Hondo, and Jondel) are now voting in tandem to keep every article, even junk like this one. Quis separabit? 13:30, 27 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Ooh. Conspiracy. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Stalking.--  OBSIDIAN† SOUL 23:29, 27 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Aragon is clearly had a notable role in the Darna film but the quality of the links is questionable. Maybe notable, the problem is the peak of this actress' career was in the 1950s and it is hard to find any verifiable source on this particular person. There are maybe reliable sources on books on films or comics in Philippine libraries but there is nothing much on the current article. WP:TNT may be appropriate. Quis separabit? I understand your frustration but there is no agenda here. Afterall there is WP:NOTVOTE. Then I again I have experience similar problems regarding the X in the Philippines years such as 2015 in the Philippines. Plus places in the Philippines has materials which are promotional that are more suitable to WikiVoyage. Hariboneagle927 ( talk) 18:01, 27 September 2015 (UTC) reply
@Hariboneagle927 -- so maybe you should vote and put yourself on the record. This vanity article is nonsensical and should be redirected to Darna, as suggested above. Quis separabit? 02:11, 28 September 2015 (UTC) reply
A " vanity article" for an 83-year old who retired long before the internet? If she is still even alive. You really do need to brush up on your policies User:[email protected]. You seem a bit rusty on your WP terminology. --  OBSIDIAN† SOUL 02:59, 28 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Absolutely -- I don't mean she created her own online article herself, but fans, family, whatever. They do it all the time. Quis separabit? 03:12, 28 September 2015 (UTC) reply
All the time! <sarcasm> --  OBSIDIAN† SOUL 04:17, 28 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect for now as per my prior comments Hariboneagle927 ( talk) 04:19, 28 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to Darna as this is her best known films and my best search results which were Books and browser were not enough for a better separate article. SwisterTwister talk 05:46, 28 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. WP:NACTOR criteria 3: Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment through her 1950s films. From a notable family of actors 1, and for being a 1950s Filipina icon and model. 2.-- RioHondo ( talk) 04:14, 29 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Those links give no indication of notability, simply mentioning her name in a list of (1) relatives of somebody else, and (2) minor models. Rwxrwxrwx ( talk) 09:45, 29 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Aragon's real name is actually Violeta Padilla. I agree that those don't actually show notability though. --  OBSIDIAN† SOUL 10:46, 29 September 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. No need to let this linger: consensus is clear. Let me note that the final keep vote, by an SPA, presents no credible arguments or reliable sources pertaining to the topic, which is an order, not whether some royalty existed at one time and for how long. Drmies ( talk) 18:11, 1 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Sacred Order of Saint Michael Archangel

Sacred Order of Saint Michael Archangel (  | 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 had originally submitted this as a WP:PROD which was objected to. This is the reason for the AfD. This is an obvious fantasy order created by an invidivual claiming the Ghassanid headship, a Kingdom that has not been extant since the early 8th century and no claims to it since this particular fellow appeared. The article itself lacks any reliable sources and anything found online is self published. Neither the claimant, who goes by the title of "Prince Gharios of Ghassan" nor his "order" are listed or recognized by any of the major sources such as the ICOC. Kimon talk 14:11, 25 September 2015 (UTC) reply

  • Delete I edit conflicted with Kimon in creating an AFD; I'll post my nomination here.
I suppose "hoax" is too strong a word, but this order and this royal house are very trumped up, and do not meet WP:GNG.
-- Floquenbeam ( talk) 14:19, 25 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Also, I should note that if this AFD looks like it's going to turn into the same kind of trainwreck that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prince Gharios of Ghassan was (see that AFD's history and talk page) I encourage people to go to WP:ANI quickly, rather than wait for it to get seriously out of control. -- Floquenbeam ( talk) 14:23, 25 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete because this "Order" is not notable. Only sources about this "Order" are self-published by the "Prince" and "Order" himself.-- Yopie ( talk) 16:45, 25 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete not notable and all sources are self-published. Just because someone claims they are the descendent of some ruling house does not make it so. If your chivalric order isn't recognized by the ICOC ... it's ain't notable. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:57, 25 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete for lack of independent sourceing, hence fails WP:Verifiability policy. -- Bejnar ( talk) 02:45, 26 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete No independent verification of notability. Staszek Lem ( talk) 20:42, 28 September 2015 (UTC) reply


  • Dear Sirs:

1. You're citing the ICOC. This organization is a mere association with neither legal nor sovereign recognition. It was popular on the 1960's but presently is begging for attention in the international scene after many scandals involving corruption:

"Since the Niadh Nask was heretofore unknown within the world of chivalric Orders, Gayre and the ICOC expanded the original focus of the group to include a new category, called "Dynastic Nobiliary Fraternities". Hundreds of people, taken in by these claims, joined the Niadh Nask or donated to their "cause", totaling about $1 million. Among those convinced by the hoax were former Irish Prime Ministers Charles Haughey and Albert Reynolds, and John Brook-Little. After Gayre's death in 1996 MacCarthy assumed the position of President and continued using the ICOC as a vehicle to advance his fraudulent nobiliary claims. In July 1999 the falsity of MacCarthy's claims was discovered and reported in the media, and he resigned from the ICOC.[9][10]"

Also:

" It was believed that an organization like the ICOC, while not possessing any actual powers of enforcement ..."

The ICOC lost the mandate from the International Congress of Genealogy and Heraldry over 40 years ago.

"the plenary session unanimously resolved that "the question of legitimacy of orders of chivalry is excluded from the activities of the international congresses of genealogical and heraldic sciences." This resolution was solemnly renewed in the plenary session of the 7th congress in 1964 (see the acts of that congress). "

Also, the so-called "major sources" like The Almanac Gotha, for example, only present the European Houses with accuracy and a very few (the most famous) from other continents.

2. It's a huge insult to the Order of the Holy Sepulcher, one of the oldest in the world (and broadly recognized by the ICOC if you want to mention - so clearly double standards here), to imply that the Order is "bought" without any proof. According to the Wikipedia:

"The honor of knighthood, and any subsequent promotions, are conferred by the Holy See through its Secretariat of State, which approves each in the name of, and by the authority of, the Pope. Each diploma of appointment once approved is sealed and signed in Rome by an official of the Secretariat of State (The Assessor for General Affairs) and the Cardinal Grand Master of the Order."

Therefore, it's a sovereign recognition directly from the Pope and investigated by the Vatican secretariat of State.

Also:

"As late as the 18th century, all but the last were approved by Pope Benedict XIV who also stated that the Order should enjoy precedence over all Orders except over the Order of the Golden Fleece."

So, the Order of the Holy Sepulcher is the second in precedence over all Catholic Orders (not only the papal ones).

The so-called "passage money" is common to almost all Orders of Chivalry, that's how they finance their activities. Unless, of course, it's a state order, merely honorific with no actual humanitarian work.

3. Obviously, none here actually neither researched the subject in dept nor is an expert on Arab Dynastic laws of succession.It's accepted by historians like Professor Irfan Shahid and the Maronite Patriarch Esthepahn Douahy - considered to be the greatest Arab historian of the XVII Century and in the Beatification process by Pope Benedict XVI - that the Ghassanid kingdom didn't end in the 8th century but on the 18th Century ruling a small area in modern Lebanon,

"After the disappearance of the Ghassanid state, isolated Ghassanian Princes continued to reign in some oases and castles, along with Salihids and some other phylae." ("Late Antiquity" - Bowesock/Brown/Grabar, Harvard University Press, 1999, p. 469)

"Although little is known of Jabala's activities after his emigration to Anatolia, his place in the history of the Ghassanids in the Middle Byzantine period is important, since it was he who established a strong Ghassanid presence in Byzantine Anatolia, one which lasted for many centuries. The climax of this presence was the elevation of one of his descendants to the purple [as Byzantine Emperor] and his establishment of a short-lived dynasty which might be described as the House of Nicephorus." ("Ghassan post Ghassan" by Prof. Irfan Shahid, Festschrift "The Islamic World - From classical to modern times", for Bernard Lewis, Darwin Press l989, pg. 325)"' — Preceding unsigned comment added by Havaran ( talk • contribs) 07:08, 1 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Here's an official article by the Lebanese National News Agency - Ministry of Information of the Republic of Lebanon http://nna-leb.gov.lb/ar/show-report/371/ where the Sheiks Chemor or Shummar are mentioned by their titles (in 2014). On the same article the book from Father Ignatios Tannos Khoury "The Sheiks Chemor rulers of Al-Zawiya" (last recognized Ghassanid state that ended in 1747 AD, very small but considered to be sovereign by the Ottoman Empire) is also mentioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Havaran ( talk • contribs) 07:50, 1 October 2015 (UTC) reply

4. There's no such thing as "Royal recognition for deposed monarchs". That doesn't exist in practice as a document. HM Queen Elizabeth recognizes personally all of her cousins, the deposed monarchs and descendants of Europe, but no "special document" is issued. That's the reason of the Orders of Chivalry, when a sovereign honors someone by the title it's a formal recognition without creating diplomatic embarrassments for the sovereign. On the cited web-link www.princegharios.com/letterkings/ there's a letter from HM the ruling King of Cambodia, where he personally acknowledges that read the book and knows the author's "mission". I also don't see anywhere on the website any claim that those letters are "royal recognition".

5. If the US Special Recognition "is not special", the Congress should not give it nor call it "special". So, unless it's illegal or a fake document it should be called as it is.

6. The Order is not notable??? There are 2 Popes, 3 Cardinals, one Patriarch, 3 archbishops, several Middle eastern ministers and other politicians as members. I can agree that VIP members by itself doesn't mean legitimacy but definitely means notability.

7. All the editors seem to ignore sources deemed as valid according to Wikipedia rules, like Zenit News Agency - the second most respected after L'Osservatorio Romano (official Vatican news agency)and other Middle Eastern Sources as Noursat-Jordan (TV Lumiere) famous news agency in Lebanon and also Roya TV of Jordan.

8. There's definitely a lack of sources' abundance in English, but if you Google it in Arabic there are several from Lebanon, Syria and Jordan. So, you cannot judge someone's work because you've never heard of it. also, you cannot judge an Arabic claim by European sources.

I'd support deletion if you could satisfactory respond to all of the issues raised here. Thank you. Havaran ( talk) 06:12, 1 October 2015 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete and redirect to Caitlyn Jenner. Courcelles ( talk) 17:19, 2 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Kim Howe

Kim Howe (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Kim Howe is the person who was killed in Caitlyn Jenner's car crash. She is famous for no other reason. She was a minor uncredited extra in two shows in the 60s - this does not meet our notability standards. She is known only because she was in a car crash with a famous person - there doesn't need to be a separate article here. B ( talk) 14:08, 25 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. APerson ( talk!) 15:13, 25 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • But that's actually untrue as far as Wikipedia's guidelines are concerned; she's not notable outside of a single event (a car accident) and that event's relation to an undeniably notable individual (Caitlin Jenner), and all references used in the article were generated as a result of that single event and the notable individual involved. As I noted WP:BIO1E and WP:PSEUDO applies is this case. -- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 20:06, 25 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete for lack of independent notability, and for WP:BIO1E. Editor Neptune's Trident misses the point. It is not the volume of references, it is the quality and the substance of them. It is not just having reliable sources, it is having sources that show that she has received substantive coverage for more than just being a car crash victim. -- Bejnar ( talk) 21:53, 25 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete and Redirect to Caitlyn_Jenner#Personal life. This article and the reporting are not about a notable persons life. Govindaharihari ( talk) 03:24, 26 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Her career of being an extra in Elvis movies and as a body double is not notable. Only notable for car crash so should Redirect to Caitlyn Jenner#Fatal car crash. Naue7 ( talk) 23:44, 1 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:50, 2 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:50, 2 October 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:53, 4 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Global Mobility Solutions

Global Mobility Solutions (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Failed Google test. I dream of horses ( T) @ 18:03, 17 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses ( T) @ 18:03, 17 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses ( T) @ 18:03, 17 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - Sources noted on article show it does not fail notoriety. Company was listed in print publication HRO Today in 2014 and 2015, is also available online on site and in PDF format which outlines an entire page of content on the company. Wikipedia guidlines state only a few sentences are necessary in order to qualify for valid citation. The relocation industry is small, but the company named is one of the most notable in the industry as news sources show. Can be found on Reuters, Bloomberg, Yahoo Finance, Wall Street Journal, Market Watch, Boston Globe, InformationWeek etc. As a new article, edits may be appropriate but deletion is not warranted on the basis of "failing Google test". It clearly does not fail search engine tests. Industry Print Publication HRO Today: March 2015 Publication March 2014 Publication Other Qualified News Sources: Reuters Article discussing technology The Boston Globe on Non Profit partnership with Forbes 30 under 30 winner Globalrelocation ( talk) 19:57, 17 September 2015 (UTC) — Globalrelocation ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. User:Globalrelocation is the creator of this article. Disclosure added per WP:AFDFORMAT. reply
  • Note- I have formatted the discussion for better readability. This discussion previously looked like this. Hitro talk 20:55, 17 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Non notable. Reads like an advertisement also, and I don't think it would be possible to rewrite it in such a way that it doesn't read like an advertisement Nz101 Userpage Talkpage 22:37, 17 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 13:12, 18 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Note- I've updated the majority of the issues noted namely, low linking to other wikipedia articles, and resolved the orphan issue. Reiterating notability in industry. Satisfies wikipedia's primary notability guidelines: Verifiable 3rd party media sources cited here and on page. Additionally under the help section for article deletion it states: "First get regular press coverage and meet Wikipedia's requirements for the subject". This has been accomplished and shown via major print and digital publications. Globalrelocation ( talk) 17:16, 18 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete WP:PROMO advert of non-notable company, the "sources" up there and in the article are in-trade and/or press releases, no in-depth coverage in RS independent of the subject, fails WP:CORPDEPTH Kraxler ( talk) 15:05, 24 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 04:03, 25 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  13:49, 25 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. Kraxler nails it on the head. No independent RS coverage to suggest notability. Purely promotional. Onel5969 TT me 13:56, 25 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as editor TT me says: Kraxler nails it on the head. Editor Globalrelocation seems to confuse what is a valid citation, with what is the kind of reliable source that provides in depth coverage. -- Bejnar ( talk) 02:59, 26 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete for now as although I found some links at Books and browser, they're hardly enough for a better article but feel free to draft & userfy (if anyone wants it) until a better article can be made. SwisterTwister talk 05:48, 28 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - I don't think many wikipedians have read the actual sources. Two of the sources are from a magazine publication which Globalrelocation gave links to PDFs for. If you read the pdfs you'll see that they are independent media publications and better yet industry studies. So valid citation. For the other cites, I think they work for newsworthy since the news publications published them, and I think the media is a better judge of newsworthy since they are the news lol. Plus article has good interlinking quality to and from lots of pages. Crp2010 ( talk) 23:40, 28 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Note - forgot does not fail WP:CORPDEPTH bc multiple srcs (read the section) cited including two large scale studies. Crp2010 ( talk) 00:02, 29 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Note/Keep - is there a reason this was relisted for deletion. It looks like there wasn't enough consensus to delete so it was added again in an attempt to get a deletion result. Seems trollish. Maybe this is normal but haven't really seen this before. It was added to 6 total deletion pages without consensus until it was added again September 26th. Really doesn't seem the article has that much conflict outside delete happy users. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.106.243.191 ( talk) 00:36, 29 September 2015 (UTC) — 68.106.243.191 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
  • Comment - We would be more than happy to draft and userfy this to your userspace until it is set to be in article mainspace again. SwisterTwister talk 05:46, 29 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - I don't think that is necessary. Any issues placed on the page have been edited and resolved quickly. Why not continue to place warnings on the page and continually edit until the article meets editors strict scrutiny? That's how all of these other articles work, like relocation service, Worldwide ERC, Cartus, SIRVA or more at Wikipedia:Cleanup. There is nothing about this article that warrants immediate deletion. It provides dimension to an ill documented part of wikipedia (Relocation Industry). Let's keep the article and continue editing. I have asked other wikipedians for input on resolving complaints they held, but they would not respond after edits were made to resolve issues. I'm not an advanced user, but it is apparent that this article is being held to a level of scrutiny most others, especially in this category, are not. Globalrelocation ( talk) 13:34, 29 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - advert for unnotable company. . . Mean as custard ( talk) 16:44, 30 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, sources are all either primary, press releases, or passing mentions. Wikipedia is not a platform for advertising. Grayfell ( talk) 00:13, 1 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Note - Notoriety and validity of citations has already been discussed please see the previous. A 2 year independent study by an media authority in the industry is not a passing mention. Additionally, stop removing valid interlinking in attempt to orphan the page. This page has not been deemed as spam, nor is it deleted, and so removing relevant linking is unwarranted. User:Grayfell User:Mean as custard • Globalrelocation ( talk) 14:59, 1 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Interlinking is just an attempt to confer notability on the article by associating it with more notable topics. . . Mean as custard ( talk) 16:34, 1 October 2015 (UTC) reply
please explain to me how relocation service - an explanation of the subject matter of relocation companies, has no relation to actual relocation companies. It is not an attempt to establish association, it is an actual association. Please familiarize yourself with Wikipedias rules on see also sections: Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Layout you are arbitrarily removing valid additions to wikipedia articles. Globalrelocation ( talk) 19:48, 1 October 2015 (UTC) reply
The HRO Today sources list GMS as one of many companies as a passing mention. The descriptions of the company in the PDFs are clearly supplied by GMS to HRO Today, which is unusable for establishing notability.
'See also' sections generally do not include links which are already included in articles. They also should not include links to specific companies or groups without a clear indication why they are relevant. As this AFD demonstrates, a company's competitors are not automatically notable enough for articles, so selectively listing only some companies is providing flattery by association. Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion. Practically speaking, it's better to just leave other companies out of see also sections without a very good (and verifiable) reason. Belonging to a trade group doesn't establish notability, even if the trade group is notable (see WP:INHERITED). Grayfell ( talk) 21:07, 1 October 2015 (UTC) reply
'See also' sections are the following:

"Contents: A bulleted list, preferably alphabetized, of internal links to related Wikipedia articles. The links in the "See also" section might be only indirectly related to the topic of the article because one purpose of "See also" links is to enable readers to explore tangentially related topics"

do not make up rules in wikipedia to serve your own opinion. The requirement is only tangential relation which is well established. I disagree with your opinion on notability. Relocation Service as well as SIRVA and Altair were all part of the same independent study and so their relation is not only tangential, it is common sense. Additionally your reference to WP:INHERITED is invalid . WP:INHERITED refers to an error made where an editor assumes their article's relationship with a given element is evidence of notoriety, usually based on opinion. See more section links have absolutely nothing to do with rules of AfD. Stop arbitrarily removing valid interlinking to other articles and stating your own opinion as the "general" consensus. An example of tangentiality with company listing in see more is the Apple page (Pixar) and many many others. Relocation Service and Relocation service companies are not only tangentially related they are common sense. Globalrelocation ( talk) 21:30, 1 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Please consider the possibility that my opinion based on past experiences with Wikipedia's guidelines and culture. If you cannot assume good faith then you should not be participating in these kinds of discussions. You're right, the see more section has very little to do with this AFD, but I am directly responding to your comments to me about that problem. Pixar was funded by Steve Jobs right after he was fired from Apple, and the place to discuss that connection is Talk:Apple Inc.. Having been mentioned by an industry study does very little to establish notability. Likewise, it does not establish a "common sense" connection between two companies, especially when a dozen companies without articles were also part of that study. Grayfell ( talk) 22:18, 1 October 2015 (UTC) reply
I agree relocation services and relocation service companies seem totally related to me and make sense for the see also. I put them back. It looks like article is going to get deleted anyway though. don't really think it should be, but that might be bc I see these companies more than m,st. looks like cartus is gonna get deleted too lol. Crp2010 ( talk) 23:50, 1 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - I see no notability here. Looks like a run of the mill re-location company.   Velella   Velella Talk   21:33, 1 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - i got rid of a lot of the advertising stuff on the article and the SIRVA article. It looks better this way. I also found some things that show a lot of company history. I'll add those later but i'm tired now. you can see it though at http://www.fasrelo.com/refresh/templates/about.php?id=113 Crp2010 ( talk) 00:28, 2 October 2015 (UTC) reply
That link is not usable for establishing notability, as it is published by the company. It may be useful for filling in details about the companies history, (with limitations described in WP:PRIMARY) but it does nothing to address the underlying problem. Grayfell ( talk) 20:41, 2 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • delete. No significant sources beyond "business as usual". Staszek Lem ( talk) 22:22, 2 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Note - Can we add a stub template to the article and continue to edit? There are likely valid citations that review the company history that User:crp2010 mentioned. There are articles that claim FAS created the first online Mortgage Calculator as well as the first online Community search, which was then purchased by Homestead which at the time was publicly traded... which means SEC will have record. This Global Mobility Solutions article as well as Cartus is in the very least arguably notable based on the conversation here. Let's Stub the article and continue editing. Globalrelocation ( talk) 22:25, 2 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Essentially promotional content for a seemingly non-notable firm. Carrite ( talk) 23:27, 2 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Yes, this organization has gotten a bit of coverage, and I suppose that the people involved do great work. Be that as it may, we still don't have the kind of truly significant reliable source coverage to write a meaningful article around. I agree with a lot of the above arguments. CoffeeWithMarkets ( talk) 13:10, 4 October 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Withdrawn by nominator. ( non-admin closure) sst ✈ 10:20, 2 October 2015 (UTC) reply

God Damn (band)

God Damn (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)

Article (re-)created in violation of WP:COI guideline, likely by label One Little Indian employee. May be sufficiently notable (or may be not), but I think it is better to wait for the article to be created without conflict of interest. Delete — Kusma ( t· c) 13:41, 17 September 2015 (UTC) — Kusma ( t· c) 13:41, 17 September 2015 (UTC) reply

  • See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wild Palms (band) and my talk page for some background. — Kusma ( t· c) 13:47, 17 September 2015 (UTC) reply
    Much improved by Jayen466 and others, can be kept now, thank you all. — Kusma ( t· c) 14:04, 25 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Definitely notable. It would be better for articles to be created by editors independent of the band or their record company but unless an article is irredeemably promotional it's not necessarily a reason to delete it. There's enough coverage around from good sources to have a well sourced article. -- Michig ( talk) 08:36, 18 September 2015 (UTC) reply
    I disagree. It is good to delete articles created by editors with a financial interest to discourage such creations (even if it is fighting against windmills). Anyway, so far the article only consists of promotional quotes, so nothing is lost by deleting it and starting from scratch. — Kusma ( t· c) 08:40, 18 September 2015 (UTC) reply
The quotes in the article come from independent sources, and the article also includes basic information about the band and a discography, so I think you're misrepresenting it by stating that it only consists of 'promotional quotes'. -- Michig ( talk) 08:51, 18 September 2015 (UTC) reply
I'm with Michig here. This is simply the hyperbolic style in which music journalism is written today (at least in this particular field). And if you think about it, a quote like "capable of igniting a spark in your gut that’ll burn until there’s nothing left" does tell you about the style of music you are dealing with just as readily as a more intellectual and detached analysis ("angry, fast-paced and rhythmically compelling rock music") would – and the latter would simply be an artificial idiom for Wikipedia to use, given that nobody else writes this way about this kind of music. Andreas JN 466 17:08, 20 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 13:18, 18 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 13:18, 18 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • That is clearly not the case. -- Michig ( talk) 06:52, 20 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete for now as I'm not seeing as much sourcing as there could be and my searches found nothing better (although the name is no help for searching). SwisterTwister talk 07:46, 20 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Try searching '"god damn" vultures' - onviously notable from the first few pages of results. -- Michig ( talk) 09:17, 20 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, unquestionably notable. Feature in The Guardian: [8]. Coverage in Yorkshire Evening Post: [9] Clash: [10]. Milwaukee Journal Sentinel: [11] Austin Chronicle mentions SXSW appearance: [12] Coverage in Italian music site Outune.net: [13] Etc. If the article author is doing this as part of his job, he should promptly disclose that professional relationship, per the WMF terms of use [14], take scrupulous care to write neutral text faithfully summarising sources (ideally having someone look their work over) and have the book thrown at them if they don't, but it's not a reason to delete articles on notable bands. Andreas JN 466 16:54, 20 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: decidedly stated as notable (musical festival appearances including SXSW) and has sustainable sources, especially The Guardian. All the 'Reception" quotes are thankfully formatted as quotes and sourced to their writers. Only issue for me is linkfarm for social networking sites.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Fylbecatulous ( talk • contribs) 15:03, 21 September 2015
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  13:45, 25 September 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Courcelles ( talk) 15:42, 2 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Sektor 304

Sektor 304 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Still no evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines, even after being tagged for notability since December 2012. The references include Sektor 304's own web site, several dead links, pages merely listing the fact that Sektor 304 took place in concerts or festivals, or with merely brief passing mention of Sektor 304, and AllMusic, which is no evidence of notability, as its stated aim is to include "every artist who's made a record since Enrico Caruso gave the industry its first big boost". There is also one review of a CD, but that alone is not much evidence of notability, especially as the review is on a web site which does not appear to be very significant. (A PROD was removed by the editor who created the article, with an edit summary saying "Cited sources, will need AfD". I'm not sure whether that means that the editor thinks that any article with any sources cited can't be deleted by PROD, or what.) The editor who uses the pseudonym " JamesBWatson" ( talk) 13:40, 25 September 2015 (UTC) reply

  • Delete - searches turned up a few trivial mentions on News and Books, virtually nothing on Newspapers, Scholar, Highbeam or JSTOR. Onel5969 TT me 14:03, 25 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete It appears that there is no significant coverage, and very little coverage at all. Fails WP:BAND. -- Bejnar ( talk) 22:16, 25 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:48, 28 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:48, 28 September 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. ( non-admin closure) sst ✈ 02:27, 3 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Ali in the Quran

Ali in the Quran (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Completing nom for IP as requested at Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion#Help_in_afd_process. I have no opinion on notability. shoy ( reactions) 15:12, 17 September 2015 (UTC) The IP's rationale is as follows: reply

This article should be deleted not only because of concerns noted above; basically, it is a pro-Shia puff-piece that could only conceivably belong in Shia view of Ali. It uses sparse Sunni sources of agreement with shiites to add a veneer of credibility and notability; remove these sources and all you have is the Shia view of Ali in the quran--which in itself lacks notability to be its own article. It's important to note that Ali is never mentioned by name in the Quran and many verses used to support his presence in the Quran are highly contentious between Sunnis and Shia; this is hardly the recipe for the notability required to create a whole article called Ali in the Quran. Using this example then a sunni could very easily create Abu Bakr in the Quran or Muhammad's wives in the Quran to pursue an agenda.-- 58.106.251.114 ( talk) 04:42, 17 September 2015 (UTC) reply

  • Keep Conceding the article seems to have some POV issues, there appears to be ample RS coverage to establish encyclopedic notability for the topic. Everything beyond that looks like a content dispute and AfD is not the venue for that. Beyond which the nom doesn't really present a policy or guidelines basis for deletion. The OP's statement looks like a pretty classic case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 18:08, 17 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete The lede itself admits that the Quran does not name Ali per se and his inclusion is a sectarian point of view. To that end, this article can't help but be a POV issue. Chris Troutman ( talk) 19:11, 17 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep As the article currently stands, at the very least some effort is made to explain the Sunni POV (partly thanks to IP 58). In the case of the verse of wilayah we have what seem to be non-partisan reliable source claiming both Sunni and Shia agree the verse refers to Ali. I'd instead encourage the IP to help improve the article by including more of the Sunni POV. They seem to have some knowledge of the relevant debates and sources. Brustopher ( talk) 20:55, 17 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Just to add to my reasons for deletion above, it is notable that figures mentioned by name in the Quran and far more prominent in it don't even have their own wiki articles eg. we don't have anything like Jesus in the Quran or Moses etc. I think the intentions for this articles creation are pretty obvious.-- 58.106.225.96 ( talk) 02:20, 18 September 2015 (UTC) reply
    But we do have an article on Jesus in Islam which mostly focuses on Jesus in the Quran. From what I can see the "in the Quran articles" seem to be more about people who aren't expliclitely mentioned (see Alexander the Great in the Quran Cyrus the Great in the Quran). Brustopher ( talk) 09:11, 18 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Yes, and just like Jesus, Ali in the Quran should be kept to the article on Ali--more specifically Shia views of Ali, since the afd is clearly presented with the shia view taking prominence and using Sunni sources to legitimize the shia view. Meanwhile, the cases of Alexander the Great in the Quran and Cyrus the Great in the Quran are unique. Neither of these figures could have articles called Alexander the Great in Islam or Cyrus the Great in Islam because any hint of their notability to Muslims is confined to the Quran--neglecting the fact that even their so-called notability in the Quran is all wild conjecture or outright falsehood. However, figures like Ali and Jesus are notable to Muslims not only in the Quran but also in the Muslim hadith and historical sources. So i don't think the analogy you used is appropriate.-- 58.106.225.96 ( talk) 14:04, 18 September 2015 (UTC) reply
How are the Sunni sources being used to legitimise the Shia view? Sunni sources like Ibn Kathir are cited to argue that Shia interperetations of several sura are wrong, and that they're not about Ali. The reason I compared the article to Alexander and Cyrus, is that it focuses on a scholarly debate (in part between Sunni and Shia) over whether or not a certain person is mentioned in the Quran. For the same reason Cyrus in the Quran should not be considered an Iranian POV pushing article in its ideal state, neither should this aritcle if its neutrality issues are ironed out. Brustopher ( talk) 21:47, 18 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:58, 25 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  13:39, 25 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep the topic is notable, but there are POV problems. The Wikipedia can have articles about specific points of view that are not shared by all editors. The classic example is Flat Earth. The article may need to be rewritten so that it is clear that these are the beliefs of some, but not all followers of Islam. I can understand why a Shi'ite would have difficulty with this article, but others have difficulty with the whole concept of the caliphate. -- Bejnar ( talk) 02:24, 26 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Hello. I have been working on this article, and thanks to Brustopher's editing it won't have the problems mentioned above. I hope so. Hadi ( talk) 08:45, 26 September 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was withdraw and keep (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 19:04, 29 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Nexus 5X

Nexus 5X (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Product has not been announced, so can not possibly be referenced to reliable sources. WP:CRYSTAL Rwxrwxrwx ( talk) 12:47, 25 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Withdraw nomination - product has now been announced and reliable sources are now available. Rwxrwxrwx ( talk) 18:41, 29 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Neutral/Weak Delete - There does appear to be reliable sources available for this topic even though it's an unannounced product, but the article is entirely unsourced. We wouldn't lose much by deleting it. Cosmic Sans ( talk) 13:37, 25 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Until it is officially announced it shouldnt have a page. - Galatz Talk 15:11, 25 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - Should there be a 1:1 mapping between a product having an entry in Wikipedia and it having been officially announced in a press release? Where do we draw the line between what's officially announced and what isn't? This product has been widely trailed, and it would seem particularly pointless to go to the trouble of deleting the entry about it three days before the event at which it will probably be announced. Why not just modify the opening sentence to say "...is a rumored upcoming..."? Kennethmac2000 ( talk) 13:51, 26 September 2015 (UTC) reply
See WP:CRYSTAL, point 5: "Speculation and rumor, even from reliable sources, are not appropriate encyclopedic content." Rwxrwxrwx ( talk) 19:13, 26 September 2015 (UTC) reply
I get that, but my question was about where we draw the line. What if a Google exec accidentally let slip that a phone like this would be launched next week? What if he or she even used the term "Nexus 5X", but Google's press office then issued a statement along the lines of "You'll have to wait and see what we announce"? Is the Nexus 5X at that point still speculation/rumour, or is it not? We've all seen the debates around whether Wikipedia articles on Apple products should match Apple's preferred capitalization, and the conclusion seems to be that normal English language conventions should prevail, not what Apple's marketing department wants people to use. The situation here is clearly a different one, but might it not also be the case here that Wikipedia should prefer what is common currency in the public domain, not what the official line from Google PR is? Kennethmac2000 ( talk) 21:29, 26 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Even informal comments from insiders can't be relied on, as plans can easily be changed. They could be dealt with on a case-by-case basis, depending on how authoritative and detailed the "announcement" is. An official launch event is certainly authoritative and detailed enough. I can't see how that applies here though. Rwxrwxrwx ( talk) 21:59, 26 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete for reasons stated by nominator. By the way, why is this categorized under Afd (Places and transportation)? NewYorkActuary ( talk) 18:24, 27 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Oops, my mistake, sorry. It's now O (org/corp/product). Or should it be T (science/tech)? Rwxrwxrwx ( talk) 19:19, 27 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Either one seems fine. NewYorkActuary ( talk) 19:27, 27 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete for now I suppose as although there are News and browser links about this, there's simply nothing to suggest a better article and would be best mentioned elsewhere until said better article can be made. SwisterTwister talk 05:51, 28 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:57, 28 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:57, 28 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - They'll announce it tomorrow. Lucasstar1 ( talk) 04:36, 29 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - It has been announced. Time to make this a full article! BobTheMad ( talk) 17:54, 29 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, now that the device has been officially announced and has received significant coverage. ~ Super Hamster Talk Contribs 18:36, 29 September 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was withdraw and keep (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 19:02, 29 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Nexus 6P

Nexus 6P (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · [15])
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Product has not been announced, so can not possibly be referenced to reliable sources. WP:CRYSTAL Rwxrwxrwx ( talk) 12:47, 25 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Withdraw nomination - product has now been announced and reliable sources are now available. Rwxrwxrwx ( talk) 18:40, 29 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete - Until it is officially announced it shouldnt have a page. - Galatz Talk 15:10, 25 September 2015 (UTC) reply

  • Delete for reasons stated by nominator. By the way, why is this categorized under Afd (Places and transportation)? NewYorkActuary ( talk) 18:25, 27 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Oops, my mistake, sorry. It's now O (org/corp/product). Or should it be T (science/tech)? Rwxrwxrwx ( talk) 19:23, 27 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Yet more speculation. Rwxrwxrwx ( talk) 10:54, 28 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:57, 28 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:57, 28 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete for now as mentioned at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nexus 5X as although there is coverage for this, there's nothing to suggest better improvement at this time. SwisterTwister talk 05:57, 28 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - The Nexus 6P/5X have been officially announced by Google as of a few minutes ago. We should be good with sources and notability in the next couple days. ~ Super Hamster Talk Contribs 16:19, 29 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy keep It is being announced right now, and press has some obviously embargoed writeups on it like the CNet review I just added to the article. — Brianhe ( talk) 18:04, 29 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, now that the device has been officially announced and has received significant coverage. ~ Super Hamster Talk Contribs 18:35, 29 September 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. If he was a bishop, then keep. ( non-admin closure) — ☮ JAaron95 Talk 08:07, 28 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Johann Anton Friedrich Baudri

Johann Anton Friedrich Baudri (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

He was a Vicar general i.e., deputy bishop. And being so per se doesn't make him notable. Per WP:CCWMOS (an essay), bishops and above are considered notable. And also, the subject doesn't pass WP:GNG. Think this should be deleted. Regards — ☮ JAaron95 Talk 11:42, 25 September 2015 (UTC) reply

It's the Bishop! He is notable, there are also reliable sources about him. It's a normal stub. Kmicic ( talk) 11:51, 25 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:55, 28 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:55, 28 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:55, 28 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep likely as although this isn't this familiar subject, this would seem acceptable and may need familiar attention for any further information and sources. SwisterTwister talk 05:56, 28 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per WP:CLERGY. He was, in fact, a bishop. St Anselm ( talk) 08:04, 28 September 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was 'Redirect to Halifax Regional School Board as there is sufficient consensus and no need to carry this longer. (NAC) SwisterTwister talk 05:53, 28 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Michael Wallace Elementary School

Michael Wallace Elementary School (  | 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 primary school Derek Andrews ( talk) 10:50, 25 September 2015 (UTC) reply

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

The result was keep. Looks like the community has a different idea. Closing this with a trout for me. ( non-admin closure) — ☮ JAaron95 Talk 14:10, 25 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Kami-sama Minarai: Himitsu no Cocotama

Kami-sama Minarai: Himitsu no Cocotama (  | 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 yet released animation. Per WP:NFF, WP:NF, and the given sources, doesn't seem to be notable and doesn't warrant a stand-alone article. PROD was removed stating that the anime is notable enough. I'm not convinced. Think it should be deleted. Want to know where the community stands on this. Regards — ☮ JAaron95 Talk 10:14, 25 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — ☮ JAaron95 Talk 10:26, 25 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — ☮ JAaron95 Talk 10:26, 25 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. — ☮ JAaron95 Talk 10:26, 25 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- Xezbeth ( talk) 12:30, 25 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • STRONG KEEP Why? Because deleting a confirmed series is more the less pointless. The anime comes out next week and you do say it doesn't count just because "it didn't aired, delete"! You know, just because it didn't air doesn't mean it shouldn't be in Wikipedia. User:Xezbeth already deleted the article for deletion template on the article once because he knows the series is confirmed and deleting it is pointless.-- BlackGaia02 (talkpage if you dare) ( talk) 10:36, 25 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. WP:NFF has no relevance here. This is a television series that will begin airing on at least one major Japanese TV network in less than a week. — Xezbeth ( talk) 11:48, 25 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep The sources used show notability for this upcoming series. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 13:30, 25 September 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete per WP:CSD#G11 by Xezbeth. ( non-admin closure) -- Finngall talk 19:05, 25 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Frank jimzzi

Frank jimzzi (  | 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 describes a living person, using a tone that's really not suitable at all, without citing any reliable sources whatsoever. As well, the article's creator has acted belligerently to the degree that administrative sanctions seem needed. CoffeeWithMarkets ( talk) 09:46, 25 September 2015 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. Courcelles ( talk) 15:41, 2 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Louisa Warwick (model)

Louisa Warwick (model) (  | 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 came across this as a speedy deletion candidate, with the nomination claim "not credible sources and false career claims". I don't know if the claims here are false, but I do know that the sourcing in the article is very poor, as it relies on WP:PRIMARY sources, IMDb, and places that are outright unreliable as a source such as "Who's Dated Who?". There's an interview on this website, but the site does not show that they have the editorial oversight required by Wikipedia - plus their "about" page is fairly spammily written and gives off the impression that it's a PR site.

The claims here are enough to where she'd squeak by notability guidelines, but they're not major enough to keep the article as a whole. She was an uncredited role in Rush as "Racing Driver's Girlfriend" and she was only in two episodes of Next Top Model. This means that she was likely voted off along with several other models in one go, which would not show notability for her. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:34, 25 September 2015 (UTC) reply

  • As far as her modeling gigs go, I can't see where she's gained any true coverage for her work. It's expected that a model will gain work in her profession, so notability is WP:NOTINHERITED by her having worked for notable companies, as they tend to hire a large amount of models each year. Notability can only be shown by coverage in independent and reliable sources. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:36, 25 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as failing WP:GNG. The sources as they exist now don't adequately prove notability due to unreliability. clpo13( talk) 09:38, 25 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: I agree that speedy deletion was not proper. I agree with nominator that there is an argument she should squeak by on notability. But generally speaking she's just a model and WP is not WP:LINKEDIN, e.g., "being a competent professional in your field is not the standard for having an article."-- Milowent • has spoken 12:38, 25 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete WP:RESUME, no indication of notability. Rwxrwxrwx ( talk) 18:49, 25 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. shoy ( reactions) 19:25, 25 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:00, 28 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete for now until better sourcing and article can be made as I found nothing better than some modelling websites. SwisterTwister talk 06:00, 28 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. sst ✈ 10:21, 2 October 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Courcelles ( talk) 15:41, 2 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Vero FC

Vero 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)

Deprodded in May by page creator without reason. Original prod concern of User:331dot was No sources given to indicate notability or significance per notability guidelines; probably too new a team to be significant

I believe that this is a Non notable club playing in a non notable league Gbawden ( talk) 08:49, 25 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. shoy ( reactions) 19:26, 25 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. shoy ( reactions) 19:26, 25 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. —  Jkudlick  t c s 23:12, 25 September 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  Sandstein  19:01, 3 October 2015 (UTC) reply

List of Doctor Who critics

List of Doctor Who critics (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

4 people on the 'list', one of which (Hickman) isn't even described as a critic, with no evidence that he satisfied the premise of the list (the 2nd ref is not relevant, as Confidential was not a critic show, just a behind-the-scenes show). The rest of the entries can comfortably be covered in their own articles. Nothing links to this article. I'm not sure of its real purpose. Stephenb (Talk) 08:25, 25 September 2015 (UTC) reply

  • Keep but rename: (as creator) The initial purpose is stated in the page history: to listify some entries in category:Doctor Who which were WP:OCAT (categorisation by performance). In other words, I found these pages categorised in Doctor Who, which was improper, but as these persons have a notable connection to the show, I thought that it was helpful to keep a navigation link somehow, and a list would be more valid. The scope is stated in the lede, "This is a list of writers and presenters who have regularly or notably commented on Doctor Who fiction." I changed the title to "critics" to fit within Category:Science fiction critics; I admit that the defined scope of the latter is not a perfect match for this list, but I thought it had enough overlap to make it helpful to categorise the list there. In the light of the comments above, it might be better to rename the list back to List of Doctor Who presenters, and remove the Critics categories. – Fayenatic L ondon 13:38, 25 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. – Fayenatic L ondon 13:41, 25 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. – Fayenatic L ondon 13:42, 25 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:48, 2 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Fan cruft. Work the names of academic critics into the main article page if they have published scholarly matter on the topic. Not list-worthy. Carrite ( talk) 23:25, 2 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - clear WP:FANCRUFT. Onel5969 TT me 17:25, 3 October 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Courcelles ( talk) 15:40, 2 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Calvin Mbarga

Calvin Mbarga (  | 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 proof in reliable sources that the player meets WP:NSPORTS. Fails WP:GNG as there hasn't been significant, non-trivial, coverage in reliable sources. Hack ( talk) 08:18, 25 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 10:33, 26 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - article claims he played in UAE Gulf League for Al Jazira - that is a FPL, meaning if true he would meet NFOOTBALL. However I have just checked both RSSSF and Soccerway and can find no evidence of this. Giant Snowman 10:48, 26 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. —  Jkudlick  t c s 01:18, 27 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. —  Jkudlick  t c s 01:18, 27 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I find no evidence to support the claim that subject played in a WP:FPL except for a statement here, but there are no statistics to back the statement that he was even signed to the club, much less set foot on the pitch. Fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. —  Jkudlick  t c s 01:33, 27 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Happy to change if someone can indicate he actually played in an FPL. Fenix down ( talk) 09:56, 29 September 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. I have examined both AfDs about the Israeli perpetrators (I) and the Palestinian perpetrators (P) version of this content and am closing them together because the discussions are interrelated.

In both AfDs, opinions are roughly divided 8 to 8 between deleting (often expressly both) on the one hand, or keeping or merging the lists on the other. However, the merge opinions would generally also support the deletion of both articles. This leaves four "keep" opinions, all for the P list, whereas the about 12 other participants would prefer to delete (mostly both) or failing that merge the lists. This leaves us with the deletion of both as the most consensual result.

Examining the weight of the arguments made does not change this outcome. The four "keep" opinions are very short and generic, mostly boiling down to "It is sourced". However, having sources is a necessary but not sufficient requirement for article-level coverage, according to our policies and guidelines, and the "keep" opinions do not address the concerns raised by the "delete" side, such as coatracking and inappropriate newspaper-/current events-type coverage. These "keep" arguments carry, therefore, relatively little weight.

This result is a reaffirmation of the consensus expressed in this RfC, mentioned in one discussion, that our coverage of incidents of this type, regardless of which side is held responsible for them, should not include lists of individual incidents that are not themselves notable enough for an article.  Sandstein  19:36, 3 October 2015 (UTC) reply

List of deaths and injuries caused by Israeli forces firing at alleged Palestinian stone-throwers

List of deaths and injuries caused by Israeli forces firing at alleged Palestinian stone-throwers (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of deaths and critical injuries caused by Palestinian stone-throwing. Neither of these lists are encyclopedic, they're both created to make a point. – Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 06:39, 25 September 2015 (UTC) reply

(Note: I've just moved the article to a simpler title that does not contain "alleged." List of Palestinians killed and injured by Israelis in connection with stone throwing. Dan Murphy ( talk) 16:23, 25 September 2015 (UTC)) reply

  • Whoa. You just moved the article to a new title in the meddle of an AFD!?!?. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 17:17, 25 September 2015 (UTC) reply
lol calm down there neo. nableezy - 19:30, 25 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Strong delete - 'alleged' in the title pretty much sums up that this is a political statement. VMS Mosaic ( talk) 06:50, 25 September 2015 (UTC) reply
I suggest you actually read the article. It is beyond a shadow of a doubt that stone throwing is widespread and a daily practice in the Palestinian territories. It is also well documented by B'tselem and other respectable NGOs who are non-partisan, that many of the people shot or shot dead, and reported in army bulletins as having been shot for stone throwing, either weren't throwing stones at the time or doubt hangs over the cases, which almost never end in a legal verdict. For this reason alleged is obligatory, because the official reports are unreliable. It can be changed, if an intelligent alternative is thought up. Nishidani ( talk) 08:13, 25 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Per WP:COATRACK a hotchpotch of incidents during a variety of riots and hooliganism. Nothing defines these sundry episodes of rampage, mayhem and vandalism as a category. Also problematic is poor sourcing, with many of the alleged incidents sourced to a single blog or partisan NGO, frequently lacking details like names making incidents impossible to verify. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 09:46, 25 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Your vote was predictable, just as it was predicable that you would vote to keep the other parallel article that is not the least bit better than this one. But I'm disappointed you couldn't actually think of any good reasons. Zero talk 11:54, 25 September 2015 (UTC) reply
I have recently been forced to spend an undue amount of time coping with E.M. Gregory's personal obsessions with stone-throwing, in the wake of User:Shulmaven's Palestinian stone-throwing, where he is active. He's now created Criminal rock throwing to use it in his polemic against 'Arabs' and I had to remind him that hooliganism on national roads is one thing, stone throwing by an occupied people another Rock throwing has been in the past often adopted as a method by an unarmed population to protest a governing power's authority. He's also created 2015 Rosh HaShanah death by stone-throwing (17 September) when, as the AfD shows, the sources say it is not known whether rocks or a heart attack caused the death. Still not satisfied, three days later he came up with List of deaths and critical injuries caused by Palestinian stone-throwing. Well, what do you do with this stacking of multiple victim articles? I responded by creating this article 'List of deaths and injuries caused by Israeli forces firing at alleged Palestinian stone-throwers' as the sister article. The only word that covers the behavior of an editor that writes a POV-pushing anti-Arab article, and then asks that its mirror article (per NPOV) be deleted, is chutzpah, to not speak of in-your-face double-standards. B'tselemis not a partisan NGO - it is the most objective verifier of hostile incidents in Israel and mainly run by Israelis , nor is Amnesty International and all events listed will be sourced to that or mainstream newspapers. Independently of its origin as a balance to the article Gregory created, this article has it own justification, in the fact that several hundred Palestinians have been shot dead or wounded over the last decades by Israel's troops of occupation, in contexts of clashes where stones are thrown. It is a unique situation since no other modern democratic country allows its police to systematically use sniper squads to take out people, often teenagers, in demonstrations, even when rocks are thrown, and well worthy of recording. Nishidani ( talk) 12:08, 25 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Very sensible. You cannot have one victim article saved while having its sister 'victim' article deleted, and vice versa. Roscelese? Nishidani ( talk) 12:52, 25 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • People have already started weighing in [differently] in both, so this seems moot. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:06, 25 September 2015 (UTC) reply
To the contrary. It is, from a decade's experience obvious that an article dealing with an Israeli death will pass AdD. Other than neutral editors, it is stacked by the known POV pushers to achieve that end by sheer numbers. Articles on Palestinian deaths are usually suppressed. The merge proposal is the only way to see if editors from all walks vote consistently with policy, or according to a subjective view of whose lives are to be 'memorialized' and whose lives are of negligible interest. Nishidani ( talk) 17:07, 25 September 2015 (UTC) reply
WP:AGF is a policy. We don't arrange discussions based on assumptions or predictions of bad faith/bias -- especially not when it disrupts already ongoing discussions. Every article on Wikipedia is kept or deleted on its own merits. There are no "if we delete this, we have to delete this other one". Sometimes it works out like that, but going into it with that attitude here falls under WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS (and, in a way, WP:OTHERSTUFF). There are two different discussions going on. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 17:13, 25 September 2015 (UTC) reply
@ Rhododendrites: I am not sure what you are saying here. WP:BUNDLE exists, for nominating multiple related articles for deletion. I will not bundle these two, because they don't strictly meet the guidelines for bundling. However, the reasoning that "every article is kept or deleted based on its own merits" is blind to the realities of this area. And regarding "sourcing" keep in mind WP:WORLDVIEW. As any scholarly study of the area shows, this category is much much more vast than the other category. If this article is deleted and the other kept, it would be the triumph of WP:BURO thinking. Kingsindian  ♝ ♚ 21:18, 25 September 2015 (UTC) reply
@ Kingsindian: Acknowledging your point about sourcing, but just responding to the procedural comment now: I know articles can be nominated together. These weren't, though. And that's ok. By the time it was suggested, it was too late. WP:MULTIAFD: For the sake of clarity, debates should be bundled only at the start or near the start of the debate, ideally before any substantive discussion.... It lists a couple exceptions to that which don't apply (even less so now). It also says Bundling AfDs should be used only for clear-cut deletion discussions based on existing policy. If you're unsure, don't bundle it. and An article with a fair or better chance of standing on its own merits should not be bundled. I.e. Bundling needs to be more or less uncontroversial (it's to simplify things, not to avoid POV/bias, though I understand the reasoning behind the latter). Since I think it would be controversial, that means a bundled nomination could easily turn into a train wreck (and be closed as such). Personally I think it's very rare to see effectively bundled nominations... But anyway, yes, if they were nominated together it would've been entirely legitimate (one could easily argue they're directly connected), but a separate nomination is also [always] legitimate, and since discussion has taken place since then, it's just kind of a moot point. Not trying to be difficult by calling it moot -- I just don't think talk of the nomination can go anywhere productive. If you'd like to continue talking about it, however, I'd be happy to continue on a relevant talk page. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 21:43, 25 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 13:05, 25 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 13:05, 25 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 13:05, 25 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - The sourcing for this looks to be much weaker than the counterpart list and the criteria for inclusion slippery (though my !vote was to delete that one too). If there weren't clear consensus for excluding non-notable news stories at Palestinian stone-throwing, I'd suggest a selective merge, but the RfC made that consensus clear not long ago. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:10, 25 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - There should be a discussion about all articles similar to those two ( [16] [17] and maybe more). WP:OSE for all such articles should be discussed together and one consensus make the rule for all. Settleman ( talk) 14:51, 25 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - +972 mag is not an impartial source, it is not noteworthy, the title is a run-on sentence and the main image is pure propaganda. WikiMania76 ( talk) 16:22, 25 September 2015 (UTC) reply
(a) The page has 23 unchallengeably mainstream sources, and a miniscule use of a borderline source, +972, which is steadily being replaced. None of its references have yet to be shown inaccurate, since all are being confirmed by the mainstream sources that will replace them. You cannot make a delete article on the dislike of just 1 of 24 sources. Almost all sources in this area are, ahimé, not partial. Nishidani ( talk) 19:27, 25 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Notice An editor with years of experience just changed the title of this article in the middle of this AFD. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 17:27, 25 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Perhaps you should take those years of experience into account before saying foolish things. nableezy - 19:27, 25 September 2015 (UTC) reply

"Moving the article while it is being discussed can produce confusion (both during the discussion and when closing using semi-automated closing scripts). If you do this, please note it on the deletion discussion page, preferably both at the top of the discussion (for new participants) and as a new comment at the bottom (for the benefit of the closing administrator)." I moved the article taking into consideration feedback and general article improvement. I have notified at the top of this AFD, and now I have done so at the bottom. Dan Murphy ( talk) 17:33, 25 September 2015 (UTC) reply

  • Noting your belated notification, and the fact that it came only after a lag during which I posted your inappropriate action both here and on your talk page. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 17:43, 25 September 2015 (UTC) reply
    That dog won't hunt. Dan Murphy ( talk) 18:04, 25 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Merge and severe trout slaps to all concerned. Saw this article and List of deaths and critical injuries caused by Palestinian stone-throwing, also nominated for deletion, referenced on a user talk page I watchlist. Should be merged into one article with a concise, neutral title, or perhaps merged with yet another article. The presence of these two tit-for-tat articles is a great example of WP:BATTLEGROUND in action. It may help if all editors currently involved in this intra-wiki warfare be topic-banned, a remedy I usually don't favor, but let's leave that for another day. Making a similar comment at the other AfD. Coretheapple ( talk) 18:10, 25 September 2015 (UTC) reply
I write lists because I have been consistently opposed to the article memorialization or 'celebration' of victims of terrorism, Israeli or Palestinian. I do few, and while many could immediately generate the material for an article, like the recent killing of Hadeel al-Hashlamon, I put that in an appropriate list, succinctly List of violent incidents in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, July–December 2015, since WP:NOTNEWS commends that choice. E. M. Gregory is a very good non I/P editor, but here he has a personal obsession, the creation of numerous articles on Palestinian/Arabs as terrorists, esp. re rock-throwing incidents
Extended content about a particular editor. Please take to WP:ANI or WP:NPOVN if needed (this page is already really long)
This was needed but as anyone can see from the introductory draft, Gregory drafted by lifting the ethnic cleansing activist lobby's own laundered statement of its ostensible aims as though this was neutral and accurate. This required again lots of work to give both sides of the story, which Gregory neglected to do.
  • 2003 Route 60 Hamas ambush 16 August 2015 Another Pal terrorists shoot Israel family article. This has merit because it had legal consequences. Hundreds of similar articles could be written of large Palestinian families wiped out by police, or IDF action, but there is a general agreement among editors not to go there.
  • 2015 Rosh HaShanah death by stone-throwing ‎ 17 September 2015 This asserted as notable an un derreported story under gag order for which two versions exist. Again the aim is to screw Palestinian stone throwers.
  • Rafik Y 17 September 2015 A not notable Islamic terrorist, again fails not news and notability. Again, an Arab.
  • Interstate 75 rock-throwing death 21 September 2015 Not News, not notable, but is is a buttress for the Palestinian death by stoning programme he is engaged in.
So when in another 2 days he came up with
  • List of deaths and critical injuries caused by Palestinian stone-throwing, which contains the short list of names already present in Palestinian stone-throwing, I got fed up. This is so patently POV abuse, that there is a limit to tolerance. It will pass AfD. But if this is the pattern, to consolidate WP:Systemic bias, it can hardly be charged against my account that I decided for some NPOV balance, by creating, not non notable articles, but a comprehensive list of Palestinians shot dead or wounded in conflicts where the former throw stones to be linked to articles where Gregory is trying to frame as factual a highly partisan narrative. I regard this measure as imposed on me by the months long campaign by people like Gregory to push one POV, while consistently refusing to write a balanced, contextualized account. As a reader of fish manuals and a gourmet, I don't mind a trout slapping - it would never hit my cheek. I'd snap it up before you knew. But, I stand by my record of not doing what Gregory does, but keeping these non-notable arguments to brief lists. Nishidani ( talk) 20:19, 25 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • The process that you've described is exactly what I'm talking about. Someone sees an article that is POV so rather than deal with it, they exacerbate the situation by creating an article that has the same problem. Perhaps one solution is to merge both to List of casualties during stone-throwing incidents. This would include both mideastern and non-mideastern situations, and could go back to King David for all I care. Coretheapple ( talk) 14:54, 26 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Again, User:ShulMaven, as one of several terror articles he wrote in Sept-Nov last year, created Palestinian stone-throwing, which required a month to fix. Given the intensity of editorial pressure there, I had to create for balance Jewish Israeli stone throwing, which is still primitive, and hardly covers the fact that settler stone throwing under IDF protection is a daily phenomenon in the Palestinian territories. I too think they should be merged. What is unacceptable (compare the voting on these sister pages) is the community as often voting to retain numerous non notable articles on specific incidents of Jewish tragedy, and voting to erase lists that briefly if extensively list the well documented daily occurrence of incidents of tragedy to Palestinian families. Nishidani ( talk) 20:31, 25 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Merge: I am not sure if merging is the right thing to do here, or whether lists of incidents like this should exist, but given the realities in this area, it is the best option. Deleting one and keeping the other is obviously a no-no. Kingsindian  ♝ ♚ 20:42, 25 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep both or delete both or merge. As per Zero. What is at stake is NPOV, and the coherent application of policy to similar articles. Nishidani ( talk) 20:45, 25 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep both or delete both or merge. Any other option would be an obvious and severe NPO violation. Zero talk 04:54, 26 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose Merge - The two lists have very little to do with each other. One is about attacks and the other is about response to protests/riots. Settleman ( talk) 10:44, 26 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Redefine - The article right now includes also incidents of Molotov cocktail or event where the shooting and killing are not necessarily connected (ex. 1976). Settleman ( talk) 10:44, 26 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete seems very much like NPOV-violating astroturfing. --  Ohc  ¡digame! 12:48, 26 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Comment "That an attempt to counter article bias by the other perspective can be dismissed as a battleground mentality is cheap innuendo that ignores the long term interests of a global encyclopedia, which optimally can be read, with equal discomfort and pleasure, by all sides in a conflicted area." Wish I'd said that. Dan Murphy ( talk) 16:26, 26 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Sourcing remains a major problem for this article, which is heavily sourced to an Israeli NGO (B'tselem) notorious for overestimating and erroneously reporting deaths, in the 2014 Gaza-Israel war and during riots and civil disturbances. In deaths during riots and conflict in all parts of the world, cause of death can be extremely difficult to determine, and even the simple number of deaths can be difficult given the incentive to claim high numbers. Multiple, reliable, secondary sources may be hard to get - but there are reasons why Wikipedia requires them before permitting assertions that individuals were killed in a particular incident or manner. As it stands, this is a list of allegations. In keeping lists like this, we violate our own rules and risk our reputation. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 15:00, 27 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Assuming this article survives in some form, perhaps merged, the best place to raise that issue would be on RS/N. There is nothing to prevent you from raising the issue there right now, irrespective of the outcome of this and the other AfD. Coretheapple ( talk) 15:46, 27 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Again double standards, E. M. Gregory. That your assertion above is ideological can be shown by a simple empirical contrast of the kind of sourcing you use to jerry rig the usual victim article, and the sourcing used in the mirror article you want deleted.
( List of deaths and critical injuries caused by Palestinian stone-throwing)
31 sources. These include the following non-mainstream items
I.e. Gregory's sourcing is barrel-scraping of dubious community newspapers to pass off an impression of wide reportage.
It is sourced basically to international NGOs that provide the best objective or neutral information, since they are critical of both sides. This is why they are disliked by Israeli officials and politicians, and I assume by Gregory.
  • There are only 2 sources which might be questioned: Middle East Eye, used only cnce, and +972 magazine, used sparsely and invariably together with confirming mainstream sources for the datum in question. Both websites are run by journalists with mainstream professional careers.
Really it is sheer chutzpah to deplore this article for a quality of sourcing your own article lacks. Nishidani ( talk) 16:02, 27 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Comparing apples and oranges. What Nishdani fails to mention is that the article on deaths by thrown rocks is heavily blue-linked. And the blue-linked articles are well-sourced. He also fails to highlight the article's primary reliance on major newspapers. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 17:24, 27 September 2015 (UTC) reply
That is not an answer to a reasoned empirical analysis. It is an attitude. Nishidani ( talk) 18:26, 27 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Editor Nishdani is a highly problematic POV-pusher who is engages in a type of WP:WIKIHOUNDING in which he adds endless silly lists, repeates himself endlessy, and writes lengthy essays at AFD in an effort to make the process of creating or commenting on the notability of an article about Israel is made so aversive that neutral, objective and good editors stay away. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 17:31, 27 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Um, you are not a neutral, objective or good editor. nableezy - 22:47, 27 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Coretheapple raised this more cogently in his remarks here, but with less animosity and informed by a generic concern. You instead are trying to personalize this by saying I am rather uniquely a problem, and so I will document what actually is the background which you, unlike Coretheapple, should be familiar with, since you edit this area.
Coretheapple suggests that is the proper practice when one perceives an article has a POV slant is to fix that article, rather than create a mirror article that reduplicates the defect one objects to.
This is precisely what I usually do in coping with articles clearly using Wikipedia to lobby for a unilateral' victimization portrait of the conflict (a) I have repeatedly asked that no such articles be written on individual Palestinian tragedies and have never created one (b) I have consistently improved such victim articles when they have been created and pass, predictably AfD: compare the POV state of this article with the shape it took after numerous fixes or Palestinian stone-throwing which again was started to repeat the list Gregory is now expanding with his new article and looked like this (11,000) to 104kb here. I do not engage in exacerbating a problem by reduplicating bad practices.
Experience shows most of these articles survive AfDs ( Deaths of Asher and Yonatan Palmer ; Death of Yehuda Shoham ; Murder of Helena Rapp ; Murder of Shalhevet Pass; Death of Adele Biton; Kidnapping and murder of Eliyahu Asheri; Murder of Ofir Rahum; Murder of Hatuel family; Murder of the Aroyo children; Murder of Shelly Dadon ; Death and ransoming of Oron Shaul; Kidnapping and murder of Yaron Chen; Murders of Neta Sorek and Kristine Luken; Kidnapping and murder of Avi Sasportas and Ilan Saadon; Kidnapping and murder of Nissim Toledano; Kidnapping and murder of Nachshon Wachsman; 2007 Nahal Telem attack; Death of Binyamin Meisner; Murder of Koby Mandell and Yosef Ishran, and now 2015 Rosh HaShanah death by stone-throwing etc., are non-events , essentially memorialist and, though for each one any obsessi ve could write 10 parallel Palestinian victim articles, this, thankfully, is simply not done. Serious editors there have a different research focus:
Were I someone who retaliated with mirror articles of what I dismiss as POV WP:NOTNEWS victim articles, then of course in observing the creation of the Death of Binyamin Meisner, I would have jumped at it as an excuse to counter it with The Death of Edmond Ghanem. It came to mind. I know people who knew him. He was killed in exactly the same manner by Israeli troops in Beit Sahour. Since I don’t believe in these articles, I reserved what I knew for the proper occasion, and mentioned the fact at Palestinian stone-throwing when User:ShulMaven created it. Nishidani ( talk) 21:12, 27 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • My question is whether an article on this topic can be reliably sourced. the incidents in quesiton, incidents in which individuals are killed, can, of course, be listed in the series of articles about this conflict that already exist ( List of violent incidents in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, July–December 2015, etc.) The problem here is the attempt to create an article about deaths in situations where rock-throwing was part of a sundry array of riots and disturbances. The article defines itself in the lede as covering "events during which stones and Molotov cocktails are said to have been thrown." How is this list to be defined? My susipicion is that Nishdani, a tireless controversialist, created it for the purpose of challenging the list of individuals killed by thrown rocks. But my question is how we can maintain a list that defines itself as dealing with alleged incidents, but that in fact includes deaths in an enormous variety of different types of riots, protests, and confrontations in which rock-throwing may or may not have taken place and , if it did take place, may or may not have been the factor that led to a particular death, and, ot make things worse, the causes of the deaths are often not confirmed by reliable sources. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 17:24, 27 September 2015 (UTC) reply
I'll explain my relation to list articles, since you assert ‘I create endless silly lists.’
The overwhelming majority of these I/P lists are written up to exclude the Palestinian side and focus on Israel as a victim of endemic assaults. ( Lists of Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel so far has 11 sub-articles), there is no mention of in what context on each occasion those rockets were fired, though some statistical evidence shows a strong correlation with Israeli military actions. All those lists are a violation of the NPOV pillar, and are written in the service of the Israeli ministry which composes the lists.
I didn’t set out to create lists. Someone set up a Price tag policy article, which was basically a definition of the practice and a long section on how much Israeli politicians and settler rabbis went on record as loudly deploring this or that specific price tag action. No measures were ever taken to stop the practice. It became more an article documenting Israeli public protests at the practice, than a record of the actual practices. So I began a section listing such occurrences. An editor disliked that, and removed it and eventually the dispute was resolved by another editor creating List of Israeli price tag attacks. Since that is what settlers do, one cannot easily give the settler POV. It’s a list that is by definition unilateral. In other lists I edit, and have created, I have defined them in such away that both narratives are included in each article.
Thus when User:ShulMaven tried to frame a Palestinian wave of violence void of any context in creating Silent Intifada, I started giving a chronological list of all acts of violence by either side that year. This was then forked off, not by me, into a List of violent incidents in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, 2014.
As the year turned, I continued this neutral collation of victims on both sides , by creating List of violent incidents in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, January–June 2015 and List of violent incidents in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, July–December 2015, where the reader can see all reliably reported forms of violence regardless of who is the victim in chronological order, pared down to facts.
Gregory has created numerous stoning articles and this list. It is a personal battle to get over that we must document in detail these 'Arab hooligans' behavior by individual memorial articles and a list. The list contains information mostly already available in the Palestinian stone-throwing article. Since there is a huge body of evidence, well documented by mainstream sources, of Palestinians being shot dead or critically injured in clashes with armed forces, to whose actions they respond with stones, and no article exists on this in Wikipedia, the article I created to balance the list has as much legitimacy as Gregory's, is better documented. Keep both, delete both, or merge. All I insist on, as throughout my career here, that NPOV be rigorously applied to what we accept or do not accept in the I/P area. Nishidani ( talk) 21:12, 27 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • I referred to the endless silly lists and endless repetitive comments Nishdani posts at AFDs. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 15:36, 2 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete BOTH per various aspects of WP:WWIN and WP:POVFORK. Wikipedia should not attempt to catalog every death in a conflict, particularly those that are otherwise not notable, and it certainly should not selectively catalog certain deaths based on political bias. I cannot help but see these articles as soapboxes or coatracks. - Location ( talk) 23:38, 27 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Juvenile WP:POV propaganda and the pointiest of WP:POVFORKs. This WP:Battleground nonsense is wasting everyone's time. Watch the WP:Boomerang. Plot Spoiler ( talk) 02:37, 28 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, with vote applying equally to similar articles regardless of POV. Cataloging casualties resulting from a war or warlike conflict is a noble effort, but such a list has no place in an encyclopedia, in which we report such information statistically. VQuakr ( talk) 17:10, 1 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:47, 2 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Partisan civil war-related coatrack. Carrite ( talk) 23:28, 2 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete both This list might be a reaction to the other list, and there is more justification for this list than the other because this one has explanatory power, but despite its careful prose a list focusing on one side is not suitable (or maintainable) at Wikipedia. Johnuniq ( talk) 00:21, 3 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. I have examined both AfDs about the Israeli perpetrators (I) and the Palestinian perpetrators (P) version of this content and am closing them together because the discussions are interrelated.

In both AfDs, opinions are roughly divided 8 to 8 between deleting (often expressly both) on the one hand, or keeping or merging the lists on the other. However, the merge opinions would generally also support the deletion of both articles. This leaves four "keep" opinions, all for the P list, whereas the about 12 other participants would prefer to delete (mostly both) or failing that merge the lists. This leaves us with the deletion of both as the most consensual result.

Examining the weight of the arguments made does not change this outcome. The four "keep" opinions are very short and generic, mostly boiling down to "It is sourced". However, having sources is a necessary but not sufficient requirement for article-level coverage, according to our policies and guidelines, and the "keep" opinions do not address the concerns raised by the "delete" side, such as coatracking and inappropriate newspaper-/current events-type coverage. These "keep" arguments carry, therefore, relatively little weight.

This result is a reaffirmation of the consensus expressed in this RfC, mentioned in one discussion, that our coverage of incidents of this type, regardless of which side is held responsible for them, should not include lists of individual incidents that are not themselves notable enough for an article.  Sandstein  19:36, 3 October 2015 (UTC) reply

List of deaths and critical injuries caused by Palestinian stone-throwing

List of deaths and critical injuries caused by Palestinian stone-throwing (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

An RFC found consensus against listing non-notable incidents. Wikipedia is not a news source or a memorial, and compiling daily news in list form is not an appropriate means of circumventing WP:EVENT, the notability guideline for events. The creator's overblown edit summary also suggests a pointy or synthy motive, which was another reason for the consensus not to have such a list. I recommend deleting both this and its sister article. – Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 06:38, 25 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Disagree because these articles are not parallel. This one is about a series of well defined crimes. The other is a WP:COATRACK mishmash of incidents involving riots, civil disturbances and intervention by the army. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 13:20, 25 September 2015 (UTC) reply
No, that's not true, and honestly, I think you know that. – Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 14:02, 25 September 2015 (UTC) reply
This is moot. People have opined [differently] in both already. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:05, 25 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 13:01, 25 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 13:01, 25 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 13:01, 25 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 13:16, 25 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete As per the RFC and WP:NOTNEWS and WP:EVENT. Wikipedia should and does discuss such incidents in a broad sense, but a list like this is WP:SYNTHy and WP:CFORKy. Bondegezou ( talk) 13:19, 25 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Well-sourced article on people by cause of death. Dimadick ( talk) 13:30, 25 September 2015 (UTC) reply
    • You say this as though that's an established kind of article! Wikipedia doesn't list average joes by cause of death because it's not encyclopedic. Where we have lists of people by cause of death, they are lists of bluelinks (notable people or incidents), not linkfarms to external news sites. – Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 14:02, 25 September 2015 (UTC) reply
    Yet again, Rosecelese has failed to check the facts. Lists of people by cause of death is an established category of lists. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 23:52, 30 September 2015 (UTC) reply
    See: Lists of people by cause of death. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 17:01, 25 September 2015 (UTC) reply
    Anyone scanning this article can see that the listed deaths are heavily blue-linked. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 16:59, 25 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Weak Delete - My first inclination would be to say Merge to Palestinian stone-throwing, but there's already been an RfC determining it to be inappropriate to include these. Creating a separate article seems to be [intentionally or not] circumventing that. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:08, 25 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • I can think of no better illustration of the blind nationalist hate that drives so many Wikipedia editors than keeping this article and deleting the other. That outcome would suit me down to the ground. Dan Murphy ( talk) 14:26, 25 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • See WP:FALSEBALANCE (and WP:AGF for good measure). If there were two articles about opposite sides of the same coin which use the exact same sources, you might be right. But that's not the case. The sources are not the same, the topic is not the converse, and the inclusion criteria are not the same. That's what matters. If you would like to make an appeal to nationalism for the sake of equating them, you're [sort of] welcome to do so, but base your arguments on the substance of what people are saying, not the premise. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:39, 25 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • I have looked at the substance. And I don't play the fool. This is about nationalist, agenda-driven editing and dehumanization. Dan Murphy ( talk) 15:01, 25 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - There should be a discussion about all articles similar to those two ( [18] [19] and maybe more). WP:OSE for all such articles should be discussed together and one consensus make the rule for all. Settleman ( talk) 14:49, 25 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Merge and severe trout slaps to all concerned. Saw this article and List of Palestinians killed and injured by Israelis in connection with stone throwing, also nominated for deletion, referenced on a user talk page I watchlist. Should be merged into one article with a concise, neutral title, or perhaps merged with yet another article. The presence of these two tit-for-tat articles is a great example of WP:BATTLEGROUND in action. It may help if all editors currently involved in this intra-wiki warfare be topic-banned, a remedy I usually don't favor, but let's leave that for another day. Making a similar comment at the other AfD. Coretheapple ( talk) 18:08, 25 September 2015 (UTC) reply
    WP:FALSEBALANCE. Please note the stark difference between scope, definition, and sourcing of the two articles, in particular, the fact that this articles includes both Arab and Jewish deaths. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 18:26, 25 September 2015 (UTC) reply
    No, it's not false balance. You have a tarantella being danced here between two articles, each created with political intent. What I'm suggesting is that the political agenda be thrown out and that one neutral article be created showing casualties resulting from rock-throwing, be that either the people throwing the rocks or the ones who are targeted. The idea is not that one is better than the other, but that both were casualties. Or there can be an article on the general subject of rock-throwing, not in list format, which might be an even better alternative. Coretheapple ( talk) 18:45, 25 September 2015 (UTC) reply
    Criminal rock throwing and Palestinian stone-throwing already exist. But as Rhododendrites notes above, the later article forbids the inclusion of examples of individuals killed or maimed by thrown rocks. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 19:04, 25 September 2015 (UTC) reply
    Then that argues for my suggestion for a single list article: List of casualties associated with Palestinian rock throwing. (That language is very rough, and I can see quite a battle over it.) That way both articles can be combined into one list. If that is not agreed to, then I would argue for keeping both list articles and making the best of it. Coretheapple ( talk) 14:21, 2 October 2015 (UTC) reply
    Lists have to be tightly defined to work at all. associated with is unworkably vague. Moreover, incidents in which people are killed or maimed by thrown rocks are very different form incidents of riot and civil violence in which police injure or kill participants or bystanders. Far form achieving balance, a list mixing two such different types of incidents would be WP:FALSEBALANCE. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 14:41, 2 October 2015 (UTC) reply
    You've raised that point previously, but I don't believe that that section of WP:NPOV is really applicable. Both are casualties as a result of rock throwing, and the article can be clearly delineated to show that one group of casualties were hit by rocks and the other by Israeli military action. The name of the article that I've proposed is just an off-the-top of head suggestion. Coretheapple ( talk) 17:14, 2 October 2015 (UTC) reply
    Please WP:AGF. I have created a series of articles on what I regard as the extraordinary phenomenon of individuals killed rocks thrown at cars moving along roads. (see, for example, not only Death of Adele Biton, but also, Darmstadt American rock-throwing incident). The fact that a cluster of such incidents has occurred in Israel (innocent Arab children have also died in cars targeted by rock throwers) led me to create a list. Such lists are entirely commonplace on Wikipedia. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 19:04, 25 September 2015 (UTC) reply
    When I said "you have a tarantella...." I wasn't referring to you personally, or to any specific named editors as I don't edit in this area. I just was struck by the tit-for-tat aspect of this and the other article. Everything that happens in that area receives coverage, so therefore the temptation is to write articles about everything that happens. That may be part of the problem. Coretheapple ( talk) 14:37, 26 September 2015 (UTC) reply
And to really overturn the obvious narrative one could write about Jewish Israeli stone throwing (edit: hah - there is such an article. Though it doesn't seem to get the same kind of, well, lavish attention that Gregory gives to his/her political agenda) and perhaps toss in 'List of Israeli police shielded from stone throwing Jewish settlers by Palestinians.' This is what encyclopedias are for, right? Dan Murphy ( talk) 19:12, 25 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Dan, with all due respect, you're doing this wrong. You're looking at this like a professional. nableezy - 19:22, 25 September 2015 (UTC) reply
No, sounds more like more of the tit-for-tat mentality that infects this whole subject area. Coretheapple ( talk) 11:57, 1 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - I just dont see a problem with this list. It is well-sourced and seems like a good complement to any other lists.-- BabbaQ ( talk) 21:59, 25 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete for same reason I !voted delete on the other one. These appear to be tit-for-tat political statements. I suppose Merge would be acceptable if it can be done WP:NPOV. VMS Mosaic ( talk) 02:32, 26 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep both or delete both or merge. Any other option would be an obvious and severe NPO violation. Zero talk 04:53, 26 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose merge and oppose linkage. As User:Rhododendrites correctly points out: " WP:FALSEBALANCE (and WP:AGF for good measure). If there were two articles about opposite sides of the same coin which use the exact same sources, you might be right. But that's not the case. The sources are not the same, the topic is not the converse, and the inclusion criteria are not the same. That's what matters." This article should be judged on its own merits. As should the article created subsequently on the quite different question of Palestinians killed by police during violent riots. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 14:11, 27 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete both per nom. It's not our job to compile lists of every incident that barely made the news or didn't make the news at all. If there were specific incidents that were noteworthy based on Wikipedia's notability guidelines, we could have articles on those specific incidents. To just detail a list of every person killed or injured by a stone thrown by Palestinian protesters or rioters and every Palestinian protester or rioter killed or injured by an Israeli soldier or settler is undue. I don't know about the intentions of the users who created these lists, but regardless, these lists only serve to make a point in support of either side of the I/P conflict. -- Al Ameer ( talk) 20:25, 27 September 2015 (UTC) reply
    Al Ameer son , like Rosecalese, has failed to check his facts (or failed to read the list). This article, like Wikipedia's many Lists of people by cause of death is heavily made up of blue-linked incidents. Blue-linked because they have been deemed notable. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 23:55, 30 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete BOTH per various aspects of WP:WWIN and WP:POVFORK. Wikipedia should not attempt to catalog every death in a conflict, particularly those that are otherwise not notable, and it certainly should not selectively catalog certain deaths based on political bias. I cannot help but see these articles as soapboxes or coatracks. - Location ( talk) 23:38, 27 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Note that Wikipedia has many Lists of people by cause of death. Some ( List of inventors killed by their own inventions) are of notable people, while others, ( List of hazing deaths in the United States) are of otherwise obscure people who died in an unusual circumstance that is a matter of public concern because like the articles in Deaths by rocks thrown at cars, and like the people on this list, the cause of death is both unusual and preventable. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 00:34, 1 October 2015 (UTC) reply
There are many lists but your list is the only one based on ethnicity. Why is that? What does that tell us? Does it tell us something about Palestinians as an ethnic group, something about Wikipedia or something about you? Remember ethnicity? It's that thing about which you said " I create articles irrespective of ethnicity", a statement that is unambiguously inconsistent with your actions in the ARBPIA topic area. Imagine if Wikipedia, a global encyclopedia, failed to prevent people from infecting it with their personal views about ethnic groups. What would that look like? How might one go about identifying instances of that kind of failure? What symptoms might one expect to see from that kind of infection? Sean.hoyland - talk 08:59, 1 October 2015 (UTC) reply
The statement There are many lists but your list is the only one based on ethnicity refers to your comment Note that Wikipedia has many Lists of people by cause of death. I assumed this would be obvious. So, the question Why is that? in that context can be re-expressed as, Given the set of lists defined by Lists of people by cause of death, why is your list the only one there based on ethnicity? Would you like to try to answer that straightforward question in a straightforward way?
Of course, there are many other lists not related to cause of death that are based on ethnicity. But, you know, there are many that are absent because they have been deleted. I'm talking about the kind of lists that appear to be created to demonize and spread hate. You can imagine the kind of thing, List of Jewish <insert some kind of criminal behavior or attribute that is negative in the eyes of the editor> etc. The people who create these lists pick an ethnic group and focus on the criminal behavior of that ethnic group. Many lists like that have been deleted at AfDs over the years to prevent misuse of Wikipedia.
I have already addressed your second comment made at 11:29, 1 October 2015 in my statement here. Your statement is inconsistent with the evidence, evidence that demonstrates a focus of Palestinian throwing stones and Israelis as victims rather than a focus on sampling RS coverage of this type of cause of death using a sampling method that is independent of the "ethnicity, faith or other personal status attributes of the criminal". I'm aware that you have explained this focus here, with your statement, I have created a series of articles on what I regard as the extraordinary phenomenon of individuals killed rocks thrown at cars moving along roads...The fact that a cluster of such incidents has occurred in Israel (innocent Arab children have also died in cars targeted by rock throwers) led me to create a list. Such lists are entirely commonplace on Wikipedia....referring to initial article you created here on 2015-09-20. There are many problems with your statements. Firstly, none of the incidents in the article you created occurred in Israel. That is a troubling error for an editor active in the ARBPIA topic area to make. Secondly, the statement (innocent Arab children have also died in cars targeted by rock throwers) led me to create a list implies causation, that the death of "innocent Arab children" played a role in you creating the list. That is, of course, not the case, as can be seen from the inital article you created. The statement Such lists are entirely commonplace on Wikipedia, with list linking to Lists of people by cause of death, is misleading given that your list is the only one there based on ethnicity. Simply creating your list caused a rather extraordinary but understandable reaction from editors in ARBPIA. Articles like this start fires. Deleting articles like this puts fires out.
I'm aware of the multiple meanings of the word Palestinian. That changes nothing. This is about the misuse and contamination of Wikipedia by armchair belligerents in the Israel-Palestine conflict. It's about the willful disregard for mandatory neutrality by using indefensible methods to frame and build articles. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:30, 2 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • This is a list. Of a specific and rather unusual type of violent attack that arouses broad public interest. Note that many Wikipedia articles on criminal activity are organized by ethnicity. List of Jewish American mobsters, Chaldean Mafia, Irish Mob, List of Sicilian mafiosi. However, Palestinian, as you acknowledge, is a term that is at once ethnic and political, and lists of crimes/criminals are often organized in national categories. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 12:05, 2 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Just as a general point on arguing with your interlocutor. Try to respond to what they actually said, rather than what you wish they had said. Sean didnt say your was the only list on criminal activity that is organized by ethnicity. He said yours was the only one of the lists of people by cause of death that is based on ethnicity. Respond or dont, but if you do actually address the point, not the easier to disprove strawman. nableezy - 17:22, 2 October 2015 (UTC) reply
A list, is a list, is a list. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 20:10, 2 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Partisan civil war-related coatrack. Carrite ( talk) 23:29, 2 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete both This list is transparently part of a partisan conflict using Wikipedia to tell the world about the awfulness of the other side. A neutral encyclopedic article would cover why stones are thrown; alternatively, a neutral list of deaths in conflict would have worldwide coverage and would not focus on current events cherry-picked to present one side's view. Johnuniq ( talk) 00:22, 3 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. North America 1000 08:00, 2 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Eve's Secret (2014 film)

Eve's Secret (2014 film) (  | 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 evidence of critical discussion to show that this production is worthy of note. Not every made for cable film is inherently notable and this appears to fail GNG. Spartaz Humbug! 06:21, 25 September 2015 (UTC) reply

  • Delete. There is no significant coverage of this film. It fails WP:GNG and WP:NFILM. I did learn a bit about a 2014 episode of " Days of Our Lives" and the comedy web series “Mother Eve’s Secret Garden of Sensual Sisterhood” in trying to find sources. -- Bejnar ( talk) 18:28, 25 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Not notable. Heyyouoverthere ( talk) 10:15, 26 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:05, 28 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:05, 28 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete for now as there's nothing to suggest improvement and IMDb is better at accepting pages for these films. SwisterTwister talk 06:06, 28 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Alts:
director:(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
actress:(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
actress:(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
production:(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
distributor:(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
  • Delete In my WP:BEFORE, I do not find coverage to meet WP:NF. It exists and can be watched but has made no splash. Lacking suitable coverage in reliable sources, this fails. Schmidt, Michael Q. 06:56, 28 September 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Courcelles ( talk) 15:39, 2 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Rajan Navani

Rajan Navani (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't pass GNG or WP:ANYBIO. Reference padding from PR sources and I can't find anything from reliable sources to show significant coverage either. — Spaceman Spiff 06:01, 25 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — Spaceman Spiff 06:02, 25 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — Spaceman Spiff 06:02, 25 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Medhajai's good faith article on Rajan Navani. There is no claim to notability made in the article. I found plenty of substantive coverage, but none of it in independent sources, all of them were from organizations to which he belongs. The independent sources, including those cited in the article, only mention him in passing, often only to quote his comment on a corporate personnel change. Fails WP:GNG for lack of significant coverage, namely lack of independent coverage. Fails WP:BIO for the same reason. There may be minor copyright violations from the webpages about him at the Aspen Institute and the Code for India websites, which articles are essentially identical. This article was created on 21 September 2015 by editor Medhajai, whose first contibution was a substantial article on India's new Foreign Secretary, Subrahmanyam Jaishankar, on 3 September 2013. There do not appear to be any conflict of interest issues. It should be noted that the Jetline Group, which includes JetSynthesys, is a group of Navani family businesses and does not appear to be notable itself. -- Bejnar ( talk) 19:22, 25 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:07, 28 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete for now as although News, Books, browser and Highbeam found links, there's nothing to suggest better improvement. SwisterTwister talk 06:07, 28 September 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Courcelles ( talk) 15:39, 2 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Getfriday

Getfriday (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Previously speedily deleted and still overtly promotional. There is very little written about this organisation once you take out press releases and passing mentions. Fails WP:CORP and WP:GNG Flat Out ( talk) 05:14, 25 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:02, 28 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:02, 28 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete for now as I found nothing better than some links but nothing to suggest better improvement. SwisterTwister talk 06:03, 28 September 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. I'm withdrawing the AfD; I admit I had not considered the aspects pertaining to the building as such. DGG ( talk ) 01:10, 26 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Woodstock Community Center

Woodstock Community Center (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Neighborhood community center in Portland ; the references are entirely notices to local events, and not reliable for ntoability. DGG ( talk ) 04:47, 25 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Keep, of course (I created the article but would vote to keep regardless, per WP:GNG). There are many Wikipedia articles about community centers with similar referencing. This is an historic 1920s building and former fire station now operated by Portland Parks & Recreation. In addition to local papers, the article uses The Oregonian, Reed College, the City of Portland, and other references. I am disappointed that we are discussing the deletion of an article like this. --- Another Believer ( Talk) 14:05, 25 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Keep. National or international sources are NOT required for notability of organizations, per WP:ORG and WP:AUD: "Evidence of significant coverage by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability." Yes, some of the references are documenting local events, but at least three of the regional references (from The Bee and 2 from East Portland News) document the grassroots, volunteer nature of the organization. It meets notability, IMHO. Grand'mere Eugene ( talk) 18:51, 25 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Comment Historic building status for this former fire station built in 1928 is claimed above, but there is no evidence of listing of the building on state or federal registers, nor does the article make a claim of historical significance. -- Bejnar ( talk) 20:09, 25 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Sorry, I did not mean to imply historical status, simply that the building had history and is more than just a "neighborhood community center" (though it is named after the neighborhood in which it stands). My mistake. I should note that, although this itself does not establish notability, simply searching "Woodstock Community Center" in The Oregonian archives yields 516 results. Of course, many of these appearances will be passing mentions, but my point is that there is much more research to be done here and deleting the article is not taking all information about this center into account. I strongly advocate that we keep this article and ask users to please be more judicious about the articles we nominate for deletion and to complete thorough research before voting to delete content.--- Another Believer ( Talk) 20:17, 25 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Keep. Agree with previously cited reasons, and would add WP:NEXIST. This building existed as a fire station in a major metropolitan area for 28 years, and has been in constant use by a major city agency since then. As an 87 year old building it's extremely likely that additional sources for notability exist that just aren't readily available online. Big Smooth 23:02, 25 September 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Courcelles ( talk) 15:38, 2 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Arena Solutions

Arena Solutions (  | 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. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. duffbeerforme ( talk) 04:45, 25 September 2015 (UTC) reply

  • Comment: I removed a couple of paragraphs reproduced from the vendor's own site, etc. AllyD ( talk) 06:49, 25 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: A Highbeam search returns a lot of routine announcements, from the firm's name change through to a new partnership with GoodData but I am not seeing anything substantial about the firm. There is a brief paragraph in a book and namechecks in a few others, but I am not seeing anything that meets WP:CORPDEPTH. Happy to revise opinion if anyone locates something better, particularly if it supports the "pioneered" claim in the first paragraph of the article. AllyD ( talk) 07:09, 25 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. This article does make a notability claim: pioneered cloud product lifecycle management (PLM) applications. Howver, there is not enough independent coverage to back-up that claim. The brief mention in the book The Incredible Payback: Innovative Sourcing Solutions That Deliver Extraordinary Results does say ground breaking. But this is not substantiated elsewhere. This aside, it fails WP:CORPDEPTH. -- Bejnar ( talk) 20:18, 25 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:19, 28 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:19, 28 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:19, 28 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete for now as I simply found nothing better to suggest improvement. SwisterTwister talk 06:20, 28 September 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Swiss Lips. ( non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle ( talk) 05:46, 2 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Overflowing Futures

Overflowing Futures (  | 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 enough coverage in independent reliable sources. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NALBUM. This album was released less than a month ago. Jbh Talk 20:51, 18 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:15, 23 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete or simply redirect to band's article as I simply found nothing good aside from some links with browser. SwisterTwister talk 05:15, 23 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 04:46, 25 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to Swiss Lips. There is nothing here that is not already said, and said better, at the band's article. There seems to be no basis for an independent notability. -- Bejnar ( talk)
  • Comment No objection to Redirect. Jbh Talk 00:14, 26 September 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. czar 15:31, 3 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Vegetarian Campaign Nepal

Vegetarian Campaign Nepal (  | 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 organized event. First ref cited does not mention about this campaign, second has a just one line and third is primary source. Apart from this, unable to find any reliable sources on Google search. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 05:19, 11 September 2015 (UTC) reply

  • They are organizing various programs around Kathmandu valley and their significance can be easily traced being at Kathmandu. Rallys and miking with this campaign's name are done and they are teaming up with Hindu Awareness campaign to stop mass slaughter and other malpractices. I found a group on FB : https://www.facebook.com/groups/vegannepal/ -- Esushant ( talk) 08:58, 11 September 2015 (UTC)- reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Toffanin ( talk) 20:29, 11 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Toffanin ( talk) 20:30, 11 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Toffanin ( talk) 20:31, 11 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ☮ JAaron95 Talk 15:45, 18 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete for now and draft & userfy if needed as I simply found no better coverage and it's not surprising, considering this is only 5 months old. SwisterTwister talk 05:14, 23 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 04:45, 25 September 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) Mz7 ( talk) 03:27, 2 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Rough Music: Blair, Bombs, Baghdad, London, Terror

Rough Music: Blair, Bombs, Baghdad, London, Terror (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't appear to be notable. I've been scrubbing around trying to find references to confer notability, but I'm striking out. That seems odd, as this kind of book usually generates a pretty big splash in the press, but it seems like this one just hasn't. Mikeblas ( talk) 10:52, 11 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Toffanin ( talk) 20:25, 11 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep As the good-faith creator and main contributor, I would have appreciated the courtesy of notification. Regardless, I obviously believe this article should be kept. It was published around a decade ago, and many internet sources would have been deleted. I will endeavour to find two reviews etc to meet WP:NBOOK. AusLondonder ( talk) 08:30, 13 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Sources found:

AusLondonder ( talk) 08:34, 13 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. AusLondonder ( talk) 08:37, 13 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ☮ JAaron95 Talk 15:44, 18 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 04:42, 25 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - It looks like the book merited a scholarly review in Current Issues in Criminal Justice, as stated above, as well as references in multiple later books that touch upon multicultural political issues in Britian (see, for example, here). The author himself is certainly a notable British writer who's held multiple controversial opinions on a wide variety of topics. I feel inclined to think that we shouldn't delete the article. CoffeeWithMarkets ( talk) 10:14, 25 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep as this seems acceptable. SwisterTwister talk 06:12, 28 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, there may not be a ton of sources, but there appears to be enough to confer notability. Kharkiv07 ( T) 00:59, 2 October 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. General consensus that just enough sources exist to meet notability requirements. ( non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle ( talk) 05:44, 2 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Stu Osborn Show

Stu Osborn Show (  | 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 a funny video, and there was apparently additional online content that tied in with it, but it doesn't seem to have any real notability - seemingly no press other than two paragraphs in an article in the trade industry Shoot. Korny O'Near ( talk) 17:17, 11 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 19:43, 13 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 19:43, 13 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 19:43, 13 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ☮ JAaron95 Talk 14:59, 18 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep as although it's not surprising there was not better coverage, the current may be enough to simply keep. SwisterTwister talk 05:29, 23 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 04:41, 25 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. There may not be an overabundance of sources, but what appears to exist seems to probably be enough to maintain the article. Kharkiv07 ( T) 01:00, 2 October 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Courcelles ( talk) 15:38, 2 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Slim Jesus

Slim Jesus (  | 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 a case of WP:BLP1E. There's not a whole lot of coverage outside the "Drill Time" video. clpo13( talk) 04:26, 25 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 04:48, 25 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 04:48, 25 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete for now but draft and userfy if needed as my searches found nothing better than this and this. SwisterTwister talk 05:27, 25 September 2015 (UTC) slim jesus is better then then the doors reply
Slim Jesus (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – The above citation is incorrect, as I have located several sources outside the "Drill Time" video. This artist has just been signed with Big Daddy Records.
  • Delete. A fleeting moment of fame/infamy based on derision. Will undoubtedly sink back into obscurity.....if I'm wrong, he may one day be worthy of an article but definitely not now. Rayman60 ( talk) 00:59, 2 October 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Natalia del mar. ( non-admin closure) sst ✈ 10:15, 2 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Sabrina Salvador

Sabrina Salvador (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Current references hardly speak of she and her career as actress is not very notable. In 2011, was the protagonist of " Natalia del mar", but since then has not had more lead, only special appearances and minor roles. Philip J Fry (talk) 13:50, 18 September 2015 (UTC) reply

  • Neutral: Maybe check sources from Venezuela and see if there is anything to this. If something more can be found that she's notable in her own country then Keep. If not, definitely Delete. - O.R. Comms 14:06, 18 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:01, 23 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Venezuela-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:01, 23 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to Natalia del mar as it seems she was best known for that and I see nothing to suggest better improvement here. SwisterTwister talk 06:02, 23 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 04:26, 25 September 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Courcelles ( talk) 15:37, 2 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Koji Doi

Koji Doi (  | 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. Non-notable wrestler with no coverage in sources independent of the subject. リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen) (LOLTNA) 10:51, 18 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen) (LOLTNA) 10:54, 18 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen) (LOLTNA) 10:54, 18 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete No significant independent coverage. Listings in an online database is not enough. Jakejr ( talk) 14:38, 18 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 04:22, 25 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Only references are to an internet wrestling database and even that lists nothing under "career highlights" except for beginning his career. Definitely fails GNG and any sports criteria. Astudent0 ( talk) 17:21, 25 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Not really notable and article just lists a series of win/lose/draw in a large, unbroken paragraph. Heyyouoverthere ( talk) 10:19, 26 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I have noticed that the wrong name was given in Japanese characters, so I have inserted the correct name 土肥 孝司 into the article. A search of this name turns up quite a few news articles from this year alone, so there are certainly independent sources. I do not have the time to examine whether they are enough to staisfy WP:GNG or are only routine reports though. I will take a look and report back later. AtHomeIn神戸 ( talk) 07:24, 28 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Delete There are plenty of routine reports, but not much to write a biography about. AtHomeIn神戸 ( talk) 02:55, 2 October 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was 'Redirect to Trader Joe's as this is obvious and there is sufficient consensus to not continue any longer (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 06:14, 28 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Dan Bane

Dan Bane (  | 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, WP:1EVENT. I can't see anything on the first couple of dozen results that is anything other than advertising, social media profiles and stuff entirely in association with Trader Joe's, with one exception; he apparently won the "USC Alumni Association Asa V. Call Alumni Achievement Award", which gets just four hits. I propose a merge with Trader Joe's. Laun chba ller 09:19, 18 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Spanneraol ( talk) 15:59, 21 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 04:14, 25 September 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) Kharkiv07 ( T) 01:02, 2 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Teknokrat

Teknokrat (  | 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 does not cite any references to provide any significance other than its existence. Also, it's written like an advertisement because of the facilities written in the article. Ayub407 talk 07:51, 18 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete: Only source I can find which seems semi decent is http://stba.teknokrat.ac.id/index.php. No secondary sources seem to exist. samtar ( msg) 09:04, 18 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 11:28, 19 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 11:28, 19 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Terrible article, yes, but it does appear to be an accredited institution of higher education, which we keep per longstanding consensus and precedent. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 15:31, 22 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep as I encounter these quite a bit but as long as they are notable it needs to be improved to a more acceptable level. SwisterTwister talk 06:05, 23 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 04:13, 25 September 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. North America 1000 07:57, 2 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Diaz Brand Clothing Co

Diaz Brand Clothing Co (  | 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 can find no good references. Seems to fail Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 05:19, 18 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 13:05, 18 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 13:05, 18 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 13:06, 18 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete for now obviously as this is a local minor company and my searches found nothing better than this. SwisterTwister talk 06:39, 19 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 03:55, 25 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete fails WP:CORP. dubious primary and secondary sourcing. LibStar ( talk) 06:39, 25 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - If only for the fact that this article seems to have been a result of blatantly promotional editing. CoffeeWithMarkets ( talk) 08:25, 25 September 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Courcelles ( talk) 15:37, 2 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Larry Koopman

Larry Koopman (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:BLP of a person notable only as an as yet unelected candidate in a forthcoming election. As usual, this is not a claim of notability that satisfies WP:NPOL — if you cannot make a credible and properly sourced claim that the person was already notable enough for an article before becoming a candidate, then they do not become notable enough for an article until they win the seat. Delete, without prejudice against recreation on October 19 if he wins. Bearcat ( talk) 03:27, 18 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat ( talk) 19:17, 21 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat ( talk) 19:17, 21 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete, being an unelected candidate in a federal election does not make a person notable enough for an article. They would have to be notable prior to becoming a candidate, and there is nothing in this article that supports a claim of notability. If the subject of the article is elected in the upcoming election, then like all other MPs elected, he would then meet notability requirements and an article can be added at that time. Cmr08 ( talk) 23:45, 22 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 03:53, 25 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • delete per usual standards for political candidates. Mangoe ( talk) 19:57, 25 September 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Emmett Tyrell. ( non-admin closure) Kharkiv07 ( T) 01:03, 2 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Madame Hillary

Madame Hillary (  | 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 can't find any evidence that this is a notable book. The sources I can find (reviews I mean) are like Chapin's and Rosin's only really mention the book in the context of Hillary Clinton hatred. Ricky81682 ( talk) 03:15, 18 September 2015 (UTC) reply

  • Maybe mention somewhere else and redirect as although I found some more links here and here which have some reviews but maybe not for better improvement. SwisterTwister talk 06:27, 23 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:27, 23 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:27, 23 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 03:53, 25 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, maybe redirect to Emmett Tyrell, who is identified as the principal author of the book. Tyrell is notable; I can find no evidence to substantiate a finding of separate notability for this book. -- Arxiloxos ( talk) 19:56, 25 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to Emmett Tyrell Heyyouoverthere ( talk) 10:30, 26 September 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  Sandstein  19:46, 3 October 2015 (UTC) reply

LinkNZ

LinkNZ (  | 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 simply found nothing to suggest better notability and improvement even if minimal with my best search results here. Overall, it seems even the most basic and simple searches find nothing good and their website is currently under construction. This has existed since January 2007 with no signs of improvement, there's nothing to suggest keeping. SwisterTwister talk 02:42, 18 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 02:43, 18 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 02:43, 18 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 02:43, 18 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep -- It seems to be a small denomination, or something of that nature. We usually keep articles on such. Peterkingiron ( talk) 16:47, 20 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. I have added a reference to Global Renewal Christianity: Asia and Oceania Spirit-Empowered Movements: Past, Present, and Future, but it's only a mention. There are a lot of references and description on the member church pages, although they are not really independent sources. I agree it would look better when the website is "up and running in all it’s glory", but I suspect the website overhaul is connected to a change of logo (compare [21] with [22]). St Anselm ( talk) 07:14, 21 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete no independent references with in depth coverage. Stuartyeates ( talk) 09:21, 23 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 03:52, 25 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete for now as I found nothing better for notability, fails depth coverage . justnikhi 04:05, 29 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. They may be "awesome as Churches", but collectively they are not notable. St Anselm ( talk) 04:38, 29 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete for lack of coverage. From a notability standpoint it is really rather irrelevant what is on their own webpages, unless it points to indepdent reliable sources with substantial content. Fails WP:ORG. -- Bejnar ( talk) 05:39, 3 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - nothing in searches to show the notability of this group as a whole. And nothing clear enough to show a redirect to. Onel5969 TT me 17:23, 3 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 Hamari Adhuri Kahani#Soundtrack. ( non-admin closure) Kharkiv07 ( T) 01:04, 2 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Hamari Adhuri Kahani (Title Track)

Hamari Adhuri Kahani (Title Track) (  | 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:NSONG for no multiple, non-trivial, independent sources. PROD removed by article creator without giving any reason. Also, they reverted back the article to include all non- WP:RS sources, WP:SINGLEVENDOR unsuitable charts and other WP:BADCHARTS and Youtube view counts. §§ Dharmadhyaksha§§ { Talk / Edits} 04:10, 11 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. §§ Dharmadhyaksha§§ { Talk / Edits} 04:11, 11 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. §§ Dharmadhyaksha§§ { Talk / Edits} 04:11, 11 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 01:17, 18 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to film in that case if it is not independently notable. SwisterTwister talk 06:26, 23 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Film's name is "Hamari Adhuri Kahani". Why do we need a redirect called "Hamari Adhuri Kahani (Title Track)" over there? Readers won't be searching terms which have brackets. §§ Dharmadhyaksha§§ { Talk / Edits} 03:57, 24 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 03:49, 25 September 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Courcelles ( talk) 15:36, 2 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Realm (band)

Realm (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'm not entirely sure if this is notable because, although German Wiki has some more sources (although nothing that appears outstandingly good), my searches found nothing better than this which appears to include a new band website and also one review saying they were not well known. At best, this could be saved if general notability and & or local notability. Tagging past user Derek R Bullamore for comment. SwisterTwister talk 02:37, 11 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 02:39, 11 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 02:39, 11 September 2015 (UTC) reply
My involvement was merely adding the unreferenced tag (in 2010). However, I also share the view that this band is not notable (as above). - Derek R Bullamore ( talk) 11:28, 13 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 01:16, 18 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - The group appears to be pretty obscure, without even one single hit song to their credit or any serious kind of news coverage. CoffeeWithMarkets ( talk) 05:58, 18 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 03:48, 25 September 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  Sandstein  19:47, 3 October 2015 (UTC) reply

List of stars in the Hyades

List of stars in the Hyades (  | 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 proposing this article for removal because of WP:NOTDIRECTORY. There is no doubt whatsoever that the Hyades cluster as a whole is highly notable in astronomy, and that references exist to verify that these stars are members of the cluster. However, all but a handful of the listed stars are presumably non-notable (per WP:NASTRO); they are mainly notable as a collective whole and there is little benefit at this point for a directory listing of the individual members. Praemonitus ( talk) 17:16, 9 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Praemonitus ( talk) 17:26, 9 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as nominator. Possibly a listing of the 26 [23] member stars that are visible to the naked eye would be acceptable under WP:NASTRO, but that would require a different article name. (Alternatively, that could be listed in the Hyades (star cluster) article.) Praemonitus ( talk) 17:36, 9 September 2015 (UTC) reply
    • I've struck your duplicate !vote, as your nomination necessarily counts as support for deletion. Adding a subsequent comment with a boldfaced "delete" makes it appear at first glance that your nomination has another editor supporting it. postdlf ( talk) 00:41, 13 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:25, 13 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles ( talk) 01:00, 17 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: it does not make sense having this information in a separate article. It would be much better reducing the list to relevant stars (ie, visible to the naked eye, but also other stars if they are relevant for any reason), and including it as a section of Hyades (star cluster). This is what has been done for the Pleiades, and this is what is done with the lists of stars for each constellation, such as the list of stars in Taurus. Eynar Oxartum ( talk) 22:30, 19 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 03:46, 25 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Comment by nom: In the main Hyades article I've added a Brightest stars section to tabulate the brighter members. That table can be enlarged (using the provided source) by expanding the magnitude range, should somebody see the need. Praemonitus ( talk) 22:43, 25 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete reluctantly. I don't think the naked-eye limitation being suggested by others is that important; the Hyades white dwarfs (both their properties, and that the cluster has them at all) have been quite significant over time, and none of those are naked-eye brightness. (For example, V471 Tau would, I think, merit its own article, though there isn't one now.) However, the other arguments for deletion are valid, and this list doesn't add anything of usefulness to an encyclopedia that a link to a reference doesn't do better. BSVulturis ( talk) 16:23, 29 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete because WP:NOT, and for the reasons stated by User:BSVulturis and others above. -- Bejnar ( talk) 05:43, 3 October 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedily deleted by User:Just Chilling under criterion A7. (Non-admin closure) " Pepper" @ 16:33, 26 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Home haunter

Home haunter (  | 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 not sure this is anything more than a NEOLOGISM. Potential for transfer to wiktionary, but I don't think it qualifies for an article (even as a stub). Primefac ( talk) 02:57, 25 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 04:54, 25 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 04:54, 25 September 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Cryptocurrency#Academic_studies. ( non-admin closure) sst ✈ 02:42, 3 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Ledger (journal)

Ledger (journal) (  | 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 PRODded with reason "Non-notable new journal that has only been announced yet. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG." DePRODded by IP with stated reason "Article meets requirements for Notability:Academic journals, because it satisfies criteria #3: it carries an historic purpose, being the first academic journal dedicated to cryptocurrencies", which is incorrect: simply being the first journal addressing a very specialized subject is not an "historic purpose". PROD reason still stands, hence: Delete. Randykitty ( talk) 07:52, 17 September 2015 (UTC) reply

  • This is irrelevant, since the journal meets criteria #3 PaperWario ( talk) 13:08, 23 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • WP:TOOSOON does not apply to academic journals. It applies to biographies, films, and articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PaperWario ( talk • contribs) 13:11, 23 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8........................... ( talk) 08:32, 17 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8........................... ( talk) 08:32, 17 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8........................... ( talk) 08:32, 17 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  1. The journal is considered by reliable sources to be influential in its subject area.
  2. The journal is frequently cited by other reliable sources.
  3. The journal has an historic purpose or a significant history.

Cryptocurrencies, which seek to replace traditional fiat currencies, are virtually uncovered in the academic world despite their exponentially growing importance in economics, finance, and social policy. An academic journal seeking to encourage multidisciplinary research in a field that sorely needs it has a historic purpose by definition. PaperWario ( talk) 13:08, 23 September 2015 (UTC) reply

  • Comment I just started the Journal of Hedgehog Developmental Biology and will put it online next week. It's the very first journal on the developmental biology of the hedgehog. In fact, I believe it may be the first journal exclusively on hedgehogs! So that's an historic purpose, right? As you may see from this silly example, no, that is not what NJournals#3 is about. A historical purpose implies a history. For example, a journal that was published for an extended period of time in the 18th century and was quite influential, but which will not be included in any current databases/indexes. Ledger has no history at all as yet and fails every criterion of NJournals by a mile. At this point, we even need a well-functioning crystal ball to figure out whether it actually ever will publish a single article, let alone stay in business for any significant amount of time. (That's what WP:TOOSOON is about, if not in letter then in spirit). -- Randykitty ( talk) 13:52, 23 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - If you convince a major research university to publish your hedgehog journal, you might have a shot. But most likely not, since you have difficulty understanding the meaning of the word historic.
his·tor·ic /hiˈstôrik/ adjective 1. famous or important in history, or potentially so.
synonyms: significant, notable, important, momentous, consequential, memorable, newsworthy, unforgettable, remarkable;
Cryptocurrencies make headlines of major newspapers every day, while hedgehogs hardly ever turn heads, even in biology circles. Cryptocurrencies are bringing a societal change that will be the biggest and most dramatic change in finance of the past two or three millennia--replacing fiat money. If a journal dedicated to research of an unstudied field that's spearheading such a dramatic change to civilization does not satisfy the historic carvout in the notability criteria for journals, then no other journal should satisfy it, ever. That criteria was written in for a reason, and this publication meets it to the letter. PaperWario ( talk) 17:28, 23 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • While cryptocurrencies are notable, that does not mean that anything planned about them is also notable. And you can cite dictionaries as much as you like, "historic" is not used here in the sense of "remarkable" and such, just as "notable" has a special meaning here on WP, too. And the notability of the publisher does not mean that any journal they publish is inherently notable, too. And while your predictions of cryptocurrencies' future importance may be correct, that still remains to be seen. -- Randykitty ( talk) 17:34, 23 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • While your deletionist stubbornness is admirable and may be even welcome in some scenarios, your selective acceptance of Wikipedia rules is not. I specifically underlined "or potentially so," meaning "potentially important in history," which you conveniently ignored. You also failed to give so much as a single example of a journal that would fall under the third Wikipedia criteria under Notability: Academic Journals, obviously because you understand fully that the third definition is exactly on point in this case. A journal dedicated to finally opening the field of cryptocurrencies to academic research with the goal of changing the very definition of money--one of society's building blocks--has a historic purpose by any definition in the book, including the main, dictionary definition, which I cited above.
  • It's clear we disagree about this and my ignorance has been adequately exposed, so let's give it a rest and see what other editors think. -- Randykitty ( talk) 06:09, 24 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - Although the journals policy of encouraging authors to digitally sign hashes of papers, timestamping that into the blockchain, and for authors to identify via a bitcoin address [24] is most interesting. Dunno about historical though. -- 1Wiki8........................... ( talk)
  • Just being original is not enough to be notable (even less historic...) -- Randykitty ( talk) 14:41, 23 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 02:16, 25 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as per nom. No basis for notability on the search engines. Fails WP:NJournals, see #10 and #11 in the Notes and Examples area, which we are told to look at before applying one of the 3 criteria. Onel5969 TT me 03:12, 25 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect per 1Wiki8. I don't think it makes sense to say that a journal can be determined to have a historic purpose prospectively. Historic purposes need to be judged from a historical perspective. -- Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:31, 25 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 04:58, 25 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 04:58, 25 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Deletionists should feel ashamed for having the nerve to nominate this for deletion. It passes both journal notability (per the historic purpose exception) and general notability guidelines. Even Nature, the world's most cited scientific journal (impact factor = 42.4) [ http://i.imgur.com/0pzk9CC.png has covered] the launch of this journal a mere two weeks after its announcement. It is utterly ludicrous that outright spam articles and blatant advertisements are prevented from being deleted from Wikipedia, yet an article about a monumentally important (i.e. historic, get it?) academic journal is fought so hard to delete. PaperWario ( talk) 00:42, 1 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Nature did not cover the launch of Ledger, it mentioned it in passing in a (brief) article about cryptocurrencies (I give the correct link here and have struck the link you provide: please do not link to copyvios). I also gingerly suggest that it is a bit early to say that thus is a "monumentally important" journal. At this point, we can't even say for sure whether cryptocurrencies will ever become more than a peculiar Internet thing, so let alone that we can say whether a journal that hasn't even published anything will ever become notable (or even will survive its first difficult years). Oh, and no, I'm not ashamed of nominating a non-notable journal for deletion. Feel free to nominate for deletion any of the "spam articles and blatant advertisements" that you mention yourself. Thanks. -- Randykitty ( talk) 08:17, 1 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Call it "mentioning" or whatever you like, but it more than qualifies as legitimate coverage. You are continuing to show that you are either biased or have a poor understanding of what's going on on Wall Street if you think cryptocurrencies are a "peculiar Internet thing." As we speak, the world's biggest banks are forming a coalition to employ blockchains based on the Bitcoin model. Cryptocurrencies already have a tangible effect on the economies of the U.S. and China, and are of paramount importance in regimes where local currencies have collapsed, such as Zimbabwe and most recently Russia. Please stick to hedgehog journals, if that's where your expertise lies, and stop interfering with the dissemination of knowledge that is transforming people's lives. And yes, I tried nominating garbage articles for deletion before. Most of the time it's a waste of energy, because your efforts are countered by people who post bogus information just to avoid a consensus from being reached. I am just shocked that the patrolling process is broken both ways. People with questionable goals fight just as hard to stop legitimate articles from being created as they do to keep garbage articles intact. PaperWario ( talk) 16:06, 1 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • So nice to meet someone who knows how to assume good faith. And an in-passing mention does nothing to establish notability, sorry. If a description of the establishment of this journal is "knowledge that is transforming people's lives", then there must be tons of sources to cover this monumental event. If there are no such sources, then perhaps things are less monumental than you think. Anyway, it's clear that we do not agree (and it looks like nobody else here does either), so there's not much use in continuing this discussion. Let's see what the closing admin thinks about this. -- Randykitty ( talk) 16:15, 1 October 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  Sandstein  19:47, 3 October 2015 (UTC) reply

ABA Bank

ABA Bank (  | 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 can't find much in the way of independent or reliable sources, everything is either a press release or a blog. I can't verify the awards, and without those it doesn't seem to meet GNG. Primefac ( talk) 02:14, 25 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 04:58, 25 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cambodia-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 04:58, 25 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete for now - A WP:TNT at best as my searches found nothing better than Books and browser links and this has existed since June 2008 and has never improved much although has at least changed since the first version. I would've pinged past user The Banner but it seems he will not be available for a month. SwisterTwister talk 05:19, 25 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Comment There seem to be a number of banking awards each year, even for Cambodia. International Banker awarded their two Cambodia awards in 2014 to Vattanac Bank. here; and in 2015 to the Foreign Trade Bank of Cambodia. here. ABA Bank did indeed win Global Finance's 2015 Best Bank in Cambodia award. here. The Golden Fince 2014 award for Cambodia went to Acleda Bank. here However, I could not find verification from a reliable source about the awards from The Banker and Euromoney. All in all, it appars that none of these awards may be notable. -- Bejnar ( talk) 22:44, 25 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete searches on the engines do not show that it meets either WP:GNG or WP:NCORP. Onel5969 TT me 16:48, 3 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. North America 1000 07:55, 2 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Stefano Nonveiller

Stefano Nonveiller (  | 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 basically starting as a separate nomination from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stefano de Nonveiller as I found nothing to suggest better improvement here and actual existence is also a question. Notifying Cavarrone and Peterkingiron. BTW, an IP at that nomination commented if the other Nonveillers were fabricated but this seems to be an actual name and those other articles have sources, these (Stefano Nonveiller) have none so these are especially questionable. SwisterTwister talk 08:03, 17 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 08:04, 17 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 08:04, 17 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 08:04, 17 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: I'm not sure whether or not these are hoaxes. I can't find anything in English to suggest that either person exists. It is possible that since these people are from Croatia that coverage may exist in Croatian, but usually if someone is notable enough to be included in Wikipedia there will be discussion somewhere about these people in English. They might not be considered reliable sources, but there's usually something out there that isn't a mirror or someone reposting the Wikipedia article. It's very rare (although it does happen, especially in non "mainstream" languages) that someone will have no presence in English language sources. The only thing that gives me pause is that the same editor also created Guido Nonveiller and Anica Nonveiller. The scientist does appear to have been a real person, per the NLA having him listed in their records and this article at FAO of The UN. Similar evidence of existence can be found for the other person. This gives me some reason to suspect that the other two people might have existed, but the issue here is that we just don't have any good evidence to back this up. I'm going to go ask for help from WP:CROATIA to see if they can look for sourcing in Croatian. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:22, 17 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. I could not find any online sources about the person; in particular, there are zero Google hits in the Croatian internet domain ( "Stefano Nonveiller" site:.hr). (I had some doubts too about Guido Nonveiller, but he checks out as a real person without any doubt.) I don't see any particular reason to doubt the veracity of the article, but I'd rather err on the side of caution - that is, in favor of WP:V. GregorB ( talk) 11:15, 17 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Comment -- I queried in the previous AFD (on the other Stefano) whether the article might not be true. The consensus was the other way, so that I am not opposing deletion. I suspect that we are dealing with fairly minor municipal functionaries, whom might be NN anyway. Peterkingiron ( talk) 15:56, 20 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 02:10, 25 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Searches turned up nothing to show they meet the notability criteria. Onel5969 TT me 03:04, 25 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, it's barely verifiable online (found cursory mentions in two Croatian books found by Google Books), so unless someone provides actual references, it seems to fail WP:GNG. -- Joy [shallot] ( talk) 08:37, 27 September 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Cow Country (novel). ( non-admin closure) sst ✈ 02:34, 3 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Cow Country (Adrian Jones Pearson)

Cow Country (Adrian Jones Pearson) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The book's author is a redlink, and so is its publisher. The sources in the article appear to be from unreliable sources as well. The prize it won does not have an article either and appears to be unremarkable. The only review I could find is from Kirkus Reviews, which normally might give this some notability, but with this being the only review I could find and with coverage lacking elsewhere, I'm not sure if this is notable. Narutolovehinata5 t c csd new 05:35, 9 September 2015 (UTC) reply

  • I understand your concerns. This is my first article, so thank you for your patience. To support the idea of notability, I've added a recent citation from Harper's Magazine suggesting that the author of this novel is Thomas Pynchon. If true, this would be a major literary discovery. I will also track down some of the other links that I've included in the article - and/or remove them if I am unable to find them. Thank you

Nzeldner2015 ( talk) 18:58, 9 September 2015 (UTC)nzeldner2015 reply

    • As much as I love a good hoax, the Cow Eye Express is clearly an invented newspaper, which serves the purpose of "creating" this author (as well as supporting this flimsy WP article). On the other hand, if this is Thomas Pynchon, then that's all in keeping with his trickster self. The suggestion that the book was published by Pynchon is likely to stir more debate and produce several more notable scholarly sources; some publications superior to the Cow Eye Express may even wade into this shit. Josh a brewer ( talk) 02:20, 11 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:44, 12 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:44, 12 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy keep, speedy close. Significant coverage in today's New York Times [25] as well as a report syndicated nationally today by the AP. [26] The lengthy Harper's piece cited in the article would probably have sufficed on its own, but in combination with the Times and AP coverage there's really no question left open. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) ( talk) 19:15, 12 September 2015 (UTC) reply
@ Hullaballoo Wolfowitz: That's odd, those sources didn't exist when I nominated this article for deletion. Narutolovehinata5 t c csd new 02:58, 13 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Exactly. You nominated on Wednesday morning, the Harper's piece was posted on Wednesday afternoon, and the Times and AP pieces were published on Saturday. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) ( talk) 15:28, 13 September 2015 (UTC) reply

May already be known, but there is another Wikipedia page for this entry: /info/en/?search=Cow_Country_(novel) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Duckduckgoo ( talk • contribs) 20:16, 15 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  09:50, 17 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Some of this was definitely faked. The Dinwiddie award, frex, isn't actually a real award — it's a fictional invention of a little walled garden of fake newspaper coverage that was created by the novel's author as an extension of the novel, and the criticism from Cow Eye Community College itself suffers from the same problem. That said, the emerging speculation about a connection to Thomas Pynchon in actual reliable sources definitely boosts the notability here — even if it turns out that Pynchon didn't actually write it, the tidal wave of RS coverage that's already starting to roll in will get it over the bar regardless of who else might have. Merge into Cow Country (novel), which does a better job of sourcing and explaining the real-world context but fails to contain a basic plot description. Bearcat ( talk) 18:03, 17 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as redundant to Cow Country (novel). The book itself is notable, but I don't really see anything here that's factual that isn't already covered in the main book article. I don't want this article's history to be left since Bearcat has commented that there were sources for the article that were part of a promotional gimmick for the book and are as such fake. Leaving this article history behind might encourage others to add this to the main article. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:16, 20 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 02:06, 25 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, one of these articles has to go, although this article was created two days before the other, the other, Cow Country (novel) is a more appropriate title and hasn't been put up for deletion, this one has. Coolabahapple ( talk) 07:55, 30 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: Technically Cow Country (novel) created on 11 September was a A10 candidate duplicating Cow Country (Adrian Jones Pearson) created on 9 September. But since the former is correctly titled and better sourced, and since the the latter has no relevant page history and maybe an irrelevant one per Tokyogirl179, KISS and delete the here nominated article. -- Sam Sailor Talk! 07:39, 2 October 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Along with this closure, I highly encourage any editors to take this as an opportunity to fix the article up a bit. ( non-admin closure) Kharkiv07 ( T) 00:52, 2 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Timeline of Swiss history

Timeline of Swiss history (  | 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. While Wikipedia is a perpetually unfinished work in progress, sometimes it is better to have no article instead of a very bad article that nobody is interested in improving. This is such a case.

This would be a useful article if somebody who is knowledgeable about the topic had done some actual work. As it is, this article has remained in this fragmentary, broadly incorrect and generally useless state since 2013. While the few dates included are not always wrong per se, they are very poorly sourced, described and chosen. For example, there was definitely no declaration of Swiss independence in 1307 (perhaps the 1291 Bundesbrief is meant, but that was no such thing either). In 1877 "flooding" is mentioned, with no indication of where that happened or why it was important. Likewise, why a particular and inconsequential unsourced 1958 referendum "in favor of a nuclear bomb" is included puzzles me; the Swiss people vote multiple times each year on many issues.

This was clearly written by somebody who has little or no knowledge of Swiss history, taking dates at random from whichever half-understood source was at hand. In this state, it is a disservice to our readership, and would need to be totally rewritten. Until somebody comes along who has the skills and the time to competently recreate it from scratch, it should be deleted. In terms of alphabet soup: it fails WP:V and WP:SYNTH.  Sandstein  10:03, 17 September 2015 (UTC) reply

  • Keep It is easy to find more sources which confirm the significance of the first date in the current draft (7 Nov 1307) - see Fodor's Switzerland, for example. The page already contains a good source which confirms the notability of the topic per WP:LISTN. The rest is then a matter of ordinary editing and our editing policy is clear: "Collaborative editing means that incomplete or poorly written first drafts can evolve over time into excellent articles. Even poor articles, if they can be improved, are welcome.". Note also that we have similar timelines for many other major countries and it would be absurd to omit a major nation like Switzerland. Andrew D. ( talk) 12:39, 17 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • I see now what is meant with the 1307 date: the Rütlischwur, a legendary event dubiously dated to 1307, and certainly not a "declaration of independence". I'm absolutely for keeping this if it is totally rewritten (even as a stub), but until somebody is willing to do that, keeping this with completely inaccurate and misleading information is actively harmful to our mission.  Sandstein  14:03, 17 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Wrong question - if you want to keep the article, what's stopping you? I don't need to fix it when I can more easily improve the encyclopedia very quickly by removing this positively misleading and incorrect content. Others who do have the time and inclination can still (re-)write it then.  Sandstein  16:55, 17 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep since it is only 2 years old and since several sources have been added in the past few days. Why kill it now when it is being actively edited? -- M2545 ( talk) 17:28, 17 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • THere have been no substantial edits (in fact, only one) since the deletion nomination.  Sandstein  05:54, 25 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 02:04, 25 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 04:59, 25 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 04:59, 25 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 05:00, 25 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep and let it grow. I just added the Sonderbund War to the list. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 14:17, 27 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Comment -- I was going to vote delete, but accept the arguments of others. Nevertheless 500-600 years with nothing mentioned is a big gap. Heavily tag fro improvement. Peterkingiron ( talk) 16:50, 27 September 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) sst ✈ 10:14, 2 October 2015 (UTC) reply

A State of Trance

A State of Trance (  | 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 GNG. NOTADVERT / NOTPROMO Widefox; talk 02:00, 25 September 2015 (UTC) reply

  • Keep Running a quick Google News search, I found no end of articles discussing this show, including [27], [28], and [29]. Older articles tend to mention the show in passing while discussing van Buuren himself, as in [30], [31], or [32]; but note that last article also mentions how he had won two International Dance Music Awards, one of them for "beste radioprogramma". Admittedly I don't think any of these sources appear in the Wikipedia article, and that's something that should be fixed, but then the editor who proposed this deletion noted as much when they tagged the article with six ((multiple issues)) tags a few days before making this proposal. I feel like that's not in keeping with WP:BEFORE, and we should give editors a chance to fix the article's many asserted flaws before deleting on "notability" an article on what's probably the world's most popular trance radio show. Metadox ( talk) 02:30, 27 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Disambiguation required - it's not clear to me that all those links are referring to the radio show, the music etc. Widefox; talk 18:25, 27 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Yeah the confusion is understandable: ASOT the festivals are live broadcasts of ASOT the radio show, and ASOT the albums are usually compilations from ASOT the radio show. My link (1), Broadway World, is about a compilation album but speaks directly to the notability of the show with, e.g., "…his 'A State Of Trance' (ASOT) weekly two-hour radio show - currently airing on more than 100 radio stations in 84 countries to more than 33 million people each week…" and "His A State Of Trance radio show counts devoted fans from virtually every nation and they follow the weekly show with near-religious fanaticism." Link (2), Bangin Beats, is about three episodes of the show: episodes 600, 700, and whichever one was "last night" at the time of publication. Link (3), Music Times, I see now that it is about a compilation album and doesn't mention the radio show so scratch that. The three older links (4) (5) and (6) are about van Buuren himself and mention the show in the article, I included them mainly for compare-and-contrast.
And with the question of ambiguity you raised in mind, I'll add some more articles I think help make a better case: This more general Bangin Beats article goes into the history of the show, describes the rise of its popularity, the origin of the periodic live festival format, some awards its won, and its influence on later EDM radio shows. This article from News VietNamNet is about van Buuren's upcoming visit but it has a paragraph on the show that mentions its notability, saying "This radio show propelled him to stardom and helped cultivate an interest in trance music around the world." I include it to show non-music-press awareness of the show. That's also why I include this 3 News (New Zealand) story about a tragedy at ASOT 700, which also only just mentions the radio show.
On a more general note, one thought I had for cleaning up the larger trance-article-mess is that we could make this article more explicitly a Wikipedia:General_overview_article on "everything van Buuren does called A State of Trance" with better-organized sections for breaking down the related albums and live performances, and merge in here all the low-quality articles with less chance of independently meeting notability, perhaps just as one line. (I'm not too familiar with editing music articles—I see pages all the time that are basically just detailed discographies and tracklists, but that doesn't mean they're a good idea. Is there a broad consensus on that in general?) Metadox ( talk) 21:22, 27 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. samtar ( msg) 08:03, 27 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep simply because I found links at Books, News and Highbeam to suggest this has gotten attention but have more in local media thus may need familiar attention. SwisterTwister talk 06:26, 28 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: sources are available to sufficiently qualify for WP:RPRGM. -- Sam Sailor Talk! 07:23, 2 October 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Michig ( talk) 08:30, 2 October 2015 (UTC) reply

David Desmond

David Desmond (  | 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 evidence of general notability. Being related to a notable person does not make someone notable. Writing a book that won a vanity award does not make one notable. Writing occasionally cited studies does not necessarily make one notable. I couldn't find sources that meet WP:GNG. Examining the history shows that the article is almost certainly self-authored. -- Michael White T· C 01:23, 25 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:29, 28 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:29, 28 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:29, 28 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete for now and I wouldn't thinking moving to one of the articles would be best as it's an unlikely search and all my searches found was a few links at Books and Scholar. SwisterTwister talk 06:29, 28 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete agree WP:NOTINHERITED, no WP:RS, etc. – uncontroversial delete. Agricola44 ( talk) 15:47, 30 September 2015 (UTC). reply
  • Delete: lacks significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. -- Sam Sailor Talk! 07:12, 2 October 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. WP:NPASR. ( non-admin closure) sst ✈ 10:29, 2 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Zina Saunders

AfDs for this article:
Zina Saunders (  | 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 writer and illustrator , with no major works or awards. Refs are mostly local papers in a borough of NYC, which are never reliable sources DGG ( talk ) 23:25, 10 September 2015 (UTC) reply

  • Weak Keep I see numerous good sources (e.g. Mother Jones, The Nation) that credit her work and give at least passing mention that she is the author. There's also an in-depth review of her Mars Invades book on NPR. I think that is enough for WP:GNG. New Media Theorist ( talk) 02:53, 11 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Toffanin ( talk) 19:09, 11 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:50, 13 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:50, 13 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to Norman Saunders as a compromise as although my searches found results, none of them are better because they're included as it is or they're several links from motherjones; therefore, moving to her father's article saves it for any future work. SwisterTwister talk 05:37, 15 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ☮ JAaron95 Talk 15:06, 17 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 00:53, 25 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep How can someone who has repeatedly been hired by the likes of the Wall Street Journal, Smithsonian Magazine, Mother Jones, etc. for illustration work be non-notable? I count 14 Illustrations in the Wall Street Journal in just 8 months of 2015 so far [33] Has illustrated too many works to count. numerous comic book covers Dora the Explorer, Sponge Bob, Blue cartoons/books, been interviewed by Illustration Age, in addition to the sources already cited. She has won awards, 2008 commerical artisits] though the site is subscription. Steven Heller & Lita Talarico in their book Graphic: inside the sketchbooks of the world's great graphic designers list Saunders as one of those "great graphic designers". SusunW ( talk) 20:36, 25 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Comment She can only be notable based on the secondary sources, and they are weak. The fact she worked for so many great publications is of little import unless someone writes about her. New Media Theorist ( talk) 21:59, 25 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Comment, which is why I provided additional references from her peers. They do not have to be cited , only must be shown to exist. Granted, it could be stronger, but sources do exist. SusunW ( talk) 01:29, 26 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Comment She's an illustrator, not a fine artist. The GNG for creative people is written for fine artists. If we consider her illustrations in significant publications as her "body of work," she is certainly significant because she has a broad and important body of work through her publications. I just found her illustrating covers for Utne Reader and The Progressive. Megalibrarygirl ( talk) 02:22, 26 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep And now that I read over WP:GNG and other pages, some individuals can be considered notable without many sources at all, as long as notability is obvious, as seems the case here. Megalibrarygirl ( talk) 02:27, 26 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Comment The illustrations in the WSJ and other major publications are done under contract. She's an employee who is told what articles to illustrate, and it gets published in great publications. That is a lot different than a notable artist who independently comes up with an idea, creates the work, promotes it and succeeds in having it independently reviewed by secondary sources. So, I would argue that that contract work does not belong in the WP:ARTIST body of work category. However, she does have independent work, which has been reviewed by fairly weak sources, and that accounts for my weak Keep. Anyway, the article looks like it has enough support for keep! There are no delete votes other than the nominator's. New Media Theorist ( talk) 02:36, 26 September 2015 (UTC) reply

, there's half of your signature after the relist. Apologies if I am responsible for messing up the formatting, and feel free to delete this comment once it's fixed. New Media Theorist ( talk) 02:44, 26 September 2015 (UTC) - fixed:) Coolabahapple ( talk) 13:10, 28 September 2015 (UTC) reply

  • Comment/Question Can the editors who are saying keep for this article please show me the appropriate references? all I am seeing in the article are sources that say who shes worked for and some very local ones. Where are the notable reviews of her work, exhibitions of her work? Coolabahapple ( talk) 13:28, 28 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Coolabahapple she is an illustrator, not a fine artist. (Think Norman Rockwell or Alberto Vargas not Michelangelo or Pablo Picasso.) Exhibitions of her work appear in published sources. Those abound in notable works. Look above. Illustration Age, a professional resource for illustrators did an hour and a half interview with her (okay the first 15 minutes is not with her). Not likely they would have spent the time were she not notable. In addition she was included in the book above noted and labeled as one of the great illustrators. Reviews of the book [34] in which she is called one of the "great designers" have been reviewed by Inkblot and the Atlantic as one of the best analysis of designers in the field. SusunW ( talk) 17:55, 29 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Thanks SusunW for the explanation, Saunders certainly appears very close to the big N:). Sorry for being a pain, but looking at WP:CREATIVE -
1.The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors. Is she?
2.The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique. Has she?
3.The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. Has it?
4.The person's work (or works) either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums. Is it?
The Book cited above, Graphics looks impressive but does this mean that all the designers listed should have their own wikiarticle (point 3. above may apply)?
As for appearing in notable publications, sorry going way off mark, should all the illustrators (sorry, I'm thinking cartoonists/satirists and others) who have appeared in Punch, The Illustrated London News, The Bulletin, The New Yorker have their own articles (room begins to empty as Media wikiproject members quietly leave:)))? Coolabahapple ( talk) 07:39, 30 September 2015 (UTC) reply
I have explained why she meets GNG and she doesn't have to meet any other criteria. "People who meet the basic criteria may be considered notable without meeting the additional criteria below". And in answer to your last query, yes if they meet GNG. SusunW ( talk) 13:20, 30 September 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. SOFTDELETE per low participation herein. North America 1000 07:49, 2 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Baghochi Mahaz

Baghochi Mahaz (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

My searches found nothing good at all and, granted this is a foreign subject so sources aren't expected to be easily available and English, but this has stayed the same since September 2007 and I'm not seeing any obvious improvement. Pinging past editors MatthewVanitas, Gilliam, Charles Matthews and Closedmouth. SwisterTwister talk 22:27, 10 September 2015 (UTC) reply

  • Delete May be truthful as far as it goes, but very hard to document. Baghochi looks like folk etymology (Pali?). Charles Matthews ( talk) 05:52, 11 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 22:29, 10 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 22:29, 10 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 22:29, 10 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 22:29, 10 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ☮ JAaron95 Talk 15:06, 17 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 00:52, 25 September 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. I'm closing this as delete. The article is essentially the story of ambassador Reich's attempts to sue the subject and other people in the United States for allegedly illegal business practices in Venezuela. There are other sources that have shown up in the article from time to time, but the all center around this. When stripped out, as they are currently, there is little to support notability. Thus, we a have ONEEVENT/BLPCRIME case that properly should be deleted. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 11:50, 3 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Francisco D'Agostino

AfDs for this article:
Francisco D'Agostino (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This has been closed as "no consensus" not so long ago, but a new source has appeared in the meanwhile which casts doubt on the factual accuracy of the info, and the notability of the subject. Per the official register of Derwick Associates the subject is not a partner or director of this company. The claim was made by a party who brought a lawsuit against Derwick which was dismissed by the judge. Thus we stand here empty-handed. No info, no sources, many false claims and no notability. The subject fails WP:GNG and mentioning the lawsuits and connecting him to the accused company violates WP:BLPCRIME. Kraxler ( talk) 20:57, 10 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 21:46, 10 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Venezuela-related deletion discussions. Toffanin ( talk) 17:36, 11 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Not sure how the meatpuppets keep winning this one, when there is unmistakeable proof Derwick has been paying for edits on Wikipedia. The lawsuits are not over. One was dismissed only because of jurisdiction. There are still ongoing RICO & bribery suits that have not been dismissed, of which D'Agostino is named. Since the court depositions are primary sources they cant be included here. But it does show why these persons want to distance themselves from Derwick through their PR aid. Anyways, here is another source illustrating D'Agostino's place at Derwick: ( http://www.dailybusinessreview.com/id=1202736761233/One-Lawyers-Take-American-Courts-not-the-Place-for-Spats-Between-Foreigners-Judge-Agrees-in-This-Case?slreturn=20150814232615) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Righteousskills ( talk • contribs) User:Righteousskills is the creator of this article. Disclosure added per WP:AFDFORMAT

This was already the second dismissed case. The article is behind a pay-wall, so I can see only the headline and first sentence. Who are "the meatpuppets" you are referring to? Kraxler ( talk) 17:02, 15 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ☮ JAaron95 Talk 15:07, 17 September 2015 (UTC) reply

DELETE-- - It is hard to understand how this biography of a living person is still on Wikipedia considering all the WP policy that it seems to be in violation of. On this page /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Summary_deletion.2C_creation_prevention.2C_and_courtesy_blanking note the following:

"Poorly sourced biographical articles of unknown, non-public figures, where the discussions have no editor opposing the deletion, may be deleted after discussions have been completed. If a deletion discussion of any biographical article (of whether a well known or less known individual) has received few or no comments from any editor besides the nominator, the discussion may be closed at the closer's discretion and best judgment."


There seems to be only one editor who wants to see this article remain on Wikipedia, and it seems like he/she may have a COI here. There is also the fact that the article is supported by only 1 source. Every other “fact” on the article cannot be sourced. Doesn’t this fail the notability test? Look here: /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Notability_%28people%29#Any_biography Neither of these criteria have been met in this article.

"If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability.[7] Primary sources may be used to support content in an article, but they do not contribute toward proving the notability of a subject."

On the same page there is a discussion about crime victims and perpetrators:

"A person who is known only in connection with a criminal event or trial should not normally be the subject of a separate Wikipedia article if there is an existing article that could incorporate the available encyclopedic material relating to that person.

Where there is such an existing article, it may be appropriate to create a sub-article, but only if this is necessitated by considerations of article size. Where there are no appropriate existing articles, the criminal or victim in question should be the subject of a Wikipedia article only if one of the following applies:

For perpetrators

1. The victim of the crime is a renowned national or international figure, including, but not limited to, politicians or celebrities.[10]

2. The motivation for the crime or the execution of the crime is unusual—or has otherwise been considered noteworthy—such that it is a well-documented historic event. Generally, historic significance is indicated by sustained coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources which persists beyond contemporaneous news coverage and devotes significant attention to the individual's role.[11]

o Note: A living person accused of a crime is presumed not guilty unless and until this is decided by a court of law. Editors must give serious consideration to not creating an article on an alleged perpetrator when no conviction is yet secured.

Neither of those above criteria apply here, and D'Agostino has NOT been convicted of a crime.

Please wiki editors—this is the third nomination to delete this article. It was successfully deleted after the first discussion, and then resurrected by Righteousskills who was also the creator of this article. Perhaps he is the real “meat puppet” here with an ulterior motive to defame D'Agostino.

If there is so much “unmistakeable proof Derwick has been paying for edits on Wikipedia” then let’s see those proofs. There is not even proof by a reliable third party source that D’Agostino went to Boston College, has a BS in Economics, or just about any other fact written about him on this wiki. The only reason Righteousskills wants this wiki published is to shine a light on D’Agostino’s alleged criminal activities, despite the undisputed fact that the case against him was dismissed TWICE in courts of law. Really, please take down this non-article, it violates several Wiki policies, and this discussion has become a waste of time and resources. Pangera ( talk) 11:16, 24 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 00:51, 25 September 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  Sandstein  19:48, 3 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Systech It Solutions

Systech It Solutions (  | 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 search for sources only results in press releases or sites which are affiliated with the company. The company claims that it has a number of accreditations and "awards", as well as partnerships with notable companies, although I'm not sure if these are enough to establish notability. Note that the award that the company is sponsoring does not have an article at this time. Narutolovehinata5 t c csd new 12:52, 10 September 2015 (UTC) reply

I have since added references from partner websites which support the claims regarding partnerships with the company. Sophieottaway —Preceding undated comment added 13:39, 10 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Just because the company may have partnerships with notable companies does not necessarily mean the company is notable. The article must stand on its own merits. Notability is not inherited. Narutolovehinata5 t c csd new 13:44, 10 September 2015 (UTC) reply

The owner of the company has been nominated as Young IT Professional of the Year 2015 by the British Computing Society. This company is his only project and the main reason for his nomination for the award. I have added this information to the article. The company has also received Microsoft Gold Partnership status, which is held by only 1% of companies across the world. I hope this addresses some of your concerns. Sophieottaway —Preceding undated comment added 14:19, 10 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Toffanin ( talk) 20:58, 10 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Toffanin ( talk) 20:58, 10 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Toffanin ( talk) 20:58, 10 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:22, 13 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:22, 13 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as although my searches found results at News, Books and Google browser, there wasn't anything to suggest better improvement. SwisterTwister talk 08:02, 13 September 2015 (UTC) reply

The company is hosting a Microsoft Event on Windows 10 in Hull with Microsoft, from my research this has not been done before. http://www.hull.co.uk/news.asp?PageID=74&MediaCategoryID=3&NewsID=5377&MediaType=news http://www.commerce-industry.co.uk/2015/09/07/top-it-talent-announce-unique-training-opportunity-for-local-businesses/

Also recently Awarded KEMP Centre which means they are the fourth IT Company in the UK to have this status. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.64.201.67 ( talk) 22:09, 16 September 2015 (UTC) reply

That may be but what this article is better coverage (preferably third-party such as News and magazine and not self-generated such as PR). This can be drafted and userfied to userspace in the meantime though. SwisterTwister talk 23:14, 16 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ☮ JAaron95 Talk 15:08, 17 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 00:49, 25 September 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The company was found in local papers as small business of the year and the Managing Director has been mentioned as one of the rising stars in technology ? would this not justify existence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.31.61.206 ( talk) 20:45, 15 October 2015 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. North America 1000 07:48, 2 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Mandragore (band)

Mandragore (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)

Non-notable band. One self-released EP that has received a few reviews in some blogs, but no evidence of any significant coverage. WikiDan61 ChatMe! ReadMe!! 12:44, 10 September 2015 (UTC) reply

  • Delete. No history of significant coverage in reliable sources to meet WP:GNG, plus failing to meet WP:BAND. — C.Fred ( talk) 18:09, 10 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Toffanin ( talk) 21:00, 10 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. Toffanin ( talk) 21:00, 10 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ☮ JAaron95 Talk 15:08, 17 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 00:48, 25 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. I'm not seeing how this passes WP:MUSBIO with the current citations.--Surv1v4l1st ( Talk| Contribs) 02:02, 25 September 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Courcelles ( talk) 15:35, 2 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Francesco Rossi (DJ and producer)

Francesco Rossi (DJ and producer) (  | 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 written by WP:SPA (with connections to other recently deleted non-notable music articles). No non-trivial reliable sources cited. Entirely sourced to primary sources including YouTube. Guy ( Help!) 09:51, 10 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR ( talk) 10:10, 10 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR ( talk) 10:10, 10 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR ( talk) 10:10, 10 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete From the article: "In September 2013, Rossi won the 2013 DJ Awards". No, he didn't. See List of DJ Awards winners and nominees#2013. There are nine winners in different categories and he's not one of them. He did get a special award for Best Track of the Season, but that's all. After dealing with the resume inflation, we seem to be below the threshold for WP:MUSIC. John Nagle ( talk) 19:37, 10 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ☮ JAaron95 Talk 15:09, 17 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 00:47, 25 September 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete-- Ymblanter ( talk) 07:45, 2 October 2015 (UTC) reply

IDAMS

IDAMS (  | 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 software. No independent sources in the article and nothing obvious in google. PROD removed with an argument that appeared to be that notability was inherited from UNESCO. Stuartyeates ( talk) 08:57, 10 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR ( talk) 10:05, 10 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ☮ JAaron95 Talk 15:09, 17 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 00:41, 25 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete No non-trivial coverage found. Rwxrwxrwx ( talk) 19:13, 25 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete simply having a software program available on a site does not really provide notability, unless it is the subject of instruction at major universities or widely used in school systems. The essay, not a guideline, at Wikipedia:Notability_(software) can be instructive. Here, we do not have significant coverage. -- Bejnar ( talk) 01:48, 26 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete likely unless this can be mentioned further at another article such UNESCO and I found some Books links as well as browser and Scholar but maybe nothing for better improvement. SwisterTwister talk 06:35, 28 September 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to List of geological features on Ceres. ( non-admin closure) sst ✈ 10:23, 2 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Fejokoo (crater)

Fejokoo (crater) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · (crater))
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Because we don't need an article about every crater in the known universe. Geogene ( talk) 02:01, 10 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete As per the spirit of WP:DWMP, whereby it is understood that we don't need an article about every tiny rock circling the Sun, we also don't need an article about every crater on every small planet. What is notable about Fejokoo? No sources are cited. Isambard Kingdom ( talk) 06:28, 10 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 05:40, 10 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Fejokoo isn't near the mountain, it's in a different hemisphere. That the page contained an image that misidentified this crater reinforces my point. Geogene ( talk) 17:22, 10 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to List of geological features on Ceres - News returns 3 hits, all mere mentions, even though other craters (in 2 of the articles), are gone into in slightly more depth. Scholar also had a single mention. Books had nothing, and neither did JSTOR. Onel5969 TT me 13:09, 17 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ☮ JAaron95 Talk 15:20, 17 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 00:37, 25 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: Fejokoo is used as the name for a quadrangle in mapping the world Ceres. Jonathunder ( talk) 19:16, 30 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Which would fall under "no inherited notability", if only the quadrangle were itself notable. Geogene ( talk) 19:35, 30 September 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete-- Ymblanter ( talk) 07:39, 2 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Moonshot (magazine)

Moonshot (magazine) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Ephemeral magazine, no in-depth independent reliable sources. Does not meet WP:GNG. Randykitty ( talk) 21:35, 17 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:11, 20 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:11, 20 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:11, 20 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Unfortunately delete as it was short-lived and localized so that affects the chances of sources especially good ones and I found nothing particularly good with this being the best. SwisterTwister talk 06:12, 20 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 00:35, 25 September 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2015_September_25&oldid=1142624077"