Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 November 12

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 11 November	13 November >

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 Speedy keep. Nominator has withdrawn, and there are no other delete votes. (non-admin closure) NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:37, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Historic Districts Council

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

This article does not seem to have any reliable secondary sources to support its notability. Its only sources, before I removed them, were to a phishing site. A few reliable sources mention this organization in passing, but this is mainly set up like an advertisement for the organization. epic genius (talk) 17:23, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. epic genius (talk) 17:26, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Blatantly non-neutral, no significant coverage found by a quick GBooks search. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 17:29, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:08, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:08, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- This sounds as if it may be a significant campaigning organisation. No Gbooks source is likely to be available, but what about newspapers? Peterkingiron (talk) 12:04, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - seems like a significant organization by mentions alone, even if the sourcing isn't there yet. —Swpb^talk 20:55, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - News turned up dozens of brief mentions, of the type which would indicate it passes WP:BASIC, from the Village Voice to Politico, to the New York Times to the Wall Street Journal. The Brooklyn Daily Eagle had a nice little article about a lawsuit the group filed to save E.A. Poe's house from destruction. There's a very nice mention, found on Books, at HERE, in which the organization is interwoven into several pages (as their acronym HDC). Again, quite a few significant mentions of the organization showing its importance to the historical preservation of NYC, as exhibited by this type of reference, albeit brief, shows the significance of the org. They are apparently covered in detail in a book about the Poe house controversy: NYU's Legal Agreement: The Inside Story. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:40, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 23:52, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 23:52, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I find plenty of significant coverage in independent, reliable sources both via Google Books, Highbeam, and Newspaper Archive, subject easily meets WP:CORPDEPTH. A selection of book sources.^[1]

^[2] ^[3] ^[4] ^[5] ^[6] ^[7] ^[8] ^[9] ^[10] ^[11] ^[12] ^[13] ^[14] ^[15] ^[16] ^[17] ^[18] ^[12] ^[19] ^[20] ^[21] ^[22] ^[23] ^[24] ^[11] ^[25] ^[26] ^[27] ^[28] ^[29] ^[30]

References

^ Marc Denhez; Stephen Dennis (1 July 1997). Legal & Financial Aspects of Architectural Conservation: The Smolenice Castle Conference Central Europe. Dundurn. pp. 112–. ISBN 978-1-55488-207-6. Another such organization is the Historic Districts Council, which helps property owners in historic districts understand the Commission's process. It also monitors work — the Commission sometimes gets calls saying "There's work going on ...
^ William Edgar Schmickle (2007). The Politics of Historic Districts: A Primer for Grassroots Preservation. Rowman Altamira. pp. 162–. ISBN 978-0-7591-0756-4. New York City's Historic Districts Council calls itself "The Voice for Your Neighborhood." Designation also requires every federal agency, under Section I06 of the Historic Preservation Act of 1966, to take into account how any federally funded ...
^ Michael A. Tomlan (21 November 2014). Historic Preservation: Caring for Our Expanding Legacy. Springer. pp. 276–. ISBN 978-3-319-04975-5. Assuming the historic preservation organization is as deeply concerned as it should be in the political process, it will sponsor public forums during election periods. For example, New York City's Historic Districts Council hosts forums, provides ...
^ Fulton Street Transit Center, New York, New York, Section 4(f) Evaluation: Environmental Impact Statement. 2004. pp. 92–. The ElS should include a detailed analysis of potential adverse impacts to historic resource including demolition, new shadows ... The Historic Districts Council (HDC) promotes worthy neighborhoods for designation as a New York City historic ...
^ Preserving the Future: Historic Districts in New York City and Chicago in the Late 20th Century. ProQuest. 2007. pp. 284–. ISBN 978-0-549-39201-9.
^ Ned Kaufman (11 September 2009). Place, Race, and Story: Essays on the Past and Future of Historic Preservation. Routledge. pp. 229–. ISBN 978-1-135-88972-2. In 2004, the Historic Districts Council, a leading preservation group, dedicated its annual conference to "Cultural Landmarks: Controversy, Practice and Prospects." In 2008, the organizers of a conference at the Museum of the City of New York ...
^ Judith N. DeSena; Timothy Shortell (2012). The World in Brooklyn: Gentrification, Immigration, and Ethnic Politics in a Global City. Lexington Books. pp. 176–. ISBN 978-0-7391-6670-3. ... the Furman Center for Real Estate and Urban Policy at New York University found that only between 2002 and 2005, nearly ... the New York Landmarks Conservancy, the Historic Districts Council, Coney Island USA and Save Coney Island.
^ New York Media, LLC (21 July 1986). New York Magazine. New York Media, LLC. pp. 11–. A source close to the city's Public Development Corporation has told New York that only two of the four finalists in the competition ... The New York Landmarks Conservancy, the Municipal Arts Society, and the Historic Districts Council claim the ...
^ Jerilou Hammett; Maggie Wrigley (1 November 2013). The Architecture of Change: Building a Better World. UNM Press. pp. 242–. ISBN 978-0-8263-5386-3. Place Matters co—sponsored a conference on cultural and historical landmarking with the Historic Districts Council, a private organization that has long advocated for New York's historic districts. One of the more interesting areas to win ...
^ New York Media, LLC (12 March 1990). New York Magazine. New York Media, LLC. pp. 104–. Stroll through the New York City Antique Tribal Arts and Native American Indian Arts Show and the Spring Pier Antiques Show. 3/10-1 1. ... S50-S300 . . . The New York City's Historic Districts Council is working to keep the best of our past.
^ ^a ^b Michael J. K. Walsh; Nicholas Coureas; Peter W. Edbury (2012). Medieval and Renaissance Famagusta: Studies in Architecture, Art and History. Ashgate Publishing, Ltd. pp. 23–. ISBN 978-1-4094-3557-0.
^ ^a ^b James G. Ferreri; David Goldfarb (2010). Stapleton. Arcadia Publishing. pp. 6–. ISBN 978-0-7385-7260-4. We would also like to acknowledge the efforts of the Mud Lane Society for the Renaissance of Stapleton, the Preservation League of Staten Island, and the Historic Districts Council of New York City for their efforts in obtaining a New York City ...
^ Designer, Builder. Vol. 11. Fine Additions, Incorporated. 2004. pp. 86–. In March, Place Matters co-sponsored a conference on cultural and historical landmarking with the Historic Districts Council, a private organization that ...
^ Metropolis. Vol. 7. Bellerophon Publications. January 1988. pp. 21–. ... it has to renew itself." In reply, Anthony C. Wood, president of the Historic Districts Council and a longtime advocate of preservation causes who has ... Omnia accessories are available thru leading distributors coast to coast. For the name of ..
^ Barbaralee Diamonstein-Spielvogel (1 September 2011). The Landmarks of New York, Fifth Edition: An Illustrated Record of the City's Historic Buildings. SUNY Press. pp. 5–. ISBN 978-1-4384-3771-2. ... due to the dedication of the New York City Landmarks Preservation Commission, Municipal Art Society, New York Landmarks Conservancy, Historic Districts Council, and the vigilant work of citizen activists and neighborhood associations.
^ Congressional Record, V. 148, PT. 1, January 23, 2002 to February 13, 2002. Government Printing Office. 1 May 2006. pp. 90–. GGKEY:KGWX5J2K340.
^ Jeff Byles (18 December 2007). Rubble: Unearthing the History of Demolition. Crown/Archetype. pp. 20–. ISBN 978-0-307-42154-8. ... due to bite the dust over the next decade. "We're living in a society," said David Goldfarb, president of New York City's Historic Districts Council, stating the glaringly obvious, "that wants to tear things down and throw everything away.
^ James M. Lindgren (18 April 2014). Preserving South Street Seaport: The Dream and Reality of a New York Urban Renewal District. NYU Press. pp. 285–. ISBN 978-1-4798-2257-7. Yet, after CB1 and the Historic Districts Council asked the LPC to landmark the New Market Building, the LPC denied the request in its first review in 2013. At the same time, the City Council decided, with the endorsement of Quinn and Chin, ...
^ Historic Preservation: Quarterly of the National Council for Historic Sites and Buildings. The Council. pp. 35–. ... and president of the Historic Districts Council, a citywide preservation group supporting designation of the Ladies' Mile. Because current zoning would require part of each lot to be left open, new buildings could gain little or no usable space.
^ Scott Sherman (23 June 2015). Patience and Fortitude: Power, Real Estate, and the Fight to Save a Public Library. Melville House. pp. 110–. ISBN 978-1-61219-430-1. Fortunately for Warren, one nonprofit organization with a broad ambit was in a combative mood: the Historic Districts Council (HDC), led by Simeon Bankoff, forty-four, a dyed-inthe-wool New Yorker and maverick. HDC, which is located in the ...
^ Virginia Savage McAlester (29 July 2015). A Field Guide to American Houses: The Definitive Guide to Identifying and Understanding America's Domestic Architecture. Knopf Doubleday Publishing Group. pp. 2725–. ISBN 978-0-385-35387-8.
^ Norval White; Elliot Willensky; Fran Leadon (11 May 2010). AIA Guide to New York City. Oxford University Press. pp. 603–. ISBN 978-0-19-975864-7.
^ New York Media, LLC (13 June 1994). New York Magazine. New York Media, LLC. pp. 11–. ISSN 0028-7369.
^ Charles Bloszies (2 July 2013). Old Buildings New Designs: Architectural Transformations. Princeton Architectural Press. pp. 115–. ISBN 978-1-61689-201-2. Simeon Bankoff, executive director of the Historic Districts Council, asserted, "We feel it's not an appropriate building. It does not respond to, respect, or even speak to its landmark base."
^ Anthony Wood (28 October 2013). Preserving New York: Winning the Right to Protect a City’s Landmarks. Taylor & Francis. pp. 15–. ISBN 978-1-136-76608-4. As with so many other preservation initiatives, it received early funding from the J. M. Kaplan Fund in the form of a grant to the project«s fiscal agent, the Historic Districts Council. The project«s efforts were sporadic at best in these early years.
^ Steven W. Kroeter (2003). Design New York 2004: the what where when reference guide to architecture, fashion, graphic design, interior design, and product design in New York city. Design Paradigm. pp. 57–. ISBN 978-0-9640304-3-5.
^ Rik Scarce (23 February 2015). Creating Sustainable Communities: Lessons from the Hudson River Region. SUNY Press. pp. 141–. ISBN 978-1-4384-5642-3. As an architect, design is very much on her mind, while as an advo‐cate—she was the first female president of New York's Historic Districts Council, which watches over thousands of older buildings throughout Manhattan—Bollack's emphasis ...
^ New York Media, LLC (30 March 1987). New York Magazine. New York Media, LLC. pp. 10–. ... high rollers to his Atlantic City casinos. point Tung because he believed that the panel should speak with "a single unified voice." Says Historic Districts Council president Anthony Wood, "We wanted Abrams to know how important Tung is.
^ Robert A. Alpern (1965). Pratt guide to planning and renewal for New Yorkers. Quadrangle. pp. xxiv–. Historic Districts Council c/o Municipal Art Society 41 East 65th Street New York City 10021 Advice to neighborhoods considering application to the Landmarks Preservation Commission for designation as an historic district on ...
^ Congressional Record, V. 147, Pt. 9, June 26, 2001 to July 16 2001. Government Printing Office. December 2005. pp. 13160–. ... York Landmarks Conservancy, the Historic Districts Council, and the Queensboro Preservation League, as well as the thousands of constituents who turn to this park as a resource for recreation opportunities every spring, summer, and fall.

Pinging nom and delete voter for their reconsideration (Epicgenius—Qwertyus). Sam Sailor ^Talk! 00:30, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to withdraw my nomination now. The subject is apparently marginally notable. Is there a way to do that? (However, I'm still seeing some advertorial-type writing on the page, which I am trying to clean up.) epic genius (talk) 01:30, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. WP:SNOW, WP:NPA Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 07:47, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

White Cross Army

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

Unexplained removal of PROD tag. Does not meet WP:NORG - "A company, corporation, organisation, school, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject. A single independent source is almost never sufficient for demonstrating the notability of an organisation". Delete AusLondonder (talk) 22:53, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per [1], [2] etc. and per [3] NYT coverage, [4] more NYT coverage, and even more NYT coverage if one looks. Not to mention over fifty book sources. This is a bit past "only one source" as far as I can tell, and I trust the nomination was not pointed at any editor in particular. Collect (talk) 23:05, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This is to my mind a clearly notable organisation have added another ref.... and more can be found. (Msrasnw (talk) 23:08, 12 November 2015 (UTC))[reply]

A small number of mentions does not make for notability. Where is the significant coverage? AusLondonder (talk) 23:12, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Usually when The New York Times covers an organization multiple times, it is considered significant coverage by a major reliable source. If you wish to demur that the NYT meets WP:RS I suggest you ask at WP:RS/N. Collect (talk) 23:16, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment For those wondering how, instantaneously, editors are out defending this organisation (and not the many others at AFD) - Eric Corbett was the creator. The Corbett Defence League is out in force again. AusLondonder (talk) 23:12, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Effing Bosh and Twaddle I have no connection whatsoever with Mr. Corbett, and you aspersions do not belong on any talk page whatsoever on Wikipedia. I suggest you strike your aspersions forthwith. Collect (talk) 23:13, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- User:Collect - then how did you get here so quickly and why did you state "I trust the nomination was not pointed at any editor in particular". Also, I was referring especially to the editor who removed the PROD without comment within seconds AusLondonder (talk) 23:31, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Um - perhaps you did not know my Watchlist is now about 4,500 pages in size? After removing several thousand entries. That is how I got here "so quickly." I had noted posts at UT:JW and other places, especially where a large number of AfDs were recently made for women who actually meet GNG. I have no idea who dePRODded the page, nor does it make a whit of difference to this discussion. The organization clearly meets Wikipedia guidelines as being notable. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:39, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Definitely a Keeper: A simple GBooks search yields multiple RS page after page. And please let's not politicise this AfD, any further than it already is, by attaching blame to the keep votes based on alleged connections to Eric. The RS speak for themselves. No need for ad-Eric arguments. Dr. K. 23:38, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are almost 400 articles in the British Newspaper Archive about this organisation, many of which appear to be reports of meetings around the UK. Unfortunately my subscription has just run out so I can't read them. If you post a proposed deletion notice on a talk page that has attracted over 9,000 hits in the last month it's not surprising if it attracts some interest. Perhaps the proposer should read the sentence in the template they posted above about assuming good faith. Richerman (talk) 00:21, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Talking about the template, I'm still waiting for the SPAs and the external website referrals. Not to mention the brand-new accounts who need guidance how to sign their posts. Dr. K. 01:30, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In any recent AFD I have participated in I have not seen such interest. Let's not pretend this is not related to Eric Corbett. User:Dr.K. the template is not just about external referrals and sock puppets and it is plainly dishonest to suggest it is. AusLondonder (talk) 01:40, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But that's exactly what your template says. You mean you were not honest when you added it to this AfD? Sorry to hear that. I took you at your word. Dr. K. 01:43, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Right, so you literally cannot read? Or do you just enjoy making people explain things to you? Perhaps explains why you support keeping this article. However, the template says "If you came here because someone asked you to...please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. They are the points I emphasise. AusLondonder (talk) 01:48, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No need to become so belligerent. These things you bolded do not apply to me in any way, shape or form. Neither does the other nonsense about external websites or newbie SPAs. What applies here however is your WP:SNOW AfD recklessness which is exacerbated by your refusal to understand how badly wrong you were and to withdraw this spurious AfD. Further, you post this notice on one of the most watched user talk pages on Wikipedia and then you try to play ignorant why people come in droves to support this SNOW-keep article? Please find something more constructive to do here than attack editors trying to save this worthy article. Unlike your attacks against me, I assume you can read. Have you read what I wrote about Google Books searches? Why don't you try and do a GBooks search and see page after page of RS coverage? Did you read what I wrote in my keep !vote? Dr. K. 01:57, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You became belligerent first, writing sarcastically "You mean you were not honest when you added it to this AfD? Sorry to hear that. I took you at your word". I am not referring to sockpuppets, as I've already said. I have acted in good faith. No requirement exists to notify creators about AFD's. I did despite knowing Corbett's talkpage is highly watched (and he has quite a few strong supporters) AusLondonder (talk) 02:20, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Too bad if you thought my reply was "belligerent". It was a measured response to your crass insinuation: Let's not pretend this is not related to Eric Corbett. User:Dr.K. the template is not just about external referrals and sock puppets and it is plainly dishonest to suggest it is.. As far as Eric, please stop the ad-hominem, ad-Eric arguments. Please get used to it: This article easily passes GNG. Please do a GBooks search. And stop badgering the editors who !vote keep. It is the duty of each and every Wikipedian to support notable articles. Dr. K. 02:29, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Too bad if you thought my reply was "belligerent". I know you are keen to defend Eric "please stop the...ad-Eric arguments" but I didn't nominate if because of him. What you call badgering other editors call deletion discussions. Since you take your "duty" so seriously, how often do you participate in deletion discussions? AusLondonder (talk) 02:38, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I know you are keen to defend Eric Can you provide a diff to support this nonsense? I'll take care of your other nonsense when you address this point first. Dr. K. 02:42, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Diff AusLondonder (talk) 02:56, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So you think that when I said: As far as Eric, please stop the ad-hominem, ad-Eric arguments. Please get used to it: This article easily passes GNG. it was because I was keen to defend Eric. This is a gross misrepresentation. I responded this way because you continuously allege that editors came here because they are friends of Eric. Not because I am keen to defend Eric.. I quote your words from above: The Corbett Defence League is out in force again. Do you fail to see this is an ad-hominem, ad-Eric argument? Are you in denial or have you just forgotten? Dr. K. 03:02, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. AusLondonder (talk) 23:36, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. AusLondonder (talk) 23:38, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. AusLondonder (talk) 23:39, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. AusLondonder (talk) 23:41, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Perhaps this AFD should also be a warning to new article creators of the problems with creating basically unsourced crap articles (because you devote most of your time on Wikipedia to being a prick). Also, very few of these sources give "significant coverage" but don't let that worry anyone. Let's just scrap notability guidelines if they will be ignored en masse when it suits. AusLondonder (talk) 01:45, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per nearly all. Clearly notable. Johnbod (talk) 04:13, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
KeepThe article clearly doesn't meet the specified criteria for deletion; comments by the proposer ooze ill-will towards Eric Corbett and those who vote “keep” for an article that happens to have been created by him; and only a half-wit could fail to notice the timing here, considering that EC is the primary target in concurrent Arbcom shenanigans. This shabby AFD has all the credibility of a transparently vexatious litigation. Writegeist (talk) 04:55, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for proving my point, that Corbett has plenty of defenders and friends on this site. How he has got away with his battleground behaviour for so long is patently clear from this AFD. I was acting in good faith. AusLondonder (talk) 05:50, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All that’s been proved here is that six experienced editors (six — The Corbett Defense League out in force? Really?) see no merit in your nomination; rather, they have seen right through it. Here are two sentences you put together elsewhere (I mean, not on such as WO but here on WP) about a user other than EC; with two words changed, they aptly frame my view of what you’ve been up to here: I think you acted in bad faith and showed a serious lack of competence. I view it as worse coming from an experienced editor. Writegeist (talk) 06:37, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I was by now expecting the first waves of SPA accounts, newbies with no signing skills, and those referred to this AfD by external websites. But so far I see only veteran editors !voting keep. I really wonder about the usefulness of that template. Dr. K. 05:30, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've addressed this, so for you to make these smart arse comments shows you are not acting in good faith here. AusLondonder (talk) 05:50, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would consider withdrawing this nom. Again, however, I have always acted in good faith. I find the personal attacks on me non-constructive and rather telling. AusLondonder (talk) 05:51, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - First, I am here randomly, as in 99% of AfDs I comment on. Secondly, I'm probably a fool for getting involved considering all the personal attacks made here already. But, this does in fact appear to pass WP:GNG. VMS Mosaic (talk) 06:40, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Blatantly meets notability. I removed the PROD; AusLondonder, for your future reference there is no requirement for a reason for PROD removal to be given - read the template. Thank you. SagaciousPhil - Chat 06:45, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have also been attacked for removing PRODs. Removing a PROD means you object even if it is just because you object (of course removing them just to be disruptive is wrong). VMS Mosaic (talk) 07:37, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:19, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of The Ellen DeGeneres Show guests

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

The list is trivial. Koala15 (talk) 22:37, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete If there were sources supporting the content on the page, I'd consider changing my vote but because the trivial list is completely unsourced, I vote to delete. Meatsgains (talk) 22:50, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:08, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:08, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:08, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see how this is of more value than List of The Ellen DeGeneres Show episodes. The guests are listed according to show date, so a comprehensive list of who has been on the show doesn't seem valuable to me. If this exists, would there be a precedent to have one for The Tonight Show, The View, etc. I don't find this necessary, it could get redundant.Tangledupinbleu chs (talk) 00:52, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete its gonna be a super long list and how would a person source it? Stick with info in episodes list. Legacypac (talk) 04:56, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete These "list of long-lived talk show episode/guests" articles that go on for gigabytes need to seriously go (and those who create them find something much more useful to do here), but we have an episode list; this is duplicative. Nate • (chatter) 01:46, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
See related Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Rachael Ray guests, from the same article creator. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:40, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is potentially a very exhaustive article and can already see redundancies galore. Tyler mongrove (talk) 15:26, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. KTC (talk) 00:02, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nyoaka Squire

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

Previous PROD removed - Non notable author per WP:CREATIVE. Article is a possible WP:ADVERT for the web site. — Rod ^talk 20:19, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Gnews and Gbooks reveals not one hit. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:51, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable Legacypac (talk) 04:58, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 01:00, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Chikurubi Prison

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

The article is not notable (as per poor referencing), and has only a few incoming links. <<< SOME GADGET GEEK >>> (talk) 19:52, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, a notorious prison in Zimbabwe which has received media coverage because of its regime and notable prisoners. Yes it needs more sourcing, but it is notable enough to meet the criteria. I'm not convinced this isn't just a disruptive editor at work, particularly because of the poor reasoning for the nomination. This is Paul (talk) 20:03, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - lots of good quality media reports exist as to the notoriety of this prison. That they are not on the page just indicates that it needs improved refs. JMWt (talk) 20:42, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Quality sourcing demonstrates notability and notoriety of the prison. AusLondonder (talk) 23:33, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Needs expansion; appears to be notable with adequate source material including Highbeam.
SBaker43 (talk) 15:21, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. KTC (talk) 00:02, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kurt Holobaugh

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

Article was deleted in 2013 because he didn't meet WP:NMMA. He still doesn't. I thought bringing this to AFD was better than asking for a speedy delete. If he ever gets 3 top tier fights the article can be recreated.Mdtemp (talk) 19:41, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 20:24, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I did send this for Db-Repost but it was declined on the grounds that it was two years ago and there was some claim to a notable title. Not sure I agree with the rational but you could argue the article is different enough from the original deleted version. The subject has had only two top tier fights, both losses and over two years ago and there is no indication he will be given a third. Does not meet WP:NMMA.Peter Rehse (talk) 20:37, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't meet WP:NMMA and the coverage consists on routine reporting of results so WP:GNG is not met. Papaursa (talk) 02:41, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. KTC (talk) 00:03, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mixed boxing

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

Article has been tagged since 2006. There's no indication of notability or significant coverage. Article seems to consist of a lot of original research.Mdtemp (talk) 19:31, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 20:24, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fringe topic of no indication of notability - mostly original research.Peter Rehse (talk) 20:40, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lots of things might exist, but this one is not notable. Bearian (talk) 17:54, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lots of unsourced claims, but zero significant independent coverage. Papaursa (talk) 02:40, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. KTC (talk) 00:03, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mladen Kujundžić

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

Not notable as either an MMA fighter or kickboxer. As an MMA fighter he has not yet had any top tier fights. As a kickboxer he doesn't meet any of the criteria at WP:KICK. Mdtemp (talk) 19:19, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 20:23, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nominator.Peter Rehse (talk) 20:43, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He doesn't meet WP:KICK or WP:NMMA. The only coverage I could find was routine sports reporting so I'd say he also doesn't meet WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 02:38, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. KTC (talk) 00:03, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kwanmudo

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

Non notable martial art that someone made up by combining existing styles. The article has no independent coverage at all. Fails both WP:GNG and WP:MANOTE. Mdtemp (talk) 19:13, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 20:22, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication of notability with a single primary source. Peter Rehse (talk) 20:45, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I could find no significant independent coverage of this style or anything to show it meets WP:MANOTE. Papaursa (talk) 02:36, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. KTC (talk) 00:04, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Magsayo

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

Boxer who fails to meet WP:NBOX since youth titles do not prove notability and the only coverage is routine sports reporting. Article appears to have been created WP:TOOSOON. Mdtemp (talk) 19:09, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable. Delete it.--DThomsen8 (talk) 19:29, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 20:25, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nomination - does not meet WP:NBOX.Peter Rehse (talk) 20:31, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't meet WP:NBOX or WP:GNG. Coverage is routine and youth titles do not show notability. Papaursa (talk) 02:44, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. KTC (talk) 00:04, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Marco Lo Russo

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

Purely promotional bio lacking evidence of notability. Some particularly awkward features are the mention that the subject has been awarded the "Nobel prize for best soundtrack" (!) and the "fake" sources removed here. (They are not sources, but simply links to the homepages of institutions Lo Russo is claimed to have attended.) The article was blp-prodded for having no sources a few hours after creation in August 2014. The creator then added a bunch of sources, none of them what I would call reliable nor secondary, and removed the prod. A sadly unattended AfD was filed by Piotrus a couple of days later, with no community input whatsoever, so it was closed as "no consensus". Of the four sources remaining today, three are from www.marcolorusso.com. Note also that the article has been deleted ten times on Italian wikipedia, for promotion, copyvio, recreation after being deleted per community discussion, etc.[5] Ten times. When I saw that, I was tempted to speedy this English version per IAR, but, well, since it was once prodded, I suppose not. I hope it won't fall through the cracks for lack of interest again. Please discuss. Bishonen | talk 19:05, 12 November 2015 (UTC). Bishonen | talk 19:05, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to me this needs further investigation, preferably by someone who reads Italian. On the face of it, the page has a lot of claims with no good quality references to prove them. But.. if all of these claims stand up, I think it is fair to describe the subject as being notable. The puzzling part is that some of these seem to me to be things that one would expect to find a mention of in a secondary source, so rather than having the page deleted multiple times on it.wiki, I wonder why the previous editors (both here and at it.wiki) did not work on improving at least some of the references for the claims.

I speak no Italian, however it does appear that versions of these achievements are recorded in various places (such as festival blubs) like here. I have no idea whether the artist has submitted this themselves or whether any checks are made, but it does make me wonder whether there are actually some decent references out there.

It seems to me that he has not written/edited the interviews himself and they appear genuine, hence they meet the criteria for sections 1 and 4 of WP:MUSICBIO. If refs could be found for the claims, the page also would appear to have grounds for sections 6, 9 and 10 of WP:MUSICBIO.

As it stands, it seems to me to be basically impossible to tell whether this is accurate information but poorly referenced or simply delusional self-promotion. JMWt (talk) 21:05, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Right, good points. Well, we have two Italian speakers below (Giano and Alex2006). Bishonen | talk 10:25, 13 November 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Delete No doubt a talented musician, but then so am I and nobody wants to listen to me. Not notable. Giano (talk) 22:28, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per above. Moreover, I asked an admin on wiki:it about it, and he told me that the article on wiki:it was canceled 10 times and had 204 canceled edits. The deletion logs explain ad abundantiam why it was canceled, and I cannot imagine that users and admins in his homeland can be less smart than us in deciding about its notability. Here the article could survive until now only because it went unnoticed. moreover, the overall tone of the article sounds pretty delusional to me. This guy is also steadily trying to insert himself at wiki:it als "notable citizen" of Sermoneta, the tiny central Italian village where he apparently lives, and also there he is steadily reverted. Alex2006 (talk) 06:07, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Thank you, Bishonen, from shining light again on this vanity/promo entry. I stand by my original conclusion that this fails WP:MUSICBIO. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:23, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mkdw ^talk 23:17, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Brad Thornton

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

BLP whose only current references from subject's own web page and IMDb. Interesting career track, and there's enough film work here to dissuade me from tagging it for an WP:A7 speedy, but I didn't find enough for him to pass notability standards for any of the particular aspects of his career (WP:NACTOR, WP:DIRECTOR, WP:MANOTE, or as an attorney), or in general per WP:GNG. Casting the delsort net far and wide, though, in case I'm wrong --Finngall ^talk 17:06, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. --Finngall ^talk 17:06, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. --Finngall ^talk 17:06, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. --Finngall ^talk 17:06, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. --Finngall ^talk 17:06, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. --Finngall ^talk 17:06, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is no significant coverage to show he meets WP:GNG. No supporting evidence is given by any reliable sources that he's notable as an actor, attorney, or martial artist. Papaursa (talk) 19:52, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 17:42, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If only some of those claims could be supported through RS I might have some pause but I have to agree with the above.Peter Rehse (talk) 17:49, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete You tube videos and autobiographical writings do not show notability. Doesn't meet any SNG and lacks the signficiant independent coverage to meet GNG.Mdtemp (talk) 18:52, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Essentially unsourced BLP. Bishonen | talk 19:26, 12 November 2015 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 01:01, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FOREO

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

Article is promotional and most references are more or less advertisements for the company's products. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:37, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as unambiguous advertising. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 17:31, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 18:59, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 18:59, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 19:00, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (and do a WP:NPOV cleanup and stub it) Quicky search turned up enough possible refs from indy sources like SF chronicle, UK Independent, idigitaltimes, forbes [6] to make good claim to notability. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 19:06, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:10, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:10, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 17:41, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep only if it can actually be better improved but if not, delete for now until a better article can be made and the latter may actually be better (deleting for now). SwisterTwister talk 20:44, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - afd is not a clean-up service. nor is it a tool to request expansion of article, as it is a notable subject.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:32, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Article has sense been cleaned from promotional content. There was no need for an AFD if someone had cleaned up the content. Adog104 ^{Talk to me} 03:37, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:20, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Afif Chaya

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

fails WP:GNG —OluwaCurtis »» (talk to me) 17:22, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - At least for now. There is nothing in English I can find to establish notability. I left a message on the project page for Lebanon and hopefully they can provide some direction. If not, there simply are not any sources to show notability. --CNMall41 (talk) 17:38, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:54, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If you're using Google's Chrome browser it automatically translates the Arabic refs. If you're not, simply copypaste the links into Google Translate. English refs are not required, of course, and he seems to be a highly notable figure in Lebanese cinema. The refs do meet WP:GNG. 19:03, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:05, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Very aware. Also aware that non-English references can be used which is why I pinged the project. Can you tell me which of the references from the Arabic version are considered reliable sources; or, which ones amount to significant coverage? To me they all show he exists, but do not amount to anything more than IMDb type references. Notability still requires significant coverage in reliable sources. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:38, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Refs 3/4, 5 and 6 seems like WP:RS to me. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:45, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And the depth? The one doesn't even mention his name, just has a picture. How does this suffice? These in no way meet any type of significant coverage, even if we can assume the source are reliable. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:55, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, if you're referring to 3/4, the one with the big picture, it does mention him by name, rather prominently, both in the headline and body copy. It doesn't auto translate, for some reason, on my browser -- but I pasted the link into Google Translate. Again, I think the coverage is sufficient. We both understand we're dealing with Arabic media where finding refs is tricky for us. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:02, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have to respectfully disagree. If those references were in English reliable sources they would not even be close to establishing notability based on their depth. Like you say, it may "mention," but mentions are not enough to establish notability. --CNMall41 (talk) 22:03, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, okay, but one of them is the equivalent of a full page article on him. We'll see. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:18, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, again let's assume. All sources will be assumed reliable and "one" will be assumed to be in depth. That gives us "one" which still does not meet the requirements of WP:GNG. And, that's still under the assumption that the sources are reliable and the one can be considered in depth. --CNMall41 (talk) 22:44, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now unless it can actually be better improved. SwisterTwister talk 08:28, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If these references aren't enough I can search more Arabic references.--Ammar Alwaeli (talk) 08:31, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Anmar. I can only speak for me, but additional references is something I would like to see. You state to keep the article, but since AfD is note a !vote count, can you provide your rationale for keeping the article? --CNMall41 (talk) 18:17, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think it would help the article a lot if it said something more substantive about the subject in the body of the text.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:51, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. KTC (talk) 00:05, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

M G Leonard

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

As yet unpublished children's author. Clearly has a hot agent but I do not think that makes her notable. TheLongTone (talk) 15:53, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Delete - Fails WP:GNG Sources I can find are all social media or press release; selling an individual book does not qualify for WP:NAUTHOR - way WP:TOOSOON Scr★pIron^IV 16:16, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree entirely, no better improvement. SwisterTwister talk 20:49, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Doesn't appear to be notable. Will happily !vote the other way in a year's time if she has an international best seller :) Thparkth (talk) 08:33, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. with no prejudice to re-creation in 2016 after it has been published and reviewed, if the book does in fact become important--but at that point perhaps the article should be on the book, as it is a first novel and there is no other notability . DGG ( talk ) 00:31, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. KTC (talk) 00:05, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Steve America

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

Biography of a person who does not appear to meet notability criteria. As a musician he doesn't meet WP:MUSICBIO, and as a wrestler he doesn't seem to meet WP:ATHLETE - there are no specific criteria for wrestlers, but professional wrestling is apparently covered by WP:ENT which he also doesn't meet. As for general notability, there are a few sources from local newspapers, which does not constitute significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. bonadea contributions talk 15:32, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 16:13, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 16:13, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 16:13, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The Valley article is really good, but it is local. There is nothing I find outside of that which would establish notability. Looks like an interesting guy, but fails WP:GNG.
Delete - Simply nothing better. SwisterTwister talk 08:33, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Clearly fails WP:GNG. No significant coverage. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 18:09, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete as WP:G4.The sources added do not address the grounds for the previous deletion. Just Chilling (talk) 04:19, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fountain of Tears

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

Sources are no way good enough to establish notability. TheLongTone (talk) 15:31, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as stand-alone article, not notable at this time. Kierzek (talk) 15:32, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:11, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:11, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know that we need to have another discussion as this was deleted at Afd just last year. I've tagged it for speedy deletion. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:15, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and concur with speedy deletion. Thparkth (talk) 18:54, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. KTC (talk) 00:06, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WISeKey

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

This article is large copy-and-pasted from the company's own website, and it basically reads like an advertisement. It does not appear to establish why the company is notable. A look at the edit history indicates that it may have been largely created by someone with a connection to the company's CEO. A search of Google News does turn up several results, but they all look like puffery to me and not references that would establish this as a notable corporation. Shritwod (talk) 14:49, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 16:35, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 16:35, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as unambiguous advertising. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 17:38, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 15:30, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, a promo piece cited to the company website. Kierzek (talk) 15:33, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as advertising of a non-notable company. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:45, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources. Mirror360 (talk) 13:16, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[Revert as per WP:BLOCKEVASION using strikethrough font. 22:38, 13 November 2016 (UTC)]

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 British Aerospace 125#Accidents and incidents. MBisanz ^talk 21:46, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Execuflight Flight EFT1526

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

Non-notable private business jet accident, sad that it is fatal but wikipedia is not a news feed and biz jet crashes are not that uncommon and are rarely notable. No wiki notable people involved so would not even merit a mention in the aircraft article so certainly doesn't warrant a stand-alone article. MilborneOne (talk) 14:59, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. MilborneOne (talk) 15:13, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Notification of the existence of this AfD has been made at WikiProject Aviation and WikiProject Aircraft, within whose scope this article falls. - Ahunt (talk) 15:32, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, essentially WP:NOTNEWS.TheLongTone (talk) 15:49, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:24, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as per Ahunt and TheLongToneTSRL (talk) 18:05, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the deadliest air crash in Akron, Ohio and Summit County, Ohio in history. Also, unusual for business jet disasters, all occupants represent high-order executives of one real-estate company in Florida, effectively wiping it out. These reasons are not mentioned by the nominator, and I think non-Wikiproject Aviation concerns ought to have a weight in the article's notability. Also, the unusual involvement of the forensic anthropology team from proximate but out of state university to identify the dead. The NTSB findings, if they involve stall on approach and icing may have interesting recommendations for the type. The article has been viewed some 1200 times in the first 24-hour bar of its existence on the stats site, so it is clearly fulfilling Wikipedia's mission to inform. Finally, it is a damn-well written article, and I'd hate to have all my work go poof. --Mareklug ^talk 19:09, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, crashes like this are Wikipedia:Run-of-the-mill and happen on a weekly basis and are no more notable than a van or bus crash. No enduring effects beyond the deaths involved, no indication of a need for a change in procedures, airwothiness directives, etc. Also runs afoul of WP:NOTNEWS. Just because an aircraft crashed is not reason to have an article on each and every one. The media sensationalizes aircraft accidents and does not treat other transportation accidents the same way. Wikipedia does not have to succumb to this media sensationalism. - Ahunt (talk) 20:02, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for same reason as Ahunt. Just because it is the worst aircraft crash in Summit County, Ohio doesn't mean it deserves it's own article. For those people saying that accidents like these are rare, look at the ASN wikibase and you will see that accidents like these actually do happen all the time. The only reason this particular one was on the news was because it occurred in the USA. In short, this crash fails the requirements needed to have it's own article. 111.69.111.24 (talk) 18:16, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to British Aerospace 125#Accidents and incidents, to join all the other crashes that fail WP:AIRCRASH. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:11, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect with above comment of Clarityfiend. Adog104 ^{Talk to me} 03:46, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: According to ASN listing for the type, this is the 3rd deadliest for 26 occurrences since 1975 and the deadliest outside Africa. --Mareklug ^talk 04:59, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as noted before, the crash is the deadliest in that area (county), also the investigation is still ongoing so its too early to say that this has no notability.--Halls4521 (talk) 05:49, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: It's too early to decide whether to delete or not. While it may not be enough for notability, this crash was reported nationally and internationally on many news networks (i.e.: ABC News, CBS News, NBC News, MSNBC, Fox News, CNN, etc.) and social media. It wasn't just a local news matter. Also, the NTSB is still investigating the matter as it is unknown what caused the crash (not to mention there was no call for help from the plane). I would at least wait till after the findings are released.--Halls4521 (talk) 22:22, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: It will be at least a year and perhaps much longer before the NTSB has the cause determined and a final report published. We don't start articles on every crash in the hopes that it may turn out to have some future significance. See WP:CRYSTALBALL. It would be better to delete it now and then recreate it in several years time, if it turns out to have any significance. - Ahunt (talk) 22:29, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment: I've been around Wikipedia since early 2000s, and I still scratch my head about the imperative to remove articles such as this. Forget the catfight about notability, people: This article has been viewed 1600 times when it was called 2015 Akron Raytheon Hawker 800 crash, then 1200 times on the first night out, and then 2500+ on the second (before the latest and likely the last page move), far more than the usual grab for WP:DYK articles linked from the Main Page. This article has not been promoted by anyone anywhere, to the best of my knowledge. Doesn't this tell you there is a market for it? People are reading it. Why, why would you kill it? --Mareklug ^talk 02:10, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment: "People are reading the article" is not an argument for keeping an article. Millions of people read the National Enquirer, but that does not prove the content is of value or, in this case that it meets Wikipedia policies and guidelines. - Ahunt (talk) 12:13, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Summit County, Ohio as the deadliest air crash for the county -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 07:33, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely Keep Biz Jet crashes are not common at all and BAE125/Hawker 700 crashes are very rare - so rare as to be historic events. This event is so far unsolved and the cause of this crash is likely to be important to other operators of this type aircraft as well as aviation safety investigators. Please do not delete.cw5301 ^talk 08:59, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely Keep as per above. This is an event which has been reported on by numerous news agencies as well as social media, and crashes involving the BAe 125 are few and far between.BrayLockBoy (talk) 13:54, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep This is not a "run of the mill" accident. A jet carrying 9 people crashed into an apartment building, killing all aboard and destroying the building. And despite what is suggested in the nomination, business jet crashes with fatalities are rare. Strong keep, as a rare business jet crash with numerous fatalities and a notable part of Akron's history. Juneau Mike (talk) 16:07, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Wide press coverage. 95.133.216.22 (talk) 17:07, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is not a common accident - business jets do not randomly fall out of the sky on approach, into apartment buildings, decimating structures on land. This is neither run of the mill nor common. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Basit.mustafa (talk) 22:26, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment not sure where the idea the biz jet crashes are rare this is just one of eight fatal biz jet crashes this year, being in the news does not make it notable for a stand-alone article. Previous consensus is such accidents need to have killed somebody notable or hit something notable or caused a change to the way the industry operates, this not the case here. Also note if this is the worst fatal accident at Akron-Canton Airport then a mention there is not a problem but it is not notable for a mention elsewhere. MilborneOne (talk) 12:22, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't the deadliest? In Summit County? We have an RS that claims it to be so, taking into account the WWII crash of a bomber. --Mareklug ^talk 15:49, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Then that might make it notable to the county and it should be mentioned in Summit County, Ohio. It doesn't need a stand-alone article for that. - Ahunt (talk) 16:23, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOTNEWS sst✈^discuss 02:00, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge per above, a crash of a private business jet without long-term implications or historical impact. Brandmeister^talk 09:42, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. KTC (talk) 00:06, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ghulam Haider (Blogger)

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

Lack of reliable sources; dubious notability. —Swpb^talk 14:43, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 14:54, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 14:54, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with Speedy A7--Musa Talk 14:56, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"was awarded the Best Pakistani Blogger of 2014 by the Punjab Government officials" is a credible claim of significance, so A7 cannot be applied. If I could have, I would have. —Swpb^talk 17:37, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per nominator Umais Bin Sajjad (talk) 15:08, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable for stand-alone article. Kierzek (talk) 15:35, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Request snow!! - Simply nothing to show notability that would come close to WP:GNG. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:14, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does not meet WP:GNG, WP:AUTHOR or WP:ENT. --bonadea contributions talk 13:15, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. KTC (talk) 00:07, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

L.K. Elliot

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. Coverage is self-published or weak. Subject's book is self-published and does not appear to be notable. Tone is non-encyclopedic and promotional. ubiquity (talk) 14:07, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Spammy, no credible claim of significance (borderline WP:CSD#A7). QVVERTYVS (hm?) 17:41, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 13:26, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 13:26, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 13:27, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Clearly non-notable, and the links on the page aren't reliable. FuriouslySerene (talk) 14:07, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable. Kierzek (talk) 15:38, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Clearly too soon. SwisterTwister talk 08:30, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. KTC (talk) 00:07, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FinancesOnline

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

Unnotable company, with an article propped up by press releases and passing mentions in media. No actual sign of coverage or of notability. Calton | Talk 14:04, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:41, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:41, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:41, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 13:24, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as this is not set for a notable article yet. Notifying PRODder DGG. SwisterTwister talk 07:52, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The refs. are essentially just to their own publications. DGG ( talk ) 18:23, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep - Merge proposal ignored as it's an AFD (Articles for deletion) so any Merges should be discussed on the talkpage. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 01:02, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The verse of evil eye

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

Fails WP:N, WP:V and possibly WP:RS. I've tried to search the following terms on Google: "verse of evil eye", "verse of the evil eye", "ayah of evil eye", "ayah of the evil eye", "ayat of evil eye", "ayat of the evil eye" and even in Indonesian (language of the largest Muslim population) "ayat mata jahat", "ayah mata jahat". Disregarding Wikipedia-sourced websites, none of them gave ANY hit, except 1 doubtful and minor mention for "ayah of the evil eye". The Arabic term given in the article in no way means Verse of the evil eye, but more like Verse "And indeed, those", originating from the first few words of verse 68:52. This may be further evidence that we are dealing with OR or maybe even a hoax. The present sources are either references to the Qur'an or seem to merely support the evil eye in general rather than a verse. HyperGaruda (talk) 13:56, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. HyperGaruda (talk) 19:52, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The fact that the grammatically correct "verse of the evil eye" appears nowhere on the whole web is a tell-tale sign that this is either made up or some fringe interpretation of the verse in question. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 17:52, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The name of article was selected according to concept of the verse. The verse refers to a kind of psychological effects. Therefore, this name is not translation of verse but also is concept and deep meaning of the verse. Also, please see 1, 2, 3, and 4. Saff V. (talk) 08:44, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@MatthewVanitas: Please say your idea about the article.Saff V. (talk) 09:20, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The above mentioned sources by the editor are WP:RS which is why WP:N is met by the article.JugniSQ (talk) 06:58, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 13:23, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - seems to be good evidence of sources which describe this verse as being the one about the evil eye. Of course, not everyone refers to it in that way, given that it is a general term for the translation of a phrase in another language. I'm struggling to see how else one could summarise this verse and what it is about. JMWt (talk) 17:45, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal

I've been googling around and found some bits and pieces indicating that verses 68:51-52 are indeed sometimes used to ward off the evil eye. The most reliable source implying this, is a mention in the Encyclopaedia Iranica: The image of ʿAlī and Ḏu’l-Faqār was popular on amulets accompanied by the koranic verses used against the evil eye (68:51-52; Donaldson, pp. 130-31, 240).

HOWEVER, there is still not a single source that actually gives a name to these two verses. While verse 2:255 is known widely as the Verse of the Throne, I haven't been able to find a similarly widespread name for 68:51-52. Also taking into account that the current article only includes a quote from the Qur'an and some general information about the evil eye, I now think it is better to merge the useful bits of this article into Evil eye#In Islam. - HyperGaruda (talk) 22:18, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

HyperGarudaPlease see four sources that I mentioned above.Saff V. (talk) 07:45, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Saff V., I don't really understand what you are trying to say with these sources. None of them tell that 68:51-52 is "The verse of evil eye", but only that this verse is evidence for the existence of the evil eye. However, verse 12:67 has also been mentioned as evidence for the existence of the evil eye. Should 12:67 also be named "The verse of evil eye"? Additionally, 68:51-52 is interpreted as disbelievers accusing Muhammad of being a madman, an accusation which is "but a reminder to all the creatures". Perhaps we should use "The verse of the madman" or "The verse of accusing Muhammad" or "The verse of the reminder"? What I'm trying to say is that you cannot just invent names for verses without sources to back up said name. - HyperGaruda (talk) 14:17, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

HyperGarudaI think that you are angry.Saff V. (talk) 14:22, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Uhm, no... I'm just trying to uphold Wikipedia's no original research and notability standards. - HyperGaruda (talk) 14:51, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to me that's best discussed by whichever wikiproject is looking after these kinds of pages, but you are in effect arguing that this (essentially equivalent) page should rather be part of this one. To me that's a question to debate amongst the people writing the page and not one to be discussed here - the question for us here is about notability, and I think it is pretty clear even within what you've written above that the page title is a reasonable name for the idea. JMWt (talk) 13:58, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's not that uncommon for deletion discussions to turn into merger discussions. It is even mentioned in Wikipedia's deletion manual, so there is no reason why deletion discussers should abstain from merger proposals. Besides, anyone has the right to be involved; remember the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit?

If we're going to draw equivalents, then I would say that the proposed move is more like moving "Spilling wine" to Spilling salt, since spilling wine is used to avert the bad luck associated with spilling salt. And no, the current page title does not conform to Wikipedia's naming conventions (Article titles are based on how reliable English-language sources refer to the article's subject). The only unique statement in the current article, is its anti-evil eye effect; the rest of the article is, I repeat, either a quote from the Qur'an or stuff about the evil eye in general. That tiny bit of unique information does, again, not warrant an entire article of its own. - HyperGaruda (talk) 18:43, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Mhhossein: Please contribute in this discussion.Saff V. (talk) 07:45, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The merger is not valid here per the very WP:MERGE. As it is mentioned there, "...mergers are generally not proposed from the onset of Articles for Deletion (AfD) discussions... ." We should let the AFD work and of course the editors may reach consensus to merge it into another article while this is not the case and there's no consensus! Mhhossein (talk) 05:58, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. KTC (talk) 00:07, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Hearn

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

Notability Having been the only person to edit this page in a year, and seeing the severe lack of content, I would like to propose deletion. Most of the content is covered by Kind Consumer Limited, and the rest seems to have be not very notable - one news source, that doesn't seem to be notable itself, reporting on it. byo (talk) 12:26, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 14:58, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 14:58, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 14:58, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now until a better article can be made. SwisterTwister talk 20:55, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Coverage not substantial enough to justify an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:08, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Nomination withdrawn, non admin closure. Szzuk (talk) 20:43, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alexa Clay

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

Subject of the article fails WP:GNG and WP:Bio. The sources provided are mere self-published material. I really can't fine the evidence of notability perhaps WP:TOOSOON Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 12:06, 12 November 2015 (UTC) Nomination withdrawn to Keep. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 18:15, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 12:07, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 12:07, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 12:07, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~*Keep~~ Comment, possibly redirect to the book The Misfit Economy which easily meets WP:NBOOK with reviews in The Financial Times - [7], The Economist - [8], The National - [9], Forbes (actually an interview) - [10], New York Daily News - [11], Dallas News - [12], Stanford Social Innovation Review - [13], Harvard Business Review - [14], phew, I think that will do. Coolabahapple (talk) 18:08, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NBIO is not the same as WP:NBOOK and redirect will only be possible if the book in question already have an article here. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 20:43, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done

, here it is: The Misfit Economy, have changed my above keep to a comment of possible redirect, but to be balanced we would also need to make a redirect for co-author, Phillips, so maybe just delete unless editors believe Clay is notable apart from the book.Coolabahapple (talk) 17:58, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for creating The Misfit Economy. However, I have no prejudice against a redirect but it seems she meet WP:AUTHOR#3 per the review of her work. I'm withdrawing my nomination with alacrity for now. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 18:15, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. KTC (talk) 00:12, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Marif Piraev

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

Non-notable mixed martial artist. Does not meet WP:NMMA with no top tier fights. Peter Rehse (talk) 11:38, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 11:38, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Definitely fails WP:NMMA. Fails WP:GNG with a lack of significant independent coverage (youtube videos don't count). The article claims he's had some success in martial arts, but no sources are given nor are specific titles mentioned. Things like "The prizewinner of Russia on Boxing" and "World Champion in Universal Fighting" need supporting evidence and explanations.Mdtemp (talk) 18:41, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't find (and the article doesn't have) significant sources to show he meets GNG. He doesn't meet WP:NMMA since he has no top tier fights and there's no sources to support any claims he's a notable martial artist (see WP:MANOTE). The most I could find was a results article showing he won his division at the Moscow city sambo championships and qualified to compete at the national championships. I don't believe that's enough to claim he's a notable martial artist. Papaursa (talk) 02:34, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted A7 by Anthony Bradbury. (non-admin closure) shoy (reactions) 16:28, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Journey Of 1000 Miles Begins With A Single Step

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

Author page was speedy deleted for G11. I hunted up and down and could not find even a single mention of this book by "Joey Pignataro" I could not even find simple proof of existence. This book is not even mentioned on Sen.com. Jcmcc (Talk) 10:43, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - can't find any mention of it in any of the normal places. Either the title is wrong or the book doesn't exist. JMWt (talk) 10:58, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as hoax. Only hit for author's last name and book title is previously A7d article for Joey Pignataro, created by same author on same day - http://speedydeletion.wikia.com/wiki/Joey_Pignataro —Мандичка^YO 😜 11:25, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:12, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RobLuna

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

Not notable. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Has many sources but none are reliable sources with any coverage of him. Releases are only mixtapes and are not on an important label. Posted at RobLuna instead of Rob Luna in a bad faithed way of avoiding salt. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:02, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Please help us prevent this page from being marked for deletion, it has been on Wikipedia for over a year and as of recent weeks, there appears to be some sort of malicious intent towards trying to take this page down.

There are many authors that have worked on this page and it seems that the following statement of "Releases are only mixtapes and are not on an important label." is a very biased opinion when in fact mixtapes are very common in the hip hop industry and are released by many other mainstream artists.

Also, please consider that this person does have reliable resources, for example, one of the links cited in the article is for a verified Facebook page under "Rob Luna Music" (in which Facebook only issues to notable figures) and this person is also credited for notable work on films/movies referenced on IMdB (Internet Movie Database). Thank you for your help in all of this.Jackboro1 (talk) 13:39, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

— Note to closing admin: Jackboro1 (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD.

Neutral Well, I'm leaning on remove since Jackboro1 has just blatantly lied. The article is most certainly not "years" old. If you look at its history, it was made November 4th, 2015. Also, I agree the posting under RobLuna rather than Rob Luna is shady. I may change my views as the topic goes on. Fritzmann2002 (talk) 19:15, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 10:25, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Fritzmann2002, we should not assume any wrong doing in this case (nor make accusations). It seems that when the original page "Rob_Luna" was maliciously deleted, the year+ long history would of disappeared as well. The history you are referring to (as dating November 4th) could simply be from a recent attempt to recreate the deleted page. Jackboro1 (talk) 15:06, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the page name change (from "Rob_Luna" to "RobLuna"), it looks like Derek_R_Bullamore (a Master Editor III) made an honest attempt to help contribute/restore and clean URL issues. Either way, thanks for putting your time into this guys.Jackboro1 (talk) 15:06, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Question - Jackboro1 do you know of any references that the person has not contributed himself? Surely it is fairly obvious that a facebook page is not independent secondary evidence? Are there music news articles etc about him? JMWt (talk) 11:03, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Remove - After JMWt's comment, I'm changing my vote to remove. I've looked at the sources and they do not seem reliable. If Jackboro1 can find one reliable source, however, I would say Keep. Fritzmann2002 13:24, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This person has an established IMDb page located here http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0526084 and also TCM (Turner Classic Movies) page http://www.tcm.com/tcmdb/person/1161032%7C0/Rob-Luna/filmography.html Jackboro1 (talk) 15:04, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The TCM link seems a bit better, but that only lists two films. Seems to me someone might do that before they've actually become notable (eg they were involved as an intern, say). If this is the best you have, I'm afraid I'm coming down on the side of Delete.JMWt (talk) 17:36, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:10, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:10, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:11, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cleaned up clutter, some duplicate keeps (done out of not understanding process, sorry) and spam Jackboro1 (talk) 15:03, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral There are good points made from everyone here. I would want to see what else can be found on the subject especially pertaining to notability. We all need to make sure we adhere to the already set guidelines as opposed to judging based on our individual opinions. I might be leaning on remove depending on what else is provide/argued. But I am also leaning on the side of keep, especially since there are items in WP:GNG that ARE satisfactory. Tyler mongrove (talk) 15:13, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
To Jackboro1: do not delete votes from a deletion discussion, or otherwise delete comments and markups from a deletion discussion, as you did here: [15]. You deleted two separate delete votes. The way you deleted them to me looks like deliberate and misleading vandalism. I'm reposting my comment and tagging SwisterTwister whose comment was also removed. FuriouslySerene (talk) 15:18, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can't seem to find any reliable coverage of this person. Citations on the page aren't reliable, either from blogs or social media, and mentions of him are trivial. Not enough to establish notability or pass WP:NMUSIC. FuriouslySerene (talk) 9:42 am, 12 November 2015, last Thursday (4 days ago) (UTC−5)
Delete as the current article is not suggesting how he is better notable and improvable. SwisterTwister talk 15:52, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I say if Paris Hilton has notability then so can a lot of these folks! But on a serious note gents, I've heard of him on the radio (hip hop) so he's definitely known BillWyman (talk) 21:48, 19 November 2015 (UTC) — BillWyman (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete and WP:SALT both RobLuna and Rob Luna, fails WP:BASIC and does not qualify for anything under WP:MUSICBIO. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 23:41, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 01:05, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bahaddin Gaziyev

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

Seemingly clear case of no better notability and improvement with my best search links only this which is hardly useful. There are a few more links at the Russian Wiki but I simply see no convincingly better improvement here for this article from May 2006. Pinging past users Mursel and only still active taggers RJFJR and Ground Zero as well as interested subject users Wikimandia and DGG. SwisterTwister talk 08:31, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 08:36, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 08:36, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 08:36, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I added his name in Azerbaijani (Bahəddin Həziyev). He has extensive coverage and is referred to as a "well-known journalist" and "outstanding figure in Azerbaijani media" [16], [17], [18], [19], [20] —Мандичка^YO 😜 09:26, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The ruWP article says he is editor of the main opposition newspaper in the country. That amounts to notability DGG ( talk ) 05:49, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 10:02, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per DGG; English sources may be difficult to find but that doesn't keep him from being notable.
SBaker43 (talk) 01:21, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) —UY Scuti ^Talk 15:27, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Mallory

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

Definitely deletable as this article is questionably notable and improvable with my best search links this, this and this. Should this be deleted, it may be best to replace it with the Michael Mallory from Recurring characters of Sliders (I'm willing to initiate it) and it's worth noting this is what the article initially had. Pinging tagger Fram and interested subject users LaMona, Tokyogirl79 and DGG. SwisterTwister talk 08:34, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 08:36, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Animation-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 08:36, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 08:36, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 08:36, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Looks notable to me. His books are well represented on OCLC WorldCat [21]. Rmhermen (talk) 16:47, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well... the problem with this is that WorldCat holdings aren't really considered to be a sign of notability at this point in time. If an author has their books in 200+ libraries apiece (meaning each book is in 200+ libraries) then that can help bolster notability along with other sources, but so far this is considered to be more of an exclusionary tool than an inclusionary one. Basically, we would still need coverage in independent and reliable sources, as WC by itself is not enough to save an article. I've lobbied to have WC listings used as a sign of notability (if the author has 2+ books in 200+ libraries each) but so far there has been no consensus that it should be included. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:28, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Library holdings can be a sign of notability whenever we want it to, for any individual case. If we do it enough times, it will become common practice and then a practical guideline. We make our own rules, and we can make exception. Tokyogirl79, since you agree with me that it should be accepted, why not vote to make an exception here? DGG ( talk ) 05:44, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a little nervous to do that since it isn't officially part of the guidelines at this point in time. I do like the idea of setting more precedent, but I want to make sure that there's some sourcing to ensure that it can't be brought back to AfD until this officially gets added. However I am finding some sourcing that shows that his work is frequently cited as authoritative in academic sourcing like this: [22], [23], [24]. One of his books has received a review from Famous Monsters of Filmland, but I'm having some trouble finding the review at this point in time. He's received coverage from Blastr too. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:43, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I managed to find just enough to show that he's fairly well thought of in his field and that there is coverage of his work. His work seems to be frequently cited in academic texts like this and this, along with the ones I've linked above. He's also won a Derringer Award, which is fairly major in the mystery world - enough to where it'd at least give partial notability. FWIW, I do think that library holdings should count towards notability if there are sufficient numbers for each book, so hopefully the evidence given can help show proof that large library holdings can be signs of notability. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:49, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 09:57, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep~~Comment~~ - ~~without wishing to venture an opinion on the notability of this article,~~ Tokyogirl79 is surely right, we don't need to make exceptions: if someone is notable, there will be reliable sources. If those sources haven't caught up yet, then it is WP:TOOSOON and the article should be deleted or moved to user space to await better sources. Thus if a book has library holdings and is worth reviewing, reviews will arrive, and we should wait for those. Many rules are worth challenging; the notability rules are lax enough as they are. However, since Tokyogirl179 has found some sources, this probably just about scrapes over the (ridiculously low) notability bar. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:09, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The WC argument (for notability) is: If he's produced the volume of material summarized in the article there have been reviews, criticisms, bibliographies produced; we haven't found them yet. I'm not listed in OCLC; hence it's almost certain that I don't have a claim to notability from writing. Given the subjects of his material, it probably won't be in the usual places.
SBaker43 (talk) 02:02, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. KTC (talk) 00:13, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of English–Spanish false friends

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

WP:NOTDIC I see that there is an appendix on Wiktionary, anything here but not there can be merged, but this clearly isn't encyclopedic content. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 09:42, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - trivial information. I don't see any other false friends lists. I added one of the tables to the false friends article as it needed more examples. —Мандичка^YO 😜 10:39, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:06, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:06, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - it does seem more appropriate for Wiktionary. LjL (talk) 16:20, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE, poorly cited, many dubious examples. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 14:17, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - this is a topic or lesson plan in all Spanish classes in the United States. However, I'm not sure how easy this would be to source it. Bearian (talk) 17:57, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The general topic of false friends is certainly notable, but that doesn't automatically extend to this list. LjL (talk) 21:48, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. KTC (talk) 00:13, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Abul Khair Muslehuddin

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

Article's subject appears to lack genuine notability. Awards received are not themselves notable, degrees earned irrelevant, being inspector general of bangladesh police sounds important but even this only comes from what is essentially an obituary (i.e., WP:ROUTINE. KDS4444^Talk 09:35, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - You do have valid points. It is hard to find non obituary articles who was alive before 2002 in bangladeshi newspapers. Further search only revealed more death anniversary articles both in English and Bengali. Besides only Abul Khair Muslehuddin Foundation publishes the press release. So, yes, we should delete this article.Altaf (talk) 19:36, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 19:56, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 19:56, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete until a better article can be made with better and likely archived sources. SwisterTwister talk 20:38, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Closing this early per WP:SNOWCLOSE. Please observe WP:BEFORE. (non-admin closure) Sam Sailor ^Talk! 10:45, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth A. Wood

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

Article's primary reference is an obituary. Other references are only WP:trivial mentions. Subject does not appear to meet the standards of WP:ACADEMIC, WP:NPEOPLE, or WP:GNG. KDS4444^Talk 09:10, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking as the person who wrote the page, I don't see that there is an issue with the primary source being an obit when it was published in a reliable source; this isn't uncommon here on Wikipedia. The notability seems to me established by the facts that: she was the first woman in her Bell Labs department, that she contributed to major innovations, and that there is a science writing award given in her honor. This is a new article and should have been tagged for improvement rather than AfD.Alafarge (talk) 15:41, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I fail to see the problem with using an obit as a source, especially since it was an obit written by a professional society, indicating that she was important and notable within the society. She also has an award named after her, and is written up in several books and articles I found with a 5-second Google search. I urge the nominator to withdraw this. Keilana (talk) 15:38, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Going by WP:NACADEMICS, the subject appears to meet, at a minimum, #3 (fellow of the American Physical Society) and #6 (president of the American Crystallographic Association), and likely #1 (developing the first notation for surface crystallography; see Unertl, Physical Structure, p. 26). Kirill Lokshin (talk) 15:50, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep easily passes the GNG. --In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 16:00, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - "1942... Physical Research Department of Bell Telephone Laboratories, where she was their first woman scientist" - this is a huge distinction at the nation's premier research lab of the era. In a quick search, I also found this cool photo, of her being the first person that President Lyndon Johnson talked to via videophone [25] and here [26]. Too bad we have to wait for copyright expiration to use those photos. -- Fuzheado | Talk 16:13, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 20:01, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 20:01, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

snowy Keep Clear case of the nominator failing to do WP:BEFORE and nominating an article as it was being created. Clearly meets GNG and ACADEMIC. Bias in news coverage of women before the present era often results in obituaries being one of the most significant sources for details of their lives. If the provider is a RS, and other documentation corroborates, why would one assume it is trivial? Triviality is not a mark of length, it is a mark of depth. A single sentence saying someone invented, was president, had an award named after them, etc. carries depth and weight regardless of its length. Fuzheado very cool photos. Wonder if they could be used as fair use with the rationale of limited use to improve recognition of a deceased person? SusunW (talk) 21:49, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets GNG easily. Fuzchia (talk) 22:40, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. The article as nominated already included multiple nontrivial reliable sources, demonstrating a pass of WP:GNG. The nominator needs to learn the difference between newspaper obituaries that are paid for by the family of the deceased (not relevant for notability) and published obituaries in newspapers or academic journals that are solicited by the publication (as good as any other source for GNG). The nominator's claim that the other sources are trivial is also not true — at least, for me, a trivial mention would be a sentence mentioning the subject in a paragraph about someone or something else, or a source that quotes the subject but is not about the subject. Here, the "Women of Science" paper has a full paragraph entirely about the subject and her accomplishments, and "American Women of Science Since 1900" has a full-length entry, approximately 1.5 pages. In addition, her role as the first female president of the American Crystallographic Association and her honors as fellows of AAAS and APS as well as of two more specialized societies give her multiple clear passes of WP:PROF. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:14, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:16, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep - clearly passes GNG. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 02:30, 13 November 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. Important female crystallographer. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:58, 13 November 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Speedy keep, per David Eppstein. Nsk92 (talk) 05:57, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Xxanthippe. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 06:34, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keeo, obviously notable.--Ipigott (talk) 07:53, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. KTC (talk) 00:13, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Content Relations

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

Subject of article is a marketing WP:NEOLOGISM (of the type that marketing and public relations executives make up so that they can sound clever and important). References either reinforce the concept as a neologism or do not even mention the term. No evidence of notability, subject title too vague to even properly research. KDS4444^Talk 09:06, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:12, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:12, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. First source fulfills WP:NOTNEO easily. FrameDrag (talk) 19:41, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now until better can be made. SwisterTwister talk 20:43, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (I've also amended the indenting and have added * to the front, Hope no one minds.) (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 01:08, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

North Point InsideOut

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

Article's references are either trivial mentions, listings in databases, or come from contexts with narrow/ limited audiences. Label is not notable. Article would require multiple non-trivial references from independent reliable (i.e., widely-read or widely circulated) sources to be retained. KDS4444^Talk 08:52, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: @3family6, Ilovechristianmusic, and Walter Görlitz: This article passes GNG and BAND, by various ways.The Cross Bearer (talk) 09:19, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@The Cross Bearer: What are those "various ways?" Your vote doesn't count for much if you cannot articulate why the article should be kept.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 16:48, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@3family6: Comment; This entry should be kept, where it meets GNG for its reviews in Cross Rhythms, Indie Vision Music, AllMusic and 365 Days of Inspiring Media. The entry is about a BAND, where they have charted two albums on the United States' national music chart Billboard magazine. These are the "various ways" it meets our standards for inclusion.The Cross Bearer (talk) 04:38, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep discussed in several sources. Even if these are predominantly album reviews, they provide enough significant coverage of the band itself to warrant an article.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 16:48, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. With two charting albums, they pass the notability guideline for musicians. NewYorkActuary (talk) 07:35, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - They've got two albums that have charted, and the article is referenced enough to keep. ilovechristianmusic ^{(Tell Me Something!)} 22:14, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete as copyvio -- The Anome (talk) 10:55, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

One style (rappeurs)

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

This article is in foreign language and it is not written correctly. 114BryanKurt ^{Let's talk!} 07:25, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 07:45, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. KTC (talk) 00:14, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Galina Shatalova

AfDs for this article:

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

Seems to fail WP:BIO. I think it is irresponsible for Wikipedia to have a WP:BLP on this subject since there isn't really much to go on by way of reliable independent sources we would need to write a biography on a naturopath. Ireneshih (talk) 06:56, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 07:48, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 07:48, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 07:48, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no in-depth info found and she appears to fail WP:AUTHOR. One of several people who have pushed WP:FRINGE theory that extreme low-calorie diets are the key to long and healthy life. —Мандичка^YO 😜 10:43, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete until a better article can be made. Notifying past AfD commenters Milowent and Xxanthippe. SwisterTwister talk 08:45, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt. Sources are just not there, as before. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:08, 17 November 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Delete per Xxanthippe. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 10:14, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 01:09, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ulric Gaster Williams

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

Seems to fail WP:BIO. I think it is irresponsible for Wikipedia to have a WP:BLP on this subject since there isn't really much to go on by way of reliable independent sources we would need to write a biography on a naturopath. Ireneshih (talk) 06:51, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Commnt: more sources: http://www.amazon.com/Zealands-Greatest-Doctor-Williams-Wanganui/dp/0908850158/ (144 page biography) http://www.nzherald.co.nz/wanganui-chronicle/news/article.cfm?c_id=1503426&objectid=10938602 http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=3250432 http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/christchurch-life/603656/The-way-we-ate http://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/cgi-bin/paperspast?a=q&r=1&results=1&sf=&r=1&o=100&e=-------10--1----2Ulric+Williams%2C-- (ignore hits in the ads columns) http://innz.natlib.govt.nz/vwebv/holdingsInfo?bibId=499921 refs given at http://www.teara.govt.nz/en/biographies/4w19/williams-ulric-gaster/sources http://viaf.org/viaf/63774892/ http://natlib.govt.nz/records/32198218 etc. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:45, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 07:50, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 07:50, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: also http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.498.4595&rep=rep1&type=pdf http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nlmcatalog/271410 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nlmcatalog/271411 Stuartyeates (talk) 07:57, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this is not a BLP - the subject died in 1971. As Stuartyeates has shown, there are numerous sources available. With few exceptions, people included in the Dictionary of New Zealand Biography are notable.-gadfium 20:43, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Gadfium NealeFamily (talk) 23:04, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: as discussed in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nigma Talib this appears to be part of a campaign by the nominator to rid Wikiproedia of WP:I DON'T LIKE IT material. Stuartyeates (talk) 03:51, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: User jps (talk) made the nomination for deletion of Nigma Talib, whereas this nomination of Ulric Gaster Williams was made by user Ireneshih (talk), who happened to copy/pasta the some of the text jps (talk) used there to then nominate Urlic and four other naturopaths. This is weird because Ireneshih (talk) had previously accused others of a supposed campaign to target naturopaths as unacceptable (which there isn't) and then went ahead to target naturopath articles him/herself. Delta13C (talk) 09:01, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Eddaido (talk) 04:22, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Eddaido Angry Bald English Villian Man Chat 08:50, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. KTC (talk) 00:15, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Stengler

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

Seems to fail WP:BIO. I think it is irresponsible for Wikipedia to have a WP:BLP on this subject since there isn't really much to go on by way of reliable independent sources we would need to write a biography on a naturopath. Ireneshih (talk) 06:50, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 07:53, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 07:53, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - seems to be just self-publicity. Can't see anything particularly notable about him other than his claim to have a PBS tv show, which I can't find. JMWt (talk) 11:12, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as News, Books and Highbeam all found some links but certainly nothing for better improvement. Notifying Doc James and Drchriswilliams who may have some insight with this. SwisterTwister talk 08:38, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with comments so far. WP:FRINGEBLP applies here. The article includes two newspaper sources that he appears in but these are round-ups of alternative medicine suggestions. I cannot see any depth of coverage in reliable sources that would be needed to establish notability. Drchriswilliams (talk) 07:12, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. KTC (talk) 00:15, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Moira Fitzpatrick

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

Seems to fail WP:BIO. I think it is irresponsible for Wikipedia to have a WP:BLP on this subject since there isn't really much to go on by way of reliable independent sources we would need to write a biography on a naturopath. Ireneshih (talk) 06:48, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 07:55, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 07:55, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom and fails WP:GNG as well. Reads like an WP:AUTOBIO. FuriouslySerene (talk) 14:34, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:52, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Besides the lack of evidence of notability, this reads like it's aimed less at describing the life and accomplishments of someone and more at promoting business at their practice. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:25, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per the notability issues referenced above. It's worth noting that the issues with the promotional natural of the article and its lack of encyclopedic tone are not in themselves deletion rationale (as such matter cans be fixed in instances where a subject is notable). But in any event, neither WP:GNG nor WP:BIO are satisfied here. Snow ^{let's rap} 05:23, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 02:14, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2015 Romanian protests

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

Either a copycat of Colectiv nightclub fire#Protests, or already copied and pasted there. Regardless, the protests could not be independently notable as it was reaction to one nightclub fire in Romania. I proposed deletion, but someone interfered with "PROD" tag, so I had to completely remove it as it looked already awkward. Now that the protests ended, having a stand-alone copycat seems pointless. George Ho (talk) 06:22, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But the political impact has widened; plus if we keep this article, we can reduce the scale of the protest section in the fire article, which is becoming unwieldy.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:45, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - the fallout from this "one nightclub fire in Romania" has been immense and led to the resignation of Victor Ponta, the Prime Minister of Romania, and the mayor of Bucharest. The protests lasted a week and included global media coverage and protests of solidarity in other countries. The Colectiv nightclub fire article is detailed and lengthy and easily stands alone. —Мандичка^YO 😜 06:52, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Again, these things were already mentioned there. --George Ho (talk) 07:11, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Then that section of the article should be trimmed down. I agree it shouldn't be a duplicate, but the protests have the notability for a separate article. The fire, victims, international reaction and investigation info more than fill out the fire article. —Мандичка^YO 😜 07:47, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 07:57, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Wide press coverage. 95.133.216.22 (talk) 11:33, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is an important event which impacted directly or indirectly millions of people. It's of national and international importance. Alexandrujuncu (talk) 11:50, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:13, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:13, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Major deal political moment within national politics; adequately sourced to pass WP:GNG.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:39, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. KTC (talk) 00:17, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Emma Carroll

AfDs for this article:

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

Iowa's oldest person for six months, and "the Guinness recordholder for the oldest person to ride in a hot air balloon". Long article packed with pedestrian life details ('One time she had lunch with the Salvation Army. "I like that, they're friendly," Carroll said.'), two routine sources other than primaries, and so on. EEng (talk) 05:53, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - local coverage only —Мандичка^YO 😜 07:01, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:15, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:15, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oldest to ride in a hot air balloon is notable and needs a succession box. Who did they take the title from and who is next? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.171.123.205 (talk) 20:43, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - A church newsletter and a local rag with only a couple of paragraphs (can't access the link on one though, although a bit of searching found an obituary which I think is what is linkedin the Ottumwa Courier that was only slightly longer and mainly contained lists of survivors and predecessors[27]). Lots of mundane information used to pad out the article, but nothing here that even slightly confers notability beyond being old. AIRcorn (talk) 21:51, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As suggested above, the current sources are insufficient to satisfy WP:N and I could not locate others that would be sufficient. Canadian Paul 01:26, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Oldest person in Iowa? Oldest person to ride in a hot-air balloon? Seriously? No significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources? Delete. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:48, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't see how being the 10th oldest person in the USA for a while is notable. Do we need bios on the 10th heaviest or 10th tallest? Legacypac (talk) 04:52, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Nomination withdrawn Canadian Paul 01:18, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Isaac Brock (supercentenarian)

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

Fraudulent non-supercentenarian. Anyway, WP:NOPAGE. EEng (talk) 05:49, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination withdrawn -- see below EEng (talk) 00:07, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - good coverage. Being a fraud doesn't make a difference as that just brings additional coverage. —Мандичка^YO 😜 06:57, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~But still not enough to warrant a standalone article. There's nothing worth reading about here. EEng (talk) 16:48, 12 November 2015 (UTC)~~[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:14, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:14, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Hey now, as article creator, is there a reason I wasn't notified? Anyhow, Mr. Brock is certainly a notable subject. Whether it is "worth reading about"? Well, life has no meaning, so nothing is really worth reading about, according to some. I am aware there are kerfuffles on Wikipedia over non-notable old people, I am not involved in any of that. I don't care who the oldest person was in Belgium in 2008. But this person is a legend, and like most legends, it wasn't true that he was as old as claimed. But he was still the subject of significant coverage during his life and beyond. Indeed, over 100 years after his death, the Waco Tribune still ran a feature story on him.[28] I first ran across Brock when I noted he was hawked heavily in nostrum advertising for "Peruna" in early 1900s magazines, he was a well-known figure.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 22:05, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Based on Milowent's post and a careful review of sources now in the article, I withdraw my nomination (except I forget how to do that exactly -- can someone make it happen?). EEng (talk) 00:07, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

EEng, thank you for taking a second look. Considering the nomination, I made the recent edits to make it more clear why he was notable (and not just that he was a real old guy). Someone will come along to close it, or will I try to figure it out, its been awhile since I've closed one.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 00:18, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Strong disagreement between editors who believe that being the oldest person alive confers notability, and those who believe that coverage for that alone isn't enough. There's no clear policy or guideline basis for either position, so we fall back to ordinary WP:GNG; there is coverage cited, but disagreement about how substantial or relevant it is can't be solved by administrative fiat. So we have no consensus, and the article is kept by default. Sandstein 19:20, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Eliza Williams

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

WP:NOPAGE, aside from notability concerns. Apparent sources give only the most trivial, usual details. Nothing that isn't appropriately handled in one of the longevity lists. EEng (talk) 05:42, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. She was the oldest person ever from the United Kingdom and the world's oldest person in 1987. as per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christina Cock and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kathleen Snavely, longevity record holder of famous country article should be keep.--Inception2010 (talk) 12:20, 12 November 2015 (UTC)— Inception2010 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Putting aside the question of whether those AfDs were rightly decided, notability is determined by coverage, not status as oldest-somewhere. In addition, there's the NOPAGE question, and you haven't addressed that. EEng (talk) 16:51, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Famous country? That's a criterion? Wow. David in DC (talk) 19:05, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:15, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:15, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If you read WP:BIO to include oldest person, she's notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.170.44.25 (talk) 20:37, 12 November 2015 (UTC) — 166.170.44.25 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep World's oldest human is good enough.--153.151.83.197 (talk) 02:13, 14 November 2015 (UTC) — 153.151.83.197 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Strong delete. "World's oldest human is good enough" is the summary of everything that is wrong with longevity articles and AfDs. This person does not meet WP:GNG or WP:BIO. Even if they did, this is a permanent stub, as the only things worth saying about this person are their date of birth and date of death. That's all that their claim of significance is. Clearly if the only things we can say are DOB and DOD, we should be including that information in a list. WP:NOPAGE certainly applies. ~ Rob^Talk 18:37, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep At the time of her death Anna Eliza Williams was the oldest known woman to ever have lived as well as the oldest person ever from the United Kingdom. She was often featured in British media and was featured in American newspapers several times as well. Proof of this can be seen here:

Listed as Oldest Person (Alton Telegraph, 8 June 1984)

Oldest Person in the World (New Castle News, 3 March 1986)

Celebrates 114 (Cedar Rapids Gazette, 3 June 1987)

New Guinness book makes it official (Sandusky Sunday Register, 17 October 1987)

Oldest Person Dies (Hutchinson News, 30 December 1987)

So in my opinion she was featured in the media several times and was therefore notable enough to have her own article. 930310 (talk) 15:32, 15 November 2015 (UTC) — 930310 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Duplicative ROUTINE coverage, and you haven't answered the NOPAGE argument. EEng (talk) 16:59, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

BULLSHIT, and you make stuff up. The page deserves to be expanded with more information and not deleted. 930310 (talk) 17:21, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

... if there is such information. Why don't you show us? Until then it's ROUTINE coverage, and you haven't answered the NOPAGE argument. EEng (talk) 17:43, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I provided several articles for you to read. Read them yourself. 930310 (talk) 17:47, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I skimmed them. If there's something there lifting this out of NOPAGE territory, please add it to the article, so we can see what a non-NOPAGE article on the subject would look like. EEng (talk) 19:03, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A doyenne of humanity is notable. Also we have a coverage while she was alive and a post-mortem coverage. LC-Barti (talk) 17:53, 15 November 2015 (UTC) — LC-Barti (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep She was, at one time, the oldest living person in the world. This title usually comes with a good amount of media coverage, and in this case, it has. There are various reliable sources cited in the article, as well as those provided above in this AfD discussion. Bodgey5 (talk) 19:41, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:GNG as she has received media coverage during more than one occasion. On top of that, she is also referred to outside the realm of news coverage, as evidenced by for instance [29], trying to establish what it is that made her grow to such an old age. Fiskje88 (talk) 19:58, 15 November 2015 (UTC) — Fiskje88 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep As proven above, Anna Eliza Williams received a lot of media coverage in the international press. Not only did Anna Eliza Williams lived to 114 years of age, but also she became the oldest recognized living person in the world while the authenticity of her age has been confirmed by an independent scientific organization such as Guinness World Records or Gerontology Research Group.White Eaglet (talk) 20:26, 15 November 2015 (UTC) — White Eaglet (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete and Redirect Longevity is a worthy topic for an encyclopedia to discover. Crucial even. But WP:ROUTINE coverage (birthdates and an obit), without more, does not confer notability. It's not significant coverage because it's not significant. Half of the article, such as it is, is "horse race" information about "title-winners" in a mythical contest for outliving some other old person. It's not about the article's subject except in the most tangential of ways. Longevity is not a horse race. There are no "titles" to defend. This article fails WP:GNG and cries out to be redirected to the appropriate list. That's where what little information there is belongs, not in a stand-alone article. WP:NOPAGE. David in DC (talk) 15:59, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strongest possible DELETE and redirect There is no content here. This is a list-class topic; one can not be notable for living "a life of idleness" as the article states. WP:BIO does not include longevity. Not notable as an individual, but worthy of existence in a list of people who took a few more breaths than others. Scr★pIron^IV 18:54, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the nom 166.170.50.86 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:53, 17 November 2015 (UTC) This editor has made few or no other edits outside this topic.[reply]
Delete Being the oldest verified human at some point in time is not enough alone to make someone notable. This is especially true since even at present many people lack a verified birth date, so being the oldest verrified person and being the actual oldest person are not the same. Few categories tend to increase the bias of Wikipedia towers English-speaking and Wetern European biographies more than these do, with nothing added to the project by them.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:19, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Being the world's oldest person is enough to make someone notable when the article includes reliable and verifiable sources to back up the claim. Alansohn (talk) 04:38, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can you point to a guideline supporting what you say? And you've not addressed the NOPAGE argument. EEng (talk) 08:11, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

They can't, because no such guideline exists. WP:BIO is clear enough, and old age isn't part of it. Scr★pIron^IV 14:58, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:OUTCOMES. We have always kept the "oldest person in X" articles. The recent flood of AfDs trying to assert a change in consensus is not convincing. Bearian (talk) 17:53, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS - bad precedent does not require continuing to make bad decisions. Scr★pIron^IV 18:07, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, OUTCOMES does say this:

Winners of lotteries and other games of chance are not considered inherently notable and are usually deleted.

So that's an end to it: winners of the longevity lottery should be deleted. EEng (talk) 05:54, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not an end to it, because it's not a lottery. You just called it that. Two totally different things. And yet again, WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a valid argument. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 19:28, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

<stares in drop-jawed disbelief> EEng (talk) 20:16, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pick up your jaw. It's obviously not a lottery. There's nothing to scratch off. There are no ping-pong balls flying hither and yon. There's no one announcing random numbers in stentorian tones between a Cialis ad and one for a feminine hygiene product at precisely 10:59 p.m. Everyone knows that's what a lottery looks like. Sheesh! David in DC (talk) 20:49, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll just strike all that irrelevant, unhelpful crap above then. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 21:59, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have undone your striking of other people's comments. Please do not do that again. It's naughty. Assuming good faith this was a momentary indiscretion. Please do not disabuse us of that notion. It's what stands between you and more serious consequences. David in DC (talk) 22:21, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Then how about you both quit with the constant sarcastic, condescending comments, and be WP:CIVIL. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 00:22, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Surely you don't mean constant, but rather continual. EEng (talk) 01:55, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I am the oldest person in my house but that does not make me worthy of an article. I'm thinking of getting right on the 'life of idleness' plan though Like her I am unlikely to get on anything notable doing that. Legacypac (talk) 04:59, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously there's a difference between being the oldest person in your house and the oldest in the world. That's a meaningless argument. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 19:28, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Coverage in reliable sources and being the oldest person out of several billion. Passes WP:GNG. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 19:28, 19 November 2015 (UTC) This editor has made few or no other edits outside this topic.[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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:24, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DigitalOcean

AfDs for this article:

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

Promotional article on borderline notable company. Almost every reference is a mere announcement, even the NYTimes. The others are promotion, including the Forbes "interview" where the interviewer simply gave the proprietor the opportunity to say whatever he wanted to. . DGG ( talk ) 04:17, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 04:37, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 04:37, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 04:38, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 04:38, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This was already nominated for deletion and was endorsed. The article could use a clean-up since the last time I checked, but there is genuine information here, like the fact that FreeBSD is offered. The point of starting the article was to document resources this company offers. Compared to, say, random television shows, this company is doing quite a bit more for the world. I'm not even an active customer, but I gotta say, even as a public sector medical researcher, I find the hostility toward for-profit companies a little off-putting, especially when compared to the more obviously direct bio articles, for example, Survivin. Deleting this article does me as much disservice as deleting the article on cIAP2. I'm pretty sure more people think about DigitalOcean than about TAZ. Biotech involves bio, but it also involves tech. Where' the balance? Niels Olson (talk) 04:43, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It should stay, with lots of new refs added. "Borderline notability"? Did you even try searching Google News for DigitalOcean? It is the focus of at least 50 articles and mentioned in dozens more. Do your research before claiming a famous company is "borderline non-notable". Wonderfl ^(reply) 05:46, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I think there are enough "international or national" "multiple independent sources" cited per WP:CORPDEPTH to establish notability. Rwendland (talk) 16:25, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure but perhaps delete for now as there's not as much coverage as there could be. As I'm not entirely sure about one side or the other, notifying past editors Theroadislong and Grayfell and past AfD commenters Deb, Cirt, Niels Olson and BethNaught. SwisterTwister talk 23:30, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure either. At a glance, it seems like a keep, but many of the sources are much, much flimsier than they first appear. Effort towards cleanup here might also benefit Libscore, which is closely related and has similar problems. Grayfell (talk) 23:49, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in reliable sources. (I participated in a related DRV at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 April 18#DigitalOcean.)
1. Mutton, Paul (2015-05-01). "DigitalOcean becomes the second largest hosting company in the world". Netcraft. Archived from the original on 2015-11-14. Retrieved 2015-11-14.
2. Butler, Brandon (2015-05-06). "You'll never guess who the web's second-largest hoster is. Not Google, Microsoft or IBM. Netcraft says it's Digital Ocean". Network World. Archived from the original on 2015-11-14. Retrieved 2015-11-14.
3. Chernova, Yuliya (2014-03-07). "Before Meeting Andreessen Horowitz, DigitalOcean Met Lots of Blank Stares". The Wall Street Journal. Archived from the original on 2015-11-14. Retrieved 2015-11-14.
4. Chernova, Yuliya (2014-12-09). "DigitalOcean Arms With $50 Million in Debt for Big Data-Center Battle". The Wall Street Journal. Archived from the original on 2015-11-14. Retrieved 2015-11-14.
5. Babcock, Charles (2013-07-11). "Infrastructure as a Service. DigitalOcean: Developer-Friendly Cloud Service On A Budget". InformationWeek. Archived from the original on 2015-11-14. Retrieved 2015-11-14.
6. Dillet, Romain (2015-10-20). "DigitalOcean Adds Floating IPs To Kill Server Downtime Once And For All". TechCrunch. Archived from the original on 2015-11-14. Retrieved 2015-11-14.
7. Kerner, Sean Michael (2014-09-05). "CoreOS Brings Docker Container Tech to DigitalOcean". eWeek. Archived from the original on 2015-11-14. Retrieved 2015-11-14.
8. Lardinois, Frederic (2015-08-11). "DigitalOcean Teams Up With Bitnami, Now Lets You Install Over 100 Web Apps With A Few Clicks". TechCrunch. Archived from the original on 2015-11-14. Retrieved 2015-11-14.
9. "50 Companies That May Be the Next Start-Up Unicorns". The New York Times. 2015-08-23. Archived from the original on 2015-11-14. Retrieved 2015-11-14.
10. Alden, William (2014-03-06). "Andreessen Horowitz Backs DigitalOcean, a Cloud Computing Start-Up". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 2015-11-14. Retrieved 2015-11-14.
11. Cao, Jing (2015-07-08). "Amazon Web Services Competitor DigitalOcean Raises $83 Million". Bloomberg News. Archived from the original on 2015-11-14. Retrieved 2015-11-14.
12. Barbaschow, Asha (2015-07-09). "Cloud service DigitalOcean raises $83m in latest funding round". ZDNet. Archived from the original on 2015-11-14. Retrieved 2015-11-14.
13. Kerner, Sean Michael (2015-07-08). "DigitalOcean Raises $83M to Help Move Cloud Provider Forward". eWeek. Archived from the original on 2015-11-14. Retrieved 2015-11-14.
14. Iskold, Alex (2015-08-14). "How DigitalOcean Won Over Investors". Entrepreneur. Archived from the original on 2015-11-14. Retrieved 2015-11-14.
15. Dillet, Romain (2014-03-06). "DigitalOcean Raises $37.2M From Andreessen Horowitz To Take On AWS". TechCrunch. Archived from the original on 2015-11-14. Retrieved 2015-11-14.
16. Novet, Jordan (2015-07-08). "DigitalOcean just raised $83M and you don't even know what it is. Allow me to explain". VentureBeat. Archived from the original on 2015-11-14. Retrieved 2015-11-14.
17. Novet, Jordan (2014-12-15). "Why growing cloud DigitalOcean isn't scared of Amazon, Google, and Microsoft". VentureBeat. Archived from the original on 2015-11-14. Retrieved 2015-11-14.
18. Clark, Jack (2014-03-06). "Linux cloud world's best kept secret DigitalOcean just bagged $37m". The Register. Archived from the original on 2015-11-14. Retrieved 2015-11-14.
19. Sharwood, Simon (2015-01-14). "DigitalOcean adds FreeBSD, explores cloudy Windows". The Register. Archived from the original on 2015-11-14. Retrieved 2015-11-14.
20. McAllister, Neil (2014-09-06). "DigitalOcean floats alpha images of Docker-happy CoreOS". The Register. Archived from the original on 2015-11-14. Retrieved 2015-11-14.
21. Clark, Jack (2013-08-07). "VCs toss gold into DigitalOcean". The Register. Archived from the original on 2015-11-14. Retrieved 2015-11-14.
22. Jackson, Joab (2014-09-05). "Cloud host DigitalOcean catches Docker fever". Network World. Archived from the original on 2015-11-14. Retrieved 2015-11-14.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow DigitalOcean to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 08:26, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

- Add a couple more to your list; Gartner has given praise to DigitalOcean (http://blogs.gartner.com/lydia_leong/2014/07/28/aws-2q14-and-why-the-sky-is-not-falling/), and ThoughtWorks included them on three Technology Radars (https://www.thoughtworks.com/radar/platforms/digitalocean). It'd be nice if the nominator would have done some WP:BEFORE legwork. riffic (talk) 02:36, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Cunard hit it out of the park. Even if some sources are flimsy, the WSJ, NYT and Register articles do it for me. BethNaught (talk) 08:58, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Because, are you f***ing serious? They've undergone a few series funding rounds and had PLENTY of press each time its happened. Very notable at this point. riffic (talk) 21:22, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Cunard's sources. clpo13_(talk) 21:24, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notability has been clearly established. The nominator states that the reliable sources are merely promotion -- this appears to be an opinion that articles in the business press are suspect. Sbwoodside (talk) 21:19, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. What this is showing is that we have no consensus on what sort of coverage is sufficient, and what sources are reliable. We need to discuss those things one by one. Are reports of funding/IPO, for example sufficient? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:47, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In the tech industry, funding events are a common trigger event for coverage of a company. The sources will often use the funding event as a hook for an article about the company. Most of the articles aren't simply about the funding, they include news about the company and its products. Sbwoodside (talk) 05:52, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Depth of coverage says:
Deep coverage provides an organization with a level of attention that extends well beyond routine announcements and makes it possible to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub about an organization.
I agree that trivial mentions of a company's getting funded is routine business. But if sources provide "deep coverage" (which is the case here), then the company is considered notable under the "deep coverage" standard.
And in this case, there are numerous sources about the company's history and products that are unrelated to the funding.
Cunard (talk) 07:30, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep But promotional content should be removed, if not possible then delete. Mirror360 (talk) 13:15, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Striking vote of sockpuppet per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Scholarscentral. Cunard (talk) 05:48, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete / userify many promo sources, promo content but seems worthy and been around a while. I share DGGs sentiments. It's a choice of what we want WP to be, and whether we keep promo content or have a higher level of protection for promo on WP. This one appears borderline, so I could see it both ways. I'm 100% convinced that a single list (including an outpouring of promo sources - without going through them all, I'm speculating) isn't a good way to decern, but two lists - one discounted promo sources and one not may help. Widefox; talk 13:27, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- What do you mean by a list or two lists? --Sbwoodside (talk) 20:36, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. KTC (talk) 00:18, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Abu Md Musa

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

Fails WP:BASIC. Searches (including with various expansions of Md and in Bengali script) of the usual Google types, HighBeam, EBSCO, InfoTrac, and ProQuest return nothing relevant. Closest match is a brief mention of an "Akhter Mohammad Musa" of Bond Garments in the Dhaka Tribune. PROD was removed by original author without comment or improvement. Worldbruce (talk) 03:43, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 03:43, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 03:43, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject is not notable. Meatsgains (talk) 03:52, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 04:41, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - seems to be a common name in Bangladesh, can't find anything substantive about this individual. JMWt (talk) 11:30, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete until a better article can be made. SwisterTwister talk 20:57, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Obvious votestaking is obvious Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:18, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Critical Badger

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

Non-notable wordpress blog only significant for one event, which would fall under WP:NOTNEWS or WP:COATRACK Meatsgains (talk) 03:27, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Defunct blog that isn't even notable for the event for which it claims notability - the sources in the Notability section of the article fail verification. 32.218.40.73 (talk) 03:38, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I strongly believe this should NOT be deleted. This website had a unique significance in the study and creation of hyper-local journalism in Wisconsin and the United States. It was well regarded, awarded, and cited in traditional media (at the local, state, and national levels), which back in 2006 was an extremely rare occurrence. BlueOx003 — BlueOx003 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:47, 20 November 2015 (UTC) [reply]

Keep -- *Do not delete - This was an important website in the legal and journalism communities. It was also not a Wordpress "blog" in the traditional sense. I think it was just hosted via Wordpress, but it had a dedicated domain, it is not a "non-notable wordpress blog" and by 2015 standards would probably not even be considered a blog, but a journalism website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.25.190.65 (talk) 15:22, 12 November 2015 (UTC) — 23.25.190.65 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this AfD. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:47, 20 November 2015 (UTC) [reply]

Edited this comment to state "Keep" in front of "Do not delete". I do not believe this misrepresents the original author in any possible way.2600:1003:B014:FA3C:E95D:4BDB:2031:7D90 (talk) 09:46, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per my above statements, page is coatrack for a grade fraud scandal and that is it. Meatsgains (talk) 15:38, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This suggestion by Meatsgains violates Wikipedia's policy. Specifically: "Nomination already implies that the nominator recommends deletion (unless indicated otherwise), and nominators should refrain from repeating this recommendation on a separate bulleted line."^[1]. This suggestion should be deleted as Meatsgains is the one who originally proposed the page's deletion, yet proceeded to repeat the recommendation on a separate bulleted line.2600:1003:B014:FA3C:E95D:4BDB:2031:7D90 (talk) 09:43, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I PRODed the article because of its lack of notability. After IP 32.218.40.73 brought to my attention that the page had been proposed for deletion before, I decided to take it to AfD and the PROD tag was removed from the page. What's the issue? Meatsgains (talk) 23:40, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment as per my above statements, page is not a coatrack for a grade fraud scandal. If you review the history of the page, the grade fraud scandal was not in the original page text and is not a focal point of its notability. This suggestion is empirically disproven with even a minute or two of further research.23.25.190.65 (talk) 16:07, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please find reliable sources confirming the blog's notability without also covering the scandal. If the page's focus is not on the scandal, and it is notable for other reasons, then finding sources shouldn't be a problem. Otherwise its WP:COATRACK or WP:NOTNEWS. Meatsgains (talk) 16:19, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is addressed below. The grade fraud coverage is not the sole reason for its importance, but is one component that adds up to equal the totality of importance. Again, your WP:COATRACK suggestion is completely illogical as the basis for your claim--the grade fraud scandal--was not even in the original entry's page. At best this is a debate about notability and for local/legal journalism, this has significance. 23.25.190.65 (talk) 16:23, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter if the scandal was in the original page's entry. What matters is that currently, it makes up the body of the article and without it, the page would only have a lead. Meatsgains (talk) 17:17, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not to make false accusations but it looks a little suspicious for both BlueOx003 and IP 23.25.190.65 to vote "Do not delete" when the community overwhelmingly uses the term "Keep"... Meatsgains (talk) 15:42, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am just following the template of this talk page. Wikipedia is criticized for being insular and hostile to outsiders.^[2] Why make things harder for people by adopting "community" (white, male community, I remind you ^[3]) norms? I would also add, "Not to make false accusations" followed by an accusation? You're intentionally ignoring my good faith response. ^[4] This is further evidence the page should remain in existence. 23.25.190.65 (talk) 16:05, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you were to follow the template on this page, you would have noticed that every editor supporting to keep the page votes "keep". But that's besides the point, I just said it looked suspicious and wasn't making an accusation. Your "good faith response" does not explain to users how or why the blog is an "important website in the legal and journalism communities." If you are so adamant about keeping the page, you'll need RS to back up your claims. Meatsgains (talk) 16:15, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You've ignored my point about why using "keep" is in line with democratizing knowledge, the entire point of Wikipedia and why I am adamantly opposed to deleting entries for websites that also did just that. More substantively, reposting from the BlueOx003 talk page: This was not a "Wordpress blog" by 2015 standards. The website was hosted via Wordpress, but it had its own dedicated domain. By 2015 standards, it would be considered a journalism website and in fact it was quite significant in the legal and journalism communities. The justification for deleting this page is inconsistent with Wikipedia's notability policy as it has been widely cited in national outlets like the U.S. News and World Report (already cited), ABA Law Journal (already cited), Wisconsin State Journal (already cited), Above the Law ^[5](which is not cited in the original Wikipage), FindLaw ^[6] (also not cited in the original page, but it exists), Instapundit ^[7] (which has its own Wikipedia page ^[8]) and that's just my quick research. I would further add that deleting this page is contrary to Wikipedia's interest in democratizing knowledge. Local journalism's significance is, by its very nature, harder to define in comparison to its national counterparts. By deleting significant "hyper-local" website entries, Wikipedia is further concentrating knowledge of American websites and journalism to a select, elite few. I strongly encourage editors to leave this page in existence. Thank you. 23.25.190.65 (talk) 16:17, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Its not a matter of "democratizing knowledge". We're trying to maintain consistency and continuity to help user navigate and read through pages for ease of reading. Meatsgains (talk) 16:28, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unsure - whilst obviously there is some evidence that the blog had some notability at one moment in time some years ago, I don't think the refs really suggest ongoing notability beyond, say, all the other winners of the "MPC 2007 Excellence in Journalism Awardees". Personally, I think the fact it was a wordpress blog is not really relevant (but the link to it on the page is obviously pointless if it is now defunct) providing there is enough support for notability. JMWt (talk) 17:59, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is "ongoing notability" the standard? The website's significance is mostly historical, but that's a byproduct of the changing models of local journalism. I say "changing" with some snark because local journalism is dying across the United States and is being replaced by digital outlets and communities^[9]. This is what makes the original article's website significant. It was one of the first in an era where only large national publications were receiving attention online. "Ongoing notability" might be debatable, but it was a sufficiently notable website.BlueOx003 (talk) 18:19, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, OK, I can accept that some people think it is important for the reasons you give, but the refs on the page are not helping this cause. I guess what I was poorly expressing above was an outsiders attempt to see whether there was enough to see this news website as historically important and notable enough for inclusion rather than all of the other winners of the MPC 2007 prize (which is given as a ref). As others said, it seemed to have one important scoop - if you say that it had a further important cultural and historical role, I think you need better refs to show it. But I've changed my vote above on the basis that I could be wrong on this. JMWt (talk) 09:02, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I loved The Critical Badger. He really had guts to break stories no one else would touch, including the Department of Political Science catastrophe. The grade fraud fiasco is simply stunning. The UW administation kept the mainstream media from covering this shattering scandal. It is pages like The Critical Badger that make Wikipedia worth having. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.189.82.66 (talk) 00:55, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lol, again only one significant event. Meatsgains (talk) 00:58, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

These flippant responses are not helpful. You've driven this quest to delete from the start and your position is clear. But a number of national news links have been cited on this page, beyond one (significant) scandal. Deleting this page privileges elite urban thinking that smaller, rural American areas are less significant--their journalism, people, controversies, public affairs. The world does not revolve around NY, Chicago, DC.BlueOx003 (talk) 03:49, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Yes. This is a great web page. The coverage of the grade fraud debacle

here has been superb! We need this vital entry on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.112.199.82 (talk) 02:49, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- I have watched this debate and conclude the article should be kept. All of the above comments make good points. Let us now apply the Wikipedia rules.

A topic is presumed to merit an article if: 1. It meets either the general notability guideline below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right; and 2. It is not excluded under the What Wikipedia is not policy.^[10]

The question we must ask is it this page meets the general notability guidelines or the criteria in subject-specific guidelines. I argue that this entry meets BOTH. However, for the sake of time and argument, I will address the more specific rule: “criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline[s],” and more specifically “Wikipedia:Notability (web)” rules. There is no debate that this entry meets the second standard and would not be excluded under “What Wikipedia is not,” so I will not address this in detail.

According to Wikipedia's Notability (web) page^[11]:

Decisions based on verifiable evidence:

When evaluating the notability of web content, please consider whether it has had any significant or demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education.

This has been proven through the numerous links to Above the Law, Findlaw, ABA Law Journal, and U.S. News and World Report. The entry’s website played a significant role in the dissemination of higher education rankings and debates.

Strangely, one of the coatrack criticisms has been that this entry is used to discuss only a grade fraud scandal. That is not clearly not the case. It is one area in which this website found notoriety, yes, but it is not the only example.

Furthermore, Wikipedia clearly states that we should not err against smaller websites.^[12]

However, smaller websites can also be notable. Arbitrary standards should not be used to create a bias favoring larger websites.

It is unusual (and thus notable) for a local journalism website to receive consistent and wide-spread national news coverage for their work. This is even more notable because journalists have only recently become more accepting of citing smaller outlets, local journalists, and individual websites. This entry’s website was a pioneer of the local journalism/blogsophere during the end of the last decade.

Wikipedia states^[13]: web-specific content may be notable based on meeting one of the following criteria:

• The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself. This criterion includes reliable published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, magazine articles, books, television documentaries, websites, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations

This has been established above. It was published in traditional press (Wisconsin State Journal, Milwaukee Journal Sentinel), online press (Findlaw, Above the Law, Instapundit), and magazine press (U.S. News and World Report, ABA Law Journal).

• The website or content has won a well-known and independent award from either a publication or organization.[6]

This entry’s website was named the best website in the state of Wisconsin in 2007 (already cited on page) and was named a finalist in a national competition hosted by some of the most well-known journalists and online bloggers in the world^[14]. I think under this element, the entry clearly merits being kept.

Finally, I am dismayed to see some of the above criticism of supporters being cast as an argument to ignore their position to keep the website. Wikipedia is clear that this should not be grounds for deletion as Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy^[15]. Ignoring supporting posts because of formatting errors and use of synonyms for “Keep” runs contrary to Wikipedia’s stated policies. It is also unnecessarily legalistic, and in my view, suggests opponents to this entry page (one in particular) are using obfuscation tactics to further their original goal of deleting this important page.

Conclusion: This entry meets all of Wikipedia’s notability standards. This was a uniquely active local journalism website that achieved national attention for a variety of higher education-related stories. That alone is grounds for keeping the entry, according to Wikipedia policy. However, this entry meets even higher burdens of notability, as the website received national awards from well-known organizations and publications.

Finally, Wikipedia plainly states its goal of promoting the notoriety of smaller websites. This is one of those examples. Deleting this page violates that stated goal because it errs on the side of larger websites as being the only notable subjects on the Internet. By its very definition, this entry covers a local journalism website. It is understandable it may then create debate about notability. However, this website objectively meets Wikipedia’s standards, and subjectively, is one of only a few local journalism websites during its time period that made an impact on national conversations. Keep this entry.2600:1003:B014:FA3C:E95D:4BDB:2031:7D90 (talk) 09:34, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails General Notability Guideline. Zero sources to support significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. I have carefuly examined every source in the article, every source cited here, sources cited in user talk, and I've done online searching. Zilch. Some sources don't mention Critical Badger, and the sources that do mention it merely mention it in passing. It is well established that passing mentions such as "As reported in X, I will cover story Y" only supports the Notability of Y, not X.

Regarding the the sudden influx of editors / IP addresses with few or no edits outside this topic: At Wikipedia we pride ourselves on our open invitation for anyone and everyone to participate. However Wikipedia discussions are not votes. We will carefully consider all of the evidence and arguments you have brought to the table, but we make our decisions on the basis of policy. Attempting to vote WP:ILIKEIT (I loved The Critical Badger and This is a great web page) carry no weight. Attempting to explain that Critical Badger was "important" is only slightly better, but will still fail unless you can show that independent reliable sources have published significant coverage of Critical Badger itself. Critical Badger doesn't need to be the central topic of that coverage, but we need sources with a significant number of sentences saying things about Critical Badger. I do appreciate the effort of 2600:1003:B014:FA3C:E95D:4BDB:2031:7D90 to apply policy, I merely ask him or her to identify two reliable sources that provide the most significant discussion of Critical Badger itself. Finally, I particularly chastise 23.25.190.65 for a grossly inappropriate and utterly random insinuation of racial/gender discrimination.[30] There is absolutely nothing about this article or this discussion to justify such a leap.

The sudden influx of IP's and other editors with few-or-no-edits-outside this topic strongly suggests someone has WP:CANVASSed this discussion somewhere off of Wikipedia, trying to bring in allies to stack the "vote". This is not a vote, and that sort of behavior can lead to sanctions. Alsee (talk) 11:51, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

According to Wikipedia's policy, an entry needs to meet EITHER the General Notability Guideline OR Subject-Specific Guidelines. The Subject-Specific Guideline for websites includes two considerations, one of which is "The website or content has won a well-known and independent award from either a publication or organization." I think that has been fully established with links. So before getting a content analysis, it meets the website-specific guidelines for notability. As Wikipedia notes, "web-specific content may be notable based on meeting one of the following criteria." So only one criterion must be met. Thus, before going forward, this entry meets Wikipedia standards and should not be deleted, even if others have concerns about the sources covering the subject.

That said, it is inaccurate to write that there are "zero sources to support" coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. The notability of the website is that it's actions created/sparked larger coverage of higher education and legal topics. Naturally that means sources will note X to report on Y. That *is* proof of notoriety. For example, the website broke stories about academic rankings. So when larger outlets like Above the Law cover it, they analyzed the Critical Badger coverage before moving on to their own interpretation. Wikipedia's policy is NOT that notable stories about sources must be full-length pieces about the source itself. That is NOT Wikipedia's stated policy. Deleting this entry because of the source coverage also violates Wikipedia's policy to err on the side of trying to protect smaller websites.

As for your other points, I don't have much to say. For the random IP address "I love it" comment, you also have established Wikipedia monikers violating Wikipedia policies, as addressed above (cannot propose deletion then put up a bullet calling upon others to delete). But this is beside the point. BlueOx003 (talk) 16:43, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide a list of sources confirming this blog's notability aside from their single "grade fraud" exposure. The only sources I am seeing are, as Alsee pointed out, just a brief mention. Meatsgains (talk) 23:46, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This has been listed, numerous times, but I will repeat myself (and repeating others who have posted) in response to your concern.

First, we have the grade fraud scandal. That is accepted. Moving on.

Second, the national recognition for quality of reporting and research. The Milwaukee Press Club is objectively one of the most respected press clubs in America and has been around since 1885^[16]. Other national awards/recognition include being named among one of the nation's best alternative media outlets in the U.S. News and World Report^[17] and recognition from a large, national organization, reported by one of the most famous websites in the blogosphere^[18]. As previously stated, according to Wikipedia's notability policy on websites, this qualifies on face as "notable" and no further analysis of notoriety should be necessary. However, for the sake of argument, I will continue.

Third, we have established one major newsworthy event and several national recognitions. But the higher education rankings stories are clearly misunderstood by some posting on this page. This was a "hyper-local" website, making it remarkable that it could influence national news stories about higher education topics. When one suggests these were "passing references" they miss the point. The action is that this website found ways to create a national debate about higher education rankings and frequently "broke" news stories about their release in advance of what national news publications (like the U.S. News and World Report) wanted. Some proof, which you requested, includes the Above the Law and FindLaw articles, both of which have been linked to already and are easily accessible. Suggesting these are just passing references indicates the Wikipedia editors misunderstand how alternative media outlets and local journalism work and the important part of this Wikipedia entry. It is almost unheard of for small, local journalist websites to move national conversations, so the fact they were happening is itself a major form of notoriety.

So we have a website that had national recognition for the quality and substance of its content. This included years of reporting on higher education topics, especially college rankings, on top of a grade fraud scandal. This meets, and exceeds, Wikipedia's standards for website notoriety.

This is further met because of Wikipedia's stated policy of seeking to recognize smaller websites (stated above). To delete this entry runs completely contrary to the Wikipedia goal, and in my view, further privileges large, national websites, at the expense of local journalists. That is why people like myself are so passionate about this issue and entry. Highlighting successful local journalism is critically important to the industry and for the promotion of free speech, democracy, and alternative media outlet reporting.BlueOx003 (talk) 00:47, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your in depth explanation and providing the sources I requested. It definitely helps. One thing to note, the FindLaw source you referenced is a blog not a RS. It looks like The Critical Badger blog gained notoriety for not one but two events: 1.) the grade fraud scandal and 2.) leaking the US News Law School Rankings. I do find it highly suspicious that once this AfD was submitted, we had 4 IPs vote the same day in favor of keeping the page. Meatsgains (talk) 17:58, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This entry meets and exceeds Wikipedia's notability standards. Historically significant alternative media outlet. Major events include: 1. Grade fraud scandal (already cited); 2. breaking school rankings (already cited), 3. student activism coverage^[19] (this has not been fully appreciated by the previous comments); and 4. The notable awards from multiple national media organizations (already noted). This is way more than necessary to be a sufficiently notable website. As has been repeatedly mentioned, if the editors are "undecided" about this page despite the clear evidence this is a notable entry, Wikipedia very plainly states its intention to give special consideration to small websites when evaluating notoriety. I know these are not "votes" with a winner/loser, but if editors need some kind of "tie breaker" to tip the scales, that should push the decision toward keeping this page.BobDole3434 (talk) 03:28, 16 November 2015 (UTC) — BobDole3434 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this AfD. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:47, 20 November 2015 (UTC) [reply]

Concur, especially with this: "As has been repeatedly mentioned, if the editors are "undecided" about this page despite the clear evidence this is a notable entry, Wikipedia very plainly states its intention to give special consideration to small websites when evaluating notoriety. I know these are not "votes" with a winner/loser, but if editors need some kind of "tie breaker" to tip the scales, that should push the decision toward keeping this page."BlueOx003 (talk) 01:16, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:56, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - existing citations don't show it meets notability standards, and searches turned up little in support. News had single passing mention, Newspapers had zero, all but one of the mentions in books appear not to be about this subject (and the single mention is a trivial one), zip in Scholar, single non-in depth hit in Highbeam. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:47, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

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

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

The result was delete. KTC (talk) 00:19, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mobile_Spy

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Mobile Spy

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

Advertisement and Spam Breadaison (talk) 02:41, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 04:48, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't see anything notable about this mobile app. Probably hundreds of similar type apps, and this one hasn't got much coverage. Articles cited are trivial mentions. FuriouslySerene (talk) 14:10, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Nothing better yet. SwisterTwister talk 21:00, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - software article of unclear notability, lacking significant independent coverage. The CBS/CNet ref is an incidental mention alongside other similar products. A search turned up only this terrible gizmodo article, nothing sufficient to establish notability.Dialectric (talk) 05:42, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. KTC (talk) 00:19, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Meng

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

Non-notable, unsuccessful political candidate. Fyddlestix (talk) 02:30, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Fyddlestix (talk) 02:31, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Fyddlestix (talk) 02:31, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Fyddlestix (talk) 02:31, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence for notability aside from his unsuccessful political candidacies. Meatsgains (talk) 03:35, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Unelected candidates for office, as always, are not entitled to Wikipedia articles on that basis if their candidacy is itself the only substantive claim of notability that can be made — WP:NPOL grants notability to officeholders, while a candidate gets an article only if you can properly demonstrate that they were already notable enough for a Wikipedia article for some other reason before running as a candidate. But this doesn't fulfill that condition. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 03:49, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails criteria at WP:POLITICIAN AusLondonder (talk) 08:53, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep as this is certainly more notable and acceptable now (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 07:55, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reedy High School (Frisco, Texas)

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

This stub has no independent references to reliable sources. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:30, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment High schools are usually notable though. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 02:47, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Yes, High schools should be notable. Breadaison —Preceding undated comment added 02:53, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment True, but if the article cannot be backed up with reliable sources then we, if it's an article on a school, redirect it. Just because it has the words "High School" in the title doesn't mean it automatically gets a pass. If you can find reliable sources then keep it otherwise redirect it to the page on the school district it belongs to. Simple as that. Americanfreedom (talk) 03:01, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Sorry. I didn't mean to cause this much trouble. DerekSquared
Comment You didn't, I apologize if I was a little over zealous. Americanfreedom (talk) 03:38, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 04:52, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 04:53, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 04:53, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It doesn't matter that the article is incomplete, it is a high school and it exists, so we have a longstanding tradition of keeping these as expressed at WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES.Jacona (talk) 04:57, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - we keep high schools as long as there is proof they exist. VMS Mosaic (talk) 08:08, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - definitely, per long standing precedent as documented at OUTCOMES. This is a proper mainstream high school and part of a school district system. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:19, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, both because of longstanding practice regarding high schools, and because sufficient sources are already present in the article, and evident in the GNews results for "Reedy High School", to establish notability. --Arxiloxos (talk) 15:44, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Per longstanding precedent for verifiable secondary schools as documented at WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:20, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 19:29, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. KTC (talk) 00:20, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Polska (disambiguation)

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

Not really a disambig page. In fact only one item is valid: The entry "Poland in Polish language" is irrelevant: wikipedia is not Google Translate. See also Talk:Polska (dance)#Requested_move 4 November 2015 Staszek Lem (talk) 01:58, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 04:54, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TWODABS. Polska as a name of Poland and the dance are the only two valid entries. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:39, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Polska is not a name of Poland in English language. This is English wikipedia. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:19, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The Polish usage could make sense if someone wrote an article such as Hrvatski (disambiguation), but not like this. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 17:40, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. KTC (talk) 00:20, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Universal Business Adapter

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

This is an imaginary product described in a single television commercial in 2002. The article claims that the term has entered into wider use but I can't find any evidence to support that. Fails WP: GNG. clpo13_(talk) 09:21, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. no apparent evidence for notability DGG ( talk ) 09:15, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 01:12, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete Nonnotable advert joke. Staszek Lem (talk) 02:02, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:18, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Julian Shapiro

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

Non notable, part of an apparent promotional campaign. One book and a few magazine articles don't make for a notable author. The Refs are mostly to his own work, with the typical addition of press releases, and announcements. DGG ( talk ) 01:09, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete - the lede about him being a web developer and entrepreneur makes him clearly non-notable - I can't find anything in the refs about a reliable source saying that. The secondary claim about him being a writer is true, the refs to his own work show that, but just having published doesn't make him a notable journalist. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 01:40, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. ~Awilley (talk) 02:10, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is just self-promotion IMHO. Chisme (talk) 02:34, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 03:39, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 03:39, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 03:39, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I see nothing convincingly better. SwisterTwister talk 03:40, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm not looking to start an extensive back-and-forth debate, but I'll point things a few things out: First, I wrote this article, so I'm inherently bias. Second, let's talk about the merit of the person being discussed from the intended context: Painting Julian Shapiro as a top contributor to open source software. He two popular open source libraries, was awarded Stripe's open source grant, was interviewed on Forbes (which called him a "major contributor to open source"), wrote a well-received book on open source for Pearson, and is a regular contributor to popular web development blogs. You can find the sources for all of these claims clearly referenced on the article version from notable sources — before it was gutted down to 1/5th its length by user Chisme. On that note, a final comment: The article was gutted extensively then immediately nominated for deletion, and that deletion nomination was then immediately supported via "delete" votes by a group of people who historically vote in concert with Chisme. If you're compelled to remove the article, certainly do what's right for Wikipedia, but I recommend someone outside of this initial group of users give the previous article draft due consideration. Factschreiber talk 13 November 2015 (UTC)

If the material in the first versions had not been removed, the article would probably have been speedily deleted for being promotional, so we'll do muvh better judging the present version. DGG ( talk ) 23:32, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - First off, whether or not I am familiar with other editors bears absolutely no weight on my !vote. Second, I don't recall ever coming across Chisme before. There is a nice piece in Forbes, while although primarily an interview (and therefore a primary source and should not be used for notability purposes), contains enough other in-depth info to make it okay for notability purposes. But that's it. The rest of the hits on News are by the subject or trivial mentions. Newspapers, Books, Scholar, and Highbeam, all produced only a few trivial mentions, or nothing at all. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:14, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. KTC (talk) 00:21, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamin Collings

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

Delete: as non-notable victim of bizarre act of piracy in 1930s. No nexus to notability per se. Quis separabit? 22:56, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:36, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Piracy-related deletion discussions. —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:36, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:36, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:36, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:BASIC and any other criteria you care to name. Jbh ^Talk 19:38, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:08, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Total lack of notability. Staszek Lem (talk) 02:04, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. KTC (talk) 00:31, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Greg Brockman

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

Non notable, part of an apparent promotional campaign for the company. Refs are the typical combination of articles about the company, and announcements. Whether the company itself is notable is a separate question. DGG ( talk ) 01:06, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete - it's hard to go through all these refs and find - almost nothing- maybe one use of the word "Brockman", but no in-depth coverage of him. This is the first time I've seen Flickr used as a ref - but it is clearly not a reliable source. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 01:27, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
delete Obvious lack of independent coverage. Even the ref to Forges is self-published by Bkockman. Staszek Lem (talk) 02:07, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. ~Awilley (talk) 02:10, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for all the reasons cited above. To me, this is obviously an instance of self-promotion. Chisme (talk) 02:32, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 03:39, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 03:39, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 03:39, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I see nothing convincingly better. SwisterTwister talk 03:40, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Heartbeat_(G.E.M._album). (non-admin closure) Antigng (talk) 05:36, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Blind Spot (G.E.M. song)

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

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

There is no need for an article for every single song in this band's new album. rayukk | talk 11:06, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect all to the article about the album. Plausible search terms, but notability of individual songs is not established by referencing YouTube. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 11:58, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all songs don't seem notable enough by themselves.--Prisencolin (talk) 16:03, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Adding Away (G.E.M. song) to the list. rayukk | talk 08:36, 5 November 2015 (UTC) [reply]

Adding Therefore (G.E.M. song) to the list. rayukk | talk 08:45, 5 November 2015 (UTC) [reply]

Redirect all to album. Noindividual notability claimed or indeed likely.TheLongTone (talk) 14:27, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've redirected them all to the album for now, though I'm still for deleting the articles... -rayukk | talk 20:15, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Last revision with {{Afd}} of all articles before nom's redirecting per have been restored per WP:EDITATAFD. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 14:25, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 00:29, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 00:34, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 00:34, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect all as I entirely agree with the above. SwisterTwister talk 07:32, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge all to Heartbeat (G.E.M. album) without prejudice against re-expansion into articles with independent reliable sources. There's quite a lot of Chinese-language media coverage about the album and several songs. I've added a "find soures" entry above. Der yck C. 13:25, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. 13:26, 17 November 2015 (UTC) Der yck C. 13:26, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:25, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Colter Johnson

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

Non-notable film director fails WP:BIO. The three references at the present time are:

~~India~~ Indian Country Today - passing mention that just says he's the director of the film in an article about the film that is mostly based off a press release
Powwows - doesn't mention Johnson
Change the Life Channel - unreliable blog whose only mention of Johnson is quoting the Indian Country Today article (see above)

I've conducted a search for reliable sources that discuss Johnson in-depth but I've come up with nothing. Nick⁠—⁠^Contact/_Contribs 19:13, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 19:42, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:07, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I simply see no better improvement. SwisterTwister talk 04:08, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The article that mentions him was published by Indian Country Today. ^[1] Not "India Country Today" as you've listed it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.91.105.91 (talk) 21:06, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for catching my typo! I've fixed the wording, however that doesn't change the fact that the source is a passing mention and not an example of in-depth coverage. --Nick⁠—⁠^Contact/_Contribs 05:07, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:25, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

He's also mentioned here ^[2] he directed the film, seems pretty straightforward to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.91.105.91 (talk) 02:32, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 00:24, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete not notable yet. Staszek Lem (talk) 02:08, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 04:56, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not notable? Johnson seems to be noted in many places... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimino Wallace (talk • contribs) 08:03, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - clearly does not meet WP:CREATIVE, and searches turned up nothing to show he passes WP:GNG. At best a case of WP:TOOSOON. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:23, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. KTC (talk) 00:32, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unbelievable! The Movie

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

Unsourced film article, fails WP:NFF with no reliable sources (plural) confirming that principal photography has been completed, and WP:GNG with no sources at all. Best I can find is a single press-release-looking article at startrek.com about the film having wrapped. McGeddon (talk) 22:03, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:29, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:29, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:29, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:29, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:30, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alts:

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

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

Delete for now as failing WP:NFF and simply being TOO SOON. The film and filmmaker are not completely unsourcable, but we do not have enough coverage yet. It is quite possible, considering the involvement of so many notables, that this will quite possibly have enough coverage when released, and when that happens the article can be resurrected. Apparently now in post, we'll have to wait and see.Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 15:48, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 00:23, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - one needs a very big crystal ball for this. Staszek Lem (talk) 02:10, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I found the official trailer for it on YouTube. [31] It is dated two years ago. Odd it isn't out yet, being low budget and all. Dream Focus 19:17, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No evidence it meets the GNG, period, even if it wasn't written like prospective ad copy. Ravenswing 21:40, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:26, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Luis Fernando Figari

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

Unsourced BLP, reads like a vanity piece. The list of his works is almost longer than the article itself. James ^{(T • C)} • 9:10 AM • 22:10, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. The page needs much editing, but it shouldn't be deleted. Luis Fernando Figari is a public figure of significance in the Catholic Church in Peru, and the allegations against him have been the subject of many news reports, books, and magazine articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.171.39.147 (talk) 18:55, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Peru-related deletion discussions. —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:32, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:32, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:32, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:32, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This fall he is at the center of a scandal getting major international coverage [32], as such and as the founder of a major organization, he's notable. the article is abysmal, as is the article about the organization he founded Sodalitium Christianae Vitae. Article could usefully be reduced to a stub. But we really can't delete an article about a guy getting this much press.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:04, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My reaction is to Keep on the basis of the number of things he has founded and papal approvals and appointments, but I am not a Catholic and am not clear how significant some of these are, particularly since several have no article. We need to bear in mind that the subject and his works are Spanish, so that English language sources can be expected to be scarce. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:24, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But news searches bring up non-English language news reports, and many of us can and do read them.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:55, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 00:04, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The concern could be WP:BIO1E, or WP:NOTNEWS, but the sheer volume of articles about this person appears to indicate that this was not a flash in the plan news story. It's difficult to ascertain, since there is so much current coverage, as to whether or not there are other, older sources. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:21, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. KTC (talk) 00:32, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Judith Good

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

Doesn't meet the notability guidelines for academics and fails WP:GNG as there are only a few mentions of the name in the press and no significant coverage of biographical details. ℕ ℱ 22:36, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:34, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:34, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:34, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TOOSOON. Citation record [33] is good for an early-career academic but not yet strong enough for WP:PROF#C1 and there seems to be nothing else. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:32, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 00:02, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - agree with nominator and above editor. Not enough coverage to meet notability guidelines yet. FuriouslySerene (talk) 14:27, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. KTC (talk) 00:33, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

IT Tower

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

The subject of this article is an unbuilt building. The website for the tower, http://www.ittowerkarachi.com/ is no longer responsive. The Internet Archive shows that it became a placeholder / parked domain as early as 2011. [34] The Pakistani newspaper Dawn published a 427 word writeup about the proposed tower in 2006, but I am unable to find any additional coverage of this subject thereafter. To further complicate matters, there are also buildings proposed by the same/similar name in nearby localities, such as an IT Tower in Kerala. I do not believe that this particular proposed building has received significant enough coverage such that it meets our general notability guidelines, and thus am recommending it for deletion. If better sources are locating during the course of this discussion, please do not hesitate to leave me a note to that effect on my talk page. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 23:03, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:39, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:39, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:39, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:26, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Failed plan for an office tower. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 13:00, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 00:01, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now no reference provided whether the project on hold or not. Too early to create article. Umais Bin Sajjad (talk) 15:17, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Martinogk (talk) 03:47, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not enough details or confirmation to make article. Capitals00 (talk) 15:44, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

[DenhezDennis1997-1] Marc Denhez; Stephen Dennis (1 July 1997). Legal & Financial Aspects of Architectural Conservation: The Smolenice Castle Conference Central Europe. Dundurn. pp. 112–. ISBN 978-1-55488-207-6. Another such organization is the Historic Districts Council, which helps property owners in historic districts understand the Commission's process. It also monitors work — the Commission sometimes gets calls saying "There's work going on ...

[Schmickle2007-2] William Edgar Schmickle (2007). The Politics of Historic Districts: A Primer for Grassroots Preservation. Rowman Altamira. pp. 162–. ISBN 978-0-7591-0756-4. New York City's Historic Districts Council calls itself "The Voice for Your Neighborhood." Designation also requires every federal agency, under Section I06 of the Historic Preservation Act of 1966, to take into account how any federally funded ...

[Tomlan2014-3] Michael A. Tomlan (21 November 2014). Historic Preservation: Caring for Our Expanding Legacy. Springer. pp. 276–. ISBN 978-3-319-04975-5. Assuming the historic preservation organization is as deeply concerned as it should be in the political process, it will sponsor public forums during election periods. For example, New York City's Historic Districts Council hosts forums, provides ...

[4] Fulton Street Transit Center, New York, New York, Section 4(f) Evaluation: Environmental Impact Statement. 2004. pp. 92–. The ElS should include a detailed analysis of potential adverse impacts to historic resource including demolition, new shadows ... The Historic Districts Council (HDC) promotes worthy neighborhoods for designation as a New York City historic ...

[5] Preserving the Future: Historic Districts in New York City and Chicago in the Late 20th Century. ProQuest. 2007. pp. 284–. ISBN 978-0-549-39201-9.

[Kaufman2009-6] Ned Kaufman (11 September 2009). Place, Race, and Story: Essays on the Past and Future of Historic Preservation. Routledge. pp. 229–. ISBN 978-1-135-88972-2. In 2004, the Historic Districts Council, a leading preservation group, dedicated its annual conference to "Cultural Landmarks: Controversy, Practice and Prospects." In 2008, the organizers of a conference at the Museum of the City of New York ...

[DeSenaShortell2012-7] Judith N. DeSena; Timothy Shortell (2012). The World in Brooklyn: Gentrification, Immigration, and Ethnic Politics in a Global City. Lexington Books. pp. 176–. ISBN 978-0-7391-6670-3. ... the Furman Center for Real Estate and Urban Policy at New York University found that only between 2002 and 2005, nearly ... the New York Landmarks Conservancy, the Historic Districts Council, Coney Island USA and Save Coney Island.

[LLC1986-8] New York Media, LLC (21 July 1986). New York Magazine. New York Media, LLC. pp. 11–. A source close to the city's Public Development Corporation has told New York that only two of the four finalists in the competition ... The New York Landmarks Conservancy, the Municipal Arts Society, and the Historic Districts Council claim the ...

[HammettWrigley2013-9] Jerilou Hammett; Maggie Wrigley (1 November 2013). The Architecture of Change: Building a Better World. UNM Press. pp. 242–. ISBN 978-0-8263-5386-3. Place Matters co—sponsored a conference on cultural and historical landmarking with the Historic Districts Council, a private organization that has long advocated for New York's historic districts. One of the more interesting areas to win ...

[LLC1990-10] New York Media, LLC (12 March 1990). New York Magazine. New York Media, LLC. pp. 104–. Stroll through the New York City Antique Tribal Arts and Native American Indian Arts Show and the Spring Pier Antiques Show. 3/10-1 1. ... S50-S300 . . . The New York City's Historic Districts Council is working to keep the best of our past.

[WalshCoureas2012-11] Michael J. K. Walsh; Nicholas Coureas; Peter W. Edbury (2012). Medieval and Renaissance Famagusta: Studies in Architecture, Art and History. Ashgate Publishing, Ltd. pp. 23–. ISBN 978-1-4094-3557-0.

[FerreriGoldfarb2010-12] James G. Ferreri; David Goldfarb (2010). Stapleton. Arcadia Publishing. pp. 6–. ISBN 978-0-7385-7260-4. We would also like to acknowledge the efforts of the Mud Lane Society for the Renaissance of Stapleton, the Preservation League of Staten Island, and the Historic Districts Council of New York City for their efforts in obtaining a New York City ...

[13] Designer, Builder. Vol. 11. Fine Additions, Incorporated. 2004. pp. 86–. In March, Place Matters co-sponsored a conference on cultural and historical landmarking with the Historic Districts Council, a private organization that ...

[14] Metropolis. Vol. 7. Bellerophon Publications. January 1988. pp. 21–. ... it has to renew itself." In reply, Anthony C. Wood, president of the Historic Districts Council and a longtime advocate of preservation causes who has ... Omnia accessories are available thru leading distributors coast to coast. For the name of ..

[Diamonstein-Spielvogel2011-15] Barbaralee Diamonstein-Spielvogel (1 September 2011). The Landmarks of New York, Fifth Edition: An Illustrated Record of the City's Historic Buildings. SUNY Press. pp. 5–. ISBN 978-1-4384-3771-2. ... due to the dedication of the New York City Landmarks Preservation Commission, Municipal Art Society, New York Landmarks Conservancy, Historic Districts Council, and the vigilant work of citizen activists and neighborhood associations.

[16] Congressional Record, V. 148, PT. 1, January 23, 2002 to February 13, 2002. Government Printing Office. 1 May 2006. pp. 90–. GGKEY:KGWX5J2K340.

[Byles2007-17] Jeff Byles (18 December 2007). Rubble: Unearthing the History of Demolition. Crown/Archetype. pp. 20–. ISBN 978-0-307-42154-8. ... due to bite the dust over the next decade. "We're living in a society," said David Goldfarb, president of New York City's Historic Districts Council, stating the glaringly obvious, "that wants to tear things down and throw everything away.

[Lindgren2014-18] James M. Lindgren (18 April 2014). Preserving South Street Seaport: The Dream and Reality of a New York Urban Renewal District. NYU Press. pp. 285–. ISBN 978-1-4798-2257-7. Yet, after CB1 and the Historic Districts Council asked the LPC to landmark the New Market Building, the LPC denied the request in its first review in 2013. At the same time, the City Council decided, with the endorsement of Quinn and Chin, ...

[19] Historic Preservation: Quarterly of the National Council for Historic Sites and Buildings. The Council. pp. 35–. ... and president of the Historic Districts Council, a citywide preservation group supporting designation of the Ladies' Mile. Because current zoning would require part of each lot to be left open, new buildings could gain little or no usable space.

[Sherman2015-20] Scott Sherman (23 June 2015). Patience and Fortitude: Power, Real Estate, and the Fight to Save a Public Library. Melville House. pp. 110–. ISBN 978-1-61219-430-1. Fortunately for Warren, one nonprofit organization with a broad ambit was in a combative mood: the Historic Districts Council (HDC), led by Simeon Bankoff, forty-four, a dyed-inthe-wool New Yorker and maverick. HDC, which is located in the ...

[McAlester2015-21] Virginia Savage McAlester (29 July 2015). A Field Guide to American Houses: The Definitive Guide to Identifying and Understanding America's Domestic Architecture. Knopf Doubleday Publishing Group. pp. 2725–. ISBN 978-0-385-35387-8.

[WhiteWillensky2010-22] Norval White; Elliot Willensky; Fran Leadon (11 May 2010). AIA Guide to New York City. Oxford University Press. pp. 603–. ISBN 978-0-19-975864-7.

[LLC1994-23] New York Media, LLC (13 June 1994). New York Magazine. New York Media, LLC. pp. 11–. ISSN 0028-7369.

[Bloszies2013-24] Charles Bloszies (2 July 2013). Old Buildings New Designs: Architectural Transformations. Princeton Architectural Press. pp. 115–. ISBN 978-1-61689-201-2. Simeon Bankoff, executive director of the Historic Districts Council, asserted, "We feel it's not an appropriate building. It does not respond to, respect, or even speak to its landmark base."

[Wood2013-25] Anthony Wood (28 October 2013). Preserving New York: Winning the Right to Protect a City’s Landmarks. Taylor & Francis. pp. 15–. ISBN 978-1-136-76608-4. As with so many other preservation initiatives, it received early funding from the J. M. Kaplan Fund in the form of a grant to the project«s fiscal agent, the Historic Districts Council. The project«s efforts were sporadic at best in these early years.

[Kroeter2003-26] Steven W. Kroeter (2003). Design New York 2004: the what where when reference guide to architecture, fashion, graphic design, interior design, and product design in New York city. Design Paradigm. pp. 57–. ISBN 978-0-9640304-3-5.

[Scarce2015-27] Rik Scarce (23 February 2015). Creating Sustainable Communities: Lessons from the Hudson River Region. SUNY Press. pp. 141–. ISBN 978-1-4384-5642-3. As an architect, design is very much on her mind, while as an advo‐cate—she was the first female president of New York's Historic Districts Council, which watches over thousands of older buildings throughout Manhattan—Bollack's emphasis ...

[LLC1987-28] New York Media, LLC (30 March 1987). New York Magazine. New York Media, LLC. pp. 10–. ... high rollers to his Atlantic City casinos. point Tung because he believed that the panel should speak with "a single unified voice." Says Historic Districts Council president Anthony Wood, "We wanted Abrams to know how important Tung is.

[Alpern1965-29] Robert A. Alpern (1965). Pratt guide to planning and renewal for New Yorkers. Quadrangle. pp. xxiv–. Historic Districts Council c/o Municipal Art Society 41 East 65th Street New York City 10021 Advice to neighborhoods considering application to the Landmarks Preservation Commission for designation as an historic district on ...

[30] Congressional Record, V. 147, Pt. 9, June 26, 2001 to July 16 2001. Government Printing Office. December 2005. pp. 13160–. ... York Landmarks Conservancy, the Historic Districts Council, and the Queensboro Preservation League, as well as the thousands of constituents who turn to this park as a resource for recreation opportunities every spring, summer, and fall.

[31] ttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion#How_to_contribute

[32] ttps://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2004/12/30/142458/25

[33] ttps://jezebel.com/5978883/wikipedias-editors-are-87-percent-male-because-citations-are-stored-in-the-penis

[34] ttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Tendentious_editing#One_who_ignores_or_refuses_to_answer_good_faith_questions_from_other_editors

[35] ttps://abovethelaw.com/2009/04/u-s-news-law-school-rankings-leaked-dont-forget-to-take-your-grain-of-salt/

[36] ttps://blogs.findlaw.com/greedy_associates/2009/04/us-news-law-school-rankings-leaked-maybe.html

[37] ttps://pjmedia.com/instapundit/017860/

[38] ttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instapundit

[39] ttps://www.newamerica.org/weekly/local-journalism-in-the-digital-age/

[40] ttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability

[41] ttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(web)

[42] ttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(web)#No_inherent_notability

[43] ttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(web)#Criteria

[44] ttps://pjmedia.com/instapundit/017860/

[45] ttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_bureaucracy

[46] ttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milwaukee_Press_Club

[47] ttps://www.usnews.com/education/blogs/paper-trail/2009/02/03/best-alternative-media-outlet-2008

[48] ttps://pjmedia.com/instapundit/017860/

[49] ttps://host.madison.com/news/local/critical-badger-blog-vote-picks-top-campus-leader/article_4869b23a-0c8f-5126-9747-1835d33b1e48.html

[50] ttps://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/2014/01/23/russell-means-movie-watch-20-minutes-conspiracy-be-free-153241

[51] ttps://www.peoplesworld.org/today-in-native-american-history-russell-means-is-born/

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

[14]

[15]

[16]

[17]

[18]

[19]

[20]

[21]

[22]

[23]

[24]

[25]

[26]

[27]

[28]

[29]

[30]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

[14]

[15]

[16]

[17]

[18]

[19]

[1]

[2]