Northamerica1000 (talk | contribs) |
Heatherawalls (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
__TOC__ |
__TOC__ |
||
<!-- Add new entries to the TOP of the following list --> |
<!-- Add new entries to the TOP of the following list --> |
||
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of bones and teeth}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amalgamates (2nd nomination)}}<!--Relisted--> |
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amalgamates (2nd nomination)}}<!--Relisted--> |
||
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Belayab Motors}}<!--Relisted--> |
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Belayab Motors}}<!--Relisted--> |
Revision as of 05:27, 20 October 2016
- 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 11:04, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
Comparison of bones and teeth
- Comparison of bones and teeth (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 poorly written and not a true comparison of bones and teeth. Major sections are essentially outlines of the qualities of teeth and of bones, which are already covered properly in their own articles. heather walls (talk) 05:27, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:SYNTH. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:34, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
- Merge if there's anything that's not covered in either bone or teeth articles.--72.58.114.125 (talk) 03:46, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti Talk 19:11, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:31, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
- delete WP:OR. Creator can try to add this to Wikiuniversity if they like Jytdog (talk) 17:50, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 10:33, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
Amalgamates
- Amalgamates (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 last nomination was discussed in 2006 and since then the criteria under WP:MUSIC have become stricter. In that context, the page does not list sufficient reliable sources or indicated notability. The long list of awards is inflated, the organisation that awards them (the Contemporary A Cappella Society) appears to be closely linked to the group. The overriding sense from the article is that this constitutes a college choir with little national profile, no chart success nor any international touring commitments. Karst (talk) 13:02, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:37, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:37, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:21, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:26, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
- Weak keep per WP:BAND, which says that
"Musicians or ensembles ... may be notable if ... [they have] won first, second or third place in a major music competition."
This article lists multiple first-place finishes at the Contemporary A Cappella Recording Awards. Personally, I don't think that the standards at WP:NMUSIC are strict enough, but the guideline apparently reflects community consensus, so I feel compelled to vote "keep." -- Notecardforfree (talk) 03:02, 27 October 2016 (UTC) - Delete. Not notable. The completion is not major. No other criteria are met. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:15, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:21, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
- Delete The competition is not notable enough to justify keeping this otherwise non-notable group. -- Dane2007 talk 14:09, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 01:07, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
Belayab Motors
- Belayab Motors (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)
Per WP:NCORP and WP:GNG. I could not locate reliable secondary sources to verify the notability of the subject. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 20:05, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:12, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethiopia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:12, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:20, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:26, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:24, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
Delete with a passing mention in Kia Motors. Nordic Nightfury 10:14, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. ‑Scottywong| confess _ 17:57, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Don-Bur
- Don-Bur (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 declined a CSD A7 for this, but efforts to find reliable independent sources are proving fruitless. It's a very familiar brand, albeit not quite Fruehauf or Boalloy in terms of non-truckie name recognition, but those of us who regularly wear grooves in the UK's motorway network this will eb a well known name. And yet: I cannot source it. Guy (Help!) 23:46, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:30, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:30, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:17, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:27, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
- I agree it's not quite Fruehauf, but there is plenty of material to show their notability. It is a rather specialist field so it is difficult to separate grain (independent press) from chaff (PR fluff), but most of these seem legit to me:
- Don-Bur launches VOSA-compliant load restraint , transportengineer.org.uk
- Don-Bur shows 52-pallet lifting deck trailer at CV Show, transportengineer.org.uk
- £3m expansion creates 40 new jobs at Don-Bur, Stoke Sentinel
- Don-Bur invests £1 million in facilities, Stoke Sentinel
- No tears thanks to contract for revolutionary trailer, Stoke Sentinel
- Don-Bur ontwikkelt een 4 m hoge Teardrop trailer, www.truck-business.com
- Don-Bur maakt Euro-versie Teardrop trailer , TTM.nl
- Teardrop or pipe dream? , transportengineer.org.uk
- DHL and DON-BUR launch a new Curtainsider Teardrop trailer, Fleet.ie
- Don Bur factory fire in Stoke-on-Trent caused by drying system, BBC
- DHL Supply Chain makes Don-Bur Teardrop standard www.commercialmotor.com
- Press Release: Deutsche Post DHL introduces first Teardrop Trailer in Germany and France, DHL
- One may question how much of this coverage is about their most famoust product, a teardrop trailer, which is AFAICT used by DHL fleet worldwide, but a company producing a notable product is probably notable enough to have a short factual article such as this. Keep. No such user (talk) 11:42, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:23, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
- Delete WP:NOTINHERITED. Unsourced article, started by undeclared COI editor. Refs could probably go to Teardrop trailer (truck), itself, AfD'd however, as unsourced. Nordic Nightfury 15:42, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 01:07, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
- Delete I see this more as a case where a particular product might be somewhat known in the country, but the company isn't. The coverage in BBC for example is about a fire in the factory. Most of the other is mostly local coverage. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 13:38, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
- Delete as corporate spam & WP:TOOSOON. Sources presented at this AfD are mostly local, along the lines of "homegrown company does well" etc. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:06, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy delete per below. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 03:42, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
Florenze(Constructed Language)
- Florenze(Constructed Language) (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 indication of notability. I am not certain that CSD A11 is applicable, so taking to AfD. Article was previously PRODed and declined. Safiel (talk) 05:15, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
- Comment The editor who created the page, Redwars22, is the same person who submitted the material to here on October 3, so it's almost certain that the person who created the page is also the language's creator. On a side note I also note that the creator of the language is nearly identical to the two people who created Redstack, a fictitious company that creates "animated series, apps for your devices, blogs and apps about linguistics." I think it's likely that this is directly related given Redstack's emphasis on linguistics, the similarity in the creator name, and that Redwards22 is the same as one of the other fictitious companies listed on the Redstack page. This seems like it would certainly qualify for WP:A11. I'm willing to speedy it and defend it at DRV, if it came to that. Redwars22, Wikipedia is not a place to spread awareness of something you came up with one day. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 06:57, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
- I debated blocking them for a promotional username, however the company names aren't for anything real so I'm not going to - however the warning that Wikipedia is not a place to write about or promote things you created are still applicable. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 06:59, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:02, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 04:33, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
- Comment: I'm going to go ahead and just delete this as something that the user created one day. I wanted to wait and see how others responded, but then went on vacation and didn't check Wikipedia. There's enough evidence here to suggest that this was something that was created by the editor and that this is their way of trying to promote their own work. It's cool that they came up with their own language, but Wikipedia is not the place to promote something that you came up with WP:ONEDAY. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。)
- 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 08:43, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
Women in the Americas
- Women in the Americas (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 never nominate articles for deletion based on quality, but I'm going to make an exception in this case. This is probably the worst Wikipedia article I've ever read. It doesn't include a single useful statement about women in the Americas, and instead is just a list of all the countries in North and South America with lead sections copied verbatim from the corresponding "Women in X" articles, all of which seem to start with the inane sentence "Women in X are women who were born in, who live in, or are from X." Thanks for that insight! This article either needs to be broken up into more manageable chunks where useful comparisons and coherent themes can be elicidated (like Women in the Caribbean and Women in Central America), stubbified (so that it can be replaced with some tables and charts and useful prose), or deleted entirely. As it stands, the article is incoherent and unreadable. As there was no actually writing or research involved in making it, I don't think we would lose much by deleting it. Kaldari (talk) 05:14, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of South America-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:17, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:18, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:18, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:18, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cuba-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:22, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Haiti-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:22, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Trinidad and Tobago-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:22, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belize-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:22, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of El Salvador-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:22, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Guatemala-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:22, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Panama-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:23, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:36, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:36, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
- Comment The article does serve a purpose though, that is pointing at other similar articles. However, I have to agree that it is badly written. The problem here is that it is just not practical to write an article about "Women in the Americas" - it is too broad a topic. Instead, articles like Women in Venezuela are much more feasible. I'm just wondering, how about we create a template for Women in the Americas? --Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:35, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
- weak agree should be deleted, unless giving the article purpose is feasible.Fred (talk) 16:03, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
- Keep I honestly don't see what the fuss is all about. What's wrong with a list article that summarizes Women in each country and links to more specific articles for each? and BTW why was the creator of this article not notified? Ottawahitech (talk) 10:40, 22 October 2016 (UTC)please ping me
- Comment: if the major plus point of this article is to group together articles about women in each country in the Americas, wouldn't it be better as a category, or as a template as suggested by Lemongirl1942, rather than an article? Richard3120 (talk) 19:38, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
- @Richard3120: Unfortunately categories are often deleted for reasons that defy logic. Ottawahitech (talk) 14:32, 25 October 2016 (UTC) please ping me
- Delete. I'm not seeing the usefulness of an article that merely serves as a cut-and-paste pastiche of other articles' introductions. If this could actually be rewritten from scratch as a standalone article about the topic named in the title, I might be willing to reconsider this — but in this form there's really very little point or purpose to it. Bearcat (talk) 00:42, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
- Strong keep: Agreed that the article is written terribly, however this does not justify deletion. There are 23 countries in North America (Caribbean and Central America included) and 12 countries in South America compared to a whopping 51 in Europe. So discussing length is pretty pointless too unless we should seperate it by continent (North and South), and please not regional (North, Central, Caribbean). Savvyjack23 (talk) 16:06, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
- Comment: I would be in favor of merging Women in the Caribbean into this article, like how Central America redirects here. We have a "women by continent" category to serve the purpose of filling it. Savvyjack23 (talk) 16:12, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
- Light keep. Comparing women by country is a good thing. The criterion for comparison is currently uninteresting.2607:FB90:1E0B:E660:0:47:7857:9E01 (talk) 09:09, 24 October 2016 (UTC) This user has been blocked. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:14, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
- Keep
Weak Keep and Disambiguatize (err -- turn into a disambiguation page) or Draftify- I agree that as it stands as an article it's just redundant. It could be turned into a disambiguation page, though, and I can imagine ways it could be developed into a viable article, cumbersome as it may be, so sending over to drafts may be productive. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 16:04, 24 October 2016 (UTC)- Updated: See thread below. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 00:28, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
- Delete Not notable Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 04:39, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. SSTflyer 12:11, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
- Comment. I'd like to hear from more interested parties, who might wish to rescue or userfy this article. Bearian (talk) 20:55, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
Delete.Atrocious copypasta, devoid of any substance; needs blowing up and possibly recreation from scratch as a list or disambiguation. The "keep"s don't address the article's problems. Sandstein 22:51, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
- Now neutral after the rewrite. This topic still has a faintly WP:SYNTHetic feel to it - do women in the USA and e.g. in Bolivia have so much in common that reliable sources treat them as one topic? - but at least the content looks and feels like proper articl now rather than a copy-pasted assemblage of stubs. Sandstein 07:42, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
- Keep and I'm willing to put in effort on the article. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:12, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
- Also, I think the Women in the Americas article should be written up more like Women in Antarctica (which I started). The Antarctic article was a little easier to work on because the history of the continent doesn't go too far back in time and there aren't countries in Antarctica per-se, but I think we can approach the Americas article in a similar way. I added a couple of external inks to the article that link to the Society for the History of Women in the Americas who are a scholarly group studying the topic. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:25, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
- Comment please see the excellent work that SusunW added about pre-history of women in the Americas. I've gone and tried to salvage any cited material and will copyedit further later. In addition, I changed the copypasta and Women in X are Women who... section into a list organized by region that I think will be more useful to readers. Hopefully this will pass WP:HEY for some. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 21:22, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
- @SusunW and Megalibrarygirl: Thanks for working to improve it. I think that it would help to make clearer what the future of this page will be -- the particular subject it covers that isn't either an assemblage of subjects we already cover or a disambiguation page. For example, what unites women in pre-colonial indigenous South American cultures with women in indigenous North American cultures today with women who moved to Kansas from Europe last week and women in Central America in the 1900s? Are there sources for the subject that span across the Americas and across time? It's not required that all the sources take that form, of course, but that's what would clarify the subject, I think. All of these subjects are worth covering, to be sure, but it looks like most of the content I see there now is a compilation rather than a single subject ("women in Mexico..." then "women in Brazil..." then "women in the United States..." -- when we have separate articles for those already. What about being in "the Americas" unites them, unless we're only talking about long ago?). Part of this confusion may be my own ignorance, but this comes back to why it seemed like draftifying or turning into a disambiguation page seemed sensible. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 22:40, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
- Rhododendrites I do not mean to be flippant, but the future of the page is irrelevant to a discussion of whether it is a notable topic and the content is based upon RS. The women in all of the Americas share a common history, which I am working to develop in the article (and would welcome help from anyone who is willing to try to save it, rather than delete it). The comparison and contrast of how that conquest effected women is interesting both for its similarities and differences. Because all citizens shared a colonized past, laws existed throughout the region which limited citizenship of women, whether European, indigenous, or from bondage. Laws were similar in countries which had the same colonial power, i.e. Canada, the US and the former British colonies of the Caribbean have similar legal challenges, as do women living in Suriname, Guyana and the Netherlands Antilles, etc. Likewise, all of the countries in the region have indigenous populations, which have all experienced colonization/conquest. Multiple organizations and women's conferences in the 19th and 20th centuries have utilized a regional platform and the strength of developments in other nations within the Americas to address inequalities in their own societies. There are slews of academic studies on the subject, thus, clearly, it is a relevant topic with sufficient data. While extremely broad, I believe with effort the article can give a broad synopsis of the similar and contrasting experiences shared by women in the Americas and break out to individual countries to provide more in-depth discussion of specific areas. SusunW (talk) 23:09, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
- Rhododendrites I agree with SusunW who has explained the issue far better than I could. It is broad, but geographical areas do have shared historical narratives based on the geography and the people who inhabit the areas. These are unique to each continent. For example, The Americas has a shared history of slavery that is different from other continents. Different continents faced different issues with colonization, too. I've found several scholarly articles on the topic of Women in the Americas as a broad subject. I am also helping to clean up Women in Oceania and other "Women in..." articles. They are notable topics, but the articles are really terrible. I'm glad the nom brought this to our attention. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 23:15, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
the future of the page is irrelevant to a discussion of whether it is a notable topic
- I brought up the future of the page not to say "tell us how you'll improve it so we don't have to delete it" exactly (which would generally be irrelevant to AfD), but rather as a way to talk about what an ideal vision of the page would look like (in order to convince those who see -- or saw, prior to the improvements -- a page without a clearly unified subject, and a page that's more than a grouping or directory of component parts that we already cover). From my perspective, while it seemed like it could be a notable subject, it was unclear what that would look like. Hence suggesting turning into a disambiguation as a potential outcome. Your responses here, and continuing to look at the added content, help to clarify the subject, though, and I've updated my weak keep/disambiguatize/draftify to just keep.- Pinging those who !voted delete prior to the additions: @Sandstein, Kaldari, Sportsfan 1234, and Bearcat:. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 00:27, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
- Rhododendrites I agree with SusunW who has explained the issue far better than I could. It is broad, but geographical areas do have shared historical narratives based on the geography and the people who inhabit the areas. These are unique to each continent. For example, The Americas has a shared history of slavery that is different from other continents. Different continents faced different issues with colonization, too. I've found several scholarly articles on the topic of Women in the Americas as a broad subject. I am also helping to clean up Women in Oceania and other "Women in..." articles. They are notable topics, but the articles are really terrible. I'm glad the nom brought this to our attention. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 23:15, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
- Rhododendrites I do not mean to be flippant, but the future of the page is irrelevant to a discussion of whether it is a notable topic and the content is based upon RS. The women in all of the Americas share a common history, which I am working to develop in the article (and would welcome help from anyone who is willing to try to save it, rather than delete it). The comparison and contrast of how that conquest effected women is interesting both for its similarities and differences. Because all citizens shared a colonized past, laws existed throughout the region which limited citizenship of women, whether European, indigenous, or from bondage. Laws were similar in countries which had the same colonial power, i.e. Canada, the US and the former British colonies of the Caribbean have similar legal challenges, as do women living in Suriname, Guyana and the Netherlands Antilles, etc. Likewise, all of the countries in the region have indigenous populations, which have all experienced colonization/conquest. Multiple organizations and women's conferences in the 19th and 20th centuries have utilized a regional platform and the strength of developments in other nations within the Americas to address inequalities in their own societies. There are slews of academic studies on the subject, thus, clearly, it is a relevant topic with sufficient data. While extremely broad, I believe with effort the article can give a broad synopsis of the similar and contrasting experiences shared by women in the Americas and break out to individual countries to provide more in-depth discussion of specific areas. SusunW (talk) 23:09, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Adam9007 (talk) 00:25, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
- Keep: Appropriate overview article and now much improved as well. Montanabw(talk) 15:49, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
- Keep now: Megalibrarygirl and SusunW, you have done wonderful work on this article in the space of a week and it has improved beyond measure, I applaud both of you. Grouping the headings by topic area rather than by country makes a lot more sense. The article now is so different now to when it was nominated for AfD that we're not really voting on the same article, and I hope the editors who previously voted delete will review their vote based on the current version. Richard3120 (talk) 22:07, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks Richard3120. There is a long way to go, but we are getting there. SusunW (talk) 22:11, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks Richard3120. I think it's a good example of what we all can do when we find articles on Wiki that need work. When you let members of interested WikiProjects know about it, they're likely to get cracking on it. ;) SusunW is really good at digging up the history on these kinds of topics. :D Megalibrarygirl (talk) 22:18, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
- Let's also not forget to thank User:AnakngAraw who tagged the tallpage of the article with many Wikiprojects that resulted in all these projects being notified of this nomination through their Article alerts. Ottawahitech (talk) 20:44, 5 November 2016 (UTC)please ping me
- Thanks Richard3120. There is a long way to go, but we are getting there. SusunW (talk) 22:11, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
- Keep — Wow. Thanks, SusunW and Megalibrarygirl! giso6150 (talk) 12:00, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
- Withdraw nomination. I have to admit that SusunW and Megalibrarygirl have completely transformed this article. Nice work! Kaldari (talk) 18:38, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 10:48, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
Vanderbilt New York
- Vanderbilt New York (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)
Small store with four locations. Nothing indicating notability. Fails WP:GNG. Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 00:24, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:25, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:25, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:25, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:08, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:28, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Dane2007 talk 14:08, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
- Delete Just opened; seems merely like a several-store showroom for the company's licensed brands than a functioning chain which hopes to expand. Nate • (chatter) 19:39, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
- Delete
The company was launched on October 1 2016 in Thailand, at BLÚPORT Hua Hin owned by The Mall Group, with three further stores opened at Emporium, Central Westgate, and Central Bangna owned by the Central Group over the following two weeks.
This is a newly opened showroom from the looks of it. While the creator is notable, the showroom doesn't inherit that notability. I do not see enough sources for the showroom itself. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 17:12, 9 November 2016 (UTC) - Delete as solely advertising alone and the fact itself has no actual claims of significance either. SwisterTwister talk 20:16, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 01:05, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
Vishwa Gujarat
- Vishwa Gujarat (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 source for content. No indication of nobility. Coderzombie (talk) 08:16, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:50, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:50, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:50, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:06, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
- Delete: The given sources are far from reliable and my searches are finding nothing better. Nor do Alexa ratings around 18000 and 10000 in India give the appearance that some mark of notability is being missed. Unless something better can be found, this fails WP:NWEB and WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 17:55, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti Talk 19:11, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 04:32, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
Ruchoma Shain
- Ruchoma Shain (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 in any particular field or categorization. Strongly suspect COI. Quis separabit? 03:42, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
- Weak keep There is some coverage in independent, reliable sources. She has published some books. Neither are too notable, but IMHO do establish a minimum of notability. Debresser (talk) 11:30, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
- Keep I see no reason for considering deletion, let alone doing it. I fail to see where the COI would be. Her notability as a rebetzin and as a scholar is quite clear, as is her importance within Orthodox Jewry. Just to quell any suspicions, I am not a Jew myself, but a firm believer in freedom of worship, which relies on knowledge of each other's belief systems.Bmcln1 (talk) 14:23, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
- Delete. She is best known for the biography of her father, and there is very little notable about her personally. Merge any relevant content into the YY Herman article. JFW | T@lk 21:16, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
- Keep. I have added more sources showing her influence on other writers, as well as verification of her first book being an all-time bestseller for Feldheim Publishers. Yoninah (talk) 22:33, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
- Keep as per Bmcln1 and Yoninah above. -- -- -- 04:36, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
- Keep. Not extremely notable, but notable enough. I don't think that deleting it would improve the encyclopedia. Zerotalk 03:57, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:54, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:54, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:54, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
- Keep the ample reliable and verifiable sources about the subject establish notability. Alansohn (talk) 01:11, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:52, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
Syed Riyaz Ahmad Naqshbandi
- Syed Riyaz Ahmad Naqshbandi (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 believe this article fails the WP:GNG and that the subject isn't a notable religious figure. The only source for the article is a webpage claimed to be official (though the subject is dead). Beyond that webpage, I couldn't find anything about the subject of this article beyond Youtube videos. The Indian subcontinent is full of holy men for every religious tradition on Earth; this specific holy man doesn't appear to be of note. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:27, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:30, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:30, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
- Delete i vote for to delete this page at the earliest. User talk:Aasim001 07:46, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
- Delete: Tried Gbooks & JSTOR, found nothing. Anup [Talk] 19:28, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:57, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Contagious shooting
- Contagious shooting (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:NOTDICT - at best transwiki to wiktionary. Most of the examples' articles and sources don't mention "contagious shooting", either, making a large chunk of the article original research. The article was kept at AfD 10 years ago, but the standards have changed a lot since then. ansh666 01:56, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. ansh666 01:58, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. ansh666 01:58, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
- Keep The article is about the concept not the word used. The references can use any synonym. For instance WWI was not the name for the Great War until we had WWII. I count over 5,000 GHits in Google News archive. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:02, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
- Keep Citation of sources on the article shows sufficient notability of this term. Optakeover(U)(T)(C) 05:48, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
- Keep, and trim a bit (in particular the lead). The word is around in newspapers, and there is a reasonable section with examples, which disprove respectively WP:OR and WP:DICDEF claims. TigraanClick here to contact me 11:10, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
- Keep There are enough sources that mention it specifically by name to show it's a legitimate and notable topic. Felsic2 (talk) 16:04, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
- Keep per reasons given above.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 16:27, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
- Keep - term that is used and discussed in many criminal justice textbooks and police training manuals. In fact, I used to teach about it. Bearian (talk) 00:44, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
- Weak Keep, not a strong showing of notability and could use some ce work and would like to see some additional examples with RS citing; for example, if used and mentioned in police training. Kierzek (talk) 13:28, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:52, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
Golden ratio poetry
- Golden ratio poetry (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:N and WP:V. The current sources are:
- Radoslav Rochallyi's Golden Divine, which is self-published through CreateSpace
- A library's digital card catalog entry for Golden Divine
- Radoslav Rochallyi's Blog
Every other source mentioning "Golden ratio poetry" appears to be a mirror of this article. I looked for reliable sources but could find none. And not only aren't there reliable, third-party published sources about the subject, but there don't even appear to be unreliable sources, either. Woodroar (talk) 00:31, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
- Delete: Completely non-notable. Zero coverage in reliable sources. Kolbasz (talk) 17:27, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Kolbasz (talk) 17:29, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:TNT, almost total WP:BOLLOCKS. Bearian (talk) 00:34, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:26, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Sam Walton (talk) 21:37, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
Bagla Hills mine
- Bagla Hills mine (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 such mine exists AFAIK. See Bagla Hills for the sordid details. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:01, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
- Delete or redirect. The present content is unsuitable and Bagla Hills covers the matter rather well. Possibly there should be a redirect if it is a useful search term but I expect anyone interested in the "mine" would find it just as easily without. Thincat (talk) 10:13, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:38, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:38, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 04:31, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Dane2007 talk 14:14, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
- Delete The main article is sufficient. I guess this can be deleted and I don't see the need to leave a redirect hanging behind. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 18:01, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.