Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 September 8

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 7 September 9 September >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Swarm ♠ 03:47, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vancouver Thunderbirds[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Non-notable association football club. No RSes and none can be found. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:00, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 17:09, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - playing in the 4th tier of American soccer is enough. GiantSnowman 17:11, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - as per GiantSnowman Spiderone 18:28, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • What is wrong with @GiantSnowman: and @Spiderone:? The team is Canadian, not American. Second, the fourth tier in Canada (or the United States) is not the same as the fourth tier in England, Scotland or any European nation. Teams in third tier receive no media coverage and are not notable. Your milieu is completely wrong and you're making a mess of things by being completely ignorant of these two simple facts. Show me the sources to support your claim that this team is notable. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:16, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • The fact that http://pcsl.org/home is a completely amateur league should also be noted. That's the league in which the club plays. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:21, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Having lived in Vancouver for 5 months I'm fully aware which country it is in. Playing in an amateur league doesn't matter at all; what matters for soccer clubs is being eligible to play in the National Cup competition, which I understand all Tier 4 teams are. GiantSnowman 10:25, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • In that case, @GiantSnowman:, I should take you out for a beer, but only five teams are eligible to play in the national cup: the three MLS clubs and the two NASL clubs. See Canadian Championship. This club plays in the Pacific Coast Soccer League. Teams play for The Challenge Trophy, which is a play-off between regional leagues. It is not the national cup (FA Cup, DFB Pokal, etc.). Would you like to change your opinion now? Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:07, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'm back living in England now but next time I'm over for sure! Back on topic, I am happy with notabilty, given that clubs in the same league tier can qualify for the national (albeit US) championship - the fact that this club is geographically located in Canada is largely irrelevant given the peculiarities of North American soccer. GiantSnowman 17:11, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
            • No Canadian teams can qualify for the Lamar Hunt U.S. Open Cup. If a Canadian team places first in MLS or wins its playoffs, they do not qualify to play in the cup. No lower leagues can either. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:11, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • 'being eligible to play in the National Cup competition' seems rather WP:CRYSTALBALL.Derek Andrews (talk) 19:34, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:28, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:28, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:28, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - not only plays in 4th tier, but won it for 3 consecutive years. Nfitz (talk) 19:05, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • But again, the fourth tier in Canada & the US are not notable. If it is, significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subjectshould be provided. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:15, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - can't find any consensus that the fourth tier in America is inherently notable, so not sure about the validity of the keep statements above. Aside from that, I can find nothing whatsoever of any substance on the team through google, just a handful of very brief routine match reports. Perhaps merging the table to UBC Thunderbirds. Fenix down (talk) 15:09, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - 4th tier in U.S./Canada is far different than the 4th tier in the U.K. Can't find any substantial coverage to show they meet WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 16:24, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Hoping to find a more authoritative statement one way or the about regarding wikipolicy vis-a-vis 4th tier teams -- RoySmith (talk) 23:24, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 23:24, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I don't see anything notable about the subject, and the article itself doesn't provide much information beyond what could easily be conveyed by expanding the table at Pacific_Coast_Soccer_League#Premier.Derek Andrews (talk) 14:28, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: AFC Wimbledon may be the coolest football club in the world, but 4th tier means nothing for American or Canadian teams. If its notable, we simply need to show that by cites to comprehensive coverage on the team.--Milowent • hasspoken 17:09, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Per One15969, there is no substantial coverage to show WP:GNG. MrWooHoo (talk) 02:34, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Jeremy Piven. (non-admin closure) Esquivalience t 01:52, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Spence Kovak[edit]

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

Fictional character who has "been in four series", except that he was really only a central character in one of them and a one-off fictional crossover guest in any of the others. And even more importantly, the article just consists of a single sentence asserting his existence and a table of his appearances, while not demonstrating or sourcing even the first hint of a reason why he would warrant an independent article about his existence (such as, y'know, some real-world context for what might make him a notable television character.) Delete. Bearcat (talk) 22:44, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 23:00, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:03, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:03, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Not a notable character. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 23:02, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Jeremy Piven as in any case this may be a useful disambiguation page but I also suppose it would be best connected with Jeremy. SwisterTwister talk 07:29, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. After the success of the campaign, all opinions have been "keep"; a "delete" result seems out of the question now.  Sandstein  13:06, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremy Corbyn leadership campaign, 2015[edit]

Jeremy Corbyn leadership campaign, 2015 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is a WP:FORK an unnecessary spin-off of Jeremy Corbyn. By developing an article of this nature on only one out of four candidates, it gives undue weight to one part of an ongoing political campaign in which four candidates including Corbyn are equally involved. There has been no consensus (and little discussion) at Talk:Jeremy Corbyn to justify the formation of this article. The article should be merged back to the Corbyn article, and relevant parts (balanced in relation to the other three candidates) should be added to the Labour Party (UK) leadership election, 2015 article. In any event, the article title needs to change - leadership of what? Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:58, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • I agree, Wikipedia must not be seen to be giving more weight to the role of one candidate while the election is ongoing Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 09:25, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I can agree on principle that Wikipedia must be seen as impartial during an election campaign – perhaps a suitable compromise would be to move the article to a sandbox and wait for the election result to be announced in September? Willwal, (talk) 11:14, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If the issue is bias, User:Ghmyrtle, create articles for the other candidates then.... AusLondonder (talk) 15:31, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Bias is one of the issues, but not the only one. More material on the four candidates and their reception should be included in the overall election campaign article. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:58, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 09:06, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 09:06, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think the problem is that there would not be enough content for an article about the other candidate's campaigns, but if there was one for just Corbyn it would seem unfair. Comparison with the USA is slightly unfair because their Presidential candidates are much more high-profile compared to our parliamentary system. Could you explain why you think moving the "responses" section into the labour leadership article would not be a fair compromise? Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 15:41, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree with that. Even if his is larger, the others would still meet WP:GNG as well. This is a high-profile election, and the first US-style primary. The candidates for US Democratic Party nomination in 2008 I mentioned weren't high profile. AusLondonder (talk) 15:44, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that articles for the other candidates would be needed if they didn't already have articles about them, but considering the fact they do, I don't see that there is enough content to warrant a separate article. I feel like we are not going to agree on this so maybe we should see what others have to say. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 15:51, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It is really not that similar to a US presidential primary. It is for leadership of a political party, not a precursor for a democratic election of a head of state. We already have an article on the collective campaign. The relevant material - and material on the other candidates - should be included there, not in a freestanding article. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:58, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is a precursor for a democratic election for a head of government. Can't see the difference. AusLondonder (talk) 16:14, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, it seems you can't. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:18, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What is it then? WP:GEOBIAS? AusLondonder (talk) 16:21, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And, frankly, you, as nom should be making clear the difference. Your argument thus far been nothing other than "The other candidates don't have articles". Well, in the case get to work and make them rather than nominating articles that meet WP:GNG within minutes of creation. AusLondonder (talk) 17:50, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
AusLondonder could you please set out why you think putting the "responses" section into the leadership election article would not work - Ghmyrtle and I have explained why we think putting it into its own article would be a bad idea but you have not yet said why you think our compromise of putting into the election article would be inadequate Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 18:47, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've already said that I think an article for each candidate's campaign would be appropriate now the election has been more of a Presidential style campaign with a wider electorate and I believe an article for each candidate would meet WP:GNG. I think the campaign articles bring together all the information in one place. AusLondonder (talk) 23:25, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Four different editors (myself, Ghmyrtle, Willwal and GoldenRing) have set out why we don't think this article would be a good idea. There is enough space in the Leadership article to include all the media responses as well - surely that is the best place to collate them, and avoids the problems we have discussed. If you wish, we can ask a mod for help on this one as it is clearly a very controversial topic and any suggestion that Wikipedia was biased could be extremely serious Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 07:41, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We should note that Willwal, who created the Jeremy Corbyn leadership campaign, 2015 article, has offered to take it out of article space, and hold it in a sandbox, at least until the election result is known. We should accept that suggestion. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:47, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It does not matter. The article does not belong to the creator. No consensus currently exists to delete. This article, without a shadow of a doubt, meets WP:GNG. Mitt Romney won the Republican nomination for US president in 2012. He lost the election. He has the following articles, amongst others (including a campaign article): Business career of Mitt Romney, List of Mitt Romney presidential campaign endorsements, 2012, Public image of Mitt Romney, Mitt Romney dog incident, Binders full of women while 12 Republican candidates, including the obscure, have articles. WP:GEOBIAS. AusLondonder (talk) 15:30, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In addition, the noms deletion rationale is concerning. Firstly, they cite WP:FORK, which says "Mirrors and forks of Wikipedia are publications that mirror (copy exactly) or fork (copy, but change parts of the material of) Wikipedia. Many correctly follow the licensing terms; however, many others fail – accidentally or intentionally – to place the notice required by these terms. Such pages are listed below in alphabetical order. If you find such links, please add them here." - utterly irrelevant to this article. They then claim this article gives undue weight to Corbyn because no other candidate has one. Create them then! You don't delete a good article which meets WP:GNG because other good articles don't exist yet. The nom says "In any event, the article title needs to change - leadership of what?" - the Labour Party (UK) is the answer to that question. AusLondonder (talk) 15:34, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Forget about WP:FORK - I must have misremembered the term used when part of an existing article is copy-pasted to form a new article. Whatever the term is, that is what happened here. Regarding the article title, you need to set out what a new title should be. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:59, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
With regards to the title of the article, I suppose it could be renamed Jeremy Corbyn party leadership campaign, 2015 – however none of the US presidential campaign article titles have had to specify the presidency of which country: Bernie Sanders presidential campaign, 2016 rather than 'Bernie Sanders United States presidency campaign, 2016'. Willwal, (talk) 20:40, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: If we can have ones of US presidential candidate's campaigns, I see no reason why the same principle can't apply to the campaigns to be leader of one of the UK's main political parties. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 21:27, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: my position and vote have been changed by the arguments put forward by AusLondonder, Boscaswell and The C of E. There is precedent with articles for the campaigns run by presidential candidates – such articles were created prior to any election result being known, and no question of impartiality was raised then. Furthermore I think we can broadly agree that Corbyn's campaign has far greater significance over those run by his opponents – regardless of whether you agree with his politics, Corbyn has featured prominently in national and international news on a regular basis. I hardly think that Wikipedia can be accused of showing bias, were it to create an article that reflects this. -Willwal (talk) 10:02, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge and redirect - the keep per NOTABILITY, the merge and redirect per NPOV. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 17:08, 2 September 2015 (UTC).[reply]
For the record, with regard to those voting in favour of merging content with the Labour Party (UK) leadership election, 2015 article, the section about 'Reactions' to the Corbyn campaign, has already been merged into a section on the aforementioned article entitled 'Media reactions'. Willwal (talk) 14:14, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's a real thing/phrase, being widely used in the press. God save Britian.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:18, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We actually agree during an AFD! That's a change, User:E.M.Gregory! :) AusLondonder (talk) 10:59, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
True, and nice. I'm all about sources. This topic is well-supported.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:28, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete just really yesterdays newspaper stuff, its not a presidential election just the leader of a British political party, I cant see why it should not be in Labour Party (UK) leadership election, 2015 or similar to create a balanced view of all the candidates positions. MilborneOne (talk) 10:33, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
User:MilborneOne Are you saying that candidates for party nomination in US presidential elections deserve such pages but not British candidates? AusLondonder (talk) 10:52, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry that is an other stuff exists argument and unrelated to this discussion. MilborneOne (talk) 10:57, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
But you made that comment? You said "its not a presidential election just the leader of a British political party" AusLondonder (talk) 10:58, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That was to answer the comments above related to comparing this to American presidential election candidates to say that it wasnt relevant to this discussion, which it isnt. MilborneOne (talk) 11:23, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I really must question this assertion of "yesterdays (sic) newspaper stuff". Even if the Corbyn campaign were to very suddenly plunge into the abyss, lose spectacularly etc., that does not mean that Wikipedia should simply ignore the very considerable impact that Corbyn campaign has had on the Labour Party (UK) leadership election, on the size of the party's membership and the amount of national and international media coverage, high-profile interventions etc. that have occurred in the past 2-3 months. Furthermore, it is quite likely that the Corbyn leadership campaign – even if unsuccessful electorally – will have an impact on the policies of whoever the next leader is.
As it happens, there is very little evidence to sustain your argument that Corbyn's leadership campaign is yesterday's news and no longer relevant, given the fact that newspapers, magazines, online news outlets and social media are still reporting on his progress. Willwal (talk) 19:07, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I still stand by my opinion, I dont have a problem with it being mentioned in one of the election articles but it really is not that important for a stand-alone article, what the media and politicians get excited about doesnt mean that the general public actually take much note and would not consider an election for a leader of a political party to be worthy of an article. MilborneOne (talk) 19:22, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
But it really seems that you are giving your opinion about the state of the general public's view of something. There is a great deal of evidence to contest your view – that the public aren't engaged in Corbyn's leadership campaign – but even so, the question of the article's notability and relevance (WP:NOTE) is largely covered by Wikipedia's general guidelines: "Significant coverage" backed up by a range of reliable secondary sources – where does this article fall short in meeting such criteria? Willwal (talk) 21:11, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
AusLondonder, there are immense differences between an American Presidential election and leadership of a UK party, the second isn't even really comparable with US primaries. Only paid up party members, are eligible to vote. I don't see why the encyc content could not go into the general article until such time as the dust settles, maybe his campaign will prove very significant historically, but at the moment we are crystal-ball gazing. At the present moment the article reads as his manifesto, and I wonder whether that is the proper purpose of WP. Incidentally, I'm none too sure that articles about ongoing US election candidates are actually an asset to WP, we aren't a newspaper. Pincrete (talk) 22:08, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, Pincrete one of the main controversies about the election campaign was because the Labour election DID allow anyone to vote and not just paid-up members. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 23:06, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't say it's fair to call the content of this article "his manifesto". There is a great deal of balance on the various subsections, with criticisms from anti-Corbyn voices represented. Willwal (talk) 22:48, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The main election page gives a far more rounded picture of the controversies, no mention on 'his' article that every living ex-Labour leader has opposed him, little mention of the various 'vote-stacking' controversies and counter accusations. The election does not allow anyone to vote and has been mired in controversy as a result, as I understand it it is party members, but disallowing 'entryist' voters. A 'manifesto' is precisely what it is and if that is its purpose, fine, what is our purpose in hosting it ?Pincrete (talk) 09:43, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Your comments here have been so fundamentally wrong and contrary to policy. What mannifesto includes criticism and media reaction? Why do you believe US presidential primaries are inherently more notable than de fact British political primaries? Primaries in the US require party support as well, not just anyone can vote AusLondonder (talk) 10:04, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
AusLondonder, where exactly do I say or imply that US elections are more important than UK ones, please don't make assumptions about my comments. As it happens I'm an ex UK LabParty member, now living outside UK. Manifesto because it states his position on all issues, regardless of whether they have come up in the election, and are you seriously suggesting that unilateral nuclear disarming and leaving NATO has only caused two criticisms. As I said, I don't mind if it is a manifesto, but let's call it that, simply listing candidate's positions, not pretending to give balanced, objective coverage.
The present article fails to mention little details like every previous Lab leader and many ex-ministers vociferously opposing his candicacy, while Boris Johnson has applauded it! But all that is beside the point but goes to show how difficult it is to be neutral about unfolding matters, so what exactly is the encyc advantage while the election is underway? If you visit any of the US election pages, you find near constant edit-warring, AfDs etc, WP is not a newspaper. This article will have no impact on the outcome, voters will not look to WP for guidance, however I think it is not an asset to us. Pincrete (talk) 18:06, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Who on Earth is suggesting that the article would have an impact on the outcome? That certainly is not part of Wikipedia's guideline for notability. Reactions (negative and positive) to the Corbyn campaign have been merged with the Labour Party (UK) leadership election, 2015 article, as agreed above. This article was created to reflect the considerable impact that the Corbyn campaign has had on the leadership contest, the policies of other candidates and (as many in and outside of the party have suggested) the future of the Labour Party – not to promote Corbyn as a means to political ends. Willwal (talk) 20:57, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think it obvious that the 'this is not going to effect outcome', is saying that the clear lack of balance will not affect the result, not that it should do so. So, reactions have been moved to another article, that's an interesting way of agreeing that the article does not even attempt balance. So what is this article about, since it is not about his campaign? Why would impact be on a seperate page from the election impacted? There is actually more info about impact on the main page, (which everyone would probably agree has 'widened the debate' about what sort of party Labour wants to be). Thankyou, you have persuaded me that this page is little more than a PoV fork of the main leadership page.Pincrete (talk) 08:08, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete just his manifesto + yesterday's newspaper stuff, it's not a presidential election, which evolve over an extended period of primaries etc, nothing here could not merge effectively with either the '2015 election' or his own page. After the election there may be ency material analysing the impact, though even then it would be better presented within the context of the whole election. Besides all UK/US comparisons are 'other stuff exists' arguments. Pincrete (talk) 08:19, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Whilst your arguments are about ignoring WP:GNG and WP:GEOBIAS. AusLondonder (talk) 09:19, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'll happily ignore 'GEOBIAS' when the argument is simply 'Hillary' gets one so Jeremy should have one too. That is not because I think Jeremy is less important than Hillary. I think we would all benefit if our coverage of ongoing elections was more defined (US or UK or ?? … the BBC itself has such guidelines). I'd be a little more persuaded that this was not simply a PoV fork, if editors defending it were a little busier including criticism of JC (has no one in the UK mentioned that he has never even held a shadow portfolio ?), or writing articles for the other candidates to whom the GNG and GEOBIAS arguments equally apply. Ordinarily, the absence of an 'equiv' article, wouldn't be a factor, but in the limited time frame of this election, I believe it inevitably is, and is covered by 'NOT NEWS'. Pincrete (talk) 11:49, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Swarm ♠ 21:28, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I do not think we should treat UK articles different to US ones in this instance, and even some minor US Democrat and Republican nomination hopefuls, eg Lawrence Lessig and Jim Gilmore, have campaign articles, while other minor hopefuls do not - and this seems to create no WP problems. Also Corbyn's campaign is especially notable as it is associated with a very large increase in party membership, and has had exceptionally large media coverage. Rwendland (talk) 14:27, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep: Easily notable and newsworthy enough with more than enough sources to warrant its own page rather than becoming an overly beefy subsection on any other article. As for the other three candidates' campaigns, Corbyn's is exceptional in its newsworthiness, impact, and the debate it's stirred, all of which is too much to cover in a subsection. SnoopingAsUsual (talk) 10:03, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep: This is obviously notable and deserves its own article. As mentioned before, the article passes Wikipedia's notability guideline for sure, and including this amount of information on Corbyn's page or on the Labour leadership page woud def. be undue weight. – Zumoarirodoka(talk)(email) 19:36, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The campaign has had an enormous amount of coverage and is definitely notable. But I do think the article should be changed to focus on the reception towards his campaign rather than his policies (which belong more in the main Corbyn article). (ps #JezWeDid!) --Loeba (talk) 11:46, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm leaning towards Very strong keep, especially considering he has now won the race. This campaign had a huge cultural impact on the United Kingdom, dwarfing the other campaigns by far. If there is an issue regarding bias, then articles should be created for the other candidates, and if need be, parts of this page rewritten. (#JezWeDid!!!) Nbdelboy (talk) 12:15, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Swarm ♠ 03:49, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of Romanian expatriate footballers[edit]

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

Past consensus has been that lists of this type are not notable. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Israeli footballers playing overseas, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Indonesian expatriate footballers, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Costa Rican expatriate footballers, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Indian footballers who have played for foreign clubs, among others. Certainly there is no indication that this list meets the general notability guideline Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:32, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:33, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not delete this page - It is currently one page "List of Romanian expatriate footballers" and I think the content is good and developed than before and more up to date. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlexGerrard77 (talk • contribs) 03:55, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per prior consensus, and WP:LISTCRUFT. GiantSnowman 09:57, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 10:06, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 10:07, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This is already fulfilled by Category:Romanian expatriate footballers so no need for an article. Spiderone 12:14, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, annotated, so much more useful than that category . Categories don't make good lists redundant per WP:CLN Siuenti (talk) 20:04, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's useful is one of the explicitly enumerated arguments to avoid at afd. Since there is no indication these footballers have received significant coverage as a group so the list fails WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:16, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"This list brings together related topics in X and is useful for navigating that subject." Siuenti (talk) 20:29, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't change the fact that the subject itself is not notable though. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:37, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer to think of it as a sub-list of list of Romanian footballers, split off by the defining characteristic of where they played. Siuenti (talk) 14:24, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sir Sputnik, "WP:USEFUL" is not a fair rebuttal considering that Siuenti was responding to Spiderone's deletion argument above that the list wasn't useful in light of the category (an argument that is also contra WP:CLN). But regardless, utility is almost always going to be relevant to list AFDs, which are typically more about how we present information rather than the information itself. postdlf (talk) 16:24, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment let's just examine useful Category:Romanian expatriate footballers is. I think the most likely search criteria for these people are notability, level of play, and country they went to. The category is completely useless for all of them, and the best thing you can do with it is pick members at random, or start at the beginning and work your way through, very slowly. The list covers level of play and destination country, and would also be good place to mention the most notable ones in the lead. Siuenti (talk) 14:24, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:CLN, as a complement to Category:Romanian expatriate footballers. It is not necessary that a list's grouping be notable as a group (often an incoherent analysis when applied to many lists), as WP:LISTN itself makes clear—it is only one way to analyze the merit of lists. Where lists organize articles, i.e. where every entry is notable, and the classification is not unusual or trivial, WP:LISTPURP is the more relevant guideline. Here we have a whole category structure at Category:Expatriate association football players by nationality. If expatriate playing status is standard and significant enough to categorize, then it's certainly standard and significant enough to list. postdlf (talk) 16:24, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:52, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:52, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the list, but ensure that each of the listed footballers satisfy the notability criteria, per WP:CSC. Razvan Socol (talk) 05:35, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - clear consensus that such lists are not notable. Additionally an inherently unencyclopedic list. A romanian who has moved to Germany and plays for a small team in a local five-a-side league meets the criteria for this list. Fenix down (talk) 14:53, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Incorrect. If you look at the article's lead you will notice that the list is limited to "professional leagues" and "football". Macosal (talk) 01:44, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Swarm ♠ 21:28, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the rationale postdlf provided. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 06:52, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment if this article is to be kept, it does require a substantial overhaul. I'm not against keeping it by any means, but: 1. The criteria need to be clarified. The lead says leagues need to be professional (I'd assume as per Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues) - but many of those listed here aren't. Further, I'd assume players need to have taken the field (also not explicitly stated. 2. the list is incomplete; one which came to my mind was Răzvan Raț who is not listed for his time at West Ham. Meanwhile many players are listed who shouldn't be (dual nationals) - for example, Hagi Gligor might be of Romanian descent but was born and raised in Australia and plays for Australian youth teams - per convention on other Wikipedia pages he shouldn't be included. Also the single reference currently provided is insufficient.
I'm not against keeping the page - I know in Australia at least that players playing abroad in pro leagues do receive a lot of public attention (although I can't say I'm too familiar with the situation in Romania) but these improvements do need to be made (I might make some of them myself, but don't have the time/knowledge to do them all. I'd probably be inclined to wait until the result of this before doing anything too substantial only to see it deleted anyway. I'd also suggest something like List of foreign Premier League players being used as a template for how to structure the page and in particular its lead. Macosal (talk) 14:02, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Also just noticed that this list is limited to "currently playing abroad. I think that needs to change too.... Macosal (talk) 14:03, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Inclusion criteria is a matter for editing. And it should be obvious that such a list should be limited to those who merit articles, by whatever standard. postdlf (talk) 22:25, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you that inclusion criteria is a matter for editing rather than deletion. However, in its current state the article requires significant change or else I don't think it should remain. "Current" players is a clear concern to me (see WP:RECENT). I don't think the article should remain if it's just an index of Romanians playing overseas right now - it needs to be opened up to all time. Also I think players must not only be notable, they must have taken the field and that must have been in a fully professional league, or else the criteria for inclusion are too broad/indeterminate. If these changes were implemented then I would probably agree to keeping the list, but as I've said, in its current state I do have issues. Macosal (talk) 03:28, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it shouldn't be limited to current players. But deletion certainly won't fix that, and per policy (WP:ATD, WP:PRESERVE) we don't delete content for fixable problems (a problem that I've fixed in any event). postdlf (talk) 14:31, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per consensus. Also, Category:Romanian expatriate footballers already fills the gap. MYS77 ✉ 20:44, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I see no "consensus" established, just a few scattershot AFDs, all of which are years old. Please read the whole discussion, not just the nomination, as your category comment has already been responded to (and is itself contrary to guideline-established consensus). postdlf (talk) 22:25, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per Postdlf, article should be kept per WP:CLN. MrWooHoo (talk) 02:37, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 20:29, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Andrea Scholer[edit]

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

Didn't realise there'd be a previous PROD. It's a BLP that's only sourced to amazon. I can't find any reliable sources. If BLPPROD was in place when this article was first created it would be gone already. Brustopher (talk) 19:42, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 20:21, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 20:21, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 20:21, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -Nothing found that could establish notability. ABF99 (talk) 04:14, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for now as my searches found nothing to suggest improvement. SwisterTwister talk 05:10, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:00, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete already looked for sources when it was prodded. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 21:35, 12 September 2015 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete as non notable actress, A cite to Amazon doesn't cut it, I can't find bugger all either, Fails GNG. –Davey2010Talk 00:06, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Will userfy for the purposes of merging upon request. Swarm ♠ 03:51, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The New Campus Anti-Rape Movement[edit]

The New Campus Anti-Rape Movement (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article is a coatrack. The title of the article is taken from a seminar by Caroline Heldman and an unpublished book (since retitled) by Heldman and Danielle Dirks. However, the article itself mentions neither and instead argues what I assume is Heldman and Dirks' thesis with vaguely- and un-referenced content.

I proposed a merge into Campus sexual assault (see discussion). The only consensus we were able to reach was that more input was needed, preferably from AfD.

Delete as nominator. The article cannot be fixed without a complete rewrite and/or title change, the current title is not a notable subject, and there is no content worth saving. Second option, merge to Anti-Rape Movement. DPRoberts534 (talk) 20:26, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete with no Merge I believe that the coatrack-i-ness of the article merits complete removal. The entire article reads like a Point of view fork. The sources relying on an unpublished book, and vague content support its removal as well. Jcmcc (Talk) 21:03, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Now that I've dug into the source (Dirk's manuscript), I also wonder whether this is notable as presented.Mattnad (talk) 16:34, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think the article is worth saving and covers a real and notable movement. I am not adverse to a name change, but there is significant content present, and more that can be added (including references to the Heldman and Dirks work as mentioned above). I have some ideas for improving it, but would prefer someone with more knowledge of contemporary feminism to do so, or at least evaluate. I also disagree that the article is not NPOV as critiques of the movement are well represented. Carl Henderson (talk) 21:12, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and build it out in the campus sexual assault article as needed. Most of what's in this fork article is covered in greater depth in the current main article. I wouldn't argue there's an NPOV problem with it, but it's highly duplicative and not really necessary on its own.Mattnad (talk) 21:17, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Coatrack article - the authors of this article can expand the campus sexual assault article. -- Callinus (talk) 01:02, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 02:54, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 02:54, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 02:54, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:34, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:34, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Coatrack, and can easily be discussed (in a much more balanced way) in other related articles. Fyddlestix (talk) 03:37, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rescope/retitle to focus on the contemporary campus anti-rape movement. This is not a "coatrack" but rather a legitimate spinoff article focusing on the portion of the contemporary anti-rape movement that addresses campus rape. There are multiple reliable sources that discuss the movement (Ms., US News & World Report, New York Magazine) and the backlash against it (New Republic, Time). The movement has led to policy changes on campuses as well as Federal legislation and a White House task force. The closer should note that there has been off-site canvassing for this AfD in men's rights forums. gobonobo + c 22:17, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    You knew about the reddit post before you suggested taking this to AfD. Calling it canvassing now is dishonest. DPRoberts534 (talk) 01:27, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As per ≥gobonobo + c. Also, doing a search on Google turns up the term in campus web sites and was written about by New York magazine. Copyedit shouldn't be an AfD issue. Subject is notable. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 12:28, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Gobonobo's sources and argument. I would further add that the claims of Coatrack are a red herring. There is zero proof of any link between the seminar at Oxydental College and this page. They merely use the same phrasing. The bottom line is that this is a real phenomenon, and meets notability guidelines. I would also like to make sure the closer sees Gobonobo's comment re: canvassing. --Theredproject (talk) 20:25, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to campus sexual assault and anti-rape movement (the redirect should be to the former) - The title is a proper noun that suggests a clearly defined movement with an agreed upon name (or at least a popular name). But in addition to defining the Movement as "a series of movements", there just aren't sources to support a subject based on this name. So the next logical step is to consider renaming to better reflect the underlying concept. But what is that concept? We already have an article about campus sexual assault that details recent events and activism. We also have an article about the anti-rape movement which talks about this. The rape culture article is more of a theoretical perspective, but it's worth mentioning that these examples via campus sexual assault are discussed there, too. That's not to say that these are stories that should only be covered in one place, but that it's a set of examples relevant to multiple subjects combined with increased public/media attention. I don't think that means there's a new subject here; I think it means campus sexual assault is finally getting the media attention it deserves and that it's becoming a more visible/active part of the anti-rape movement. It's now an important part of those two subjects[' histories] and should receive solid coverage at both. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 21:33, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 Talk 18:02, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/Merge Per Rhododendrites, I feel like this is an example and should be in Campus Sexual Assault or Anti-rape movement. MrWooHoo (talk) 02:40, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Kraxler (talk) 18:55, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kishor Satya[edit]

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

Delete. Fails WP:ENT. Might be a case of WP:TOOSOON. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 12:24, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: fails notability, GNG. Quis separabit? 22:56, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep demonstrably meets both WP:GNG and WP:ENTERTAINER, specifically point one of the latter, which says: "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." According to this source, which he is the subject of, he has played the lead in four tv serials. He gets a feature piece here in The Hindu, which covers WP:GNG. This source mentions him getting best actor at the Asianet awards. This source mentions him as one of the co-stars in another serial. Other mentions in passing like this suggest someone who's notable and I strongly suspect that there would be more in foreign language sources. Valenciano (talk) 00:02, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:21, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:21, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:30, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Seems to be locally quite prominent, and the facts of the article are at least verifiable. --Slashme (talk) 23:34, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 Talk 18:01, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy Deleted (A7) by Bbb23. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010Talk 00:07, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Edgewater Commons[edit]

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

Non notable mall fails WP:GNG Me5000 (talk) 16:05, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:03, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:03, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:03, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:33, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: as non-notable shopping strip mall (I've been there). Quis separabit? 01:06, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 Talk 18:00, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Will userfy for an established editor in good standing for the purposes of restoration. Swarm ♠ 03:55, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Young Conservatives (website)[edit]

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

Delete per WP:G5 -- creator is a sock account of indeffed user Kbabej. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:55, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 08:07, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 08:07, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 08:07, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The question of the blocked article creator does not mean that the article/topic fails notability. My problem with the article is that this new article is purportedly about "an American conservative political website", but the handful of reliable, secondary sources in the article are about a couple of rap songs produced by the two prep school boys who started the website, (the videos are apparently hosted on the website). The website may be notable, I have not idea. If some young conservative or Good Samaritan finds reliable secondary sources supporting notability as a "conservative political website" flag me. Because I can imagine a WP:HEYYMAN situation here. It's just, I'm not seeing one.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:36, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:IAR. It was created by a blocked editor, yes, but it's notable. The references convince me. SuperCarnivore591 (talk) 16:58, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:56, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:56, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep. Looks like the user/(possibly IP?) has been blocked. With an Alexa rank that high, I think it improves WP and should have coverage. Can someone watch it for IP/sockpuppetry vandalism? --Cagepanes (talk) 16:44, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 Talk 18:00, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per G5. That speedy criterion is independent of the article's notability by the way. But even if it was not: the article is thinly sourced, with most references barely mentioning the website or its activities (besides criticizing their rapping), and filled with trivial dorm information and staff listings. Not even the most basic information about positive and negative feedback for their video (2nd paragraph in "history") is sufficiently sourced. GermanJoe (talk) 01:52, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment. Added content and 10 sources. Pinging E.M.Gregory for reevaluation. I think we'd be doing a disservice to WP to remove a website with such a high Alexa ranking, even though it was from a (rightfully blocked) socker. Did some ref searches to flesh those out a bit, and none of the new sources are about the song/rapping. --Cagepanes (talk) 20:41, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Cagepanes, you may well be correct. The sources, however, still seem to be websites and blogs. Wonkette appears to be an edited publication. "The College Fix" is also edited, (and can probably support a Wikipedia article.) Are any of the others edited? (The Dartmouth ones are, but they are closely related to the topic.) Which of the sources are reliable and secondary?E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:05, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

:::Not including articles about the song/rapping: Yahoo, Russ Baker's WhoWhatWhy, author Scot McKnight, The College Fix, and multiple Dartmouth Review articles. If you include their rapping (which is still about the organization and how they got their start), there's also: FOX News, Huffington Post, Wonkette, ESPN, and others. While some may be blogs, the sources show that this website is well trafficked and referenced in a lot of conservative media, starting in 2009 and continuing now. --Cagepanes (talk) 20:49, 12 September 2015 (UTC) ::::I also just added another source from the Huffington Post where they mention Young Conservatives and talk about YC's writer Derryk Green responding to Sally Kohn. --Cagepanes (talk) 21:04, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 15:07, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of American and Canadian cities by minor professional sports franchises[edit]

List of American and Canadian cities by minor professional sports franchises (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

1)It was created years ago by an account that has not been active since 2012.
2)A better page with more guidelines has been created at List of minor sports teams in the United States by city and is actually listed by the census metro areas it is linked to (i.e., San Jose is part of the San Francisco Bay Area on the official census).
3)Is named US and Canada, yet there are no Canadian cities listed.
4)The page is very outdated and does not specify how minor a minor league team should be (there are at least 100 minor league baseball teams if you count AZ leagues and college summer leagues and independent leagues).
5)It has been orphaned since its creation with no attempts at integration, the above mentioned page has been created since then and is slightly better (only a bit). Yosemiter (talk) 02:07, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 08:09, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 08:09, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 08:09, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 08:09, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. For the United States, it simply duplicates another list that already exists — and it completely fails to actually contain any Canadian-related content at all, so there's no Canadian-based reason to keep it either. If there's a desire for a similar Canadian list, that should be started as a separate list rather than trying to weld it into a merged Canada+US one. Bearcat (talk) 15:57, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 Talk 18:00, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Redundant and misleading. Don't lump us Canucks with them damn Yankees. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:25, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 07:17, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Talkcyprus[edit]

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

Internet forum that lacks notability or indications of importance. It seems it shut down between the article's creation date and today. TheGGoose (talk) 18:36, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 19:03, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cyprus-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:17, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:12, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - site is no longer online and domains has been purchased by a Japanese company. There are no references in the article and I could fine none via search. Fails GNG and WP:WEB. CerealKillerYum (talk) 14:16, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 Talk 18:00, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:06, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Marilyn R. (Lynn) McDonald[edit]

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

I'm not sure if this can be improved as my searches found no good results with this and this being the best results. It also seems there's no good move target aside from her son's article Ben Wikler. It seems several of the editors aren't very active aside from DGG (which removed the speedy and I know this subject interests him) and also notifying author Paulbaker55. Summarily, there's simply nothing to suggest improvement and nothing to suggest FAST is notable enough for its own article. SwisterTwister talk 07:14, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:25, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:25, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:25, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:25, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I couldn't find significant independent coverage of her contributions to education. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:56, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I found a lot of information about significant contributions. FAST is extremely important and cited quite a lot in both educational and social-work journals and books...and I've only just gotten started. It's late for me here, so I'll see what I can turn up tomorrow, but I think I've shown a good start on my edits to the page. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 05:15, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep why was this even nominated? Clearly she meets GNG. She invented a program that "is implemented in over 2000 schools in 14 countries, including in 49 states in the US". What earthly difference does it make if the editors aren't active? No one owns the article, and notability by definition is neither derived from anyone else nor fleeting. If you don't understand what notability is, please stop nominating articles for deletion. If you are too lazy to improve them, at least just tag them for improvement. SusunW (talk) 15:58, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 Talk 17:59, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedily deleted by CambridgeBayWeather per CSD A1 (very short article lacking sufficient context to identify subject of article). (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 17:53, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Upper Hukuwa[edit]

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

No references in article. Can't find anything about it, except for circular references back to this Wikipedia article. Onel5969 TT me 17:45, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 20:29, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Return Policy Project[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Three refs in article, one of which is self-published. Suspect COI in editing/creation. Searches for "return policy project" return mostly return policies, predictably. There seems to be a lot of WP:PROMOTION going on. New Media Theorist (talk) 17:34, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 18:20, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:50, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:50, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. To open an AfD about an hour after haggling over a redirect must be considered as disruptive as specified in WP:SK # 2b. Please continue discussion, if necessary, on the pertaining talk page. (non-admin closure) Kraxler (talk) 19:29, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Charlo Greene[edit]

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

The consensus in the first AfD seems to have been a weak keep due to "Too Soon". Looking at her biography, the only notable thing she did was to quit her job on the air while throwing an expletive. Everything done since (working on a marijuana legalization campaign, having campaign finance dispute with a regulatory agency, and being evicted) are not notable to merit this article. My personal preference is to close as a redirect to KTVA#News operation, just in case she'll become more notable in the future, but we'll see how this discussion goes. Victor Victoria (talk) 17:32, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy keep, speedy close. The nominator does not favor deletion, but is acting out of spite because her unilateral redirect of the article has been contested. There are several appropriate fora for discussing redirection of an article, but wasting the community's time with a retaliatory AFD isn't one of them. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 17:51, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you can suggest a more appropriate forum, I will be glad to take it there. Victor Victoria (talk) 18:00, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Chicago-style politics. Swarm ♠ 03:57, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Chicago-style politics (meme)[edit]

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

WP:NOTE The use of the phrase "Chicago-style politics" as a rhetorical political attack by Republicans against Democrats since 2008 is not a notable topic. A page about the phrase "Chicago-style politics" already exists and has since 2011. Springee (talk) 17:25, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep Obviously Chicago-style politics (meme) is notable as per WP:GNG. Significant, prominent coverage in multiple reliable sources includes secondary and tertiary sources, including The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post, International Business Times, the Los Angeles Times, and others. The political meme is more than adequately represented prominently in multiple reliable sources for its own, stand-alone article.

The nominating user has recently taken article Chicago-style politics in a new direction, a point of view fork of Political history of Chicago, while at the same time suggesting deletion of the article Chicago-style politics at Talk:Chicago-style politics; please see Talk:Chicago-style politics#Should this article be wiped and redirected to Political History of Chicago?. Hugh (talk) 18:20, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Political rhetoric is a legitimate academic discipline and a political catchphrase is a legitimate object of study. A Wikipedia article dedicated to a political meme is far from unprecedented, in fact we have a Category:Political terminology with numerous national subcategories including Category:American political catch phrases; member articles include Silent majority, Vast right-wing conspiracy, Binders full of women, and some 50 others. Hugh (talk) 00:50, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note that this account is the author of the nominated article. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:31, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Remove (see below) The article in question was created as a WP:CONTENTFORK when the original Chicago-style politics article was recently returned to it's original topic. This article appears to be nothing more than a WP:COATRACK used to discuss various political comments and attacks that happen to contain the phrase "Chicago-style politics". If the intent of the article is to discuss the phrase "Chicago-Style politics" then it should be merged back into the earlier article which at least had a history section. If the intent is to discuss political rhetoric it should be merged either into discussions of the various elections (2008 and 2012 presidential) or perhaps merged into a more general article on the subject. It seems highly questionable to devote an entire article to one of many political, rhetorical phrases. Yes, many examples of the phrase being used can be found and the editor of the article has done that. However, those articles largely discuss other maters, not the use of political rhetoric. Thus the large number of citations are really examples of WP:OVERCITE yet they fail to support the lead in showing that it is relevant to have an article about the phrase as a "meme". Thus the WP:NOTE of this article is in question.

background The original article[[1]], which is also of questionable merit, was created in 2011 to discuss the phrase "Chicago-style politics". (Initial:[[2]] March, 2014:[[3]]) In April 2014 the subject of the article was unilaterally changed to one which talked about "Chicago-style politics" as a rhetorical statement used to attack president Obama and other democrats.[[4]]. Previous content about the phrase was removed. All changes were done without talk page discussion and the editor in question did not reply to an editor who questioned the shift (See [[5]]). Additional editors questioned the WP:COATRACKing contained in the modified article and consensus was to move Chicago-style_politics back to its original subject. This article was created shortly there after to cover the material that other editors found questionable in the original article, thus a POV fork. Since the article was created the editor who created the article has added questionable (WP:UNDUE) links in other articles in attempt to prevent this one from being an orphan article. These edits, done initially without talk page justifications, can be seen in the recent edits of the following articles [[6]][[7]][[8]][[9]]. It should be noted that the original article was filled with tags by the creator of this article when consensus clearly didn't support the "meme" direction. Springee (talk) 19:18, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into either older article as subsection or into Chicago politics article as subsection. In the latter case we would also merge the content of the original "Chicago-style politics" article. The section talking about the phrase certainly can cover the more recent meme as HughD has called it. However, it should also cover the origins of the phrase and earlier uses. It should not be a WP:COATRACK as the new article has become and as HughD's associated edits to other articles have become. Springee (talk) 00:19, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Chicago-style politics (meme) is not a coatrack; it is well-referenced, more neutral, and much better referenced than Chicago-style politics. Explain your application of WP:COATRACK to Chicago-style politics (meme) at Talk:Chicago-style politics (meme). Depersonalize your comments on content. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 01:21, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The correct forum for a reversion discussion is article talk. Your position of merging Chicago-style politics (meme) with some previous version of Chicago-style politics to be named later by you is beyond the scope of this Chicago-style politics (meme) article deletion discussion. Take your Chicago-style politics article content concerns up at Talk:Chicago-style politics. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 01:28, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
HughD, this is not the first time you have offered a rosy telling of your involvement with an article[[10]]. The earlier Chicago-style article did need some referencing but you, against objections from others, totally changed the topic then worked to dump much of the content because you felt it was off topic. The current version of the article is in poor shape in large part because you have worked hard to wreck it. Yes, your current article is a coatrack (I'm not the only editor to say as much). You scoped it to avoid talking about the historic origins of the rhetorical phrase and you started the history only with the election of Obama. Either the topic is notable and thus we should include the dirty history of Chicago politics, especially the R Daily era, or the topic isn't in which case we need to dump the whole thing. I added some intro sources, including ones sourced by several universities to help us discuss the origin of the phrase. I'm not sure why you objected to their inclusion if your intent wasn't to coatrack. You never did explain why you moved the original article away from it's original subject to the new subject... but you were vocal when others tried to move it back. If you want to know why I think the article is a coatrack perhaps you should ask the others who said the same thing. Springee (talk) 01:43, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge (without an opinion of which article gets merged into which other article). There is good, sourced, notable content here and the article is indeed about a subject that meets GNG. However, the non-meme article itself is about a meme, and this one looks like a fork. Not necessarily a POV fork because I haven't really looked into a POV, just two articles that are or should be about the same thing. To the extent either article contains information about the conception of Chicago-style politics as a matter of public perception, a political slogan, etc., that is all essentially about a meme or neologism. Whether that article gets merged here, or this one there, it should concentrate on the origin and use of the phrase, concept, etc., not the history and current of Chicago Politics, which are the the subject of separate articles. And not about anti-Obama use of the phrase versus other uses of the phrase, it's still the same phrase despite varying applications. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:31, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your comment. "two articles that are or should be about the same thing." That there is in fact a political meme Chicago-style politics (meme), most notable for its usage by Republicans during the campaigns and terms of our first black President and our first President from Chicago, is beyond contesting given the copious reliable sources. As an analogy, drawn from more recent political rhetoric, our article Anchor baby focuses on the use of the phrase as a pejorative, and provides background only as necessary to provide context, but does not re-iterate the history of emigration policy in the US. On the other hand, much less clear is that there is a more general topic "Chicago style politics" independent of the Political history of Chicago. It is impossible to imagine neutral, balanced, verifiable content that would be appropriate in an article Chicago-style politics that would not be more appropriately added to Political history of Chicago. By their own revised, sadly inadequate lede at Chicago-style politics, "Chicago politics is a cliches used for a set of characteristics associated with aspects of the political history of the American city of Chicago, Illinois, (i.e., corruption, patronage, nepotism, authoritarianism)" the intention there is clearly a point of view fork of Political history of Chicago focusing on negative aspects. The recently revised lede and the recently contributed content at Chicago-style politics demonstrate an editorial direction toward a pointed telling of Political history of Chicago, free of our usual constraints of balance.
In summary, our article Chicago-style politics (meme) is focused on a distinct, well-referenced topic, and our article Chicago-style politics is the obvious point of view fork. Chicago-style politics should be merged with Political history of Chicago, where the proposed content will be subject to community review in terms of balance with respect to our neutrality pillar, but that is a separate issue from this deletion nomination. Thanks again. Hugh (talk) 20:26, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not familiar with that other article, but this sounds right — in which case, the other article should be merged into this one (and any content better suited to the political history of Chicago added to that article, if appropriate and not there already). - Wikidemon (talk) 22:43, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your comment. Merging is a good suggestion. This situation is complicated by Chicago-style politics and Political history of Chicago both being very poor articles. Chicago-style politics has just a handful of well-referenced relevant statements, and most of those are cut and paste from Political history of Chicago. The kindest thing we can do to Chicago-style politics is fold whatever few statements and references are not already in Political history of Chicago into Political history of Chicago, where they have a chance of balance. I've summarized Chicago-style politics (meme) with two paragraphs (usage and reaction) at Political history of Chicago. Thanks again. Hugh (talk)
  • Merge This is a WP:CONTENTFORK. Merging back will force the focus pared down to the encyclopedic core rather than the expansive off-topic presentation.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 01:11, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge The reason why I rejected the PROD in the first place was because the PROD concern was inadequate notability. There appeared to be sufficient RS in my opinion, so I rejected the PROD. Now I see that Chicago-style politics exists, which justifies the PROD placer's actions. A section can be added on the Chicago-style politics page. Mr. Guye (talk) 23:04, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your comment. Now that you know Chicago-style politics exists, could you please take a look at it? I think you will agree it is a very poor article. The merge suggestion is good but Chicago-style politics is untenable as a target for merge of Chicago-style politics (meme), or anything else. Not only is Chicago-style politics very poor, it is doomed: unredeemable given its recent lede proclaiming its charter as focusing exclusively on the negative aspects of Political history of Chicago, a blatant WP:POVFORK: "The most blatant POV forks are those which insert consensus-dodging content under a title that should clearly be made a redirect to an existing article." With its clearly stated scope, Chicago-style politics can never conform to our neutrality pillar. Of course a telling of the political history of Chicago, free of our usual constraint of balance, would be fun to write. Political history of Chicago is also quite sad, but not irredeemably so; Political history of Chicago is important to WP:CHICAGO and needs editorial attention. Of the three articles, Political history of Chicago, Chicago-style politics, and Chicago-style politics (meme), Chicago-style politics (meme) is clearly, objectively, the best written and best referenced. In summary, respectfully, I believe the way forward here is to merge the very few decent statements and refs, if any, from Chicago-style politics that are not already in Political history of Chicago, and keep Chicago-style politics (meme) and summarize Chicago-style politics (meme) in Political history of Chicago (as has been done already, please see). Let's write one, neutral, political history of Chicago, at Political history of Chicago. Thanks again. Hugh (talk) 00:12, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, I suggest we delete Chicago-style politics and move Chicago-style politics (meme) to the title Chicago-style politics. The "(meme)" part in Chicago-style politics (meme) only exists to distinguish it from Chicago-style politics. Having only one of these would expand the scope, and we can talk about subjects discussed in both of the existing articles. As for Political history of Chicago, we can add a hatnote on Chicago-style politics explaining that Chicago-style politics is not an article informing the reader of the history of Chicago politics (we'd include a link to Political history of Chicago somewhere here), but instead an explanation of the term. In others words, we are mentioning the term, not using it. Mr. Guye (talk) 23:56, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think HughD offering only part of the story here. Prior to April 2014 the Chicago-style politics article was about the phrase, both its origin and use. In April of that year HughD changed the thread to only talk about the use of the phrase to attack President Obama. While that is a valid discussion topic, it is not the only valid topic related to the article. HughD is making it sound as though the article is meant to bad mouth Chicago politics (and some editors have used the article for that) but he is leaving out that the opening sentence of the article states the topic is the phrase. Thus it is appropriate to have some measure of the history that leads to the phrase. He is right that is shouldn't be a dumping ground. He is not being true to the lead when he claims it is just to have a POV fork. HughD used this claim as a way to remove reasonable content from the original article. In the end it doesn't really mater which article gets merged into the other. What does mater is that the final product should not ignore the origin of the phrase or be exclusive to 2008 and later as HughD has attempted to scope the article he recently created. In effect, HughD tried to change the scope of the original article. When editors objected he created a new article and now he is attempting to delete the content of the old article via tag warring. His edits are the primary reason why the old article is in such poor shape so to claim that the article is in poor shape and thus it should be deleted can be seen as both self serving and less than the whole story.
  • I would propose that we add the content of the article HughD has created to the older article thus preserving the edit history so future editors can fill in the citations which were missing from the older content that was removed without proper discussion. The new article effectively has no history of removed content and thus the loss of it's edit history isn't a problem. The subject of the combined article should not be Chicago political history in general but should contain sufficient material to explain why the phrase would exist at all. After all the phrase "Georgia-style politics" was never used haunt Carter nor did "Arkansas-style politics" taunt Clinton. Clearly there is some reason why people discuss "Chicago-style politics". That was the original article. The use of the phrase as a political meme is just part of the story of the phrase. Springee (talk) 02:30, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - this is clearly notable, based on the strong citations alone, and has been improved lately to the point I'd rate it as a "C" class article. Bearian (talk) 04:12, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note Updates to Older Article - Fyddlestix recently did a significant update to the original article. The update includes merging the majority of content from the new article as well as recovering and improving the older article content. The revised article now includes historical information related to the term as well as more recent information that was featured in the (meme) article. With these updates I would suggest that the merger has in effect occurred and the (meme) article should simply redirect to the appropriate section of the original article. Springee (talk) 05:59, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Chicago-style politics, where I have already merged much of the content from this article back in, and largely replaced what was already there with something a bit better sourced (and neutrally worded). The work Hugh has done on the "meme" article (the one up for discussion here) is good and should be salvaged, but we need only need one article this, and I can't see a justification for the fork. Both meanings of the phrase "Chicago Style politics" should be discussed at Chicago-style politics. Fyddlestix (talk) 15:52, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:48, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:48, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:48, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:48, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:48, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect or merge: The target now seems to fully cover this. And a slander is not a "meme" just because it is frequently repeated.--Milowent • hasspoken 17:33, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per TonyTheTiger: It's a WP:CONTENTFORK! MrWooHoo (talk) 02:45, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 20:29, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Brown & Crouppen[edit]

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

Not enough sources to satisfy WP:COMPANY. Drm310 (talk) 16:47, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America1000 00:47, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. North America1000 00:47, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. North America1000 00:47, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails my standards for law firms. They sound like they do good work for tort victims, but I've never heard of any of their lawyers, and none of them have had major leadership positions in the Bar Association of Metro. St. Louis. Bearian (talk) 03:44, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for now as my searches at Books, News and browser found nothing convincingly good. SwisterTwister talk 18:09, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy deleted - WP:A7 and WP:G11. Just Chilling (talk) 16:29, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gerard Garrett[edit]

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

WP:BLP, written very much like a résumé, of a person with no particularly strong claim of notability for much more than existing. The article's sole source is written by him, not about him, and is thus a primary source that cannot demonstrate his notability — and there's some unsourced personal information in here (e.g. "In 2010, Garrett was diagnosed with high functioning mixed affective states, which requires community support and medication. He currently manages his illness well.") which is "insider" enough to imply conflict of interest by someone who knows him personally. I'm willing to withdraw this if it can be rewritten and sourced properly as an encyclopedia article about a notable medical doctor, but in this state it's a delete. Bearcat (talk) 16:34, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - I'm struggling to find evidence of notability regarding this person. The article appears to simply be an autobiography in some places ("I applied", "I had", etc.). Thine Antique Pen (talk) 19:04, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete (If possible) The article is a quite sad autobiography. I deleted the last sections where a number of unsourced initiatives by the non-notable subject are announced. No notability whatsoever. No search results. Were it not for the sad ring to what it says, I would wonder if it was all just made up.New Media Theorist (talk) 02:12, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 23:10, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 23:11, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 23:11, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - No independent sources found, not even a serious claim of meeting WP:BIO. Speedy deletion candidate in its current state. --Finngall talk 13:44, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nom. Snappy (talk) 16:27, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - doesn't need to be here as already stated ~ NottNott let's talk! contrib 15:03, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:07, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sumaya Dalmar[edit]

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

WP:BIO1E of a person notable primarily for dying. While her death did receive a brief two-day blip of media coverage due to speculation that it might have been a case of anti-transgender violence, this article somewhat pointedly avoids the sources in which the Toronto Police Service explicitly confirmed that she was not murdered, but instead continues to indirectly imply that possibility — and no further media coverage has taken place since that two-day blip, so we still don't know of any other reason why her death could be deemed permanently encyclopedic. And the article makes no particularly substantive claim that she'd qualify for an encyclopedia article for anything she accomplished before she died, either. Delete, without prejudice against recreation in the future if some stronger case for notability (e.g. a Rehtaeh Parsons-sized whopper of a legal or social consequence) comes to light — as sad as this story may be, Wikipedia does not exist as a space to memorialize every private citizen who ever died, and unfounded/refuted speculation about the circumstances of her death doesn't make her more notable than usual in and of itself. Bearcat (talk) 16:08, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • The mere fact that she is the first well-known transgender Somali, and the first Somali transgender activist itself makes her pass WP:GNG in my opinion. I like how u rotate (talk) 19:47, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And what specific activist activities does the article document her as having ever actually undertaken and gotten coverage for? A person passes our notability guidelines by doing something, not by being something — it's not enough to just say she was an activist and therefore GNG is automatically passed just because the word "activist" has been invoked, if the article doesn't document and source any specific things she did as an activist.
And incidentally, the source which you claim credits her as "being the first prominently known Somali transgender individual in history" doesn't actually say anything of the sort — it merely says that she was the first Somali transgender person that specific writer had ever met, which isn't the same thing in the slightest. Bearcat (talk) 21:43, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, I'm not even Canadian but have known of her since 2013, two years before she died, due to the documentary. In 2014 I again remembered her due to the fact that her story was among the first google returns as well as among the most numerous biographies when typing the word "somali canadian" onto google - one of the most prominent diaspora communities btw. She is also one of the few westerners that have documented the relationship between the trans and Islamic communities. There is one thing that springs to mind from this; that she was (somewhat) notable prior to her death. And I have since altered the text a bit. I like how u rotate (talk) 00:16, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 23:14, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Somalia-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 23:14, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 23:14, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 23:14, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are plenty of sources, enough to establish WP:GNG for 3rd party coverage. The article is only a few days old, so I also think the guideline WP:DONOTDEMOLISH applies. Assume good faith and give it time for cleanup, etc. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 02:58, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note WP:DONOTDEMOLISH is an essay, not a guideline. Its application is meant to be taken with a grain of salt but not much more. (This is not meant to be an assertion that what it says is not applicable to this article; I haven't !voted on this topic). freshacconci talk to me 18:59, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:39, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:39, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - This is a pretty uncertain situation as information about the case appears murky. However, it seems that her death wasn't just a notable event in and of itself, but there's ongoing significance as to transgender-related issues in Canada. The case has been discussed by multiple reliable sources such as Advocate.com, National Post, et cetera. I'm not sure, but I'm leaning on thinking that the article should be kept, though preferably renamed as "Death of Sumaya Dalmar". CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 21:08, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Since there seems to be enough sources of good caliber, including ones that mention her previous to her death. Even if most the media occurred within a period of a few days, I don't know of any rule that would imply the sources count any less. Rab V (talk) 19:20, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 16:09, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Descendant of Thieves[edit]

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

No evidence that this meets Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). The two references are blog posts of no note. Derek Andrews (talk) 14:23, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I find no substantial coverage in independent reliable sources, just typical brand publicity, and a few very brief namedrops ([11][12]) that don't support a finding of notability. Note that this was previously created and then deleted by prod on 2 May 2015. --Arxiloxos (talk) 14:41, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • KEEP . I see that you may have only noticed the two sources as blog posts since they are from smaller sites. However, the Bombfell article is an interview with the founders of the company and Bombfell itself is quite a large company within the Fashion space, with a large user base. According to Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) Notability can be established through at least one source in regional, national, or international media. Bombfell and Emploom can both be considered as international media. Please look into both those companies, and you will notice that there is Notability. Georgeplume2 (talk) 16:00, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Interviews with the subject, in which they're talking about themselves, do not demonstrate notability. They can be used for additional sourcing of facts after notability has been covered off by stronger sources, but they cannot be the notability in and of themselves. And media, for our purposes, is newspapers, magazines, books, TV or radio — not most blogs. Bearcat (talk) 16:40, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. None of the limited sourcing here is adequate to support a company's notability under WP:ORG, and per Arxiloxos there's not enough better sourcing out there. No prejudice against recreation in the future if things change, but right now this is at best a WP:TOOSOON case. Bearcat (talk) 16:40, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • '"Keep"'. There are additional sources that have been added that should be taken into account. Sourcing is of international reputation and with previous sources should support notability. Georgeplume2 (talk) 15:44, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that while you're allowed to comment as many times as you'd like in an AFD discussion, you're not allowed to "vote" more than once. Please do not preface any further comments with "keep", as it may be perceived as an attempt to distort the discussion. And for the record, you haven't actually added any new sources of any discernible "international reputation" since the first time I looked at the article — you've added one new source and it's still a blurb on a blog. Bearcat (talk) 02:55, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 23:17, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 23:17, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 23:17, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:37, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 20:29, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bonnie Dodge[edit]

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

Not enough coverage in independent, reliable sources to verify or sustain article. Fails Wikipedia's General Notability Guidelines, WP:ANYBIO and WP:NAUTHOR. All coverage is trivial and local. The source cited in the article is a local interest filler piece with no byline. ("Children's Book on Evel Knievel's Jump out by Local Authors".} The article seems to be a paraphrasing on this single article. The only references to 'awards' this author has won that I could find were:

  • "Book Notes". The Register Guard (Eugene, OR). May 4, 2003. Retrieved 2015-09-07 – via HighBeam Research. Bonnie Dodge of Twin Falls, Idaho, won $150 for 'Controlling the Flame.' {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |subscription= ignored (|url-access= suggested) (help)
  • "Book Notes". The Register Guard (Eugene, OR). June 1, 2003. Retrieved 2015-09-07 – via HighBeam Research. Essay contest winners - ... in the Oregon Quarterly Essay Contest ... Second place went to Bonnie Dodge {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |subscription= ignored (|url-access= suggested) (help)

The other awards mentioned by name in the article are minor. Being in the "Top Ten Idaho Fiction by Idaho Author Awards for 2014" or winning the ""2010 Idaho Writer's League Writer of the Year Award" does not confer notability. JbhTalk 14:17, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 23:18, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 23:18, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Idaho-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 23:18, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unfortunately as my searches found nothing better than some blogs at Google browser. SwisterTwister talk 07:43, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete my sweeps found nothing substantive, like SwisterTwister.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:42, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to College football national championships in NCAA Division I FBS. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010Talk 00:09, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

History of Major College Football National Championship[edit]

History of Major College Football National Championship (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The subject of this article is poorly framed in this article and is covered more comprehensively at College football national championships in NCAA Division I FBS, Bowl Coalition, Bowl Alliance, Bowl Championship Series, and College Football Playoff Jweiss11 (talk) 14:00, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge - "Major college football" national championships are already comprehensively covered in the College football national championships in NCAA Division I FBS article, and the focus should be on improving that article, not creating a new competing article. That said, there are elements of this article that are better presented, and we should seriously consider incorporating those tables, graphics, etc., into the pre-existing article(s). I might also add that "College football national championships in NCAA Division I FBS is an anachronistic title, given that "Division I" has only existed since the 1970s, and the "FBS" designation has only existed since 2006 (and Division I-A from 1978 to 2005). Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:21, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - Just further support of what dirtlawyer said. This article is a lot easier on the eyes, but has a place already. Cake (talk) 14:44, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to College football national championships in NCAA Division I FBS, per Dirtlawyer1's reasoning. Ejgreen77 (talk) 23:02, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. North America1000 00:52, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America1000 00:53, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 00:53, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to List of Gold Coast Football Club players. Courcelles (talk) 20:27, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jarred Ellis[edit]

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

Fails to meet notability per WP:NAFL and has been delisted from the AFL. Flickerd (talk) 14:37, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 23:19, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 23:19, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 23:19, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 01:39, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 20:26, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Philippe Valiquette[edit]

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

Not seeing much in terms of notability. Fails WP:BASEBALL/N Penale52 (talk) 12:55, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 23:20, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 23:20, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:35, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:35, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 13:12, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

NuPinch.com[edit]

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

It seems to me that notability was somewhat shaky... even when the site existed. It no longer does. Right now the article reads like a promotional blurb for a nonexistent site. I don't see any hope of this ever becoming a real article. Let's put it out of its misery. Ashenai (talk) 12:43, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America1000 00:54, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America1000 00:54, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America1000 00:54, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America1000 00:54, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: The given references are normal start-up coverage; the best is perhaps the One Million by One Million Blog describing the venture as "a perfectly viable business opportunity" but that falls short of evidence of attained notability. I found one 2013 overview which briefly discussed this among other entrants to a "crowded sector" ("Fashioning Success", via Highbeam, subscription reqd.) but again not enough. Fails WP:NWEB, WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 06:56, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as my searches found nothing good. SwisterTwister talk 07:32, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Article lacks significant coverage in reliable sources and reads like an advertisement where it does not meets the notability criteria for WP:ORG. — CutestPenguinHangout 14:27, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 13:11, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DigitalX[edit]

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

Orphaned and unsourced for nearly 8 years. The only relevant result on google is the guy's soundcloud page. Even the twitter page of the same name is a different musician in Kiev. The general wikilinks are blue but all the specific links are red. A poster boy for lack of notability. Bazj (talk) 11:51, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bazj (talk) 11:52, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cyprus-related deletion discussions. Bazj (talk) 11:53, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: A longstanding WP:SPA biography peppered with unsubstantiated superlatives "distinguishing", "unique", "popular to a vast audience", the last of which could indicate notability if it was properly referenced. I can find this release listing but nothing to indicate attained WP:MUSICBIO notability. AllyD (talk) 17:08, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America1000 00:55, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 13:10, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Louis Heffesse[edit]

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

There is no evidence I can see that this meets WP:ARTIST. Most of the references are of poor quality and i can find no mention in independent news sources. It has been created by a WP:SPA so I suspect WP:CONFLICT. At best it is WP:TOOSOON. Derek Andrews (talk) 10:55, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:30, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:30, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:30, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Entirely agree with you, Derek Andrews. I removed unimportant details form article, and there is nothing left. Search for additional sources yields nothing significant. We need a new tag: WP:WAYTOOSOON.New Media Theorist (talk) 17:59, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for now and draft & userfy if needed as there's simply no better coverage. SwisterTwister talk 22:26, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:08, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Brewer[edit]

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

Does not meet gng, certainly doesn't meet ncollath John from Idegon (talk) 07:33, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 08:56, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 08:56, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep a simple google news search reveals many articles pointing to the notability of the individual.--Paul McDonald (talk) 17:34, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. He was the starting QB for Virginia Tech (a top level NCAA team) in 2014 (and 2015 til he broke his collarbone in season opener) and has received significant coverage in mainstream media outlets. See here for examples. Passes WP:GNG. Cbl62 (talk) 18:46, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 20:49, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 20:49, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Even though I hate the fact that most of the significant coverage of the subject is the result of his being knocked out of the 2015 season opener, there is ample significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources to satisfy the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG. Hopefully, the subject will return in the second half of the 2015 season. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:10, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a WP:GNG pass, per Cbl62. Ejgreen77 (talk) 05:52, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick tcs 23:15, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010Talk 00:10, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bradley Soileau[edit]

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

apparently trivial career DGG ( talk ) 23:57, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as my searches found nothing obviously good. SwisterTwister talk 00:08, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I'm finding pretty broad coverage not just about his work with Lana Del Ray, but also modeling and his clothing label. He meets notability guidelines to me. Fuzchia (talk) 18:34, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:32, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:32, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep His clothing label is gaining interest as shown in the Vogue article I just added. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 01:40, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 04:56, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep Sadly it looks like he has diverse sources and major coverage. (Who said "Fashion is the lowest form of Philosophy"?) Looks like a Keep, and will be much improved with quality content like this ref.New Media Theorist (talk) 15:50, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 20:26, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Boyd (computer engineer)[edit]

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

The article has largely been written as, or as if it were, an autobiography, and also largely in a highly promotional tone, by single-purpose accounts, which are quite possibly the sockpuppets of the subject of the biographical article in question. The subject's notability even in the his own specific field of computing appears relatively obscure, perhaps just falling short of the general minimum threshold for the purpose of Wikipedia. There is a bereft of reliably-cited sources for the subject in the article, and the very existence in Wikipedia of a biographical article arguably gives the subject, who, as an otherwise relatively obscure British expatriate computer engineer in China in his 60s, much undue additional notability, certainly through the conduit of Google and also of Facebook. If anyone who had ever done any sort of work whatsoever directly or indirectly on or about MS-DOS or IBM PC-DOS back in the 1980s and 1990s deserved to have based upon that particular fact alone an article for himself on his own life here on Wikipedia, there would probably be tens if not hundreds of thousands of new articles herein. -- Urquhartnite (talk) 22:23, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Urquhartnite (talk) 22:23, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Urquhartnite (talk) 22:23, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Urquhartnite (talk) 22:23, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Urquhartnite (talk) 22:23, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Urquhartnite (talk) 22:23, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Urquhartnite (talk) 22:23, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Urquhartnite (talk) 22:23, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Urquhartnite (talk) 22:23, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Urquhartnite (talk) 22:23, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Urquhartnite (talk) 22:23, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Urquhartnite (talk) 22:23, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Urquhartnite (talk) 22:23, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Urquhartnite (talk) 22:23, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: He is only mentioned in passing in the sources given (except for one trade news publication, which really doesn't confer notability), and his notability in general seems to be marginal at best. --Slashme (talk) 22:17, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 04:54, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete defintiely fails WP:BIO. also suspect AUTOBIO concerns. LibStar (talk) 05:23, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 13:09, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Debbie Majumder[edit]

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

No actual notability besides 1 press release in a newspaper DGG ( talk ) 19:11, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:14, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:14, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 04:53, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 13:08, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Aguzzi[edit]

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

No non-trivial coverage in third-party reliable sources to support WP:GNG, nor is there any evidence of WP:PROF notability. OhNoitsJamie Talk 16:20, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:53, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:53, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:53, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Just a run-of-the-mill theologian at this point. Has a few publications, but short of WP:PROF. I suspect he will get there in ten years, and get a named chair or something like that, but not yet. Not notable as a pastor either. StAnselm (talk) 20:31, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 04:52, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- a NN minister who has obtained a PhD; so what? Peterkingiron (talk) 18:10, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:09, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Atria Senior Living[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. DGG ( talk ) 04:51, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Neutral but leaning to "weak keep and rewrite" based on the references listed in the prior AFD. The existing article has problems that can be fixed outside of AFD. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 05:23, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. North America1000 05:24, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America1000 05:24, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep per North America and the reason I used last time. Just because the article hasn't become significantly more developed doesn't mean it should be deleted. It's a notable corporation. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 05:40, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - it was kept after last year's AfD because of the decent, general news sources about the company (unfortunately these still haven't been incorporated into the article). I can only imagine DGG hadn't noticed the previous discussion when they made this nomination. Sionk (talk) 18:15, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Unless the sources provided above are unreliable, they are enough to satisfy WP:GNG. I agree that these sources should also be used in the article, though.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:35, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 07:06, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Jan Terri[edit]

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

    No evidence of notability. Article is entirely self-sourced. Jacona (talk) 14:52, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    The rolling stone "mention" states that Jan Terri is obscure. Obscure. As in "not notable." If that mention makes this person notable, is there anyone left who is not notable?Jacona (talk) 23:12, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:49, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:49, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 04:51, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I apologize; I did not mean to cause you any pain. err, uh, maybe "What does not kill you makes you stronger?" Jacona (talk) 02:09, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 13:07, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Chetti Thanabalasingam[edit]

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

    Non notable person fails WP:Biography ,General notability guideline and is not inherited by his association to ), Velupillai Prabhakaran . Mylai roja (talk) 13:54, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:44, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:44, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:44, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:44, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 04:51, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete the only semi-reliable reference asserts that Thanabalasingam established the Tamil New Tigers, however most other references (including the article on the TNT) state the TNT was founded by Velupillai Prabhakaran. Even if Thanabalasingam did establish the TNT that doesn't necessarily make him notable. As all the information indicates that it was Prabhakaran's leadership that made the TNT such a notable organisation (as the precusor to the LTTE). Other sources I've found indicate that he was a petty or minor criminal which predates his insurgent activities. Dan arndt (talk) 10:02, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was userfy. Moving article back to User:Lizardbones/DRAFT/Marziah Karch Swarm ♠ 04:00, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Marziah Karch[edit]

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

    Article lacks significant coverage in independent reliable sources to establish notability. There has been no significant improvement in the sourcing since the previous AFD. Whpq (talk) 13:35, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    You really should have written me a note first. This was up for less than a day. What I kept trying to do is move this thing to AFC. But that didn't seem to be a choice other than copy and pasting, and I remember that being something I shouldn't be doing. It comes up in Google search, and that bothers me. I tried to move it to another page, and someone said I did it wrong. So I said "screw it" and just published it so if it was stuck in search, it would come up as a real page. Now it's stuck in debate, when it could have just been moved somewhere else or maybe some setting could have been toggled off so it wasn't searchable anymore but retained the editing history. That part seemed to be important. This whole process is messy, arbitrary, and frustrating. I'd rather have someone else tell me it was ready (or tell me where it should be fixed) than have everyone pounce on this as soon as it goes live. Lizardbones (talk) 17:48, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    As nominator, I am okay with moving this back to draft. But I do want to point out that an AFC review is the opinion of only one person and an article put through AFC is still may be nominated for deletion. As for the additional sourcing, I addressed that in the nomination statement.--Whpq (talk) 23:13, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    So can we just end this thing and move it? We both agree it's fine to move it. I don't want to spend time debating the definition of "significant" for the next month. Lizardbones (talk) 06:04, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - lack of third-party coverage. sovereign°sentinel (contribs) 14:41, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Third party sources exist. Some were added at the end of the AFD debate (and not debated) some were added after. There are sufficient sources to verify the facts in the article. The nature of technical and online writing is such that you are not going to find book reviews in newspapers or biographies. What you're going to find is people noting her as an expert and/or quoting her work, several instances are cited. She's written for Wired and several other highly reputable publications with editorial control and gatekeeping to keep "anyone" from writing on them. 114 citations in Google Scholar (I have no idea what a good number is for that). Her print books are in circulation in libraries. So much of this seems like it should be common sense. Lizardbones (talk) 17:48, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Move to Draft: as requested by creator. LaMona (talk) 17:55, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep The article is now well referenced including awards.--Ipigott (talk) 10:00, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Really? Can you please explain how the sourcing is good. Also explain how you believe the awards are significant with particular attention to the coverage.--Whpq (talk) 11:25, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:41, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:41, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:41, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 04:51, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Okay with Moving back to draft: or user:-space. I didn't even really look at the article - since it's only been back at article space for a short time and the drafter wants to move it out of article space that sounds like an easy solution. It would be different if this were a clear-cut no-brainer WP:N-fail or a clear-cut no-brainer WP:PROMO-piece, but if it were that then everyone would've been screaming "delete" long before I dropped into this AFD. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 05:31, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. Lacks reliable independent secondary sources discussing the subject in detail as required by WP:GNG to establish notability. That's really all that matters at AfD. Msnicki (talk) 07:01, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. as I do not think that this article is salvagable. It would have to present significant coverage of her, not what is footnoted at present. The author may be mistaking number of references with significance. See Msnicki above. I did not find any more about her, so incubation is unlikely to deliver a usable article that meets the notability guidelines. --Bejnar (talk) 21:12, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Move to Draft/userspace - Article isn't covered by third party sources. Article isn't necessarily salvagable. ~~
    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 Coach (TV series). Courcelles (talk) 20:16, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Coach (2016 TV series)[edit]

    Coach (2016 TV series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Television project in development that is uncertain to ever enter production; standalone article fails WP:CRYSTAL, and this show's development process is not notable. Section at Coach (TV series) discussing proposed continuation is suitable. -- Wikipedical (talk) 09:24, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Delete. Wikipedia does not keep articles about every television project that enters the production pipeline — we keep articles only about the ones that actually come out the other end as completed projects that actually get scheduled and aired somewhere. A brief subsection in the article on the original series is all that's needed here. Bearcat (talk) 08:54, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:28, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:28, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 04:48, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge and redirect to Coach (TV series). Some of this information is already in the article, but I do think that it'd benefit from having its own subsection, if only for ease of locating the information about the failed project. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:10, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Concur with merge/redirect. It was picked up for series, but it was one of those shows that was canceled before airing an episode (it may have actually been in production at the time depending on who is reporting). If it were a show in and of its own right, not tied to another, it'd be a marginal case for keeping on its own, but considering it's a revival of an existing series, it just makes sense to have the proposed revival described in the context of the original series. J. Myrle Fuller (talk) 21:29, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge and redirect to the target article stated by User:Tokyogirl79. Now, I proposed to make a new section per Coach (TV series)#Attempted sequel as a target link. ApprenticeFan work 08:08, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 13:07, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    The British Irish Ulster Forum[edit]

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

    No evidence that this is a notable forum. Website is currently dead. Ricky81682 (talk) 04:38, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:20, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:20, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:20, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:20, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 04:48, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per above. I couldn't find any sourcing to show that this forum passes notability guidelines either. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:30, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was Snow Keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010Talk 00:10, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Marie Odee Johnson[edit]

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

    I'm not sure being one of the last surviving female veterans from WWI and being among one of the first as a Yeoman (F) is a sufficient combination for notability. Ricky81682 (talk) 04:22, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- AustralianRupert (talk) 08:15, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:17, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:17, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:17, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete already mentioned in List of veterans of World War I who died in 2004 and I cant see anything that warrants a stand-alone article. MilborneOne (talk) 23:24, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Being a non-nursing member in WWI is already very notable for a woman. Women were just starting to break into the armed forces at the time. There is ample coverage of her beyond what is listed in the article. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 23:51, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you have any actual sources to add? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:29, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 04:47, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep — There is plenty of sources (on any kind) that cover Marie Odee Johnson and corroborate WP:N. The page just needs to be improved, not erased. Unfortunately I am not a military / biographer expert and there are too many sources to dig in, so I can't contribute to the page as much as I would like. Any tips are welcome. Toffanin (talk) 23:48, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep per Megalibrarygirl - she was not run of the mill. Bearian (talk) 03:36, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was no consensus. Nominator is a sock, so this could have been speedily closed a whie ago, but we're here now. The rest of the debate leads to no real consensus. Courcelles (talk) 20:14, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Nguyễn Phúc Bửu Chánh[edit]

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

    This biography does not assert notability in any way, except as founder of the "Vietnamese Constitutional Monarchist League", an article with not even one source created by the same user. This article does not have any sources either, and in the article itself states he does not represent the royal family or have any legitimacy. Nor is he related to the royal family. Cagepanes (talk) 03:02, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. Cagepanes (talk) 03:06, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:49, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. This article has existed since 2004, was the subject of some rather intense edit wars in its early history, and was the subject of an AfD discussion in 2006 (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nguyen Phuc Buu Chanh), which was a fairly easy Keep but at a time when WP:BLP standards were far looser than they are now. While the article has never had any inline sourcing, earlier versions of the article do contain external links which might (or might not) be usable as sources. Also, some earlier versions of the article contain unsourced but potentially credible claims of significance which, if verified, might suggest that the subject's claims could have a limited basis in decisions by ex-emperor Bảo Đại towards the end of his life, though if so they were either never accepted or interpreted very differently by Bảo Đại's family. Basically, I am seeing enough potential leads from previous versions of the article that one or other of them might just establish notability, but not enough likelihood of this to search further. PWilkinson (talk) 11:44, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 Talk 15:30, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 Talk 13:21, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Relisting comment: Final relist. North America1000 04:31, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 04:31, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. Per PWilkinson's helpful hint, I went to an older version of the article. There are at least two good sources: this article in The Cornell Daily Sun and this articleWebCite in the Philadelphia City Paper. I think there is just enough material here to retain the article. Cunard (talk) 06:23, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Revert to the version found by User:Cunard. --Slashme (talk) 11:19, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • NOTE AfD started by sock of indeffed user Kbabej. Suggest discarding this AfD per WP:DENY. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:51, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete for lack of notability. Sourcing is not the real issue here. Even looking back to the better version proffered by User:Cunard, the only real assertion of notability is that the subject of the article advocates having somebody else on the throne. And as for being the president of an organization, this does not confer notability on the instant subject, even if the organization itself were notable (and in this regard, note that the organization itself survived its recent AfD only because nobody bothered to state an opinion on it). Finally, sockpuppetry is bad and should be eliminated, but that is not a reason to waive the notability requirements for the instant article. NewYorkActuary (talk) 01:24, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete for or lack of notability. Sourcing is not the real issue here. – but notability per Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline is determined by sources, not assertions of importance or fame. Cunard (talk) 03:45, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for the opportunity to clarify my position. My point was that, even if you resolved all of the sourcing issues to everybody's satisfaction, you still would not have resolved the question of notability. If, as is the case here, the subject's main claim to notability is that he advocates the ascension of some other person to the throne, then he himself is not a notable person. And this remains true even if you succeed in finding reliable sources for that claim. NewYorkActuary (talk) 04:07, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 13:05, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    List of the best-selling boy bands in Asia[edit]

    List of the best-selling boy bands in Asia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Same problems as these previous lists this same editor created: List of the best selling boyband in the world & List of the best-selling boyband in the world which have been deleted. Also similar lists has been deleted multiple times in the past: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of best-selling boy bands (2nd nomination). Basically this list is entirely original research, there's no official charts for boy bands alone, so although sales figures are cited, combining them in this way is original synthesis. The inclusion criteria of what a "boy band" is arbitrary. Krystaleen 04:02, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]


    Is that you ? LOL what a stalker. You must be jelous and a plain haters IMO .

    To admin,

    The page does not had any problem so far as the source are stated and directly taken from legit site such as Oricon Official Chart, RIAJ Official Chart / site and etc. For the catogery of Boyband, several group like B'z and many other are not included because they are known more as Rock-band pr just a band. Its like when people and World in general rarely refer to The Beatles as boyband . For the proof and support my statement, peopłe are aware that Backstreetboy is officially the best selling boy band in the world by over 180 million records, what does this tell us ? Yes thats right, The Beatles obviously did not include on this list. Reason ? Because they are known as Rock Band or a BAND. How can you tell ? Well, of The Beatles is include among Boyband catogery, Backstreetboy would never officually dub as the best selling boyband in the world in first place. Instead , The Beatles would take that title because they sold around 600 million records . However, in this case they are not consider as Boyband, thus Backstreetboy grab the title of Best selling boyband in the world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MugenDarkness (talk • contribs) 04:38, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • MugenDarkness, please assume good faith. Calling someone "jealous" or a "stalker" (among other things) does not reflect well on you and actually puts you at risk of getting blocked for making personal attacks. The thing is, without some official chart or list that specifically focuses on boy bands, there's not really a good way to definitively back this up. The term "boy band" can be considered fairly loose, to be honest, and there are articles that compare the Beatles to a boy band - some of which are through MTV. ([26], [27]) Would I consider them a boy band? No, but I can somewhat see where some people get the claims from, at least from the band's early days. However I'm pointing this out to show how loose this term can be for many areas, which is why you will need to find an official list of some sort that clearly labels boy bands. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:17, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I notice that you have been blocked three times already for edit warring and disruptive editing. If I or anyone else have to warn you about your tone, you will be facing another block - possibly permanently. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:19, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete The sources used do not have subentries for boy bands or girl groups or other type of genre, just a combined synthesis of sourced information, which makes this WP:OR. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 05:36, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Which of the references define these groups as boy bands and exclude other groups? Clearly this is WP:OR. - David Biddulph (talk) 06:24, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 08:53, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 08:53, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 08:53, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]


    Um, no. That user had been dissatified about me before, i had a debate and doubt her credibility because there are a currently event happend that she edit Wiki page based on her own " experience " LOL and ignore the actual fact, prove , feat and real event.


    if you want, i can include groups like B'z , LArc en Ciel and many others on the list IMO. That would settle both issue and prevent this page from being deleted . Lets see what kind of excuse that user might bring after this solve — Preceding unsigned comment added by MugenDarkness (talk • contribs) 09:02, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • MugenDarkness, You need to provide sources that clearly define the term boy band and also clearly identify the aforementioned bands as the best selling and as a boy band. The term is an extremely loose one, which is what is posing the biggest issue here. While it's nowhere near as nasty as your comments before, your post here brushes dangerously close to being a bad faith statement. The user in question is not the point of this AfD (comment on the article, not the editor) and I'll be honest, I've found that people making comments like yours makes people less likely to assume good faith from you and see things your way. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:08, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • (User has now been blocked - they were warned about making personal attacks at 3RR and a block was mentioned at one point. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:18, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 07:14, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Rabinder Lala[edit]

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

    Minor government official who doesn't satisfy WP:BIO. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:55, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete Not a single reliable source is found on Internet. No coverage at all, fails GNG and if the person is alive, fails wp:BIO. Jim Carter 04:40, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 08:52, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 08:52, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. Too junior for inherent notability. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:48, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:48, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010Talk 00:11, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Yolanda "La La" Brown[edit]

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

    This R&B singer was featured on one song that barely made the charts before being murdered. That doesn't seem to satisfy WP:MUSICBIO. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:54, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 08:51, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 08:51, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:13, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:13, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:13, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:13, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - no but it satisfies WP:CRIME.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:47, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep, I think she does meet criteria #2 of WP:Music, "Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart". The song "S.E.X." reached #3 on the Billboard Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Songs and #37 on the Billboard Hot 100.[28] Both charts are listed as "Acceptable" National Charts for this criteria. She also meets criteria #12 as her life and murder "Has been a featured subject of a substantial broadcast segment across a national radio or TV network" (a 60 minute episode of Celebrity Crime Files). --Dual Freq (talk) 01:46, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was keep. Swarm ♠ 04:01, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Tristan Stephenson[edit]

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

    Notanillty not established. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:36, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • KEEP Notability clearly established with significant coverage that addresses the topic directly and in detail, with reliable secondary sources independent of the subject. Theroadislong (talk) 08:52, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • You're the article's author. Where do you think you "clearly established" notability? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:06, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • In the significant coverage that addresses the topic directly and in detail, with reliable secondary sources independent of the subject? The Evening Standard, Time Out, The Daily Telegraph and BBC. Theroadislong (talk) 13:24, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • Thank you for repeating what you wrote before, but I read it the first time. I note that you fail to provide specific examples. There is no "significant coverage that addresses the topic directly". The reliable "secondary sources" you name mention in him only in passing, or as a member of lists in puff pieces. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:40, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
            • This article in the Daily Telegraph is an in-depth article [29] This article [30] on the BBC news website is an in-depth article, similarly this one is far more than a passing mention [31] as is this one [32] Theroadislong (talk) 18:08, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
              • They former are indeed in-depth articles - but their subject is not Tristan Stephenson. The whiskyshow.com page is a puff piece promoting on of his professional engagements; and thus not independent. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:43, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
                  • You don't have to be an article's topic for the article to contribute to establishing your notability. Rather, the section of the article that is about you must discuss you in some detail. As many of these articles do.E.M.Gregory (talk) 09:38, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I’m a senior editor with more than 50,000 edits, I’ve created 65 articles, this is the first one to have been sent for afd and I'm rather puzzled…doesn’t the fact that he has received significant coverage in a number of different major news outlets make him inherently notable? If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article. Theroadislong (talk) 21:30, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • You're welcome to look up my edit count, and articles created, but my point, regardless of such irrelevancies, is that he hasn't received significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:41, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • Policy states that "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it need not be the main topic of the source material. That is what these sources are exactly. Theroadislong (talk) 21:57, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete I agree grudgingly with your assertion that Mr stephenson may have acquired 'significant coverage', however I feel that the overall 'look and feel' is gratingly aspirational rather than based on a tidal wave of public opinion. Caveywavey46 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:42, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • This user has made no other edits to Wikipedia. Theroadislong (talk) 19:59, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • Please address the comment that I have made rather than myself personally. I have previously used wikipedia informally but have made a user account this time because I don't like seeing it misused. Caveywavey46 (talk)
          • You have yet to make a valid reason for deletion? You agree he has acquired significant coverage. An article being "gratingly aspirational" is not a valid reason for deletion. Theroadislong (talk) 21:50, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
            • It is in my book, perhaps better brains than me can see some sense here. And honestly, when was "Drinks industry expert" ever a real occupation, he' s clearly a barman/entrepeneur. Caveywavey46 (talk)
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 09:37, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • KEEP (obviously): Apologies in advance if I'm abusing the structure of of this discussion (it would appear that I have), this is a new Wikipedia account and I'm not familiar with the etiquette just yet. As you can see from my name, this article is about me. It's not often you have to defend your life's achievements for the sake of a web page, but since others have an opinion on the notability of my story I suppose it's only proper that I chip in. Believe it or not, I am a notable figure within the international drinks industry, as well as a bestselling author -- I have not previously edited this page myself, but if it would help to keep it in place I am happy to add links to more recent print interviews and articles? This and this, perhaps? You'll be pleased to discover that they are more than just mentions in passing, and I refrain from being 'gratingly aspirational' wherever possible. Or a link to one of my pieces for Time.com? - Tristanstephenson (talk) 08:24, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:17, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:17, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:17, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:17, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep I ran a quick news google search Here: [33]. He's notable, all right.E.M.Gregory (talk) 09:36, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • COMMENT Apologies for my lack of experience in this matter, I would like to suggest that the entry stops plugging 'Fluid Movement' which is clearly just a non-notable business entity. This would make the whole thing seem less manipulative in my view. Apart from that he seems to have enough contacts in the press to maintain some kind of notability for the moment.Caveywavey46 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:05, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • I removed the reference to that company from the opening sentence. I didn't touch the mention further on down because it will take some thought to rewrite that part of the article without butchering it. If you have the time, please make a go of it. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 04:27, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 03:47, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep -There are plenty of references, as stated above and in the article, that establish his notability. ABF99 (talk) 21:01, 9 September 2015 (UTC) (talk • contribs) 04:12, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Notability is not determined through counting references; especially when, as in this case, they are either not substantial, or not independent, or both. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:41, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Very weak keep bordering on neutral at least with respect to "notability". There are editorial issues including WP:NOTPROMO and grammar but those issues can be dealt with by editing. MOST of the references appear to be about topics OTHER than this person and/or they are from sources whose reliability and independence isn't immediately obvious. Yes, the coverage of the person from obviously-reliable sources is more than trivial but even collectively it's not quite enough. What put it (barely) "over the line" for me was the "todayonline" reference. My support for keeping this is so tenuous that if someone were to make a credible claim that this story was either not independent or that the web site is not a reliable source, I would immediately switch to "delete" unless something else came along to make up the deficit. If the question at AFD was "would Wikipedia be better off without the present article than with it" I would "vote" "delete" but it's not. The question is, "does the topic qualify for a stand-alone article and if so, is the current article salvageable." Unless I am wrong about the "todayonline" source, the answers are "yes-but-barely" and "yes but it will take some work." Note: If this were "Drinkpedia" or "Londonpedia" then this guy may well have unquestionable notability. But it's not those things, it's Wikipedia. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 04:18, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • COMMENT I honestly don't know where to start editing this, especially as my edits could be shot down in flames by one of Mr Stephenson's advocates. If we were to argue each point individually would it be better to do it in a different place or keep it all here?
    Could we at least all agree that "Stephenson was also included in the Evening Standard's Top 1000 influential Londoners in 2012 in the category of "scenesters and drinkers".[14]" could be considered 'peripheral'.Caveywavey46 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:29, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • COMMENT I just added the "scenesters and drinkers' phrase as 1) it actually is the title of the source page that the ref points to 2) it accurately reflects the claim. On the other hand, it points to the WP:PUFFERY going on. Feel free, of course, to delete as you see fit. New Media Theorist (talk) 18:50, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • COMMENT It's on my list. Could one of the previous editors or Mr Stephenson himself confirm that he is part owner of The Whistling Shop and Polzeath Cafe whereas I believe that Purl has changed hands and Dachs and sons has ceased trading? This is the idea I am getting from reading the sources.--Caveywavey46 (talk) 21:21, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Revisiting this one, just to check myself since other editors disagree. But we seem to be in age of celebrity chefs and celebrity bartenders. there is stuff like The Telegraph, Here: [34] featuring bartenders including Tony Conigliaro (mixologist) and describing Stephenson as a "drinks expert." There is now a college ballplayer with the same name - the ball player gets the first 2 results on this news google search. But affter that, it's all this cocktail-mixing Brit [35]. so I'll stick with my Keep vote. Like most promotion on Wikipedia, this article can and should be whittled down to size.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:49, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment/question, have just added some words to the article about one of his books being shortlisted for a book award, although this one may not be deemed noteworthy? Coolabahapple (talk) 14:37, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have to agree with davidwr that this is a very, very weak keep at best. The sources are overwhelmingly promotional in nature, like "Time Out London." There are a number of mere quotes, which don't support notability and really shouldn't be included as references if you want people to take the article seriously. Ditto using two nearly identical articles about the coffee bean story. I have a hard time seeing articles about "Scenesters" and ones about the opening of restaurants and bars as adding up to notability. But there ARE articles that are about him, and I suppose it may be possible to be a notable "mixologist." LaMona (talk) 17:07, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - Meets GNG based on multiple, substantial, independently published sources of presumed reliability showing in the footnotes. Carrite (talk) 00:38, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak Keep - Article meets barren GNG based on sources. MrWooHoo (talk) 02:48, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 20:11, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Backbase[edit]

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

    I came across this via another user that pointed out that the article is entirely sourced by press releases. I would have PRODed this, but it went through one already.

    Long story short, a search for sources didn't really bring up anything other than more press releases and things that look suspiciously like press releases. I found one or two sources like this one and some brief sources like this one, but nothing that would really show that this company would fully pass notability guidelines. If anyone can work some magic on this and find better sources, I'm open to this closing as a keep, but it looks like this company has really only ever been covered in press releases. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:30, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 08:49, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 08:49, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 08:49, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete as my searches found nothing more than...you guessed it! Press releases and other minor mentions such as one at Books and a few with News. SwisterTwister talk 05:13, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. Swarm ♠ 04:01, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    BC Biomedical Laboratories Ltd.[edit]

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

    I'm not entirely sure if this is fully notable and my searches found nothing better with the best results here, here and here. There's aso no obviously good move target with the two links being List of companies of Canada and former employee Arun Garg. SwisterTwister talk 23:28, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 02:33, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 02:33, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 02:33, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 02:34, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:15, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:52, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak keep This article looks very much like a promotional piece at the moment, but I've found a notable mention in The Globe and Mail [36]-RoseL2P (talk) 23:20, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • delete not WP:NOTABLE. This is just directory information and WP is WP:NOTDIRECTORY, The editor who created it seems to have been a paid freelancer, based on them being a SPA and their username: Special:Contributions/Tbeerejobcbio. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for promotion, either. Jytdog (talk) 08:14, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Add - editor was editing under their real name. See their linkedin profile. So yes a COI/PROMO directory piece. Jytdog (talk) 08:18, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - WP:NOTDIRECTORY has been mentioned, no claim of notability in the article, just another medical lab, no in-depth coverage in multiple RS independent of the subject, fails WP:CORPDEPTH, one news item doesn't establish notability Kraxler (talk) 16:15, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - WP:COI article and isn't notable. MrWooHoo (talk) 02:49, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was no consensus. Courcelles (talk) 20:09, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Chris Jones (filmmaker)[edit]

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

    Not notable enough for Wikipedia and cannot find many sources to support his relevance/notability for Wikipedia. Possibly written by the subject himself. Sheroddy (talk) 23:12, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:42, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:42, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:13, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. Ah, why not. I'll vote to keep. Seems that nobody else is going to comment on the sources I found. I listed seven or eight sources above, and I guess that's good enough for me, even if some of them are a bit light. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:41, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:50, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep and procedural close, nothing suggests the mandatory due dilligence has been performed. Nothing found? And what about
    And that is only from a Google Book search, and the list goes on.
    Nothing found on Highbeam? Well what about this? -- Sam Sailor Talk! 08:09, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 20:09, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Adirondack Children's Troupe[edit]

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

    Local children's theatre group that seems to be closed now (www.adirondackchildrenstroupe.org, no other contact details obviously available) and my searches found no better results than this and this. With no signs of improvement, there's nothing to suggest keeping. Notifying the only still active user and therefore presumbaly interested, Achowat. SwisterTwister talk 22:29, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 22:30, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 22:30, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 22:30, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Delete - No references, no indication of nobility. It's been a bad article since I tagged it four years ago, and it's still not worthwhile. Achowat (talk) 21:26, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:13, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:09, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:50, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 20:08, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    One Way V.A.[edit]

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

    Article lacks sources that indicate notability. Couldn't find any details of it at all elsewhere, but I might not call it a hoax yet. TheGGoose (talk) 18:50, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:49, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete I can't find anything to establish notability. Me5000 (talk) 15:42, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:11, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:46, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 20:08, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Skills for Change[edit]

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

    Deleted as expired PROD. I restored it per an email objecting to the deletion, but there is not much evidence of notability so bringing to AfD for full discussion. Rlendog (talk) 16:26, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment - Here is an article about them [39]. Looked for more but the rest were quick mentions or announcements. I will check some archives when I have access later in the day.--TTTommy111 (talk) 16:59, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:57, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:57, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:34, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:44, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was no consensus. Article was not expanded to alleviate the burden of proof. A WP:BEFORE search does reveal a seeming number of sources to support the two other participants in the discussion. Closing as no consensus for now as I expect a bit more time will demonstrate whether this article will definitively be able to meet to our notability guidelines. Mkdwtalk 16:19, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Static (Huntress album)[edit]

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

    Not notable. Future album lacking coverage in independent reliable sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 13:24, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:16, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. It's out in a few weeks. Their last album received about enough coverage to be considered notable, so it would seem that there's a good chance that this one will too. Personally I'd leave it until a couple of weeks after release and deal with it if there's no coverage by that point. --Michig (talk) 07:44, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:56, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:31, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:43, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. Plenty of sources out there for this album. It is a notable album. No reason to delete article. TheSickBehemoth (talk) 00:13, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010Talk 00:11, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Ang Iglesia Metodista sa Pilipinas[edit]

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

    Article fails WP:NOTABILITY, relies too much on primary sources and original research (which includes citations that are mostly prescriptive/dogmatic rather than descriptive of the subject matter). In addition, based on the talk page, its primary editors have a close personal involvement to the subject of the article (Fails Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and qualifies as WP:PROMOTION).

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:22, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:22, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:22, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. The denomination's founding was reported in the US.[40] StAnselm (talk) 04:05, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep: but must be cleaned up of any POV/OR (which I will work on). It essentially describes a denomination which exists in the Philippines and has no other immediately related-articles. Quis separabit? 17:35, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:30, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:42, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep -- This is a denomination, where we certainly need an article, and it is not so bad that we need to start again. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:05, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete, WP:SOFTDELETE--Ymblanter (talk) 07:07, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    John LaMotta[edit]

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

    Delete: as non-notable actor. Quis separabit? 00:55, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 01:30, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete or redirect to ALF (as it seems it was his best work) and my searches definitely found nothing to suggest independent notability here, here, here and here. SwisterTwister talk 06:38, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:35, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:35, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:04, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:41, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was redirect to Armin Shimerman. Been up 3 weeks and it's unlikely a 3rd relist would gain any votes so redirecting (non-admin closure) –Davey2010Talk 00:12, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Kitty Swink[edit]

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

    Delete: non-notable actress. Quis separabit? 00:51, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 00:53, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:33, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:03, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:40, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Kraxler (talk) 20:20, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Michael Brin Prize in Dynamical Systems[edit]

    Michael Brin Prize in Dynamical Systems (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    No indication that the award itself satisfies WP:GNG. Based on the references given and my own search for additional sources, the only coverage appears to be listings of who won the award in a single journal. There appears to be no in-depth coverage of the award itself. Nick⁠—⁠Contact/Contribs 00:16, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 00:45, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment. Somewhat more coverage turns up using the shorter search string "Brin Prize", visible in the "Find sources" links above. This includes assorted papers reviewing the works of the various award winners. Whether that's enough to keep the article remains for discussion. --Arxiloxos (talk) 00:48, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:49, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. At this point we have plenty of sourcing (more than usual for a mathematical award) in the form of what looks like an entire special issue of a journal (or at least several articles in a single issue) written by other mathematicians and celebrating the mathematical accomplishments that led to the selection of each prizewinner. I don't see any merit in the nominator's attempts to view this coverage as being not about the award itself. I also find it suggestive that Avila's prize was followed in such quick succession by the Fields Medal and that the Guardian article about the 2014 Fields Medal winners found the Brin Prize to be significant enough to list among Avila's past honors. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:05, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:00, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:39, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. Since I didn't formally !vote above and since there hasn't been input from others, I'll state explicitly here that I agree with David Eppstein that the case for notability has been made sufficiently to warrant retaining this article. --Arxiloxos (talk) 03:54, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was redirect to 2015 Chinese stock market crash. No discrimination against a merge but 2015 Chinese stock market crash already had a brief section about black Monday and overall responses. Mkdwtalk 16:12, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Chinese black monday[edit]

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

    Can see no reason (as yet) for this to exist as an article separate from 2015 Chinese stock market crash, in my opinion a story with a long way to go. There may well be blacker Mondays or indeed Wednesdays ahead. Black Monday is merely the headline created by a very unimaginative sub-editor, which is why I do not think this worthy of a redirect. TheLongTone (talk) 12:54, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • Re-name Black Monday 2015 Chinese state media is calling it "Black Monday". International commentators starting to call it Black Monday as hundreds of billions of notable dollars go down toilet. Suggest name change discussion more appropriate than deletion. Guru Noel (talk) 18:09, 24 August 2015 (UTC) 18:08, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Probably Renamed Simply as Black Monday or Merged with Chinese Stock Market Crash I dont know put it could Renamed as Black Monday that right now that also effect outside of China as well, However its only create Positive effect on Oil to decreased prices for short time? 2606:A000:85E7:4E00:6DC0:1FC6:C31:B6E7 (talk) 19:01, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per WP:NOTNEWS - worth a paragraph in the existing article 2015 Chinese stock market crash, but no more than that. We don't create an article every time a stock market somewhere drops or rises by a few percent points. -Zanhe (talk) 08:24, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hang fire for now This may not even be the worst day. The article is premature, but we have articles on such days on Wall Street, so likely we will eventually have one on this day. User:Fred Bauder Talk 08:37, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hang fire for now - its too early to tell whether the event is notable. Review after two weeks. Then most likely then merge with Chinese Stock Market Crash 2015.Jonpatterns (talk) 09:07, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per Zanhe. 61.3.106.89 (talk) 10:14, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment They call it Stormy Monday, but Tuesday's just as bad. Wednesday's worse.... I can't really see the point of a standalone article: this day is so obviouisly part of a larger story that a standalone would have to include much material from 2015 Chinese stock market crash to make any sense. As for Black Monday....Clichegate.TheLongTone (talk) 13:07, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge and redirect to 2015 Chinese stock market crash: Currently serves as a content fork. There isn't a reason to have separate pages when the later events can be placed in an article subsection. --benlisquareT•C•E 11:09, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hang fire for now per Fred Bauder and Jonpatterns. Notability (or lack thereof) of the subject would be clearer in 2-3 weeks. --Joshua Issac (talk) 15:09, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Are the Chinese Government now trying to censor bad news on Wikipedia by stealth?! -- Urquhartnite (talk) 23:48, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not in any substantial way, however this particular subject is a good example of one that might be, as panic is not a good thing; press coverage is muted in China, by government directive. User:Fred Bauder Talk 16:28, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:54, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:54, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:54, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge to 2015 Chinese stock market crash , this is an unnecessary fork. --Tom (LT) (talk) 04:07, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. Agree with Zanhe and with Tom's comments above. Quantumavik (talk) 04:23, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep and I would support expansion into how it impacted global markets... considering how the DJIA lost over 1000 points in 3 days and then kept falling for several days after that, this is more than just China's bad day. MPS (talk) 15:34, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • @MPS: There's already an article, 2015 stock market selloff, about the global selloff (which has more info about Black Monday than the stub we're discussing). And there is 2015 Chinese stock market crash about the Chinese crash; both articles are relatively well developed. We don't need a third article about the same event. -Zanhe (talk) 19:32, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:38, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:39, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete and replace with a disambiguation page as Mark viking suggests. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:13, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Order of a polynomial[edit]

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

    The title is usurpatory, as it has several common meanings, none corresponding to the content of the article. This cannot be solved by moving the article, because of the multiple issues listed in the talk page: the concept is not well defined. The only possible definition that fits the examples is not a property of the polynomial, but of an auxiliary basis. The article refers to a unique source, which is a book about splines, a different subject. It seems that the article is a WP:OR tentative to generalize the well defined notion of "order of of a spline interpolation", which is based on a misunderstanding of this notion. In any case, the article content is either WP:OR or non-notable, and, thus, cannot be saved for making an encyclopedic article. D.Lazard (talk) 10:02, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment In spline theory, the order of a spline is a well-defined concept; it is the number of knots needed to define a spline. I think this was de Boor's use of the term. In the more general case of polynomials, order is sometimes used as a synonym for degree. There is also the multiplicative order of a polynomial. Given the different uses of the term, it may be better to turn this into a disambiguation page. --Mark viking (talk) 17:57, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:28, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. Incoherent, and apparently OR. There might be several notions of the "order of a polynomial", but they are not what is described in this article. --Sammy1339 (talk) 02:37, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. A disambiguation page for this title makes sense, but I do not know what to do with the contents of this page. A delete seems to be the cleanest way to make room for a proper page. Bill Cherowitzo (talk) 17:14, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. I don't use mathematics professionally, but enjoy playing about. The term 'order of a polynomial' was familiar to me from high-school maths 20 years ago, and seemed to more or less match the definition given in the article; I understand from the discussion above that this should be referred to as the 'degree', but acknowledging the difference in use around the world is worthwhile. I note that Wolfram uses order of a polynomial in the same sense that this page intends. So, I'm argue for retaining it.Klbrain (talk) 22:07, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Look a little more closely at this page. In the example given, a degree one polynomial has order n, thus degree and order are not being used as synonyms contrary to what Wolfram is saying. The fact that the article led you astray speaks against keeping it.Bill Cherowitzo (talk) 22:30, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:37, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:38, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete, not well-defined and not commonly used. After deletion, create a redirect to Degree of a polynomial. —Kusma (t·c) 09:43, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I guess this article is meant to be about the order of approximation, in the sense that x is a second-order approximation to sin(x) for small x (even though it is of first degree). I don't think this usage deserves its own article, though. --JBL (talk) 13:09, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete as OR. de Boor defines a polynomial of order n to be a polynomial of degree n − 1. There is no mention of a basis like in the article. Ozob (talk) 14:36, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. I'm not sure why this was relisted twice. Consensus seems pretty clearly to indicate deletion. But in case a raw tally of votes is needed to push this solidly over some imaginary edge: delete. Sławomir
      Biały       17:46, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was redirect to List of primary schools in Singapore. As always most primary schools get redirected to school districts or towns, Pointless reverting but there we go, (non-admin closure) –Davey2010Talk 00:16, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Saint Stephen's School, Singapore[edit]

    Saint Stephen's School, Singapore (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    This article about a non notable primary (elementary) school was originally redirected to the list of schools in Singapore according to the general consensus and oractice as documented at WP:OUTCOMES and in WP:DELETION policy as 'redirect' being an appropriate alternative to outright deletion in many cases. An editor has reverted the redirect, so based on policy, guidelines, and accepted practice, the community is asked to clarify that redirect rather than deletion is indeed the more appropriate status for this article. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:56, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 08:47, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 08:47, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 07:03, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Lankadesigners.com[edit]

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

    I don't think this meets the notability guideline. Was tagged CSD A7 twice, but I disagree. Adam9007 (talk) 01:24, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment' The creator has left this comment on the article talk page. I think editors should also take this into account.--Chanaka L (talk) 05:02, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because... (This is a Fastest Growing Web Development Company in Sri Lanka .. I Will Update More details ASAP ) --Pathiranag (talk) 01:00, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - Not a notable organization. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 02:19, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per nominator. I also find it fascinating that the third sentence, now removed, matches precisely the line in the actual Murmur Creative article. The line in question is "Murmur Creative's motto, "Success by Design" espouses their philosophy that great branding and web design can (and will) affect a business' bottom line." New Media Theorist (talk) 03:06, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy Delete per my original nominations.--Cahk (talk) 04:05, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 03:07, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. North America1000 04:57, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete non-notable organisation. No references have been cited to establish notability and appears that there is a copyright issue. Dan arndt (talk) 06:08, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per above. Unless there are foreign language sources available, I just don't see where this company is notable enough for an article. The awards are likely what would push it past A7 criteria, but I can't really find much about the awards, which is almost always a sign that they would not be considered notable per Wikipedia's guidelines. I'd snow close this, but I do want to give the article creator a little more time to provide sources (which they said were forthcoming on the article's talk page) so I decided to just vote and give them this chance. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:01, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete No evidence of notability; Googling didn't indicate any third-party sources, nevermind independent or reliable ones; these are a requirement for WP:Notability.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:13, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Notability not justified.--Chanaka L (talk) 04:54, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:06, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was speedy redirect to Midwifery. (non-admin closure) Kraxler (talk) 20:30, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Midwife[edit]

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

    This article is basically a dictionary entry, but Wikipedia is not a dictionary. The basic concept of midwifery is already covered at the article midwifery. It is not clear how the scope of this article would be different than that article, other than defining the specific term "midwife" (which should be done on Wiktionary). Kaldari (talk) 00:02, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    It was a redirect and was only recently expanded inappropriately. I don't think this AfD is necessary - we can just revert back to the redirect. Jytdog (talk) 00:36, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. North America1000 02:32, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2015_September_8&oldid=1142623986"