Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 June 15

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 14 June	16 June >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Jenks24 (talk) 08:41, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sarus (artificial language)

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

Sarus (artificial language) is a WP:NN conlang which exists nowhere outside of the creator's own flash animations, Wikipedia, and a handful of forum posts. Interestingly, this article was turned into a redirect after this 2009 AfD, but was restored with no changes or explanation whatsoever (except the removal of the AfD tag) link. Since then, the only editors who have done more than simple maintenance are IP editors from the same location in Australia (the creator's country of origin) who have no other edits: user 1, user 2, and user 3. Given its total lack of notability, and the fact that the page was previously revived for no reason, it seems reasonable to fully delete the article. Hermione is a dude (talk) 18:30, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Hermione is a dude (talk) 16:53, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I note that User:Zakawer restored the content but didn't leave an edit summary. I further notice that Sarus is not currently mentioned at Adam Phillips (animator). With no evidence the language is independently notable, merge this to Adam Phillips (animator) per the 2009 consensus. Cnilep (talk) 04:10, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- How is a merge called for when there is no evidence of notability at all? Hermione is a dude (talk) 23:02, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - It is possible for an artist to be notable, while his/her individual works are not. Comments about the work from reliable sources may be appropriate within an article on the artist, even if they don't rise to the level of independent notability. Compare Dame mit Sonnenschirm (mentioned in Paul Klee but not notable enough to warrant an article) and Mona Lisa (which warrants an article in addition to discussion at Leonardo da Vinci). (This is not intended as additional argument WRT Sarus, just an answer to Hermione is a dude.) Cnilep (talk) 04:36, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - You misunderstand me - Sarus is only a part of one of the artist's works (which I have also nominated for deletion. Given that this language is a NN part of a NN Newgrounds series created by a marginally notable artist, it is hard to see how its inclusion anywhere is warranted.Hermione is a dude (talk) 06:35, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:01, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 23:57, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - I want to keep this article... I really do, but that's because I find conlangs fascinating. Unfortunately, I cannot find any external notability for it, so, per wikipedia policy, we have to chuck it. What a pity. Sigh. Fieari (talk) 07:16, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I've searched high and low for anything to establish notability for this...anything at all that might qualify as a source. I have come up empty handed. I would also argue against merging this for the same reason. There doesn't seem to be a whole lot of significance to this conlang outside of the creator's personal use, and I'm not convinced it contributes even to his page. If someone can prove he actually created something noteworthy that is used by others in his field then we should reconsider merging. Until then, no need to redirect or merge. ERK^talk 05:28, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the article still contains nothing convincing for its own article and I myself have found nothing better. SwisterTwister talk 07:03, 25 June 2016 (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 Miss USA. If any editor thinks this close is inappropriate, please feel free to revert, no need to consult me. (non-admin closure) ansh 666 17:37, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Miss USA 2017

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

WP:CRYSTAL The Banner talk 21:53, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 22:22, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 22:22, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep WP:NPASR Unscintillating (talk) 06:40, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:53, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 23:51, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Miss USA Let's use some common sense here; yes, it's WP:TOOSOON for the 2017 article, but redirects are cheap and this can be done until we have details about the 2017 show. Stop creating pointless AfD's that are easily resolved with other means. Nate • (chatter) 04:56, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- It is not a pointless AfD. When it would really work to create a redirect I would have done it. Unfortunately, my experience tells me that a redirect will be undone at least ten times, so you need something stronger to build on. The Banner talk 08:39, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Then we have semi-protection and it can be patrolled and monitored by interested editors. Nate • (chatter) 19:04, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - And it will still be repeatedly recreated... Example: Miss Universe 2016. The Banner talk 20:49, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment One major editor, a comma-tweaker, and a bot have edited the page besides you in its one-week existence; there is nothing suggesting right now this would be re-created. I have added this page to my watchlist; if any issues occur I'll see them and sort them out and if protection is needed, so be it. Again, these AfD's are nothing but time-wasters when we have other means of maintenance until a sourced article can be made. Nate • (chatter) 03:08, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment @Mrschimpf: Exhibit One in why if this article isn't deleted and SALTED it is likely to be recreated soon after AFD- Miss World 2016 a pageant article that's been recreated (It was also reposted under other names) more than 4 times since its AFD....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 22:09, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It is CRYSTAL and redirects do get undone too easily. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:01, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:10, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Miss USA as a valid search term. If the redirect were to be undone, then a request for page protection can be made. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:11, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:TOOSOON, follows same example of "Untitled eighth generation Forumla One game" - WP:CRYSTAL and WP:TOOSOON. If there was more evidence then I would consider a redirect but for now, it's a delete decision. Hx7 13:27, 24 June 2016 (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 2011 Reno Air Races crash. (non-admin closure) ansh 666 17:39, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jimmy Leeward

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

Aside from being the pilot in the cockpit of a plane that crashed five years ago, there is no displayed notability. Being a stunt man for a small handful of films and being stationed in certain areas does not lend more to the subject of notability than a few grains of salt. Additionally, the only links to this individual concern pages discussing the 2011 Reno Air Races crash, where every last bit of notable information is already present. DARTHBOTTO_talk•cont 23:40, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. DARTHBOTTO_talk•cont 02:02, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. DARTHBOTTO_talk•cont 02:02, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per WP:1EVENT. Meatsgains (talk) 02:39, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there's still nothing actually suggestive he has the stability and solidity for independent notability, he also only had a few film works but nothing actually convincing. Summarily, there's excessive questionability to keep this at all. SwisterTwister talk 00:20, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2011 Reno Air Races crash. Rlendog (talk) 15:44, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I find this suggestion to be acceptable. DARTHBOTTO_talk•cont 21:46, 23 June 2016 (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. Mojo Hand (talk) 04:22, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Frieder Kempe

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

Poorly sourced, reads like vanity page. Gardv (talk) 23:28, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete overly promotional page for a non-notable individual.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:34, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 23:56, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 23:56, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 23:56, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 23:56, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't find sources that makes subject meet just WP:BASIC. In fact his invention may stand a better chance for an article. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 23:58, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. insufficient cites on GS to pass WP:Prof. Little evidence that subject's invention is effective. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:00, 24 June 2016 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep as I had missed the Miami Dolphins part given it was only mention once in the infobox (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 15:13, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nate Garner

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

Nothing at all for any applicable notability since he was only a Draft and my searches have found nothing better at all. Noticing the history, it's apparently been said some of this information is not accurate and the article has also been blasted by vandalism but I also particularly noticed the notability questionability thus we are here at AfD. SwisterTwister talk 22:25, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 22:28, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. Appeared in 74 games over five NFL seasons for the Miami Dolphins. See here, here, here and here. Passes WP:NGRIDIRON and WP:GNG. Cbl62 (talk) 22:42, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per WP:NGRIDIRON. Sources linked to in the article confirm that Garner played six seasons in the NFL. Ejgreen77 (talk) 22:45, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Vandalism is not a reason for deletion; claim that information is not accurate may be because of another person with the same name. Peter James (talk) 22:57, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:32, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Presumed notable per WP:NGRIDIRON. E.g. [1], [2], [3], etc. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:34, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep seems to be an individual with several years of active play in the NFL. Clearly passes WP:NGRIDIRON.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:52, 16 June 2016 (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. Jenks24 (talk) 08:43, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Øssur Johannesen

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

Advertorially toned WP:BLP of an artist, musician and poet, which makes no strong claim of notability per our inclusion criteria for any of those endeavours, and which is relying entirely on blogs, primary sources and event listings without showing any evidence of reliable source coverage about him in real media. In addition, there are some sensitive WP:BLP claims in here about mental illness and drug abuse, which are entirely unsourced. As always, a creative professional is not automatically entitled to a Wikipedia article just because he exists -- RS coverage, verifying something that would actually get him over WP:CREATIVE or WP:NMUSIC, must be present to support it. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 22:18, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 19:40, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 19:40, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Bearcat is correct, all the claims regarding the artist's personal life are completely unsourced and put Wikipedia in a difficult position regarding BLP. The sources cited are shaky too: the last two references aren't really sources, reference 3 doesn't back up any of the claims cited, reference 4 is just a list of Faroese artists from a blog, and reference 6 is an advert for a concert at which Johannesen appeared. Richard3120 (talk) 20:26, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Several things: 1 is that the article is currently still advertorial and (2) is that overall article still has nothing convincing for the applicable notability, at least now and (3) is that the sources are not all convincing. SwisterTwister talk 06:26, 25 June 2016 (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) Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 02:37, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vladimir Gerdt

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

Non-notable person. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 22:09, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The person meets WP:PROF criterion 1, "The most typical way of satisfying Criterion 1 is to show that the academic has been an author of highly cited academic work". according to their Google Scholar profile, they have a total citation count of 1843, their most highly cited paper has 238 citations. Quasihuman (talk • contribs) 23:28, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per Quasihuman. Fieari (talk) 06:06, 16 June 2016 (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 by Bbb23, CSD G5: Creation by a blocked or banned user in violation of block or ban. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 04:21, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Asiedu

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

Avoidance of AFC by sockpuppets. Exact duplicate of declined AfC for Draft:Alexander Asiedu (declined for PROMO) then copy/paste moved into mainspace after being declined at AfC. Prodded by one editor after that point, PROD removed. CSD added by me for policy violation, CSD removed, now at AfD. SPI opened as well. MSJapan (talk) 22:08, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Nominator has not explained how this violates WP:GNG or WP:NOT. Promotional content has been removed, but there's plenty of sourced content left. p b p 22:17, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, I can find no policy that forbids creation of the article in the manner in which it was created. There's nothing stopping someone from creating an article if he/she has the permissions to do so. I can find nothing at WP:AFC or at WP:COPYPASTE that forbids copying from a declined AfC to an article; the only thing amiss is that, per WP:CWW, it should have been attributed. If the nominator believes that copying from AfC to an article is forbidden, I urge him to cite the relevant policy or guideline in his nomination. p b p 22:25, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - The article was declined at AFC; that means that by default, it was "not suitable for Wikipedia." It is not up to me to re-review the article for policy compliance and decide whether it's good or not; AFC has already done that. I will tell you that if I do re-review it for sources, the Sun Online sources will disappear entirely because they don't appear to exist (nor does the website, period), Gulf African Review is a trivial mention, Tv3 has a picture but doesn't mention the subject by name in the article until the third paragraph as a response to the rest of it, University of Cape Coast is not independent because Asiedu is on the board, and the Peace FM source is a speech he gave at a conference whose notability is indeterminate. So yes, I can see exactly how this might be construed as PROMO, especially because the first GHit is his company, and the very next hit, is a scandal involving the subject, which is conveniently not mentioned in this article. Other than that, there's very little out there that is useful, and certainly nothing that covers him to the extent or the tone of the WP article. Nevertheless, AFC already decided it was not suitable for Wikipedia, and it was moved into article space without being changed; therefore, it doesn't belong in article space, and needs to remain in draft space until such time as it is suitable for inclusion. MSJapan (talk) 23:02, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with your assessment of the sources. Gulf African review is not a trivial mention, there's whole paragraphs about him in the article. TV3 is also a more than trivial mention. Those two combine to pass WP:GNG. If you think the scandal belongs in the article and you've found a source for it, then put in content about the scandal (though I read your source and it's a passing reference, mentioning him as a "con-man" as a throw-away line). Just because the article isn't perfect, doesn't mean it has to be deleted. Though I did remove the info about his education because I couldn't find any source for it.

You said "It is not up to me to re-review the article for policy compliance and decide whether it's good or not." Um, if you are going to nominate an article for deletion, you'd better review it for policy compliance while nominating. I'm still waiting for the link to the policy that says the article shouldn't have been created. People need not get an approved AfC before an article is created; I've created dozens of articles myself, none of them using AfC. p b p 23:14, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Read the AfC reviewing instructions. It's pretty clear from the workflow that a declined article doesn't go out in mainspace, and this one clearly did, because I have tracked the edits showing what happened. That's policy as far as I'm concerned, but hey, feel free to tell AfC their role is meaningless. They'll appreciate that, I'm sure. MSJapan (talk) 23:50, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

They are meaningless in the sense that it is not imperative for an article to pass the AfC process to exist as an article. p b p 01:59, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Withdrawn by nominator, with no current !votes to delete, (non-admin closure) Shawn in Montreal (talk) 10:41, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gender inequality in South Korea

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

This ridiculous stub, as I called it in the contested WP:PROD, totally fails to cover the topic in an adequate way, only mentioning an isolated event that – while possibly symptomatic for sexism in South Korea – isn't even put into context. Yes, initially the article was a bit longer, but no, it wasn't better. While I'm sure there is enough material to write a proper article on this topic, this would better be done from scratch. PanchoS (talk) 21:45, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Random86 (talk) 00:32, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Random86 (talk) 00:36, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Nom indicates that the subject is notable and article can be improved and therefore gives no valid reason for deletion. Anyone questioning topic's notability should have a look at Talk:Gender inequality in South Korea § Reliable sources which has been posted there for over 3 years (in case the slow progress here bothers anyone, WP:NODEADLINE). ~Kvng (talk) 01:41, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- User:Kvng, look - this time I totally agree with you :D --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:02, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Here's a previous AfD for the article. Is there any reason to expect a different outcome this time around? Perhaps we can Speedy keep and save us all some time. ~Kvng (talk) 01:53, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Women in South Korea: In it's current form it does not have anything that can be useful. The topic itself is clearly notable, but unless there is a proper editorial article, I don't see any reason to keep the stub. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 07:00, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If you look at the edit history, a lot of unrelated content has been removed over the years. But the stub article as it exists now is basically just "a rephrasing of the title," and as such, could have even been speedy deleted WP:A3. Delete; there is no actual content on the topic here, it is a mere placeholder. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:58, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Strike through !vote. No longer an empty placeholder. Article has been populated. Caeciliusinhorto (below) "AFD is not cleanup" does not pertain in cases where there's no content there whatsoever, as was the case when it was nominated. If you consider the edit history of this article, the nominator's deletion was perfectly valid, at the time. Credit to Piotrus for creating an article, basically from scratch. As for the content that had been removed, all of it seemed to be off-topic, to me. Anyway, keep, now. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:13, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:59, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The topic is notable. The stub is ridiculous, but part of that is the fault of people who gutted the article in the past, through looking at the past revisions, well, it was mostly essay-ish/unreferenced stuff, and what refs there were, were pretty bad. Since this was somewhere on my to do list, I'll at least make a proper stub out if it over the next few minutes so we can speedy close this. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:02, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. No deadline, AfD is not cleanup etc. Obviously notable and verifiable. I don't see that anyone has given any valid deletion rationale. At any rate, Piotrus has done a commendable job of stepping up and giving the article some usable content. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 09:34, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@PanchoS: Please indicate if you now wish to withdraw this, given the addition of valid content under this article name. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:17, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw (as nominator). Topic is notable, and article is now acceptable, so I'm happy to withdraw. --PanchoS (talk) 08:17, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Snowball Keep after recent fix. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:50, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

(The result was Speedy Delete. Statement added subsequent to closing to allow the Afd script to parse the results. Lourdes 13:56, 10 September 2017 (UTC)) The result was deleted per WP:CSD#G5. Bbb23 (talk) 19:04, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

QuestionPro Inc

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

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

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

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

The speedy tag by DGG was removed with the comment that notability may still be questionable but my searches have frankly found nothing better than a few News links, nothing else to suggest solidly and convincingly better. SwisterTwister talk 21:42, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 21:43, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 21:43, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Inadequate notability. Corporate spam. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:01, 16 June 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Help me improve it, but don't delete. The notability factor has been debated and hence the tag was removed. There was no question on notability, the tag was about better citation, one that I did not remove even after adding more content and it still exists for reference. I also clearly listed examples of companies in the same domain who have less notable links but still allowed to stick around. If you are not aware of the software business they are involved in, then kindly Google the company - It is one of the World's Top 3 companies after Survey Monkey and Qualtrics. I will from my end try to add more relevant information. Thank you. RR007 (talk) 01:15, 16 June 2016 (UTC)— RR007 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Made changes - Added more info. Added more information based on the sources, including the competitors whose pages I have linked. Also added some of their clients. Can you check now SwisterTwister ? Furthermore, I would like to add that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, what may not be relevant to some may be critical information for others. Kindly be tolerant- This article meets all 3 standards - Verifiable, reliable and notable links. Thank you.RR007 (talk) 01:40, 16 June 2016 (UTC)— RR007 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:41, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this is a small survey company that has not garnered significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. It appears that the creator is an SPA. This article appears to be a case of TOO SOON. This company has not done anything that can be considered notable. To get some perspective, let's look at the "Microsoft" article to see what a notable company looks like; a company which has had significant coverage since at least the 1990's. Also, Microsoft has had a significant impact on the world, on technology, on how we conduct our daily lives, on cultures, and so on. --- Steve Quinn (talk) 05:01, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the article has a series of really poor references. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 05:08, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - What a lousy excuse Steve Quinn* You are comparing a startup to an MNC? Have you never seen another SMB sector page before ? Here are some from the same industry : Zoho Survey Qualtrics SurveyGizmo SurveyTool. What about these? I can give a 100 more such examples. And please refer to the previous discussion page before putting aggressive names like SPA. I clearly mentioned that I have no correlation with this company, I decided to create this page after stumbling upon the VB article. And iam new here. As for lousy articles : VentureBeat and Livemint are major publications in India, I dono where you live. Thanks. RR007 (talk) 05:33, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

First it's worth noting this user started putting my name instead; the thing about this is that there's simply nothing currently for solidity regarding notability and searches had clearly found nothing better at all. BTW, regardless, it's of no importance we either of us live as we're simply examining the article itself and it's not acceptable for Wikipedia, a universal website. SwisterTwister talk 05:35, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SwisterTwister Did you even check out the edits before commenting again? Or are you just the ranting type? I will not argue with you here anymore, let the admin decide. You are pointless talking to. You have no sense of this industry whatsoever. RR007 (talk) 05:42, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I'm watching this nomination so there was no immediate need to ping, but about the article, I know you would think the current sources are enough, but there's simply not enough for the solidity Wikipedia needs, we would've need larger and better depth news and there's nothing for that currently. SwisterTwister talk 05:49, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article has enough links and seems to have sufficient notability. I went through the links and the citations mentioned are correct. Viksingh0215 (talk) 06:05, 16 June 2016 (UTC)— Viksingh0215 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Thank for you considering to comment but unfortunately Wikipedia is different than simply gauging the number and amount of news sources, at best, this is still questionable overall with there unfortunately not being anything else particularly convincing thus not acceptable at this time. SwisterTwister talk 06:10, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not every news source can be the Wall Street Journal. SwisterTwister did you put a delete tag on those other wiki pages I listed? If not, you have no argument here. You have a clear vendetta against this page. RR007 (talk) 06:26, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

More info - this company has already been through AfD in 2009; pleas see: --->Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/QuestionPro. Furthermore, the article "QuestionPro" was under request for speedy delete before the AFD (look to the left column) --->[4]<---

This editor, User:Unitedopinions, was not satisfied with the deletion of "QuestionPro" - this person then created QuestionPro.com in 2012, which was then proposed for deletion --->[5]<--- after which this editor was notified that the article went to AfD -->[6]<-- and here is the AfD for that: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/QuestionPro.com.

In April 2014, User: Unitedopinions also created Vivek Bhaskaran, QuestionPro's founder --->[7]<--. Perhaps of less concern, User: Unitedopinions added a wikilink to an article here: ---> [8]<---.

Also, for whatever it's worth, I noticed the discussions seemed to involve "software", "webiste", and "company".

Here is a back and forth conversation User:Unitedopinions had with another user in 2012: -->[9]<-- Steve Quinn (talk) 06:32, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just because some article was deleted 6 years back doesn't mean it qualifies now for deletion Steve Quinn* Check the content before ranting please.RR007 (talk) 06:38, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep* I don't know what the fuss is about. The article seems to be neat enough. And I do agree, not every news can be from massive sources like WSJ or NYT. This is an encyclopaedia and as long as the information links are live and reliable there are no issues. This kind of ranting from tenture editors is why Wikipedia is losing its reputation. Prajakta A More (talk) 06:44, 16 June 2016 (UTC)— Prajakta A More (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

if WP is losing a reputation as a good place to advertise, that's exactly what is wanted. The basic idea behind WP is for it to be an encyclopedia,not a business directory. Its reputation as an encyclopedia will increase as we remove articles like this. DGG ( talk ) 06:48, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. the problem, more precisely, is the the sources are simply reporting funding. These are routine notices, not discriminating coverage--all companies that raise money from such funds receive such notices--i'ts a part of the way the venture capital industry publicises itself, and part of the service it offers is to make it possible for the companies to place these notices. As for the other companies mentioned: There are several hundred thousand articles in WP accepted in earlier years when the standards were lower that we need to either upgrade or remove. The least we can do is not add to them. But as for the details of the articles: Quantics is notable because of the multiple academic references to it, Zoho Survey should be merged to Zoho Office Suite, Surverygizmo is probably borderline, and Survey tool is in my opinion unacceptable--see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SurveyTool. DGG ( talk ) 06:48, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DGG your request for deletion was denied - no wonder you are a fringe element here with these two. And VC funding? This is bootstrapped company! You are not just ignorant but proudly so. You said that Wikipedia is not business directory and yet you dont have problem keeping those pages active. You ooze of hypocrisy and biased resentment.Your request was shut down before, so now shut up. This is Wikipedia, an encyclopedia on EVERYTHING. Not selective based on your conservative view points. RR007 (talk) 07:10, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I also think your english is weak - The article said that SurveyMonkey and Qualtrics are VC funded not QuestionPro. God! I removed that part anyway, I dono how many like you are Editors here who can't even read right. RR007 (talk) 07:16, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Responding to the above (in summation) - previous articles pertaining to this company were requested for speedy delete in 2009, went through AfD in 2009, proposed for deletion in 2012, and then went to Afd in 2012.

Also, interestingly, User:Viksingh0215 and User:Prajakta A More do not exist. These are empty user pages. So, how did these persons add the above comments. They do not appear to be registered with Wikipedia. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 06:53, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How long have you been editing Steve Quinn ? The "pages" dont exist, not the users. If you don't know the difference yet, go figure. RR007 (talk) 07:20, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, sorry you're right about the pages - my bad. How is this company a "startup", as mentioned above, because according to the first sentence in the article, the company was founded in 2002? I mean it's been 14 years... Steve Quinn (talk) 08:09, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

While the users exist, they have made no edits other than to comment here. 331dot (talk) 08:52, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well that was my bad. It would fall under the Small and Medium sized business sector. The firm has 2.5 Million users cause its cloud based but the number of employees as per their LinkedIn account is no more than 200. I did my research before deciding to write this article.RR007 (talk) 08:21, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Added another link - from Udaipur Times.RR007 (talk) 08:25, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Added 2 Wikipedia backlink - SurveyMonkey and Qualtrics pages.RR007 (talk) 08:28, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I didn't tell this person that notability was established, but that the sources and claim of significance were enough to avoid speedy deletion(IMO). As stated by others, the sources offered are routine and technical and don't indicate what is notable about this "startup"(to use the term the page creator is using). It is WP:TOOSOON. 331dot (talk) 08:58, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If that was the case, if you were so convinced that the page shouldn't exist, why did you not replace the speedy deletion tag with a normal deletion tag? Instead you place a citation tag on it, and now that you see your seniors are here objecting it, you are here to reverse your claim. Also, what is significant about this "SMB" (I corrected myself, please read), is what is mentioned in all the links - One of the World's top 3 companies in survey software, has over 2.5 Million users, over 4000 corporate clients which include some of the best and well known companies in the World, has become a part of Make in India campaign (very few have openly done this), platform used by some prominent humanitarian organisations - to name a few. Thank you.RR007 (talk) 09:04, 16 June 2016 (UTC)— RR007 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Maintenance tags draw attention to whatever issues that they name. If someone saw it and felt the page merited deletion on those grounds at that time, it is what it is. 331dot (talk) 09:10, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Iam not even talking about what they thought. My simple point is that you decided this article required citation and not deletion and now seeing that someone has actually reversed your decision - you caved. Thats my only point. Thank you. RR007 (talk) 11:00, 16 June 2016 (UTC)— RR007 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I did not 'cave' to anyone or anything. I cannot control what the hundreds of thousands of other people here might do. I never said citation was the only problem. It also is not up to me to defend the article you believe should exist, it is up to you. 331dot (talk) 09:20, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The argument "use by X thousand organizations" is not usually relevant, because all large organizes use a great variety of products, most of which will not be notable . It can be a relevant oagument when the particularproducts is rcentral to the activities of the other organizations--like the thousands of computer companies using Intel. DGG ( talk ) 15:47, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reply I agree with you. However, there is a different between B2C and B2B products. B2C being consumer centric, like computers, usually command more awareness, hence you or other editors here might know about them. However, there are plenty of products like the ones by QuestionPro (market research software) which are critical to the organizations like Google, Microsoft, HP and so on, but you may not know about it but it matters a lot to many people. I suggest you study a little about this field. No pun intended. Thank you. RR007 (talk) 05:19, 17 June 2016 (UTC)— RR007 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Kindly also note Wikipedia is not a consumer centric organization. It's readers come from varied backgrounds. This article may not be viewed important given that many editors here are not aware of how important market research survey tools actually are, but a little research (even within Wikipedia) will show you just how critical it really is. Thank you. RR007 (talk) 05:24, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

— RR007 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

The article does not indicate how this company's services are "critical" to any organization. Do you have evidence that, for example, this company's products influenced Microsoft to make some business decision, in some way that a competitor's product would not have done? 331dot (talk) 09:29, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We know that Microsoft is their client. And I was saying that B2B platforms used for research purposes rarely make it to the news. Its the research report that does. Hence, even the fact that Microsoft and other big firms use their platform to begin with is important news for may readers.Again, it's not your fault, most editors here simply don't have enough knowledge on how the industry works. This is also what happens when football enthusiasts are allowed to determine the future of business pages. RR007 (talk) 11:19, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't have reliable sources stating how this company's products influence their clients, that is a problem. It needs to make the news or an independent business publication. It isn't enough to say "Microsoft uses it, so it influences them." We need to know how. If you don't want "football enthusiasts" to comment on business articles, you will need advocate changes to Wikipedia policy and practices. One doesn't need to be knowledgeable in business to see that you don't have reliable sources indicating notability. 331dot (talk) 11:24, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Notable Newspapers I have cited articles from VentureBeat and Mint_(newspaper). Do you not find them reliable enough? RR007 (talk) 14:24, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In any case, it doesn't matter what clients QuestionPro does business with - notability is not inherited WP:INHERITORG, WP:NOTINHERETED. Even if you think it is important to other businesses such as Microsoft, this does not confer notability on this organization. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 05:17, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To whoever tagged me as SPA https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Please_do_not_bite_the_newcomers RR007 (talk) 07:36, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe it was meant to bite you or not bite you; simply to state a fact. Your edit history indicates no(from what I can see) edits outside this topic. 331dot (talk) 09:29, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are clearly wrong. I have made edits since I joined but I also made it very clear that this article was my very first contribution. It is when I read this company's article on VB, wanted some more info about companies in this field and saw that there was no article. Thats when I joined. And started editing other articles as well. So you cannot blame me at all here. And so, your ignorance did bite me and let me tell you something more. I always heard that in Wikipedia there is a clear bias against businesses, even though a huge chunk of your readers are business readers, but now i really understand the problem that Wikipedia is so unpopular about. Iam dissapointed to say the least but I will be active here to do my part in making Wiki better. Thank you. RR007 (talk) 10:41, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have examined your edit history and see no edits that don't have to do with this company; if you have made such edits under your username, it isn't many of them, which means the SPA tag is valid. It isn't necessarily a bad thing; just a fact. 331dot (talk) 10:47, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In 2 days, I have made 5-6 edits out of this page (thanks to you guys trying to take down this one and me having to spend most of my free time explaining why you shouldn't) and of them some are related to the pages that I visited the process of checking out pages in the same industry as this company. So I don't really expect you to remove it, since I know now by experience that you are not so very reasonable, but Iam making my point clear here. It isn't necessarily a bad thing; just a fact. Thank you. RR007 (talk) 11:14, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please note The company also has users across 40 countries. Not to mention 2.5 Million of them because they work on the Freemium model. Even if you ignore their corporate clients, these users across the world are interested in knowing about the company they sign up for and Wikipedia being an independent aggregator of all information online is the first place they will want to visit.RR007 (talk) 11:49, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not for informing this company's clients or potential clients about anything. They (I presume) have their own website to do that. Wikipedia is not an "independent aggregator of all information online", it is an encyclopedia. 331dot (talk) 11:55, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To that argument Every other information on Wikipedia is available in some of the other website. So why does it exist by your argument? Wikipedia pages are created for readers, independent of their background. But again, like I said, football readers will not understand the importance of business pages here. Also to highlight the fact that articles that can help even terrorists make bombs still exist, its not subjective to what kind of readers they want. Probably work on those first before hitting a company page if you are so concerned? Thank you. RR007 (talk) 12:09, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I am at a loss to understand where notability is supposed to come from and why so many (?) editors appear to believe that notability exists. Discounting its own web-site, one ref demonstrates that it exists, two refs show that it has been involved in a merger and all the others give every indication of being based very largely on press releases even if the publisher of the press releases is acceptable as an authoritative source. I see nothing notable her. Nothing independent, nothing authoritative. Fails WP:GNG — Preceding unsigned comment added by Velella (talk • contribs)

Can you show how those major articles are press releases? Especially when you are also calling them authoritative sources? And as for the merger, when a small company is merged with a larger, the larger keeps the name-in this case QuestionPro. Thank you.And please sign your comments.RR007 (talk) 22:57, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

They are press releases because they merely announce the release of a product, feature people from the company discussing the merits of the product, and at least one provides company contact information to learn more. Clearly a release put out by they company that was simply republished; it is not an independent reliable source. Also see WP:ORGIND. 331dot (talk) 23:26, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's a nice theory. But again, prove your claim. You cannot because there is no truth in what you claim. RR007 (talk) 02:16, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it is not a theory, this is common practice. Even the supposed interview with the founder (link here:[10]) on one of the websites is a press release announcing its new clients. This information is aimed at investors and maybe some clients. It is not independent reporting because it definitely appears to be simply published as is. There is no journalistic reporting here; it it is the founder tooting his own horn and a web publication hungry for content (so it can sponsor the advertisements you see surrounding headlines and content after you click on the headline). I'm guessing it is a tech industry mouthpiece, based on its main page "news" - which is almost all tech related. This is not a newspaper like the New York Times or LA Times or Boston Globe and not a magazine like Time, or The New Yorker. This is a really trivial source. --- Steve Quinn (talk) 03:51, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Interestingly enough, QuestionPro has published online a common strategy now used by thousands and thousands of businesses large and small: Five Tips for Getting Your Press Release Published (external link provided). And, right up front it comments on the problem in our modern day news departments across the country - they are understaffed. Then it touts the "five step" process for taking the load off shrinking news organizations (or in other words, exploiting the harried staff).

To get an idea of the changes taking place in the media industry, see this article: PR Industry Fills Vacuum Left by Shrinking Newsrooms.

As an aside, it is not only staff size that is shrinking; available resources from the parent media corporation for their respective news organizations are also shrinking. From Pew Research's Excellence in Journalism Project:

"Signs of the shrinking reporting power are documented throughout this year’s report. Estimates for newspaper newsroom cutbacks in 2012 put the industry down 30% since 2000 and below 40,000 full-time professional employees for the first time since 1978. In local TV, our special content report reveals, sports, weather and traffic now account on average for 40% of the content produced on the newscasts studied while story lengths shrink. On CNN, the cable channel that has branded itself around deep reporting, produced story packages were cut nearly in half from 2007" ([11])

This is Steve Quinn reporting from Wikipedia ----Steve Quinn (talk) 04:35, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Response "In 2008, a team from the Palo Alto Research Center found that for editors that make between two and nine edits a month, the percentage of their edits being reverted had gone from 5% in 2004 to about 15%, and people who only make one edit a month were being reverted at a 25% rate. According to The Economist magazine (2008), "The behaviour of Wikipedia's self-appointed deletionist guardians, who excise anything that does not meet their standards, justifying their actions with a blizzard of acronyms, is now known as "wiki-lawyering". In regards to the decline in the number of Wikipedia editors since the 2007 policy changes, another study stated this was partly down to the way "in which newcomers are rudely greeted by automated quality control systems and are overwhelmed by the complexity of the rule system."

Another complaint about Wikipedia focuses on the efforts of contributors with idiosyncratic beliefs, who push their point of view in an effort to dominate articles, especially controversial ones. This sometimes results in revert wars and pages being locked down. In response, an Arbitration Committee has been formed on the English Wikipedia that deals with the worst alleged offenders—though a conflict resolution strategy is actively encouraged before going to this extent. Also, to stop the continuous reverting of pages, Jimmy Wales introduced a "three-revert rule", whereby those users who reverse the effect of others' contributions to one article more than three times in a 24-hour period may be blocked.

In a 2008 article in The Brooklyn Rail, Wikipedia contributor David Shankbone contended that he had been harassed and stalked because of his work on Wikipedia, had received no support from the authorities or the Wikimedia Foundation, and only mixed support from the Wikipedia community. Shankbone wrote, "If you become a target on Wikipedia, do not expect a supportive community."

From - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Wikipedia#Consensus_and_the_.22hive_mind.22 RR007 (talk) 12:20, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion of issues with Wikipedia itself are not germane to this discussion; visit the Village Pump to discuss your concerns and views. 331dot (talk) 12:32, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@RR007: My eyes still work and I can read; it isn't a 'theory', it's what I see. You, clearly, have a different view, albeit one not grounded in Wikipedia guidelines. 331dot (talk) 08:58, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I do have a different viewpoint cause I do not write on the basis of probability. It's either there or it isn't. Your views are biased and mine arn't. RR007 (talk) 12:20, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not biased. If you can provide adequate sources to indicate notability, I have no problem with this article. Have you even reviewed the notability guidelines and reliable sources? 331dot (talk) 12:32, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This can be closed now as it has been discovered the page creator was a sock of a blocked user, Rajroy816, and the page has been deleted. 331dot (talk) 18:59, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:13, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

John-Patrick Strauß

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

Fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG, as Strauß has never made an appearance in a fully professional league, has never made a senior international appearance, and has no solid independent notability. Secret Agent Julio (talk) 21:39, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Secret Agent Julio (talk) 21:43, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Secret Agent Julio (talk) 21:43, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Secret Agent Julio (talk) 21:43, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -Yet to make an appearance at fully professional level. Calistemon (talk) 23:53, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:57, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:57, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 07:19, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 07:47, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- fails GNG. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:31, 21 June 2016 (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 Fairfax County Public Schools middle schools. (non-admin closure) ansh 666 17:40, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rocky Run Middle School

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

U.S. public middle school (ages ~11-14, for those unfamiliar with U.S. school age brackets) that fails WP:NHSCHOOL. No national news coverage (it's in the Washington, D.C. area so local news coverage does appear in relatively high-profile media, but only in local coverage contexts). Propose merge with/redirect to Fairfax County Public Schools to the extent appropriate. Julietdeltalima (talk) 21:18, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect. It would been sufficent enough to expand the article. KGirlTrucker81^{talk what I'm been doing} 21:56, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - per SCHOOLOUTCOMES, middle schools should be redirected except in cases of exceptional notability. The article in question is filled with unneeded content and there is no need to merge, especially if the redirect target is List of Fairfax County Public Schools middle schools, which already has all the content needed. John from Idegon (talk) 16:24, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 19:41, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 19:42, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Fairfax County Public Schools middle schools per longstanding precedent in WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. No evidence to show that this subject justifies a separate article.--Mojo Hand (talk) 16:17, 23 June 2016 (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) FITINDIA (talk) 16:47, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kamaal Rashid Khan

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

Not at all notable. Became popular due to the controversial statements on Twitter and other social media. Completely fails WP:ANYBIO and WP:ARTIST. KCVelaga _{☚╣✉╠☛} 15:34, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 20:50, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Subject does not meet general notability guidelines. Meatsgains (talk) 02:43, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Check out the sources I posted below. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:19, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 19:43, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 19:43, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – He has received significant coverage in independent reliable sources, so is eligible for a stand-alone article as per WP:GNG.[12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22] - Managerarc™^talk 20:41, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there's still nothing actually particularly convincing, the article has several sources and information with it, but still nothing actually convincing, his list of works is certainly not convincing. SwisterTwister talk 18:25, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to closer – check out WP:NEXIST. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:20, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The subject meets WP:BASIC, and has received coverage about other matters than his online presence, so WP:BLP1E does not apply. Source examples include, but are not limited to those listed below. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:48, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

Keep. Received independent coverage and meets BASIC. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 02:40, 23 June 2016 (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. Jenks24 (talk) 08:43, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The osteoporosis dance

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

The first two sources (a catalog and Youtube) listed on the article aren't reliable, while the third one (nof.org) does not mention the dance at all. A search yields very little other than unreliable sources or sources that don't mention the dance at all. JudgeRM 19:26, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 20:20, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Subject lacks notability and coverage in reliable sources. Meatsgains (talk) 02:45, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as still nothing at all convincing for the needed solid independent notability, nothing to suggest this can be amply improved. SwisterTwister talk 07:02, 25 June 2016 (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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 10:09, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Stragility

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

A non-notable neologism - fails both that and MOS:NEO -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 19:09, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:21, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not only does it fail that neologisms rule, but it's also a promotional article full of links to purchase associated products disguised as "references". Few if any reputable sources w/ significant coverage, so it is probably not notable as well. BlAcKhAt9(9 (talk) 20:00, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Created by User:LindseyAusterWeiss, the article tells us that "Ellen Auster created the word, blending strategic and agility. She owns the patent in the United States and Canada." Egregious COI and spam. There are what appear to be bonafide RS such as this, however. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:15, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:17, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:18, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Having forced myself to slog through many of these refs and the "news" results above, I agree that this word -- this patented concept/process/mantra -- does not yet meet WP:GNG. The Globe and Mail article from "Harvey Schachter, Management columnist" is a bona fide RS, and I count several reviews. The rest of the link farm is given over to primary refs and minor mentions. User:LindseyAusterWeiss is clearly WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia, she's here to sell her book. The publishers, Rotman School of Management/University of Toronto Press, are clearly distinguished bodies. However I simply cannot bring myself to abet such flagrant self-promotion and I still say it remains to be seen whether in the sea of management books we have something here that truly has lasting notability. At the very least, WP:TOOSOON. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:02, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:06, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:07, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:23, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

- BTW, if kept, it would certainly need to be renamed to the book title Stragility: Excelling at Strategic Changes, because the word stragility, godawful as it is, is most certainly is a non-notable neologism, per the nominator. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:34, 16 June 2016 (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. MBisanz ^talk 21:46, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of unusual football matches

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

Currently does not meet WP:LSC, and unlikely there can be a selection criteria which will is 'unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources.' KJ^Discuss? 19:08, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:21, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:21, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:21, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:LISTN. See Football's Strangest Matches, for example. Andrew D. (talk) 22:01, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:23, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - who determines if a match is unusual or not? What if it features in one book but not another? etc. GiantSnowman 07:27, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I was inspired by List of unusual deaths, which doesn't rely on sources to decide whether a death is unusual or not. You'll also notice that these football matches tend to be listed on each others' "See also" section, again down to the discretion of Wikipedia editors instead of relying on sources to determine whether a match is unusual or not. cagliost (talk) 07:44, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - The list of unusual deaths usually requires a couple of good sources describing the death as unusual, strange or the like. That works well enough and the page has been acclaimed as one of Wikipedia's best. Andrew D. (talk) 08:06, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Do the articles for the listed football matches not themselves have sources describing them as unusual? "one of the strangest football matches ever"; "own-goal farce". cagliost (talk) 10:56, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no definition of "unusual". Football matches are unusual in many ways hundreds of times a week around the planet, this is a unnecessary intersection. It's trivia. Just because a book has been published relating to the subject matter, it doesn't make it an encyclopedic topic. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:23, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- All the matches listed have their own articles, i.e. only encyclopedic, notable matches are listed. cagliost (talk) 14:34, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not technically true, the second item listed links only to the generic East Lancashire derby article, where it merits just five sentences -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:43, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - OK, not true that they all have individual articles, but the point still stands that they are notable enough to be mentioned in Wikipedia. (And the rest do have individual articles.) cagliost (talk) 10:52, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Barely any content and the topic is purely subjective. Plus this is definitely a WP:OR article. Eventhorizon51 ^(talk) 12:12, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The page was only started yesterday and so should be given time to develop per our editing policy. I have wikified it and added more content to demonstrate the process. Andrew D. (talk) 18:30, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense list, trivia. Any match can be considered "unusual" by anyone. This list is meaningless, is utterly non-encyclopedic and worthless. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:28, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The content all appears in our existing articles. The list is mainly a navigational aid to help people find it. This is a valid function of lists per WP:LISTPURP. And we seem to have hundreds of soccer lists which might be considered "trivial" by anyone. Try list of association football mascots; lists of nicknames in association football; list of international goals scored by Abby Wambach; list of association football families; list of hooligan firms... See also WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Andrew D. (talk) 19:38, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's an uncontainable intersection. There is no definition of "unusual" unlike all the lists you have noted above. Thanks though. My !vote !stands &c. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:12, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - inherently unencyclopedic. Not really possible to clarify what "unusual" means in this context. To open to OR. Fenix down (talk) 07:46, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as per List of unusual deaths, there is no need to have a 100% agreed definition of what constitutes "unsual" in this context, just reliable sources. The smaller domain should make it far less contentious. Any article is "open to OR". Martinevans123 (talk) 10:46, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no clear inclusion criteria; controversial and unencyclopaedic. For example, why are The Other Final and Battle of Bramall Lane not included? Where do we draw the line? Spiderone 11:07, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- They are included now! cagliost (talk) 10:54, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - useful navigation list. The reasons given for deletion do not hold water. cagliost (talk) 10:53, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Absent clear inclusion criteria, this list is inherently original research. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:19, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why not simply suggest some? e.g., as per List of unusual deaths, that the match should be described as "unusual" or similar in multiple WP:RS? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:02, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the current contents are still questionable for their own article, best moved to an article about listed football information or something about unusual events, still questionable for its own article considering the current appearance. SwisterTwister talk 07:00, 25 June 2016 (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.

I demand a re-count. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:53, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 10:01, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alturaash Art

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

Fails WP:GNG non notable gallery connected with ArtFund also up for deletion. Theroadislong (talk) 18:50, 15 June 2016 (UTC) Theroadislong (talk) 18:50, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:22, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:22, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:22, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; I had prodded the article with a similar rationale; the article has not been significantly improved since. Huon (talk) 00:07, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lacking coverage in reliable sources. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 03:45, 24 June 2016 (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. MelanieN (talk) 02:40, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Garakunta palem

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

Unsourced, prod removed. Still unsourced, no assertion of notability, and there are no sources that make it meet GNG~~, and existence is not notability.~~ as maps alone are specifically excluded as sources that assert verifiability and not notability. MSJapan (talk) 20:49, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:20, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator is completely wrong. Existence is notability when it comes to named populated places, per WP:GEOLAND. ~~Keep~~ until such time as this nomination is adapted in a way that conforms to policy for villages, towns, cities, etc. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:22, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- That's better. Well, it may be a foreign language issue, but I can't find anything authoritative to WP:Verify that this place exists. If anyone can, please chime in. I'll keep a watch on this. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:53, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

MSJapan, have you made any attempt to verify whether this place exists? It is unfair to reject my work on this without doing any of your own. ~Kvng (talk) 21:13, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tending towards keep: Kvng has provided a GMaps link on the article's talk page that shows this place at roughly 16°55′26″N 79°24′07″E / 16.924°N 79.402°E / 16.924; 79.402. While I have known inaccurate placename information to get into GMaps, satellite photographs certainly show a place with perhaps a hundred houses at these coordinates. While other Google searches seem fail on the name exactly as given in the article title, English transcriptions of such names usually give them as one word - and (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) does give some sources, though none whose reliability I am quite sure enough about to give a definite keep !vote. This may be because of further spelling variants or names (in which case this should be kept, using the most common one) - or just because the place is fairly small (in which case, we might want to keep this, or prefer to mention it in an article on its immediate area). PWilkinson (talk) 10:08, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a census village, it could be a sub-village (for census purposes a small section of 20-50 houses that are contiguous to another area are clubbed together). See Pages 434 to 439 which lists all villages in Nidamanur mandal. —SpacemanSpiff 12:17, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - While we don't know if it's a "census village", it is a distinct stand-alone population center. [23]. --Oakshade (talk) 06:14, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Not really. We know that it is not a census village.—SpacemanSpiff 15:52, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 23:27, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GEOLAND. WP:V issues appear to have been addressed. ~Kvng (talk) 16:31, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it does pass WP:GEOLAND. This article will likely forever be short, but that's not a reason to delete. Sources in English are hard to find. If someone speaks Telugu, perhaps we can find some more definitive sources. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:50, 30 June 2016 (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. No consensus appears to be forthcoming, there's arguments on both sides and relisting only emphasised that this is contentious. KaisaL (talk) 17:07, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Home Chef

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

Only the most local of possible sources, of sources talking only about funding---which are theefore not discriminating. notability.The policy here is NOT DIRECTORY DGG ( talk ) 17:57, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per nom. Toddst1 (talk) 17:59, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:PERNOM. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:14, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All the available sources seem like media placements by a decent PR agency, which are barely more useful than press releases. Lacking anything else, Delete. And as far as PERNOM, see WP:PEDANTIC. Toddst1 (talk) 00:10, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The sources are bylined news articles written by staff writers that have been published in independent, reliable sources. Note that these are not press releases, as evidenced in part by utilizing Google searches using the titles of these article, in which links are only present for these articles themselves, as opposed to press releases, which typically have many links to the same article hosted on various websites. Could you please provide any evidence qualifying your opinion of the sources potentially being media placements by a public relations agency? My research verifies that they are not. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:47, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Subject lacks notability and coverage outside local sources. Meatsgains (talk) 18:25, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Check out the sources I have provided below, which includes coverage in three states outside of Illinois (New York, Indiana, Minnesota). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:15, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and I would've also considered PROD but I imagine that may have been removed as it commonly happens. There's simply nothing here at all for any applicable notability and searches would find the same. SwisterTwister talk 19:01, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Searches provided plenty of reliable source coverage to qualify notability per WP:CORPDEPTH. See the sources I have provided below. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:16, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:23, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:23, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:23, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Meets WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:AUD. Several additional sources are available that are not based upon fundraising. Per WP:AUD, "Evidence of significant coverage by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability" and "at least one regional, statewide, provincial, national, or international source is necessary" (bold emphasis mine). The Chicago Tribune article below qualifies as a source that provides regional and statewide coverage. Per the Chicago Tribune Wikipedia article, it is the most-read daily newspaper of the Great Lakes region and Chicago metropolitan area. See the maps below for the geographic areas of these regions.

The The Times of Northwest Indiana is the "the second-largest newspaper in Indiana" that qualifies as regional coverage (see The Times of Northwest Indiana § Distribution) and possibly statewide coverage.

The company has received coverage in three states outside of Illinois, specifically in Indiana, the New York Observer and St. Paul Pioneer Press. Examples of bylined news articles are listed below. More sources also exist. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:28, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sources not based upon fundraising

Additional sources

Maps

The Chicago Tribune is the most-read daily newspaper in The Great Lakes region of North America (pictured)
A map of the Chicago metropolitan area in relation to the states of Wisconsin, Illinois, and Indiana

Comment The articles not based on fundraising are straight promotion--just read the Chicago Tribune one for example. It's essentially an advertorial. DGG ( talk ) 15:52, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's a bylined news article written by a staff writer for the Chicago Tribune. You have provided no evidence of this or any of the other articles supposedly being paid advertorials. Such evidence is unlikely to be found, because simply put, they are not. For example, notice how a Google search for the verbatim title of the Chicago Tribune article (here) only links to the Chicago Tribune article, and no others, so it's not a press release either. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:07, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Multiple potential sources have been listed by Northamerica1000. Users Toddst1, Meatsgains, and SwisterTwister may want to re-visit the discussion. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 23:26, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 23:26, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - That would still be a delete for now, the listed coverage is still not convincing. SwisterTwister talk 23:33, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note that WP:CORPDEPTH states, " If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject is not sufficient to establish notability." The sources I provided above all provide significant coverage, provide coverage in three states outside of Illinois, and are not trivial or incidental coverage at all. "Not convincing" comes across as entirely subjective, rather than based upon Wikipedia's notability guidelines. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:26, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep multiple reliable sources with significant coverage listed within discussion here, not limited to one local area. Gab4gab (talk) 11:47, 29 June 2016 (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 Procedural close: article was speedily deleted by GB fan using the G7 rationale. (non-admin closure) /wiae /tlk 00:42, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Brian slingerland

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

I am unsure on how to create a good article so I am deleting it and starting over Ashleynbattle (talk) 17:22, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 June 15. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:35, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment you don't need to start an AFD, just leave the db-author tag on the article and it will be deleted. Thanks, OnionRing (talk) 17:37, 15 June 2016 (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. MBisanz ^talk 21:46, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Geez People

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

This is a combination of WP:Synthesis, WP:Original research and wishful thinking. I can find nothing online about a Ge'ez people, and all of the sources cited are for the Ge'ez language, as spoken in the Kingdom of Aksum. My speedy deletion A10 was declined following a talk page discussion, where the article's creator ~~claims~~ seems to claim that since there's a Ge'ez language, there must have been a Ge'ez people. OnionRing (talk) 17:00, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. OnionRing (talk) 17:01, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethiopia-related deletion discussions. OnionRing (talk) 17:01, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Correction to your comments sorry, but the article's creator is postulating that the article on Aksum refers to a different group of people from the same area. Tigrayans of the 12-13th century. Not so much a Ge'ez people but a different people who spoke the Ge'ez language. I assume the Aksumites in this case. This article will need to be either corrected or removed, the topic of the article is Ge'ez people, they do not appear to exist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr rnddude (talk • contribs) 17:08, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mr rnddude, let's see this from Rome perspective. Rome and Axum are capital cities of these two empires and Romans & Axumites are the people who built them. Romans and Axumites used to speak Latin & Geez languages respectively but today there are no group of people who speak both of these languages for their day to day communications, however both Latin & Geez are thought and used in Catholic and Ethiopian/Eritrean Orthodox churches respectively. Many European languages borrowed many words and scripts from Latin language so do many Ethiopian Semetic languages. Romans/Axumites is too broad and includes other language speaking people within their empires but Latin/Geez people includes only the people who speak these languages. As can be seen from Ge'ez language#Origins it's a language that was spoken widely for almost 1800 years from 900 BC to 950 AD showing that the language existed even before the establishment of Axumite kingdom and using the name "Axumites" to refer Geez speaking people based on a kingdom that emerged in around 100 AD is I think inappropriate. I believe the old Latin language also existed before the establishment of Roman empire which makes it inappropriate to call the ancient Latins only as "Romans". — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 22:07, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I specifically said that when people refer to Latin it is usually to refer to Romans, not that only the Romans spoke Latin. As for the topic of your comment, Ge'ez as far as I can tell is a language that is only used by the church, Latin is not the same here. Many languages are derived from Latin, this includes Latin and Romance languages of the French, Italian, Spanish and Romanians. Unlike Latin I cannot find a single reference to a language that is derived from Ge'ez. This however isn't important. What is important is that Ge'ez as a language is known to the Aksumites/Axumites and to those churches which still use the script. There may never have been a Ge'ez people only a people who spoke Ge'ez. When the Kingdom of Axum disappeared in the 10th century so did the language, it resurfaced in literature about 300 years later (from what I could find). I won't say there weren't a Ge'ez people, only that there doesn't seem to be enough evidence to justify creating an article about a Ge'ez people yet. Mr rnddude (talk) 12:57, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: OnionRing, more sources describing "Geez People" from reliable books can be seen here: The Iconographic Encyclopaedia of the Arts and Sciences, Volume 1, A History of African Archaeology, A Century of British Orientalists, 1902-2001 and Ethiopia: A Cultural History. Most sources use "Ge'ez People" while some only use "Geez People" may be the name should be corrected. — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 22:21, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While some of the sources do contain the phrase "the Geez people", in every case that seems to be a shorthand for "the people who spoke Ge'ez". (For example, the group is contrasted with "the Amharic".) The conclusion that those people form an ethnic group distinct from the Aksumites does not appear to be directly supported by available historical or anthropological literature. This article is therefore original research via synthesis. Cnilep (talk) 05:54, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But Kingdom of Axum was established in 100 AD and the language was not spoken just by Axumites but also other pre-Axumite states like Dʿmt and their capital city was Yeha city not Axum city. Axumite is the name of the nation that existed between 100 AD - 950 AD and Ge'ez people did not leave just within this period but also were inhabitants of Dʿmt that exited between 980 BC - 400 BC, in other words they are not just Axumites but also D'mt (Daamat) people when we call them by the name of their nation/country. This source: A History of African Archaeology says: "an indigenous Semitic- speaking (Ge'ez) people were already leaving in northern Ethiopia in the early 1st millennium BC. These people formed the basic ethnic and cultural stock for both the pre- Axumite and Axumite states" while this source: The Iconographic Encyclopaedia of the Arts and Sciences, Volume 1 says: "we must class the Geez people among the African Semites when we take an ethnologic view of them". In which both sources describe Ge'ez people as an ethnic-group and cultural-group not like a linguistic people by saying "Geez speaking people are these tribes, peoples or ethnicgroups or even saying "Axumite peoples"". EthiopianHabesha (talk) 12:56, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The quote from History of African Archaeology about "an indigenous Semitic- speaking (Ge'ez) people", is consistent with what User:Cnilep wrote above, that in every case that seems to be a shorthand for "the people who spoke Ge'ez". The text just prior to the second quote from The Iconographic Encyclopaedia of the Arts and Sciences also clarifies that it's a shorthand for a linguistic group, not an ethnic group. We need a WP:RS that clearly and unambiguously states that there was a Ge'ez people, rather than Ge'ez-speaking peoples. If we can find some, then I'll be happy to withdraw the nomination. Thanks, OnionRing (talk) 14:04, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If I write that quote similarly like this: "an indigenous Bantu- speaking (Zulu) people formed the basic ethnic and cultural stock for Zulu Kingdom" or "an indigenous Italic- speaking (Latin) people formed the basic ethnic and cultural stock for Roman Empire" would it also clarifies that it's a shorthand for linguistic group? The question is if Ge'ez people is a linguistic group then what people did speak it? Aksum and pre-Aksumite kingdoms never left an inscriptions written in Amharic and Tigrigna, and when they listed the people they conquered they never mentioned those people infact the oldest written evidence for Amhara & Tigré people is dated 13th centuary, 300 years after the fall of Axum. The way the other 3 sources I provided used "Geez" is not like a linguistic group but as a people and as can be seen all 4 sources provided are published books which qualifies them as a reliable sources. If you have other sources clearly indicating Geez speaking people as a linguistic group please let us know. Thank you — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 21:42, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please clarify your terms: what do you mean by "linguistic group", and what do you mean by "ethnic group"? It occurs to me that we may not be talking about the same things. Strictly speaking, the term" linguistic group" is normally used to talk about languages, not people, so I want to make sure I understand you correctly. You wrote "The question is if Ge'ez people is a linguistic group then what people did speak it?" Do you mean prior to the Kingdom of Aksum? That's simple: we don't know. We may never know, absent new archaeological evidence. Frustrating? Certainly. Archaeology is like that. OnionRing (talk) 22:30, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Linguistic group as in "Francophone people" for french speaking people with black African ethnicity and "Latinos" for Spanish (a Romance language developed from the ancient Latin language) speaking Latin Americans is what I meant by. All the 4 reliable published book writers did clearly said "Ge'ez people" which equals with saying English people which in Wikipedia talks about only the people found in UK while leaving the other 100s of millions English speaking ethnic Africans, Americans and ethnic Indians who spoke it as their mother tongue and their only language for communications. To Say "English speaking people" or "Ge'ez speaking people" is to talk about a linguistic group (including other ethnic-groups who spoke the languages) but saying "English people" or "Ge'ez people" is to talk about an ethnic and cultural group (also where the language initially developed in the 1st place). I believe the people who published a book with 100s of pages do know these differences and would be careful in using their terms and it's applications. In those reliable published sources provided above "Ge'ez people" is used while not "Ge'ez speaking people". Thank you — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 12:17, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Severe original research and inaccuracy, the Gurage and Harari were an extension of the Harla kingdom therefore have nothing to do with Geez. Its already known that the people of Harla were in conflict with the speakers of Geez as early as the 14th century. Emperor Amda Seyon I was in conflict with Harla as far as present day Somaliland, and Dawit II in the 16th century had killed a known Harla leader of Adal named Mahfuz, which he then took a title by combining Geez and Harari terms to signify his victory. Mahfuz's death would lead the Harla people to launch an invasion of the Ethiopian kingdom from their main town Harar and occupy it for a number of years. See Abyssinian-Adal war & Ahmed ibn Ibrahim al-Ghazi. This should be enough evidence that the speakers of Geez and speakers of Harla were not the same. Zekenyan (talk) 05:21, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In the old time same people also go to war and there was continuous fighting between Amhara clans, Tigray clans and also they fight with other people who are not same with them for political and economic dominance. You haven't provided a reliable source supporting your claim that Harla people did speak semetic language and even the wikipedia article for Harla says they speak either Semetic Harari or Cushitic Somali and doesnot even include Gurages as people of Harla Kingdom. The most closest languages for Amharic, official labguage of Ethiopia, is firstly Argoba (Muslims) and Harari (Muslims), Secondly Gurages (Chrstian/Muslim) and lastly Tigrigna (Chrstians) are the farthest language for Amharic among Ethiopian Semetic languages as can be seen here http://glottolog.org/resource/languoid/id/amha1245. This shows that Amhara and Argoba/Harari separated much earlier while they together as one language separated from Tigringa much much long time ago. — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 12:37, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your comparing highlanders with lowlanders again. Harar is not part of the history of Ethiopia (habesha). The Harla lived as far as Somalia that's why you have cities called Hargeisa. Its only recently in the 19th century that Harar was occupied by Ethiopian forces, they are not the same people. I told you Geez and Harla were two different languages. Harla did speak a semitic language here's some sources [24] The Harla people were assimilated by Oromo & Somali, which is why you have languages that were once related with Harari in Gurageland and Zay in a sea of Cushitic speakers. [25] [26] however you cant find the claim the harla spoke a Cushitic language so I'm not sure why that's in the article. It simply does not matter if they are related linguistically because all semitic languages have similarities however even if they were not semitic it still does not prove your original research theory that somehow Cushitic influence transformed geez speakers resulting in Harari or gurage. IF the harla were not semitic they may have been hamitic and the modern Harari are semitic due to arab influence not Geez. Why not go the whole hog and consider arabs and jews as an extension of geez? we know habesha extended to south arabia. A widely accepted theory is that geez originated in south arabia but you fail to mention that in the article, instead you attempt to claim an African origin for "geez speakers". Zekenyan (talk) 22:01, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Almost all Languages in Wikipedia articles are referenced from http://glottolog.org/ and this site I believe classified the whole world's languages based on 1000s of professional linguists research. And based on this site's classification as can be clearly seen here http://glottolog.org/resource/languoid/id/amha1245 the most closest language for Amharic is Argoba and Harari not Tigringa. If you believe Harari is not part of Ethiopian Semitic languages you must quote a professional linguist supporting your claim, not history because even German/Korean speaking people leave in various nation/history. Since Ge'ez is the oldest semetic language to be spoken in the Horn region (evidences show that Ge'ez was spoken 2,900 years ago) and based on linguists listing languages by their proximity some might suggest that all ethio-semetic languages originated from Ge'ez and some other professional Historians/linguists/archologists might disagree to this claim and as wikipedians we need to write both opinions based on reliable sources and if you find any professional person clearly stating your point of view you are most welcome to add them in the article. — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 13:44, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the burden of proof is not upon @Zekenyan: to prove a negative, it's upon you to prove that it's true. Extraordinary claims require verification on Wikipedia, and you are using WP:Synthesis to prove a contentious claim. That's not what Wikipedia is for: an encyclopaedia merely documents what's already widely known to be true, not conducting WP:Original research. OnionRing (talk) 13:59, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know the widely accepted theories is that Harari language is part of the Ethiopian semitic languages and that Harari and Gurage people are highlanders and everyone in Ethiopia knows that Gurageland and Hararland is a highland region. However, when you see his above statement he insists that "they are people who leave in lowland area". These maps Topography map of Ethiopia, Ethnic map of Ethiopia shows that indeed Harari and Gurage people are highlanders, infact Harar highland is home to one of the best cofee called 'Harar coffee' and Coffee doesn't grow in lowlands. — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 15:05, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The languages are considered semitic but they are distinct in origin. Traditionally Ethiopia is in the highlands, northern area encompassing the Amhara region and Tigray region. This doesn't include the southern or eastern parts of the region. Most importantly not the lands of non orthodox Christians which is the basis of civilization for geez speakers tied with the Axum empire. What your doing in this article is that your including your own theories and failing to cite them. The Ethiopian Empire had previously used this tactic to subjugate areas that it stole from the native population. The article is full of bad faith citations, wp:synth and original research. I suggest you figure out how Wikipedia works if you want to be an editor here. Zekenyan (talk) 00:35, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And statements like:

"As far as I know the widely accepted theories is that..."
"...and everyone in Ethiopia knows that..."
"These maps shows that indeed..."
"And based on this site's classification as can be clearly seen here..."

... are loud, shrill alarm bells of WP:Original research. OnionRing (talk) 05:26, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Zekenyan, "The languages are considered semitic but they are distinct in origin." that is your opinion and you are entitled to have any kinds of opinion you wish but if you support your claim with a profesional linguist then I have no reason to take it as a serious claim. Based on the sources I provided above, glottolog.org I am actually still 99% sure that for Amhara the most closest language/people is indeed the Muslim Argobas and the Muslim Hararis than the orthodox Tigrigna speaking people when speaking from language and peoples origin perspective. If Hararis did not separate from the Ge'ez people then obviously Amharas also did not separate from Geez and may be they both separated from other common semetic people. As for a religion the Ge'ez people from 980 BC (may be more than that) upto 350 AD, for more than 1300 years have been proven to be traditional religion followers and have been worshipping the moon and the sun just like the rest of Horn of Africans and Africans in general. Religion is something that can simply be changed within few years. Today I may be a catholic but after a few years I will probably be a protestant and then later I might became a Muslim and finally I might become atheist but in all this changes my ancestry/blood/DNA will still be the same no matter what and that is my identity EthiopianHabesha (talk) 16:17, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Precisely, you said it yourself "may be they both separated from other common semitic people". Wikipedia is not the place for theories, speculation etc, lets leave that for the blogs. Before creating an article you need significant reliable sources on said subject, please see WP:N. I advise you to spend your block duration getting familiar with Wikipedia policies. Zekenyan (talk) 02:09, 25 June 2016 (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 Lil Kim Season. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:58, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mine (Lil' Kim song)

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

Non-notable song: Lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. Songs should only have an individual article when there is enough material to warrant a detailed article.^{{{R from song}}} The article should be deleted and/or redirected to the album or artist. — JJMC89 (T·C) 16:56, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 16:57, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - Song lacks coverage to warrant its own page and should be merged with Lil Kim Season. Meatsgains (talk) 18:27, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Lil Kim Season. After some searches, sources are only providing mentions; merge to enhance the target article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:37, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Lil Kim Season. The poorly-written nature of this article means that it's easy to miss that the song made it to Billboard's Rap Digital Songs chart. And while I'm having a hard time telling if it meets the standards laid out at WP:USCHARTS (mentions "R&B/Hip-Hop Digital Songs" as an acceptable chart for inclusion but doesn't mention, possibly because this section needs to be updated, "Rap Digital Songs" which is extremely similar), it still is several months old and if it can't do any better than #15 on one of Billboard's lesser lists, it probably shouldn't stick around per nom/WP:NSONG. RunnyAmiga (talk) 19:58, 15 June 2016 (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 Rising Storm 2: Vietnam. MelanieN (talk) 02:41, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Antimatter Games

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

Redirect was reverted. Fails WP:NCORP. A video game developer that has never released a game. Propose redirecting to Rising Storm 2: Vietnam or deletion. The1337gamer (talk) 16:22, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. The1337gamer (talk) 16:22, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. The1337gamer (talk) 16:22, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Rising Storm 2: Vietnam or delete. I found a lot of trivial mentions, but the only thing that really covered them in any depth was [27] from Western Morning News, a local paper. If there were another story or two like this, maybe we could fill up the article with the trivial mentions and say it's close enough. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:24, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 23:05, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per nom. Lacks significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources (?) to write a separate article. czar 23:12, 25 June 2016 (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. I have returned to this discussion a couple of times over the past day, and found this a particularly difficult AFD to close. There is certainly strong arguments both for and against keeping this article. Many of the against arguments hinge on WP:NOTINHERITED, and the for arguments on the sheer wealth of biographical source material. There is less question of whether Cassius Marcellus Clay Sr. is notable for inclusion anywhere on Wikipedia; Clearly, whether this article exists or not, the substantial article on Muhammad Ali should include information on him. There is a case for a merge, and I am happy to leave that to the admittedly torn editors on his talk page for the moment, rather than stipulating that myself. I cannot, quite, find an actionable consensus and as this has already been relisted twice, I do not feel we will find it. I hope my summarising comments sufficiently explain my decision to close in this way. KaisaL (talk) 13:31, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cassius Marcellus Clay Sr.

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

Been the father of a famous person doesn't not make a person pass WP:GNG. An AFD 7 years ago was closed as merge but no one ever did so. It was suggested on the talk page to start a new AFD so here it is. Clay has no notability for himself. Yellow Dingo (talk) 10:48, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:09, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:09, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTINHERITED Seasider91 (talk) 14:50, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:55, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The subject passes WP:BASIC as there's plenty of detailed biographical source material out there such as this. It is interesting to learn from this that Clay Senior had the slogan "I am the greatest" before his son. Andrew D. (talk) 17:19, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- That is a few paragraphs in relation to his son in a book about his son. It seems prominent enough material to go into Muhammad Ali, but it's not the significant independent coverage of a subject that we would expect for this article. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 13:28, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTINHERITED - anything out there seems to be only due to his paternity.Peter Rehse (talk) 18:38, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:00, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Delete votes completely misinterpret WP:NOTINHERITED. The policy states that "Inherited notability is the idea that something qualifies for an article merely because it was associated with some other, legitimately notable subjects" (emphasis mine) and this is where most people hit the floor. However, if you read beyond the headline, it delivers a knockout: "Individuals in close, personal relationships with famous people (including politicians) can have an independent article even if they are known solely for such a relationship, but only if they pass WP:GNG". The article already includes more than enough coverage to justify WP:GNG - it should not even be a contest. No longer a penguin (talk) 14:16, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sure but none of the references (except for the short obit) is about senior. The others are essentially passing mentions. I don't think GNG is met.Peter Rehse (talk) 14:37, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Very well, I can accept that we might have different interpretation of what constitutes "passing mention" within the context of WP:GNG, rather than automatically ruling out anything that also covers his son. However, I would argue that the source User:Andrew Davidson provided is much more than a passing mention. No longer a penguin (talk) 18:15, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Just a note that WP:NOTINHERITED is not a guideline or policy. It's part of an essay. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:55, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm not seeing the significant coverage that shows he meets WP:GNG. I'm OK with Merging or redirecting this article.Mdtemp (talk) 16:17, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Muhammad Ali is/was an extremely notable person and just being the covered father of an extremely notable person should warrant a keep. However, STRONGLY support merge instead of delete if delete is the consensus. MB298 (talk) 04:51, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What notability criteria says that "just being the ... father of ... notable person" "warrants a keep"? Papaursa (talk) 23:38, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect I don't see the accomplishments or significant independent coverage to show notability. Remove everything related to his son and I don't think anyone would argue that he's notable on his own. I have no objections to the article being merged or redirected to Ali's, but I don't see the evidence that shows he should have his own article. Papaursa (talk) 23:38, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 16:13, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong forum, or Keep without prejudice to a merge discussion at the talk page AfD is not for content disputes. AfDs closed as merge or redirect do not bind the content experts at the talk page of the article. There is not a hint of a case for a notability deletion, given the absolutely essential nature of this topic at the article for Cassius Marcellus Clay, Jr.. A "wrong forum" result does not close this discussion, but moves it to the talk page of the article. Unscintillating (talk) 01:05, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I don't understand what you mean. This is not a content dispute, it's about whether Ali's father is WP notable or not. That makes this the correct place to discuss this topic. Whether or not it's "essential" to the Ali article is both unproven and irrelevant to the determination of Clay Sr.'s notability. Papaursa (talk) 22:36, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The concept of wp:notability only applies to the topic of the article, not the content of the article. Deletions apply to both the topic and the content. Deletion for notability is a special case in which the topic is not used anyplace in the encyclopedia, so the article content falls as a side effect. The normal type of notability discussion that decides whether a topic's content should be stand alone or merged to a parent article is, as per our policy, handled on the talk page. See WP:Deletion policy#Editing and discussion and WP:Insignificance.

As for your assertion that:

Cassius Marcellus Clay, Sr.

has not been proven to be essentially related to

Cassius Marcellus Clay, Jr.

I offer that the proof occurs by inspection.

Unscintillating (talk) 14:18, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Where did you see the criteria that articles can only be deleted if "the topic is not used anyplace in the encyclopedia"? Also, it might behoove you to read what I actually wrote. I didn't say that Clay, Sr. and Clay, Jr. were not related, I said that Ali's notability is irrelevant to Clay, Sr.'s notability. Each article's topic must show it is notable in its own right, otherwise it should be deleted, merged, or redirected. Papaursa (talk) 02:48, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have proven as you requested that deleting this topic from the encyclopedia would do irreparable damage to the encyclopedia. As for your request for more information about Wikipedia's concept of wp:notability, I've provided cites above. Regards, Unscintillating (talk) 03:40, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at those links you mentioned and dont see where the topic can be deleted only if it's "not not used anyplace in the encyclopedia". Also, you have not proven anything--except perhaps to yourself. You certainly have not shown Wikipedia would suffer "irreparable damage" if this article was deleted. He's already mentioned in Ali's article, but I've seen nothing to show he deserves his own article.Mdtemp (talk) 14:30, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your last phrase, "deserves his own article", tells me you are confounding the normal standalone vs. merge/redirect notability; with the special case of WP:DEL8, deletion notability. Are you are willing to argue that the term "Cassius Marcellus Clay, Sr." can be deleted from the parent article? I assume not, so WP:DEL8 is out of scope. Notes 3 and 4 at WP:Insignificance both cite policies. Unscintillating (talk) 22:35, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your suggestion that this is a content placement dispute rather than a notability question seems a little misdirecting. The claim "Deletion for notability is a special case in which the topic is not used anyplace in the encyclopedia" (which I've never heard of in my 12 years here) doesn't seem to hold up when parents of notable people are mentioned in their articles throughout the Wikipedia without the parents being notable enough to merit their own articles. The only question here is whether Sr. as a topic is notable or not. Of course, any reliably sourced Sr. topic content contributing to Jr.'s biography could go into Jr.'s article. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 12:01, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this may be breaking news then: WP:N was changed in early 2008 so that it is no longer partly a content guideline. Your rationale to delete before redirecting has as its purpose to prevent certain content edits to improve the encyclopedia, which is against policy. Respectfully, Unscintillating (talk) 00:46, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It would be useful if you would go into more detail with many of your declarations, as I have to say I can't make sense of them. 'Delete' because a topic isn't notable is normal here in the Wikipedia, and redirecting a non-notable parent to a child is also normal. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 12:20, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've provided detail at WP:Insignificance. The redirecting of a non-notable parent to a child is a function of WP:Editing policy, so is a content decision. WP:DEL8 is deletion policy, not WP:N. AFD, or Articles for Deletion, is for community decisions that require admin tools, which a non-deletion redirect is not, although non-deletion redirect !votes have been accepted at AfD since 2009. But AfD's closed as a content decision (no admin tools used) are not binding, partly because AfD volunteers are not superior editors who know more about content considerations than the content contributors, and partly because an AfD closure does not coerce an administrator into ongoing supervision of a content dispute. A non-delete redirect discussion can be handled on the talk page of the article, and WP:Deletion policy specifically mentions WP:RFC as a possibility for content discussions such as this one. The current AfD IMO should have been promptly closed by an administrator for, among other things, the claim that there was a WP:N issue without there also being a claim that the issues rise to a WP:DEL8/WP:DP issue. WP:Editing policy states, "Preserve the value that others add..." WP:N states, "...deletion should be a last resort." WP:Deletion policy says, "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page." WP:DP further says, "Deletion discussions that are really unresolved content disputes may be closed by an uninvolved editor, and referred to the talk page or other appropriate forum." . Respectfully, Unscintillating (talk) 18:56, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously, if editors are !voting to delete, they are declaring that the subject is non-notable on its own and there's no way to improve the article so as to demonstrate notability. This is about existence of the article (i.e., should it even exist before it is redirected or merged). This is the correct venue to discuss existence of the article. That aspect can be enforced. If that is not resolved here, then it can switch to an action of bold redirecting/merging or an editor agreement (RfC if necessary) to decide that. Complicated wikilawyering seems to only distort these normal processes going on here. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 13:13, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You've cited no policies to rebut my quotes from policy. My statements stand. If you think that what I've stated above can be improved, then I invite you to write your own deletion-policy essay. Unscintillating (talk) 03:35, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Taking a look at your first sentence, it says, "... if editors are !voting to delete, they are declaring that the subject is non-notable on its own and there's no way to improve the article so as to demonstrate notability."

(1) There is no Wikipedia requirement that articles demonstrate notability. This appears to be a pre-2008 argument.

(2) There is a "way to improve the article" by redirecting it.

No one has been willing to argue that the topic can be removed from Cassius Marcellus Clay, Jr., yet procedurally, you want to use the time of AfD volunteers to discuss this article at AfD for reasons that you haven't explained. From the viewpoint of AfD, this is a minor decision which does not require the time of administrators, does not require general concern about which choices are made, is not urgent, and doesn't require that the decision sticks. Unscintillating (talk) 03:35, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding references to "the article" in your response, WP:N is not about the article...again, as I said above, this changed in early 2008. Unscintillating (talk) 03:35, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
WP:N is not about deletion, rather it is WP:DEL8 that is deletion policy. The fact that there are editors who have !voted "delete" without explaining how their WP:N !votes rise to the level of a WP:DEL8 argument does not overturn WP:Deletion policy. A policy-based WP:DEL8 delete !vote both provides verifiable evidence that a topic is non-notable and evidence that the topic is insignificant (cannot be redirected). In addition, there may also be verifiable content to preserve using WP:MAD. Should a closing admin support our deletion policy? Again, a Wikipedia policy is a widely accepted standard that all editors should normally follow. Do you support our policies and guidelines? Sincerely, Unscintillating (talk) 03:35, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:NOTINHERITED applies here, just as it did when I voted to delete in 2009. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:44, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 23:05, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Redirect to Muhammad Ali. Due to seemingly only minor coverage (usually fleeting mentions) in various articles/books about Ali, this subject doesn't pass WP:GNG, but outright deletion doesn't serve the Wikipedia. Some reliably sourced description of his father as it relates to Ali may merit inclusion in his article, so that may be thought of as a "merge". The NYT description of Sr. as "a handsome, mercurial, noisy, combative failed dreamer, [who] gave [Clay Jr./Ali] the gift of tongue" seems like useful contributing bio info for Ali. Deleting before redirecting would make it less convenient to revert back to a full article. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 12:49, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are multiple sources discussing the subject, plus WP:NOTINHERITED is an essay, not a guideline or policy. Emmanuel178 (talk) 03:15, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- All I've seen are fleeting references or a few paragraphs at most discussing this subject in relation to his son. These sources are discussing this subject only because they are writing about his son. Are you seeing any sources covering this subject independently or otherwise in depth? Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 13:34, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Question Can somebody point me to some significant coverage of Clay Sr. that is independent of his son? Papaursa (talk) 22:33, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Redirect to Muhammad Ali, as there's still nothing convincing for his own article. SwisterTwister talk 06:13, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Damn Keep The subject passes WP:BASIC as there's plenty of detailed biographical source material out there. Clay Senior had the slogan "I am the greatest" before his son. WP:NOTINHERITED is an essay, not a guideline or policy. He is a noted subject in many movies as well. 173.52.99.208 (talk) 20:41, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You make claims, but present no supporting evidence. For example, what movies is he the subject of? People have been claiming to be the greatest for thousands of years, Clay was hardly the first. In fact, some have even been recognized by others as such. That's why the Russian czar was not "Peter the Pretty Good" and the Greek conqueror was not "Alexander the Above Average". Papaursa (talk) 03:43, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Father is only known for his famous son. Any sources avaliable on him are in relation to Muhammad Ali. Unless there are some significant stand-alone accomplishments that somehow multiple respectable editors missed, this is a clear-cut case of a non-notable subject.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 02:01, 2 July 2016 (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 Procedural close. Article has been speedily deleted by Ponyo using the G5 rationale. (non-admin closure) /wiae /tlk 00:46, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wanted (1961 film)

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

This probably fails WP:NFILM, as I could not find a single source except for the usual all-inclusive databases.

I considered WP:PROD, but since (1) Nazir Hussain has some notability (but WP:INHERIT) and (2) Wanted (2008 film) clogs up the search result, I would prefer that more eyes look at this. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 16:10, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:11, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:11, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator comment: creator (User_talk:Urukkara) is possibly a sock of User_talk:Chandasmani, though that has no bearing on the merits of the case. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 16:14, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Link to the SPI case I opened. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 16:39, 15 June 2016 (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) Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 02:43, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Alexander Sutton

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

Sutton appears to be only known for the British Home Stores litigation. As always, please do prove me wrong. Pete AU aka ```` Shirt58 (talk) 11:56, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Probably not notable.--DThomsen8 (talk) 12:08, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete sadly comitting fraud is not rare enough to be notable, and gladly enough of those who do so are convicted that being convicted is not in and of itself notable either.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:16, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article has been created largely because it refers to someone currently in the news in connection with a possible fraud. Sadly, next month there will be another fraud, and the month after than another, and so on. Being suspected of committing, or actually committing, a crime is not in itself notable. As the preceding comment remarks, committing fraud is not rare enough to be notable, and although the particular case seems important right now this is just because it's currently in the news. RomanSpa (talk) 21:28, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's true he is in the news because of BHS, but the two bankruptcies and the conviction for fraud are earlier and completely separate matters, indicating that his notability does not relate to just one event. There is no BHS litigation or "case" involving Sutton. I will try to expand the article. Philafrenzy (talk) 22:09, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have made a start. There are a string of things going back to 2000 covered in reliable sources. I will add more but I think he now easily meets the GNG if you add it all together. Philafrenzy (talk) 23:53, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I'm not gathering anything minimally convincing for a solidly acceptable article here, there's loads of information but still nothing noticeably outstanding. Delete by all means. SwisterTwister talk 04:20, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article has been much expanded since the original nomination and all but one of the votes above. Now easily passes WP:GNG. Multiple mentions in multiple reliable sources, covering several events. Edwardx (talk) 10:20, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 16:54, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator asks to be proven wrong, and that proof is that there is no "British Home Stores litigation". 86.17.222.157 (talk) 18:59, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Just look at when this was nominated - a mere 46 minutes after page creation and after several edits building the article. It is utter nonsense to suggest a balanced view of an article can be taken while it is so clearly under construction. Even after that point there were enough references to satisfy a minimum standard of notability. Time would be spent a lot more constructively actually building the encyclopedia rather than instantly stomping on another user's good faith work in progress. 3142 (talk) 19:40, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: As the article was expanded since most of the 'delete' comments, I am relisting it for a week, to allow the editors who have previously commented the opportunity to revisit their comments if they wish, and for other editors to comment as they see fit PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 15:44, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 15:44, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:08, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:08, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No longer falls foul of WP:BLP1E, the article (as improved since nomination) now cites several good sources and advances a number of claims to notability which satisfy the GNG. Fosse 8► 16:13, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per WP:GNG. per good sourcing.BabbaQ (talk) 21:12, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article and its sourcing are just fine. It might fail WP:BLP8E however. Thincat (talk) 07:02, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note There is a concerted campaign to censor the article which has been reverted. That ought to tell us something. Philafrenzy (talk) 20:11, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Not a WP:BLP1E situation, and the subject meets WP:BASIC. Hopefully early delete !voters will revisit the discussion and article to reassess matters, but from my experience at AfD, this often does not occur. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:24, 23 June 2016 (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. MBisanz ^talk 21:45, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Diana Aizman

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

Autobio of lawyer with no indication of notability per WP:BIO. Hunting for her online, I can find brief quotes from her in notable publications on controversial cases, some of which she has been involved with, but I can find no significant, in-depth coverage of her online from WP:Reliable sources. OnionRing (talk) 15:25, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. OnionRing (talk) 15:25, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. OnionRing (talk) 15:25, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. OnionRing (talk) 15:25, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No real claim of notability. Only claim is "Aizman has appeared on national news outlets". Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 02:45, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a lot of coverage at all here. Fails GNG. Omni Flames (talk) 02:00, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and I would've frankly simply PRODed, nothing convincing at all for any independent notability, having news attention is still not a guarantee for an acceptable article. SwisterTwister talk 06:34, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to Islamophobia#Criticism of term and use. A contentious topic but WP:NEO covers this and arguments for delete and redirect on both listings are most convincing. KaisaL (talk) 00:26, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Islamophobia-phobia

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

Appears to be a non-notable neologism that fails WP:NEOLOGISM, particularly "To support an article about a particular term or concept, we must cite what reliable secondary sources, such as books and papers, say about the term or concept, not books and papers that use the term." Al-Andalusi (talk) 15:12, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The term is covered extensively, not just "used", in multiple reliable sources. Meatsgains (talk) 18:33, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Islamophobia#Criticism of term and use and merge the reliably sourced content (which isn't much) there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smartyllama (talk • contribs) 19:11, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
keep per meatsgains. 92.9.158.191 (talk) 21:31, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NEO, not seeing it as a likely search term so no need for redirect. Artw (talk) 23:27, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Several citations define and discuss the concept and term. Jason from nyc (talk) 01:10, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Islamophobia#Criticism of term and use per above. I don't think this will ever evolve into an article of much quality. There's much too little media coverage for it to be considered notable. What little information it has can easily be put into the criticism section of Islamophobia.Eventhorizon51 ^(talk) 17:30, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Islamophobia#Criticism of term and use per above. Fails WP:NEO/WP:GNG. Even if it had more coverage so as to be marginally notable, it's still better covered in what is effectively its parent article. It's possible there's a place to mention in the political correctness article, too? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:46, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 23:02, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Rhododendrites and WP:POVFORK, due to absence of secondary sources. Primary sources (opinion pieces) in HuffPo (partisan), New York Post (tabloid), Fox News (partisan; claims to have coined the term in 2016), and the New Humanist (good for a primary source, but insufficient) are not RS for the purposes of GNG. Secondary sources are required by WP:NEO as well; without them it's definitionally impossible to write an article satisfying WP:NPOV, which not okay because the topic is politicized. FourViolas (talk) 12:38, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect (preferably just delete) per above (WP:NEO/WP:GNG). The word itself appears to be used in a tongue-in-cheek manner in articles that are criticizing the concept of Islamophobia as a useless neologism. It's an intentionally silly term. A good hint that this isn't widely remarked upon: Piers Benn and Gutfield, writing three years apart, both appear to believe they've just coined a new term when they use it. Nblund (talk) 00:36, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 01:00, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

White savior narrative in film

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

Whilst the page itself has some reasonable references for older entries. Wikipedia, as per the guidelines for what Wikipedia is not, is not "a publisher of original thought", which certain entries in the list are. Nor is Wikipedia an indiscriminate. As well, Wikipedia is not a mirror and thus should not simply recreate the entire list from the source. As a result I propose this article for deletion as it primarily speculation and does not provide reasonable information. Whilst a cleanup could be presented as an alternative, I think due to the nature of the article it will attract undue attention and lead to the same scenario again in the future. 7thsanctum (talk) 14:37, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This debate began as an addendum to the original AFD; I've moved links and the rationale and templates and whatnot over to this new 2nd nomination. No comment on the merits. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 15:14, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because AfD is not clean-up. If there are some acceptable entries and some unacceptable ones, then the latter should be removed instead of the whole article being deleted. However, every single entry in this list references a secondary source. For specific entries, the reliability of a secondary source can be debated, but nothing here is not original research. Also, there is no valid reason not to combine multiple lists for that very topic to make up Wikipedia's own larger list. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:55, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The topic is notable, which is clear from the wealth of sources included at the article. Two other points, not strictly relevent to the AfD. There is no "original thought", at least as defined in a Wikipedia context: every entry is accompanied by a source. If sources fail WP:DUE or are misinterpreted then it should be discussed on the talk page. Secondly, the inclusion criteria is not indiscriminate: there are many respectable publications and books discussing the "white savior narrative" as an indentifiable and definable characteristic of fiction. Betty Logan (talk) 17:14, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I was very surprised by this article. I was expecting to find OR, synthesis and listcruft, but it's actually not like that at all. The sourcing is good and most of the film descriptions are concise. As long as the descriptions stay concise and the sourcing solid, this looks to me to sum up a theme that is referenced in film studies and other WP articles, so worth having a WP article to link to. If someone adds cruft, revert them. If it happens too often, protect it. Ask me; I'll do it. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 17:28, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article is well-sourced and demonstrates notability as-is. The nomination presents several policy violations as a rationale, but they do not apply. For example, there is no immediately obvious original research in this article. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:16, 18 June 2016 (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. Sorry, can not envision any other outcome. Good arguments from both sides, roughly the same number of keep and delete votes.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:41, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of selfie-related injuries and deaths

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

This page lacks notability. It lacks depth of coverage (many articles are clickbait, short lists of gore, etc), it lacks diversity of sources (the main sources mirror one another, they cite this article). Sources for this article are yellow journalism. Verifiability is damaged when one article sources two articles, one of which uses different data and one of which uses no data. One 'article' links to a study claiming it shows men are twice as likely to take recreational risks "even when it comes to selfies". The study says nothing about selfies. There is also a question of 'duration of coverage' much of blogging and churnalism focuses on one or two viral phenomena. One source is a content generator promoting a content tracker, it's advertising made to look like a valid source. The comparison to similar lists rings false. Relating a death to a shark is fundamentally different than relating it to a selfie. A selfie doesn't have valid studies connecting it to death in the way that HIV, LGBT-related suicides, and motorcycle deaths have. It's closer to a list of injuries and deaths with eyes closed, or in the presence of a potential mate, or with less than 8 hours sleep. Fiachaire (talk) 15:07, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Fiachaire (talk) 15:07, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a total WP:COATRACK of non-notable news stories. The only positive is that there are some really dumb people who are no longer in the gene pool. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 17:48, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Claims are well-sourced. Whether there are scientific studies is irrelevant. It's still notable due to all the coverage. Whether or not you like the coverage is irrelevant. Smartyllama (talk) 18:50, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:43, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The topic passes WP:LISTN, having "been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources." For source examples, start with the the previous AfD discussion. The list is also a valuable information source, as per WP:LISTPURP. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:44, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Most of this seems to be a collection of news; valid content is at Selfie#Injuries while taking photos. "Selfie-related injuries and deaths" may be a suitable topic for an encyclopedia, but this list is not. Peter James (talk) 22:24, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Segan, Sascha (2015-02-04). "6 Lethal Selfies You Need to Learn From". PC Magazine. Archived from the original on 2015-08-25. Retrieved 2015-08-25.
2. "Selfie deaths: five people who died taking a selfie". The Week. 2015-07-09. Archived from the original on 2015-08-25. Retrieved 2015-08-25.
3. Sleigh, Sophia (2015-02-07). "Haunting selfies capture victims in last few minutes before their sudden deaths". Daily Mirror. Archived from the original on 2015-08-25. Retrieved 2015-08-25.
  The article notes: "Seconds or minutes after these people took these shots they were dead - including a vet who accidentally shot himself and a bride-to-be taking an in-car shot involved in crash"
4. "Russian police launch 'safe selfie' guide after spate of deaths". Herald Sun. Agence France-Presse. 2015-07-07. Archived from the original on 2015-08-25. Retrieved 2015-08-25.
  Here are the selfie-related injuries and deaths listed in the article:
  1. "a 21-year-old woman in Moscow accidentally shot herself in the head in May while taking a selfie while holding a pistol. She suffered head injuries but survived"
  2. "In January, two young men blew themselves up in the Urals while taking a selfie holding a hand grenade with the pin pulled out. The cell phone with the selfie survived as a record."
  3. "In May, a teenager in the Ryazan region died while attempting to take a selfie as he climbed on a railway bridge and accidentally came into contact with live wires."
5. Kauffman, Gretel (2015-07-07). "How to prevent death-by-selfie: a guide from Russian government". The Christian Science Monitor. Archived from the original on 2015-08-25. Retrieved 2015-08-25.
  Here are the selfie-related injuries and deaths listed in the article:
  1. "Last April, inspired by a trend of Russian youths climbing tall structures to take selfies at the top, a Saint Petersburg teenager died when she fell on railroad tracks.
  2. "Another young woman fell to her death taking a selfie on a bridge this past weekend,"
  3. "and a Moscow woman accidentally shot herself in the head while posing with a gun in May."
  4. "Earlier this year, a civilian plane crashed in Colorado, killing the pilot and his passenger, when the pilot lost control of the plane while taking selfies."
  5. "Another man was electrocuted to death in Spain when he attempted to climb atop a parked train to take a photo with friends."
  6. "In 2014, a viral video of a man getting kicked in the head by the conductor of a moving train while shooting a video of himself attracted over 37 million views on YouTube. He was unhurt, but three college students from India attempting a similar stunt weren't so lucky."
  The article notes: "The list of accidents under thrill-seeking circumstances goes on and on – and that's not even counting the accidents caused by people snapping photos of themselves while driving."
6. Murdock, Jason (2016-03-06). "US man accidentally kills himself while taking selfies with loaded gun". International Business Times. Archived from the original on 2016-06-16. Retrieved 2016-06-16.
  The article notes:
  
  The shocking incident comes amid a spike in deaths resulting from selfie-related negligence. Indeed, this is not even the first example of a death resulting from a posed photograph with a loaded weapon. According to Priceonomics, there have been four deaths related to guns and selfies in the past two years alone.
  ...
  In recent tragic examples, a 20-year-old student fell to his death at a luxury hotel in New York while trying to get a photo from a high position, a Japanese tourist died after falling while taking a selfie at India's Taj Mahal monument and a teenager in Texas killed himself while posing with a loaded weapon.
7. Crockett, Zachary (2016-01-29). "The Tragic Data Behind Selfie Fatalities". Priceonomics. Archived from the original on 2016-06-16. Retrieved 2016-06-16.
8. Zargar, Arshad R (2016-02-25). "Major city sets no-selfie zones after spike in deaths". CBS News. Archived from the original on 2016-06-16. Retrieved 2016-06-16.
  Here are the selfie-related injuries and deaths listed in the article:
  1. "Last month, 18-year-old Tarannum Ansari and her two friends fell into the sea while snapping selfies near the Bandra Fort. ... Ansari's body was never found."
  2. "In Chennai, 16-year-old student Dinesh Kumar was run over on January 31 when he tried to take a selfie in front of a speeding train."
  3. "Just two days after Kumar's death, a woman fell off a train while taking a selfie. She survived after fellow passengers stopped the train with an emergency button and rescued her."
  4. "Earlier this month, in Maharashtra state's Nashik, an 18-year-old student drowned in a dam while taking a selfie and his friend who jumped into the water to save him died too."
  5. "In March last year, seven teenagers drowned in a lake in Nagpur when they stood up for a selfie and flipped their boat."
9. Gayle, Damien (2016-02-25). "Mumbai enforces 'no-selfie' zones after string of fatal accidents". The Guardian. Archived from the original on 2016-06-16. Retrieved 2016-06-16.
  1. "Earlier this month, an 18-year-old student on a class picnic lost his balance while taking a selfie atop a rock by a dam near the central Indian city of Nashik. He fell into the water and drowned, along with a classmate who jumped in to try and save him."
  2. "Last month, an 18-year-old woman fell and drowned in the sea while taking a photo of herself at Mumbai’s Bandstand Fort, a popular tourist spot. Two of her friends had to be rescued by a passerby."
  3. "An engineering student sustained fatal head injuries when a rock on which he was standing cracked and sent him tumbling. He’d been trying to take a photo with friends in front of the Kolli Hills in Tamil Nadu."
  4. "In January 2014, three students aged 20 to 22 died when they stopped to take a photo with a speeding train approaching, and were hit."
10. Pullen, John Patrick (2016-03-14). "6 Times People Died While Taking Selfies". Time. Archived from the original on 2016-06-16. Retrieved 2016-06-16.
  The article notes: "Here are six examples of selfie-related deaths." It provides examples from Lebanon, India, Russia, Spain, and Washington State.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow the subject to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 04:33, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The subject also passes Wikipedia:Notability#Stand-alone lists, which says, "One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list." Cunard (talk) 04:33, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of selfie-related injuries and deaths participants who have not commented here: Piotrus (talk · contribs), Samsara (talk · contribs), Shoy (talk · contribs), Samsara (talk · contribs), Savonneux (talk · contribs), Vrac (talk · contribs), Davey2010 (talk · contribs), Pschemp (talk · contribs), Everyking (talk · contribs), and Julia W (talk · contribs). Cunard (talk) 04:33, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In the very list there is links to reliable sources where the phenomena/topic is discussed as a whole as well as the links to the individual instances of it happening. There is no requirement that it meet some scientific standard of proof. This is also the first time I've heard of the The Christian Science Monitor, a 108 year old multiple Pulitzer prize winning newspaper referred to as yellow journalism. This is article deletion, not article cleanup. If you have a problem with individual citations edit the article.--Savonneux (talk) 05:24, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken and discussed below. Thought you might get a kick out of this: "The term was coined in the mid-1890s to characterize the sensational journalism that used some yellow ink in the circulation war between Joseph Pulitzer's New York World and William Randolph Hearst's New York Journal." Fiachaire (talk) 11:51, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. After taking a look at the sources, it does seem that selfie-related injuries and deaths is a notable topic, and as such, it can be accompanied by a list. I'd start with the main article and create a list later, but.... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:02, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Re: your 'but....', is that a 'but you can't make editors make articles, and I sure don't want to write it'? If so, would there be any appropriate policy such as the previously suggested merge, or an incubation, or relevant tags, or moving to a user page that could provide consensus, serves the encyclopedia, and maybe provides incentive for an article first approach? I'm not asking if we can do something novel (I doubt I will ever have a novel suggestion, and I'm thinking of diplomacy here), but wondering if there is a useful precedent, or are we on a keep/delete binary? Fiachaire (talk) 14:18, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It may be useful, before closing, to clarify which sources you acknowledge as notable/reliable, unless, of course, you feel they all are. I also wonder what definition of 'selfie' is used here, and what parameters 'related' has, but discussion seems unlikely. I also suggest that in a "keep" finding where you do not feel all of the sources are reliable that the page be given a cite check tag with explanation. Beyond that, there seems little reason not to close this AfD promptly. Fiachaire (talk) 23:07, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If anything, the article has become even more notable and well sourced since the last AfD request less than a year ago. A 10 day old editor, who made a todo list consisting of "Delete List of Selfie Related Deaths and Injuries" as one of their first couple edits, sure feels like a purpose built sock of someone who didn't like the outcome of the first AfD. Close this as a spurious nomination. Pschemp (talk) 08:33, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Just want to say, appreciate the discussion. Not a sock, just a newbie. I did have delete on my list, and reading pages about editing quickly changed it to discuss. I did post on the talk page, look into the sources, follow the sources sources, search for other sources and check them out. I did leave a notice with the author. I continue to read guides and policy. I did not read the Christian Science Monitor article, in part because I didn't think a single instance of government response was validating for a list of x-related y into perpetuity. I thought the previous AfD reached consensus by lack of discussion, and was closed somewhat reluctantly by admin. I still feel the sources are there but unreliable. That said, I do hope this wasn't a spurious nomination, or needlessly contributed to backlog. If so, by all means close it, and I will strive to do better.Fiachaire (talk) 10:12, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Have read the CSM article. It is of higher quality. It does open and end with a joke about the Russian news, and is largely a list of people who died engaging in risky behavior while also self-documenting. The release of a guide by the Russian government seems to me unlikely to satisfy the guidelines for WP:Events. If the list gains notability from the event of the Russian guide, then wouldn't the prime candidate be selfie-related deaths in Russia prior to the release of the guide for cause, ~~and after the guide for effect~~(Edit: Unlikely media will report Russians not dying of selfies! They may report a drop in over all selfie-related deaths or a drop in deaths while engaging in risky behavior)? As for WP:Depth, this doesn't appear to be feature length article about the Russian guide. The guide/coverage doesn't satisfy WP:PERSISTENCE as it is a singular event. If the list depends on article covering the guide, then I question it. If it doesn't, also don't understand how we verify that the people who died in the article did so because of the selfie and not because it had rained, or it was a windy day or they were doing something dangerous that in itself leads to death and injury. Also would this article then support a list of texting-related deaths and injuries due to the Utah reference? (I've also done more reading about socks, if the admin is in doubt I would point to good faith contributions re:lynching as well as a series of dumb ones re:rugby which I reverted after noticing my mistake. Growing pains, not malice.) Fiachaire (talk) 11:24, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cunard has compiled a great list of sources which I think deserves some examination. First I would like to address Priceonomics (their website may be temporarily down). A search on google news leads with [The Sausage Index: Which dating apps have the most dudes?] and in its description reads "This post is adapted from SurveyMonkey Intelligence, a Priceonomics Data Studio customer. Does your company have interesting data?". [This article] defines Priceonomics: "Rohin Dhar is the CEO of Priceonomics, an immensely popular startup that creates viral content as its ONLY form of advertising....Priceonomics uses ZERO “growth hacking” or paid advertising…just sticky content that virally spreads to millions of eyeballs each week. Think one part PR hacking and two parts viral marketing." Over at [TechCrunch]: "This is content marketing, and Priceonomics is very good at it. So good that today the Y Combinator startup announced it’s pivoting from price guides to blogging, or more accurately, the web scraping and research it does to inform its blogging....As Dhar wrote in a post announcing the pivot today, “Since we crawled such varied sources of data, we started building generalizable tools for data extraction from the web so that our lives would be easier. We got pretty good at crawling data.” So, “Today, we’re launching Priceonomics Data Services, our new data arm that helps companies crawl and structure data from the web. If you’re a company that needs to get data from the web, we can help.”". In short Priceonomics is exactly the sort of source that concerns me. Viral is not notable. Vendors are not sources. By the way, the reason I noticed this wikipedia list is because it's been posted to [Hacker News] 5 times this year. This list is actively part of a loop. One should also note Hacker News is run by Paul Graham who heads Y Combinator which funded start-up Priceonomics. The list above also includes an IBT article, which was noted as suspect by the admin in the previous AfD, and uses Priceonomics for its source. I would think that a source momentarily loses reliability when it is sourcing a data crawling business designed to manipulate search returns and media content.Fiachaire (talk) 12:43, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Having gone through the other articles in the list each article after the Priceonimics article refrences it. Time does so without referring to the name, and the Guardian does so explicitly saying 'according to' and calls it a 'data service provider'. Prior to the piece, The Christian Science Monitor stands out for quality (adressed above), while the others are listicles peppered with cool photos, with the possible exception of PCMag. Problem there is I looked into the official [report] on the pilot in Colorado. It reads "Based on the evidence of cell phone use during low-altitude maneuvering, including the flight immediately before the accident flight, it is likely that cell phone use during the accident flight distracted the pilot and contributed to the development of spatial disorientation and subsequent loss of control." The part that should stick out is "including the flight immediately before the accident flight". That doesn't sound selfie-related. That sounds like they were using the flash for frequent phototaking, and interacting with a screen they oughtn't be. So I looked at the next one, the woman wasn't taking a selfie, she died "seconds after she posted selfies and updated her status on Facebook". Not selfie-related, Facebook-related. I humbly ask for the purposes of this discussion, should any of the listed sources be disregarded as unreliable or struck through on this page? Fiachaire (talk) 13:53, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Methinks the lady doth protest too much. I can't wait to hear why TIme, CBS News and the Guardian aren't reliable sources either.Pschemp (talk) 14:16, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ha! It's true, I'm excited...first dance and all. I love the Guardian, but I don't consider everything it produces hard journalism. The others I think have a poorer ratio than the Guardian. But neither here nor there. As I said, I find Priceonimics unreliable as a source and the journalists who wrote the pieces you refer to sourced Priceonimics all the same. The Guardian noted what they were doing, the others didn't. I think that makes a difference to the quality of the article, and therefore a difference to its acceptability here. Also, WP has policy guidelines that make it clear that the source is not always reliable because of who publishes it. For example, multiple AP reprints. There is a lot of looping and recycling going on here, and I don't know which sources are most relevant to this discussion. Would appreciate correction or help in focusing over responses that pivot focus.Fiachaire (talk) 14:35, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

- The Priceonomics article was published Jan 29, 2016. Most of the citations were published well before that even existed.--Savonneux (talk) 07:39, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I already addressed that above. There are four either side of the Priceonimcs link in the list above (so, not "most"). Of the four, PC Mag and Christian Science Monitor standout as arguably reliable. Both of those articles refer to a selfie-related death in Colorado which depends on an official report which says something quite different (namely selfies with flash and general phone interaction happened on the pilots previous flight, and that (the flash, the screen) may have contributed to disorientation in the second (unrecorded) flight. The report points to cell phone usage, not taking a photo of oneself. The report also sees this as a possible secondary cause for theoretical disorientation, the other, more serious causes: it was nighttime and a plane was plummeting out of the sky. From RT: "The NTSB report also found that Singh did not meet the currency requirements for flight in instrument meteorological conditions or night flight with passengers." Furthermore, the CSM article says explicitly that the pilot lost control while taking selfies and links to another CSM article with a headline 'selfies likely caused' which links to a Reuters article that simply states selfies happened (again, in the previous flight). The latter CSM article also references the woman who dies while uploading photos of herself on facebook while driving. Again, cellphone-related, not a selfie. Here's a quote I picked up while trying to clarify my point (take it or leave it): "Let's turn to the World Health Organization to see how it breaks down the issue. WHO gives the example of a woman tripping over something on the floor and hitting her head on the counter; you'd never say that the thing on the floor killed her — that's just the underlying mechanism. (Also, stupid.) The direct mechanism was hitting her head, just as in most "selfie deaths," the direct mechanism is being struck by a car, falling down, what have you." I consider the selfie to be further removed than the thing on the floor in most if not all of these cases. However, I am open to a List of Thing-on-the-floor-related injuries and deaths. The CSM article also refers to the Russian teenager who fell to her death, referring to this article which reads "According to other sources, the reason for girl’s death was a broken fence on the bridge that she leaned on while taking the photo." And says an investigation will take place. But selfies are sexier than fences so which do we report, and then smudge? The investigation isn't covered, the lead is buried, and in this case the lead may well have been a teenage girl leaning on a fence taking a photo with her friends who didn't die. You said before that this was the first time somebody had accused CSM of yellow journalism, "a type of journalism that presents little or no legitimate well-researched news and instead uses eye-catching headlines to sell more newspapers. Techniques may include exaggerations of news events, scandal-mongering, or sensationalism.", and I would be willing and able to go further to make that case specific to this article, but I don't think I have to. The source is problematic at best. Why should it stand? Fiachaire (talk) 08:39, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Well a year later and my opinions are no different .... Per my prev !vote: "Unencyclopedic and quite frankly a moronic list of morons unable to take an image of themselves without fucking it all up!. This is is the kind of crap that belongs off of the internet", That aside they're non-notable news stories and perhaps would be better off merged to Selfie#Injuries_while_taking_photos. –Davey2010^Talk 13:40, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- So WP:IDONTLIKEIT, then? That's not a reason. Smartyllama (talk) 18:46, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- And your personal opinion (in contrast to policy based) on the issue still counts for exactly as much as it did a year ago.--Savonneux (talk) 07:34, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - WP:IDONTLIKEIT is exactly what it is and I don't expect the !vote to be counted nor I did expect it last year, Saying that I did make a suggestion this time so not all is bad. –Davey2010^Talk 23:41, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The only relevant points I see discussed here re. the keeping of this article are the notability guidelines, and as per Cunard's demonstration further up on this page, this is a topic of widespread public interest and coverage that satisfies both the general and list-specific notability criteria. Samsara 11:41, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Interestingly, the article was recently shared on Wikipedia's official Facebook page, days since the start of this AfD. This is presumably for its "shareability" rather than its importance. It's interesting that the social media team would share an article with a big red "this article will possibly be deleted" banner at the top. McLerristarr | Mclay1 20:34, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The content is well-sourced and thematically related to the article's topic. -- The Anome (talk) 09:27, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The sources themselves may be reliable, that is insufficient; they must demonstrate WP:LASTING and WP:PERSISTENCE, which, each entry being so WP:TRIVIAL, they do not. _Muffled ^Pocketed 11:08, 21 June 2016 (UTC).[reply]
[New York Times], The Murky Meaning of the Killer Selfie. [Washington Post], No, selfies have not killed more people than sharks, that's ridiculous. [Washington Post], What's fake on the internet this week: Selfie lice, Joey Fatone and James Earl Jones RIPS. [The Daily Beast], Debunking the Great ‘Selfies Are More Deadly Than Shark Attacks’ Myth - When it comes to which is more deadly—selfies or shark attacks—no analysis would have been better than a bad analysis. Fiachaire (talk) 12:17, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Perfect examples of the interest this topic continues to generate, hence: persistence! Samsara 12:25, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Totally (except they're all from last year, a sizable chunk away in this topics lifespan). I'm kind of torn between drafting a list of cyber-banging-related deaths and injuries or a list of modern day Oedipuses. Actually a list of proximity to the sun-related deaths and injuries might be best. Fiachaire (talk) 12:49, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - Time Magazine - 6 Times People Died While Taking Selfies March 16th 2016 --Savonneux (talk) 07:20, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The lead and its sources have been changed by the pages creator. The CSM article is gone, unsure why. The lead has narrowed or clarified, though the title remains the same, and the source making its case is now a Telegraph article which itself sources the list. It also repackages prior Telegraph article, sources the Mirror, and the Mashable piece much discussed above (sharks v selfies). I also noticed that the priceonomics article written for the purpose of content marketing also uses information from Wikipedia (presumably here) to build it's attractive graph on the hard numbers behind this "debate". WP:CIRCULAR seems pertinent in addition to not sourcing e-commerce/vendors Fiachaire (talk) 16:20, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- You seem to be a rather confused person. If you are as new and innocent as you claim, perhaps you should consider taking some time to truly understand how wikipedia works, rather than blustering about.Pschemp (talk) 20:07, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - How many times do you imagine you'll have to post a comment about me before I ask you for one? Please consider discussing the article (which has changed for the better in my opinion), though I admit I'm getting less curious about what insight you may have. Fiachaire (talk) 22:43, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - There's a decent case for WP:NLIST based on coverage of selfie-related injuries and deaths as a group, but I think the stronger reason to keep is considering this as a split from Selfie. There's no doubt that selfie-related safety has gotten quite a bit of attention sufficient to be prominent in the article about selfies, but there are enough examples such that it makes a bit of sense ("a bit" hence "weak" keep) to just spin it out. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 05:23, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete instead and Draft if needed for improvements later because this is still questionable at best and is still vulnerable to questionability of notable stories and information. Could be its own article but it's currently still questionable. SwisterTwister talk 06:36, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- AfD isn't article cleanup.--Savonneux (talk) 07:26, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @SwisterTwister: This word salad approach to AfD is getting out of hand... — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:10, 25 June 2016 (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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 09:59, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

St Athan Football Club

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

Non-notable amateur football club at the eighth level in Welsh football. Has never played in a national league or cup, which are the generally accepted criteria for a club to be deemed notable. Prod removed by article's creator. Number 5 7 14:55, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 17:34, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 17:34, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It was tagged for deletion in the same day it was created and now on both occasions those tagging the article for deletion didn't notify the creator (me). This hardly seems fair and I think the article should be allowed more than 1 day to grow. The existing citations already place it in a number of newspapers and while I have not yet got the planning application citation, they will be making improvements to the pitch in order to allow seating for when they play in the Wales national league. Seeing as the club is a merger of VIFC and St Athan FC, and I've only so far been going through St Athan's history, I expect even more notable citations will follow when researching VIFC.Drowz0r (talk) 18:29, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. here is my original objection: (Object to deletion - article is very new and already has some notable sources. Given the article was only created yesterday I think we should permit the stub and other contributions to be found before contesting deletion) Drowz0r (talk) 18:30, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Drowz0r: The age of an article does not matter if there is consensus on what is deemed notable and the subject fails to meet those criteria. We have a long-standing consensus that clubs like this are not notable. You may want to read the following deletion discussions: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6; these are just a handful of the past discussions on clubs in the same situation as this one. On the other hand Bethesda Athletic F.C. was kept at an AfD because it met these criteria. Number 5 7 18:35, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Number 57: If a club never reaches out of the bottom league but say, Tony Blair is the team captain and John Major is the goal keeper, then surely the club is notable for different reasons other than performance? While I will agree the clubs performance isn't notable, many other aspects may well be. I'm slowly adding more story to the page (added two citations in the last few minutes actually). I merely ask that I be provided with more than 1 day to make the article ready for such strict measure.Drowz0r (talk) 18:40, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This club does not have any notable aspects. Number 5 7 18:51, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Should the article not be allowed the chance to be notable? I'm literally updating it every few hours. The stub may provide other contributors too.Drowz0r (talk) 19:22, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unless this club has played in a national league or cup, it's not going to be notable (the only exceptions to this rule that I am aware of are youth clubs such as Wallsend Boys Club because they are well known for the huge number of professional footballers that came from them, and you'll see that article has referneces to several national newspapers and the BBC). I refer you back to AfDs cited above. Number 5 7 19:34, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - club plays well below the level of football deemed notable and seems to have no other significant claim to notability -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:12, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:FOOTYN, has not competed in a national competition. References cited mainly routine match reporting in local newspapers. Fenix down (talk) 07:40, 17 June 2016 (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. Consensus is that they meet NPOL (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 01:00, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Isabel Allende Karam

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

Distinct lack of notability; reliance on mostly primary sources - The Gnome (talk) 14:50, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Rebb ing 15:27, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The subject appears to meet WP:NPOL point 1 (national office-holder), so it's not at all clear to me how the subject can be said to suffer from a "distinct lack of notability"; and sourcing problems are not normally viewed as a reason for deletion.The article clearly needs work, likely from someone with a working understanding of Spanish, but I don't think deletion is the answer. Rebb ing 15:39, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings. Sourcing problems are viewed as a reason for deletion. Indeed, lack of any sources can lead to a speedy deletion of an article, per the relevant rule: "Reasons for deletion include, but are not limited to,...Articles for which thorough attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed." Whether or not the subject of this specific article is notable enough to merit a Wikipedia entry is a different issue. -The Gnome (talk) 15:48, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NPOL as stated by Rebbing above. I've made a start on adding some reliable secondary sources. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 16:37, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nicely done, P. Did you make a trip to your library for these? Rebb ing 18:26, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, I only had to go as far as Google Books. Luckily I read Polish fluently and can make reasonable sense of Spanish. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 18:51, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The sources that you are adding simply confirm that the subject of the article indeed "studied in Czechoslovakia," "worked for the Cuban Cultural Center in Prague," and also worked at "the Cuban embassy in Czechoslovakia". The single notable-possible item in her career is that she was once Deputy Foreign Minister of Cuba. And I still cannot find anything in the English language. -The Gnome (talk) 15:31, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cuba-related deletion discussions. Rebb ing 16:01, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per WP:NPOL "Politicians and judges who have held international, national or sub-national (statewide/provincewide) office". Another source here AusLondonder (talk) 06:48, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. David Eppstein (talk) 05:59, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (maybe). Appears to be a notable woman, but translation of sources would be helpful. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:14, 18 June 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Kppe: Meets WP:NPOL. Montanabw ^(talk) 08:07, 19 June 2016 (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 and redirect to Ali Khamenei. The majority clearly believes that the material should not exist as a standalone article. The material will be merged into the article about Khamenei, and redirect is preferable to deletion.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:24, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Israel will not exist in 25 years

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

Low importance, No indication of importance, Transfer to wikiquote Kasir ^talk 14:34, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:37, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:37, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:37, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:37, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete not sure why this wasn't CSD'ed or PRODed. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:23, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

why your not tryna delete this kinda sorta article like it: Three Whom God Should Not Have Created: Persians, Jews, and Flies ?/ it has too much longer details and boring not? hey man improve your worthy limits something u think its not worthy not means ur right..AmirMuhammad1 (talk) 07:22, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Iran–Israel relations (with a level of detail appropriate for its relatively light weight, of course) and delete. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 16:04, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge , redirect to a very brief mention at Ali Khamenei section at Iran–Israel relations.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:32, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ali Khameni or Iran-Israel relations. It's plausible someone would search for this, so it should redirect somewhere that they can find information, but it's not notable enough to justify a standalone article. Put some of the content in Khameni's article or Iran-Israel relations and redirect this there. Smartyllama (talk) 12:53, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete doesn't have any value to keep this kind of news Modern Sciences (talk) 21:04, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Sources show importance of the article and also there are several references about this subject. We can complete the article and add a section about Iran-Israel relation. Saff V. (talk) 11:00, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You mean like Iran-Israel relations? Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:19, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Not important? Did you want to say not notable? Because we don't usually nominate articles at AFD because of being not important. However, did you even searched the title? I did, and this is the result:

Iran's supreme leader: There will be no such thing as Israel in 25 years by CNN.
Iran’s Supreme Leader Says Israel Won’t Exist in 25 Years by New York Times.
Khamenei to Israel: You Will Not Exist in 25 Years by Foreign Policy.
Iran's Supreme Leader: Israel Will Not Exist in 25 Years by Haaretz.
Iran Nuclear Deal: Israel Will Not Exist In 25 Years, Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei Says by Ibtimes.
Iranian Leader: Israel Will Be Gone in 25 Years by Israel Today.
Khamenei: Israel Will No Longer Exist in 25 Years by US News.

One can easily add items to the above list. Mhhossein (talk) 15:08, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody said he didn't say it or it isn't notable, but it's not worthy of an encyclopedia article. We're not a repository of quotes. This has a place, and that place was already mentioned, either at his article or II Relations. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:18, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So, if nobody says it's not notable, we are wasting our time and energy here in this AFD discussion. It's of course encyclopedic and if you read the article you'll see that we're not a repository of quotes in this article. We may even make article for notable lectures, let alone notable quotes (see Tear down this wall!, A Time for Choosing and this list) Mhhossein (talk) 04:46, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Iran–Israel relations#Iran threatening Israel. Just another one in a long line of threats by Iran. Unlike "Tear down this wall!", which basically concerned half the world and involved the end of the Cold War, Khamenei's utterance does not have the significant coverage (not just passing mentions as part of a lecture) that is required for a stand-alone article. - HyperGaruda (talk) 07:15, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

HyperGaruda Does it "not have the significant coverage", while I provided many sources for it and still there are many other sources? Mhhossein (talk) 06:22, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Mhhossein: read WP:SIGCOV. It means that there should be enough in-depth information about the phrase. Many sources that hardly describe anything (i.e. superficial information) do not constitute significant coverage. Also, since this is the gazilionth time time that Iran threatens Israel, this could be seen as routine news, so I'm also calling in WP:NOTNEWS. - HyperGaruda (talk) 06:43, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What details are you searching for that you can't find here, here, here or etc. By the way, this was not merely a threat, this was a notable prediction. As you know, Khomeini, former supreme leader, made a similar prediction about Soviet Union's dissolution which came true shortly after the prediction was done. --Mhhossein (talk) 07:40, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Details as in stuff that is not WP:COATRACK about either the nuclear deal, Iran-Israel relations, or other background info. What I want to see is WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE ("a burst or spike of news reports does not automatically make an incident notable") about the phrase. And let's face it, that is darn difficult for quotes, which is why we have WP:NOTQUOTE and the WikiQuote project. - HyperGaruda (talk) 09:03, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:COATRACK is an essay on Wiki articles and does not apply here regarding our sources. As you know, "coverage does not need to be ongoing for notability to be established," although the subject fulfills WP:PERSISTENCE referring to the news of the phrase being chosen as the most important sentence of the year by people per a conducted poll ([28]), an analysis on why Israel won't see next 25 years ([29]), Enough is enough! --Mhhossein (talk) 13:47, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep well sourced and of WP:PERSISTENCE. _Muffled ^Pocketed 10:43, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Expanding on mu comment above, there are simply not enough available sources to support an article. This was a remark made by a political leader in a September 2015. It received a brief flurry of news coverage due to its genocidal nature, but was limited with little exception to a 24-hour news cycle, and we don't cover that sort of thing as per WP:NEWS.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:14, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- You would see that I provided at least two sources published almost 6 months after the first mention of the subject by news outlets. Mhhossein (talk) 06:06, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment We should kill everyone in China was deleted previously. Is this article title really a plausible redirect? Does it have enduring notability to justify having such a title? --Lemongirl942 (talk) 13:56, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (or possibly Redirect, but I don't have a strong opinion about where) - All of the sources look to be from within the span of a few days. Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS, is not WikiQuote, and requires lasting significance and independent notability. We have a whole lot of articles about relations, positions, etc. -- this does not look to be sufficient for a stand-alone article. — Rhododendrites ^{Curly Hauglan|talk]]} \\ 03:12, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[[User:Rhododendrites's point is very well taken. This topic was discussed in a single news cycle ~ 10 months ago. Then it dropped off the radar. It has had no demonstrable impact (Iran has not followed up by destroying Israel) and almost no reliable , secondary sources discuss the topic. The one or two sources brought to this page from recent months are in Persian media that may not be independent of the government - Iran does not have a free press. And without some indication of impact or sustained coverage, this speech is simply not WP:NOTABLE.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:14, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

speedy Keep have been so famous by such as CNN ,NBC , Haaretz etc... AmirMuhammad1 (talk) 03:37, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and then Redirect later if needed as there's still questionability for having this as its own convincing article, the current information suggests nothing else better for the future. SwisterTwister talk 06:32, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Simon Wiesenthal Center included this sentence as one of the top ten worst global 2015 Anti-Semitic/Anti-Israel incidents in the report published in 2016. This adds weight to the notability and proves that the coverage by media is still continued. Mhhossein (talk) 17:20, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just a passing mention. Iran's entry in the list is more about the International Holocaust Cartoon Competition. - HyperGaruda (talk) 18:21, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So, what? Needless to say that its being mentioned in the list means a lot! Mhhossein (talk) 05:16, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment this is an absolutely much tougher thing 'bout Israel. it could be makes or brings a lot of media-bombing in the news coperations in the future and affects directly the next politic decisions in the next days of the world. AmirMuhammad1 (talk) 01:45, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Iran–Israel relations. The Iranian government has said various threatening things about Israel over the years, I don't see why each individual statement that falls into that category requires its own article. Much better to consider all those statements together and in the overarching historical context than to split the coverage of them over multiple individual articles. SJK (talk) 05:37, 26 June 2016 (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) Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 02:47, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of horror video games

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

Video game genres are based upon their gameplay element, not narrative or thematic setting. While survival horror is a genre, this list mentions every game that has the slightest hint of horror to it, like puzzle-platformer Catherine, action role-playing game Darksiders, the first-person shooters Aliens: Colonial Marines, The Darkness and Wolfenstein: The New Order. WP:TNT this and start a List of survival horror video games. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 14:30, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:09, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:09, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article is a bit of a mess, but I can source it. I don't really like the idea of retitling it, as there's ample support for lists of horror games: [30] from GamesRadar, [31] from Kotaku, [32] from Rock Paper Shotgun, [33] from PC Gamer, and [34] from Game Informer. I'm sure there are more, too. If that's not enough, I'll go digging for more. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:46, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I added a bunch of sources to the article. I just realized that there's going to be lots of articles at Bloody Disgusting, too. That would be a good source to check before removing entries. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:28, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Qualifies for an article per WP:NOTDUP relative to Category:Horror video games, and also qualifies as a functional navigational aid per WP:LISTPURP. Also keep per WP:HEY and the substantial improvements to the article performed by NinjaRobotPirate. Any additional content issues as stated in the nomination can be addressed by copy editing the article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:33, 23 June 2016 (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. OK, after two relists I think I do have to look in more depth at the actual arguments expressed... The "delete" side argues the non-notability of the topic (characters from this franchise) because of lack of sourcing, which is a strong argument for deletion that would need to be refuted with references to reliable sources establishing such notability. However, we do not have such strong arguments on the "keep" side: their opinions consist of references to a previous AfD, which is not a useful argument in and of itself; the view that there is "good information" here (not a valid argument, as has been pointed out); the view that this is a standard type of list (a valid, but solitary argument); and a link to a Google search (which is at least on point but unconvincing because this says nothing about the quality and depth of sources). Overall, the arguments for deletion are much stronger in light of our inclusion policies and guidelines, which is why I consider that we have a consensus for deletion after weighing the strength of arguments. Sandstein 06:39, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of Skylanders characters

AfDs for this article:

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

A long trivial list of video game characters fails WP:VGSCOPE No. 6. Looking up a couple of the characters' names on the WP:VG/RS custom Google search engine brings up plenty of mentions, but only in passing. "Standalone lists of video game characters are expected to be (1) written in an out-of-universe style with a focus on their concept, creation, and reception, and (2) cited by independent, secondary sources to verify this information." soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 13:55, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:10, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:10, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:10, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per my arguments in the prior AfD. Jclemens (talk) 20:33, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Jclemens:, thanks for replying. WP:VGSCOPE No. 6 is a fairly recent addition to the WP:VG/MOS. As consensus can change and the previous discussion was three years ago, I have to ask you to explain your keep !vote. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 21:29, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also interested in what @Masem: thinks about this. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 21:29, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but no MOS is ever reason to delete any article, just a guide on how content is to best be presented. In this case, criteria 6 you cite in a was incompatible with WP:CSC #2. My opinion is unchanged. Jclemens (talk) 23:29, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTABILITY is WP:NOTINHERITED. Skylanders is notable, but how does a list of characters from the series meet WP:LISTN? soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 06:25, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read WP:CSC? A list of NN elements from a notable fictional franchise is perfectly fine, and doesn't need notability for 1) individual elements, or 2) the concept of a list of NN elements. It's really about WP:SIZE and WP:SS, because these should not have individual articles (per N and other reasons), but would be legitimate to include in the larger article but would balloon the size unreasonably so by doing so. Jclemens (talk) 17:43, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:LSC also says: "Criteria for inclusion should thus factor in encyclopedic and topical relevance, not just verifiable existence." A good example of a decent list of characters article is List of The Last of Us characters. It is properly sourced, gives plenty of information on creation, development and reception of the characters. This list is just a list. It's WP:OR to look at a particular game franchise and to jot down every character that happens to appear in that particular franchise. By your logic, we could start lists about every elements in franchises: List of weapons in Doom, List of Super Mario World levels, List of Street Fighter combos, you name it. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 21:13, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Reviewing what I said three years ago, that there was a chance to clean up to be more encyclopedic, this article appears to have gone completely the other way. There's no attempt to put the characters into the light of secondary sources, and many of the descriptions are fan-guide level of cruft. The few characters that are notable from other series like Spyro can be summarized on the main Skylanders series page, but a full list of this, with no clear evidence from a google search that any of the other characters can achieve notability, means this should be deleted. --MASEM (t) 21:33, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Forgive me if this is a silly question - this isn't my kind of game - but aren't there little toys for every character in these games? If so, aren't there endless articles discussing the announcement and release of said toys? The toys are of the characters, so I'd count that towards the characters themselves... Sergecross73 msg me 14:00, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Skylanders, unlike Disney Infinity and Lego Dimensions, does not get that much coverage from the gaming press. The figures are released in waves, so we don't have a lot of articles talking about individual character releases. AdrianGamer (talk) 15:01, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't support the use of Forbes Contributors, but that's the sort of sourcing I'm talking about though. If WP:RS's wrote articles like that, I'd certainly call it significant coverage. It might be helpful to think of this more like amiibo. Sergecross73 msg me 16:18, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Sergecross73:, does this mean you also are in favor of deleting the list? soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 21:15, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, my point was going to be that if there were other sources like this, it'd be work keeping. I forgot about this and hadn't done source hunting yet though, so I'm neutral on it for now. I just feel like it's out there - I feel like I've seen them in passing... Sergecross73 msg me 23:34, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Let this page stay. It has good information about the characters from this franchise where this page was kept separated from the List of Spyro characters page to keep this reboot separate. --Rtkat3 (talk) 15:41, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Rtkat3: "Good information" is WP:ITSUSEFUL. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 18:31, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - If notability is not established, it does not need to be an article. Character lists should not be exempt from that rule. TTN (talk) 21:17, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as this is only a list, nothing actually convincing of keeping at all for independent notability. Anything here can easily be mentioned at the main article. SwisterTwister talk 06:32, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 21:45, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a standard character list covered by WP:CSC #2. First AfD was closed correctly. VMS Mosaic (talk) 03:48, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @VMS Mosaic:, thanks for replying. I must say that I find the phrasing of WP:CSC No. 2 somewhat ambigious: "Every entry in the list fails the notability criteria. These lists are created explicitly because most or all of the listed items do not warrant independent articles. (...) Such lists are almost always better placed within the context of an article on their "parent" topic. Before creating a stand-alone list consider carefully whether such lists would be better placed within a parent article". That last bit to me doesn't like standard character lists are automatically covered. Also, consensus can change, that's why I'm pointing to the fairly new WP:VGSCOPE No. 6, about characters lists. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 11:05, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, because RS coverage clearly exists for these characters. Sergecross is correct in that there's sometimes even articles on individual figures when they are released. Satellizer el Bridget ^(Talk) 01:46, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:36, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per arguments made by Jclemens, Sergecross and Satellizer. Some such sources including these ([35] [36] [37] [38]). In its current state, the article is lacking in sources, but the potential is there. Kokoro20 (talk) 18:07, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to character section of the series article. The toys/characters here are synonymous with the series. They should be covered within the Characters section of the main article and spun out summary style. As it stands, the list article is a coat rack for reams of primary source material on toy minutiae instead of what the secondary sources say about the subject. Looking at the links above, the Google search is mostly about how players can make their own characters and the rest are not discussing the characters outside the context of the game (same for Kokoro's links). Again, I would be fine with a summary style split if it came to that, but right now there isn't enough obvious, cited coverage to warrant a separate article. If we needed a list of every name of every Skylanders character (and I don't believe we do, as that would be trivia), the list should have descriptions in prose proportional to their coverage in the sources. czar 19:40, 10 July 2016 (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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 09:57, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

VoiceBox Technologies

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

Pure and blatant promotion for non notable organisation. Lacks coverage in independent reliable source. Sourced by themselves. Prod restore after request "I represent VoiceBox Technologies and we are curious as to why our Wikipedia page has been deleted (https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/delete&page=VoiceBox_Technologies). The page contained correct information about the company and was maintained by an internal company source." duffbeerforme (talk) 12:46, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:01, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:01, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as by far another classic example of there only being tossed information and sources but there nothing actually solid let alone solid independent notability, nothing salvageable at all. SwisterTwister talk 06:26, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Concur with nom. Should be completely uncontroversial, no notability. MB (talk) 02:43, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Un-notable and promotional.—azuki (talk · contribs · email) 00:19, 23 June 2016 (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 Escape the Fate discography § Singles. MBisanz ^talk 23:15, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Situations

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

Non notable song. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:31, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:02, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:05, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Escape the Fate § Discography or Escape the Fate discography § Singles, which will serve as an improvement to one of those articles. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:06, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 22:59, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Redirect as there are no signs at all this will actually be acceptable in the future, delete and redirect as it's best connected to that. SwisterTwister talk 06:12, 1 July 2016 (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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:19, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merin Joseph

AfDs for this article:

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

Pure tabloid trash. Pretty girl joins the police. Pretty girl appears in a photo. Pretty girl was the youngest at something. Just being the youngest at something is not inherently notable. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:14, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The last discussion should not be relied upon to say there was consensus to keep before. jcc non-admin closed it after running for only 3 days and the closing statement sounds like a supervote. -- GB fan 12:26, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:29, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:29, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The only rationale I can see for closing the 1st Afd after just 3 days was a weak one-word nomination statement. But still. I wouldn't have tried that, nor do I see that as a policy-based early non-admin close. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:32, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination ChunnuBhai (talk) 06:46, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, subject not notable. MB (talk) 02:47, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable police officer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:25, 20 June 2016 (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) ansh 666 17:40, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

May 2016 United States storm complex

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

Wikipedia is not the news. Just another run of the mill storm. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:06, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:24, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:24, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:24, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Run-of-the-mill storms don't tend to break all-time records. Dustin (talk) 17:41, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge - Keep per WP:IDEALSTUB, as this storm complex has set all time records in both Texas and Oklahoma. If the article cannot be kept, it should be merged per WP:CHEAP to Floods in the United States: 2001–present. --Jax 0677 (talk) 18:13, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Expand- I recently renamed this article from 2016 Oklahoma floods per a discussion on the article's Talk page in order to better reflect the flooding's impact on other states including Texas which is already in the article text. Quite frankly, if this article survives AfD, I would recommend that it be substantially expanded to reflect its impact across several states.--TommyBoy (talk) 00:57, 16 June 2016 (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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 09:55, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ancient technology in Stargate

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

Completely un-referenced original research and synthesis. The provided references are to Wikipedia itself. No viable third-party references are forthcoming, so this piece should be removed as its subject matter is non-notable and therefore the title is not salvageable. Mikeblas (talk) 12:06, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's entirely possible that something like this could be written. However, this article is just a huge collection of poorly-sourced cruft that belongs on Wikia. I found a few promising sources on Google Books: Stepping Through The Stargate (BenBella Books), The Essential Science Fiction Television Reader (University Press of Kentucky), The Postmodern Sacred (McFarland & Company), and Science Fiction Television Series, 1990-2004 (McFarland). However, the article would need to be rewritten from scratch, and this stuff could probably be briefly summarized somewhere else, like Ancient (Stargate). NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:54, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As much as I loves me some Stargate, the ratio of six (potentially) reliable secondary sources to 73 primary sources is plainly unacceptable. As it is, this article consists almost entirely of plot and falls well short of meeting the notability guideline. Kudos to NinjaRobotPirate for even finding as many sources as he did. — fourthords | =Λ= | 21:22, 20 June 2016 (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 McDonald's legal cases#Discrimination. Information has already been merged. (non-admin closure) ansh 666 17:41, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Magee v. McDonald's

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

Wikipedia is not the news. Just another run of the mill lawsuit. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:02, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge - Keep, as this lawsuit is likely to have implications for how drive thru windows at restaurants operate in the future, even if only for newly constructed restaurants and not for those already built. If this article cannot be kept, it should be merged per WP:CHEAP with history in tact to McDonald's_legal_cases#Discrimination. --Jax 0677 (talk) 18:33, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and Merge - I think WP:TOOSOON applies, given that the lawsuit has not yet resolved... that said, on the other hand, redirects are WP:CHEAP, and this is so short of a stub that merging it into McDonald's_legal_cases#Discrimination will be super easy. If this becomes more important in the future, it can be recreated with the additional details that become available, but we shouldn't have an independant article created until then. Fieari (talk) 06:01, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. At this point, the lawsuit could be dismissed. For now, it's just one of thousands of such suits that are filed every year. It's too soon even for a redirect. MB (talk) 04:13, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:49, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:49, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:49, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:49, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to McDonald's legal cases § Discrimination for the time being, where the information is duplicated at. However, no prejudice against recreation if the content in the redirect target were to be significantly expanded, warranting a split per WP:SPINOFF criteria #2. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:53, 23 June 2016 (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 for serious violations of WP:BLP, including WP:BLP1E and WP:COATRACK. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 10:48, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Paull

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

Definitely fails WP:GNG and looks like failing WP:PERPETRATOR Arthistorian1977 (talk) 11:06, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 11:21, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 11:21, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 11:21, 15 June 2016 (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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 09:54, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Proxy based assertion

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

No indication of notability per WP:GNG. This was a straight paste of an OWASP article by its author, referenced only by the author's own writing on the subject. I can find no other mention of the technique online. I've cleaned it up a bit, but the whole article is WP:Original research, and mostly an unreferenced bulleted list.

OnionRing (talk) 10:25, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. OnionRing (talk) 10:26, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. OnionRing (talk) 10:26, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's because it's the first write-up on the subject. feel free to remove the page if you wish. Ekalman (talk) 10:54, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Please note that once the technique becomes widely used, an article should certainly be written on it. OnionRing (talk) 11:09, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unreferenced, does not meet notability guideline. DeVerm (talk) 21:41, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Does not meet WP:N at all, and the author has stated herein that the concept is essentially WP:MADEUP. This is pretty much confirmed upon viewing the sources used in the article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:27, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I found zero sources. Maybe even speedy delete per WP:G7, though I am not sure the comment above amounts to a "request" of deletion. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 13:24, 23 June 2016 (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 Procedural close. Article already speedy-deleted. (non-admin closure) GAB^gab 14:39, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ISF World Schools Championship

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

Double information. All content in this page is added in the original page International School Sport Federation Ngocle.isf (talk) 09:07, 15 June 2016 (UTC) Creating deletion discussion for ISF World Schools Championship[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. Bishonen | talk 22:39, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chel Hill

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

Non-notable musician. No signs of any significant coverage for this person. Hill has been a background vocalist on charting songs, and is credited as one of several writers of one track of a charting album, but has not been the focus of any significant coverage herself. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:29, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 15:31, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 15:31, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 15:31, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I question this person's interest in deleting my article entry. The section regarding Hill's credits on Issues album 'Headspace' has been removed, however, her credits appear on the physical copy of the album when purchased in store. Also, they have completely ignored Hill's voice talent section (which can be verified) in the request to delete profile. As a writer and singer, Hill has accomplished more than most writers will in a career by having credits of any type on more than 1 Billboard #1 charting album. And her contributions have been enough for people to mention and for her to receive the credit in the first place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ProEmcee (talk • contribs) 15:44, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @ProEmcee: As the nominator of this article, my interest in seeing it deleted is that I don't believe Ms Hill meets the criteria for inclusion at Wikipedia. I have no ulterior motive. I don't have any personal grudge against Ms Hill (nor had I ever even heard of her before encountering this article). I have not removed any information from the article. Other editors have, based on Wikipedia's verifiability policy that requires reliable sources. As for Hill's voice-over career, this does not appear to be a source of notability as there does not appear to be significant independent sourcing for this information. Lots of people do voice-over work; very few ever become notable for it. It tends to be one of those thankless jobs that go largely unnoticed. Notable people have performed voice acting work, but they were notable for other things. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:28, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All of your nominations and edits here in Wiki have made you a "notable" enough member of the Wiki community to have an editor badge, but that could be argued as well. However, I do believe people should be recognized for their efforts and am happy for you. You mentioned she is "credited as one of several writers" but do you even know what percentage she contributed?? The other writers could have 1% for all you know, correct? It just seems wrong to argue that it's not "enough" to have credit on 2 #1 albums. I'd imagine then, you've had at least 2 credits on Billboard topping projects and consider this to be an easy task? I am being fair in considering your position, but it does not seem valid when there's proof she contributed to these projects. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ProEmcee (talk • contribs) 16:41, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @ProEmcee: No, I don't know what percent she contributed, because no reliable sources exist to indicate this information. Without reliable sources, we can't have verifiable articles. Find the sources, and then make your argument. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:48, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Song splits on a song are rarely disclosed publicly as that is a legal matter. Splits are discussed and signed off on legally. You should also know what you are commenting on for future reference. Perhaps this is a larger issue that should be brought up to the community? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ProEmcee (talk • contribs) 16:52, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @ProEmcee: If the song splits are not disclosed publicly, that's a shame. But we still need publicly available reliable sources on which to base this article. If no such sources are available, that's a shame, but we can't have the article without the sources. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:05, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@wikidan61 I don't see where there are non-credible or "not reliable" links for sources. Last time I checked, sources such as Billboard, Discogs, etc are pretty reliable. I will also be citing the actual song registration.

Comment @ProEmcee: Please read and understand WP:MUSIC and WP:BIO. The bottom line is that we need evidence that some third party, independent of Ms Hill, has taken the time to write an in-depth article about her. Listings at Discogs and even at Billboard are not sufficient. Those sources are sufficient to verify bits and pieces of the article, but they do not amount to enough significant coverage to indicate that Ms Hill merits inclusion at Wikipedia. Wikipedia has guidelines as to what should be included and what should not, and those guidelines are clearly spelled out at the pages to which I have pointed you. If you can demonstrate that Ms Hill merits inclusion based on the listed criteria, than please do so. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 18:00, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'd still like to bring up to the community the issue of how an interview by an opinionated media outlet trumps actual/factual album credits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ProEmcee (talk • contribs) 01:18, 8 June 2016 (UTC)(ProEmcee (talk) 02:20, 8 June 2016 (UTC))[reply]

Delete At this moment, I was not able to find any reliable independent source covering her. The reliable references in the article like [39],[40] do not even mention her name. The rest of the sources I found are user generated/self published sources which cannot be used for notability. If the subject is notable, there should be at least some coverage in independent and reliable secondary sources. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:34, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jenks24 (talk) 08:34, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've added newly published references to the entry. (ProEmcee (talk) 13:41, 19 June 2016 (UTC))[reply]

@ProEmcee: And yet still none of the references constitutes significant coverage of this artist. All of the references are either about songs on which Hill has had a partial writing credit, or are videos of commercials on which she has done uncredited voiceover work, or similar sketchy references. Bring us any instances where some third party, writing independently, has produced a significant article about Ms Hill, and we might have something. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:59, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@WikiDan61:Sources such as All Music & Discogs do not post "sketchy" credits as there is a verification process. Your choice of wording makes it seem as though you have a personal interest in deleting this page. Per the AllMusic Wiki Page: "AllMusic is also used to provide catalog data, artist biographies, album reviews, related artist information, playlists and other information in the iTunes Music Store, Zune Marketplace, Zune player, eMusic, AOL, Yahoo!, Amazon.com and other music stores. AllMusic is also at the heart of the Naim Extended Music database used by the Naim HDX hard disk player.[4]"(ProEmcee (talk) 16:41, 19 June 2016 (UTC))[reply]
- Note that as per the Reliable Source Notice board, Discogs is not a reliable source[41]. Anyone can made edits, much like IMDB or Wikipedia. The Discogs site says "Discogs is a user-built discography site." [42] Even Wikipedia has checks and balances, but we do not allow it to be used as a source. LaMona (talk) 20:41, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@LaMona: Thank you Lamona, and AllMusic? (I'd assume that counts as a reliable source as it does in the world outside of Wikipedia including the actual music industry.) New to the community and learning. I find it interesting that I'm going through so much to have my entry approved, and yet, according to the information you've just provided above--none of my approved entries will be counted as reliable sources anyways. It's all a bit confusing, but as mentioned, I'm still learning my way around here in Wikipedia and appreciate the information. (ProEmcee (talk) 12:42, 20 June 2016 (UTC))[reply]
- As I understand it, AllMusic is accepted for basic facts like track lists. (There does appear to be some fact-checking) It doesn't, however, support notability because it indeed lists ALL MUSIC, not some selection. LaMona (talk) 12:49, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Following up, there is some ambiguity in the article about what Hill has done, and there is promotional language. For ambiguity, it isn't clear what kind of "working" was done with "She eventually worked on major record label projects for artists ". That just doesn't say much so it is hard to assess notability. You need to stick to facts that can be verified. Since this appears to be your first article, my !vote is to Userfy and take this through Articles for Creation where you have a chance to make the needed edits without facing deletion. LaMona (talk) 12:56, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @ProEmcee: Rather than searching for which music database might be considered a reliable source, you should be looking for instances of significant coverage for this subject. Significant coverage includes an entire article written by a source independent of the subject and not as part of a PR campaign, published in a widely read and professionally edited source such as a national magazine or a national, edited and curated music blog. When such sources exist, we can then rely on the fact-checking mechanisms of those national publications to assure that the facts in the Wikipedia article can be verified. Until such sources exist, we generally deem that the person is not yet ready for a Wikipedia article. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:00, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@LaMona: Thank you for your vote LaMona. It is most definitely my first article and I appreciate your guidance. I will gather the needed information. (ProEmcee (talk) 13:06, 20 June 2016 (UTC))[reply]

Delete - Doesn't meet notability requirement. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 06:19, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there are some charts but there's still nothing else otherwise convincing of solid independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 06:30, 25 June 2016 (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 soft delete Beach Run per low participation herein and no consensus (WP:NPASR) for Beach Walking per low participation herein. The delete !vote later in the discussion appears to only be referring to the initial Beach Run article in the nomination, per use of singular grammar ("its own notability"), rather than plural, which would pertain to both articles. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:46, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Beach Run

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

Also nominated: Beach Walking

Both "Beach Run" and "Beach Walking" seem to be non-notable categories of sport. Almost all references on the web to its "governing body" that I see on Google seem to be spam type links. While there seem to be many references on the web to the concept of running on the beach or 5Ks that are held on beaches, there doesn't seem to be any notability to the concept as its own category of sport. only (talk) 08:33, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The International Life Saving Federation, with its different sports specialties (Beach Run, etc), are recognized by the International Olympic Committee.

http://www.ilsf.org/about/recognition/ioc

Beach Run (International Life Saving Federation)

http://www.ilsf.org/lifesaving-sport/disciplines/beach-run

http://www.ilsf.org/lifesaving-sport/disciplines

--Beach run do (talk) 10:24, 16 June 2016 (UTC) — Beach run do (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

As I said on the Simple English Wikipedia RFD, that provides notability for the organization, but not for the sport. The sports of the ILSF that seem to be the sports they're recognized for are their life saving sports, not their beach running. only (talk) 13:19, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ansh 666 17:42, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 18:27, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:25, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as my own searches are still not finding anything confidently convincing of improving for its own notability. SwisterTwister talk 19:34, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This has been a quiet debate so far. The only arguments to keep have come from a one-subject editor heavily invested in the subject, however there has also been too little on the other side for me to reasonably close this as a delete for either article. More contributions would be appreciated. KaisaL (talk) 15:50, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KaisaL (talk) 15:50, 2 July 2016 (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. Agreement that the subject is not eligible for an article in the encyclopedia. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:14, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Panyam Vuppu Bheemasena Rao

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

Delete. Person not notable, fails GNG. None of the references even mention his name once. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 15:25, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 15:35, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 15:35, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - He seems to have been involved in some kind of legal case once. Other than that, I was unable to find anything substantial on him. GAB^gab 00:15, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jenks24 (talk) 08:33, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. no notability established. Mb66w (talk) 04:26, 20 June 2016 (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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 09:54, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ergo: An Open Access Journal of Philosophy

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

Fails WP:NJOURNAL - a recently started academic journal with ~~FOUR articles in a single issue~~ three issues to-date. Undoubtedly WP:TOOSOON. — kashmiri ^TALK 16:26, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable new journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. --Randykitty (talk) 17:50, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's not four articles: this new journal, launched in 2014, so far has three volumes (one per year) and a total of 45 articles, not 4 (see full list of volumes and issues at http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/t/text/idx/e/ergo/12405314.*). The journal is published by Michigan Publishing, and its editorial board consists of a large number of professional philosophers in reputable departments (accessible at http://www.ergophiljournal.org/editors.html). It is arguably much, much more selective than a number of other philosophy journals (see its acceptance statistics at https://www.ergosubmissions.org/statistics/). (fwiw, I'm not associated with the journal). This journal was listed as one of the top 20 philosophy journals in this philosophy blog (widely read in the profession): http://leiterreports.typepad.com/blog/2015/09/the-top-20-general-philosophy-journals-2015.html (Ycomt (talk) 18:22, 7 June 2016 (UTC))[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:58, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:58, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Unfortunately, none of this goes towards meeting NJournals or GNG. The "widely read" blog has 17 followers and Ergo is listed 19th in this online poll of unclear significance. The publisher establishes that this is not a fake predatory journal, but does not convey notability (WP:NOTINHERITED). The same goes for the editorial board. If the journal is "much, much more selective" than other similar journals, it will likely get indexed in selective databases somewhere in the future and at that point it will become notable. However, it is not up to us to anticipate this event. --Randykitty (talk) 07:55, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that you want to wait for indexing in selective databases. But that doesn't mean that the journal itself isn't selective: the link I've given shows that its acceptance rate is typical of highly selective journals in that discipline. The blog is read by more than 17 people (where did you get that?), otherwise I don't think that it would be mentioned in Brian Leiter's page or in the NYT (for instance, http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/14/us/14beliefs.html). I agree that the poll isn't very significant, but the fact that the journal is listed among the top 20 journals should be an indication of its notability since there are many more than 20 philosophy journals. But again, I understand that you want to wait for some other indexing. (Ycomt (talk) 14:08, 8 June 2016 (UTC))[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jenks24 (talk) 08:32, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here are a few additional references to consider. This journal is indexed on the DOAJ [43]. It is also recommended by the American Philosophical Association [44]. More anecdotally, it is also recommended by the editorial board of Hypatia: A Journal of Feminist Philosophy [45]. (Ycomt (talk) 00:11, 16 June 2016 (UTC))[reply]

Unfortunately, none of that contributes to notability. DOAJ is not selective in the sense of NJournals (it includes any OA journal, except the most blatant predatory ones). Being included in a list of links is hardly a full-blown recommendation by the APA. The Hypatia list in which Ergo is included is explicitly said to be based on "One respondent to our survey", their editorial board is not mentioned... --Randykitty (talk) 08:09, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete but with no prejudice against it coming back in the future. The reality of academic work is that it takes time for persons, organizations and journals to build a solid reputation. This may have speeded up in recent years with online publishing, but the slow conversation of academia is still pretty slow. If there is as yet no evidence that it is considered a major journal in its field, then it needs to wait for a WP article. Since WP is not a venue for promotion, waiting should have no effect on the journal itself. LaMona (talk) 20:46, 19 June 2016 (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 Didius Julianus. The article is arguably unsourced so there's nothing to merge, but the arguments in favour of having her covered do have merit because she does have some coverage in reliable sources. The page history will still be accessible if anyone wants to try and merge some content across, but it would be advisable to double check it first. Jenks24 (talk) 08:52, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Aemilia Clara

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

A non-notable Roman. Her only claim is being the granddaughter of Marcus Salvius Julianus, whose bio takes up most of the article. If an article existed or can be created on him, I would suggest merging Aemilia there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chickadee46 (talk • contribs) 18:26, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Chickadee46 (talk) 18:26, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Chickadee46 (talk) 18:26, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Came to this AfD via Africa alerts. Any important content from the page should be ~~merged~~ put on the page of Didus Julianus. She has 1 Jstor hit and 8 Google Scholar hits for Aemilia Clara and all trivial mentions as the mother of Didus Julianus. So, not notable. But certainly worth mentioning her family lineage on her son's page which currently lacks it. (Further, while some Roman Emperor's mothers have pages, it does not appear to mean automatic notability and most do not have information for their mothers). (Edit: I misused the term Merge above. I didn't want a formal merge, but just some content moved over) AbstractIllusions (talk) 09:31, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Noting that article cannot be deleted and merged. It must be one or the other in order to preserve attribution history. Jenks24 (talk) 08:32, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jenks24 (talk) 08:32, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Didius Julianus. The only information about her consists of her relationships to other persons, some of whom are notable. If we had even some other facts about her, the page might be worth keeping as a separate article, but as is there's nothing else known. P Aculeius (talk) 07:36, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Redirect as there's simply no other actual information aside from this so there's certainly not going to be new information and then there's also the fact she only was best known as the man's granddaughter. SwisterTwister talk 06:59, 25 June 2016 (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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:09, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Top Teen of Canada

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

fails WP:GNG, unsourced (source is dead link), no relevant content The Banner talk 22:50, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Did not meet notability guidelines.--Richie Campbell (talk) 03:31, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jenks24 (talk) 08:30, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Definitely doesn't meet WP:GNG. The one and only citation is a dead link, so there are no sources either. Eventhorizon51 ^(talk) 12:17, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I found one undated reference saying the competition was going to be held "this August" with a $5k prize. It probably never even happened since there was nothing else. Nothing more at Darren Storsley MB (talk) 04:48, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I still haven't found anything to actually suggest solid independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 00:50, 23 June 2016 (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 Birmingham County Football Association. (non-admin closure) Ya sh ! 19:54, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Birmingham Sunday Challenge Cup

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

Non-notable, fails WP:GNG JMHamo (talk) 23:04, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. JMHamo (talk) 23:07, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 14:52, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 14:52, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 14:52, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Birmingham County Football Association; not independently notable but possible search term. Giant Snowman 17:43, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jenks24 (talk) 08:26, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as above -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:04, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Birmingham County Football Association; not independently notable but possible search term. Fenix down (talk) 08:09, 17 June 2016 (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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:08, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Salmarazd

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

The evidence is that the subject is a typo or misunderstanding. Please see case study: Salmarazd. All related meaningful content is already included in Wine_bottle#Sizes. Imaginatorium (talk) 06:57, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to Wine bottle#Sizes. My preference is delete as this is part of a series of pages created by copying information from a poor source which has been shown to contain blunders. There are a couple of Google hits for the term (in addition to the many derivatives of this article) but it's likely the original was a typo and keeping this page suggests the term is legitimate. Johnuniq (talk) 07:46, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Pinging all editors who contributed to the previous mass AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aum_(unit) @Northamerica1000, VQuakr, War wizard90, JohnBlackburne, Hoary, Andrew Davidson, JTdale, Kikichugirl, Purplebackpack89, Dream Focus, Astrocog, Milowent, Reyk, Edwardx, KTo288, Alex rosenberg35, and PianoDan: (I cannot really see a helpful classification for this AfD.) I could have PRODded this, but I wanted a bit more discussion. I have spent considerable time on the case study for this, and I hope this might speed up further removal of references to the unreliable Cardarelli source. Imaginatorium (talk) 07:55, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The term derives from a tabular mention (not an encyclopedia entry or similar) in just one book. This book is not "unreliable" as "unreliable" is normally used hereabouts -- it's not self-serving or biassed. However, it has been shown to get the facts wrong. And not just one or two facts, but a lot of them. (Yes, it's a book that has been praised by "reliable sources" -- but praised for its SI-related contents, which are irrelevant here.) ¶ The term also appears in a second book, and does so in a similar way. This book is published by the same company (Springer) as published the first; imaginably, this allowed copying; but such guesswork aside, the book does seem to concentrate on SI and the preceding decimal systems, so terms for bottle sizes seems peripheral. ¶ If the term really existed and had a non-trivial degree of use, I'd expect to see instances of "drank a salmarazd", "poured a salmarazd", "shared a salmarazd", "celebrated with a salmarazd", or similar; but a search in Google for "a salmarazd" -- and thus after any verb or preposition! -- brings a grand total of zero hits. ¶ No, don't redirect to Wine bottle#Sizes. Doing so would require a mention in the target article, but there's no reason to give additional prominence to what is most likely a transcription error or other mere misunderstanding. ¶ And please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aum (unit) for this source. -- Hoary (talk) 08:58, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Congratulations on finding that occurrence in Jerrard and McNeill. It increasingly looks to me as though the Cardarelli book is a very faithful copy of other wonky work, rather than original error; this after I discovered the Japanese units are a copy of the Washburn reference. I have ordered a first edition of J&McN, so will try to investigate sequence of origin. ¶ I am a bit confused about this "unreliable" bit. I use the word to mean what it normally means, just that you cannot rely on the content being correct (to normal levels of accuracy). I do not even play a Wikilawyer in local musicals, so you can always assume I use words in their normal meaning. (But it's a bit hard not to see the business of recyling inaccurate book content for 100+ Euros a kick as at least slightly self-serving?) Imaginatorium (talk) 08:35, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, "not reliable" tends hereabouts to mean written by the biographee or a chum of the biographee, or written somewhere the moderately informed person wouldn't expect scrupulous editing; "reliable" encompasses that which comes out from respected publishers, regardless of the deservedness of that respect (cough). Rather as the concept of "notability" is skewed hereabouts. -- Hoary (talk) 10:15, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

'Delete As possibly a hoax, or just very NN. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 11:40, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:01, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:01, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- This is the Stupping ton all over again. A nonexistent unit of measurement based on a sloppy mistake in a book full of sloppy mistakes. Reyk _YO! 19:09, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and do not redirect: the only possible content for an article would be "Misleading typo promulgated in notoriously unreliable book". (Is it still in print? Has anyone pointed out to Springer what rubbish they've published, not worthy of their name as a scientific publisher?) I wonder how many editor hours have been wasted tidying up the flood of article creations based on the rubbish in this book. (Speaking as the editor who worked out the "Stupping ton" was a misreading of "Shipping ton") PamD 07:31, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, Springer's website lists 3 in-print titles by this author: Materials Handbook (from £178, 2008, and upcoming 2016 ed); Encyclopaedia of Scientific Units, Weights and Measures (from £124, 2003); Scientific Unit Conversion: A Practical Guide to Metrication (from £59, 1999). PamD 07:38, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per precedent set at other AFDs and the rationales there. There's not enough sources to determine notability, anyway. — kikichugirl ^oh hello! 06:46, 18 June 2016 (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. I am not satisfied that a consensus has formed. There has been several in-depth arguments to keep, but valid points to delete and also a suggestion of a merge mean I am ultimately dissatisfied that it is reasonable to call this either way. The discussion mostly fizzled out in week two, so I see no advantage to an additional relist. KaisaL (talk) 03:12, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Douglas Ousterhout

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

promotional. He did write a textbook and may be notable for that but i tried and failed to remove the promotionalism. A plastic surgeon's description of the operations he does is advertising for him. A newspaper's description of him as eminent is not reliably sourced, because only a scientific source will do for that,so its advertising for him also. Lack of notability is not the only reason for deletion. Borderline notability combined with clear promotionalism is an equally good reason. Small variations to the notability standard either way do not fundamentally harm the encycopedia, but accepting articles that are part of a promotional campaign causes great damage. Once we become a vehicle for promotion, we're useless as an encyclopedia DGG ( talk ) 05:50, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There's nothing promotional at all going on here. The man is retired. But more to the point, that's a complaint about content. Here at AfD, we care only about notability, which can be established either by multiple reliable independent sources discussing the subject in detail or by showing that the subject should be presumed notable based on other criteria. We have both. He invented facial feminization surgery and he wrote the definitive books on the subject, Aesthetic Contouring of the Craniofacial Skeleton and Facial Feminization Surgery: A Guide for the Transgendered Woman, which appears to satisfy WP:CREATIVE. Google scholar reports his scholarly articles have attracted over 1200 citations, which also appears to satisfy WP:ACADEMIC. Finally, we have sources. The SF Chronical article [46] had already been cited but a Google search quickly turned up addition sources, including an Allure article [47] describing what he did in detail. This is an easy keep. Msnicki (talk) 06:32, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Citations depend on the field.Clinical medicine, especially in surgical fields, has a very large number of citations because 1/surgeons report individual cases and 2/in medicine in general, people normally cite everything possible on the subject, not merely everything that is significant. Total number of citations i particularly meaningless: what matters is the distribution. An accepted figure in that field,as suggested in fact by Garfield,who invented the technique, is at least one paper with over 100 citations; there are none of them here. DGG ( talk ) 18:25, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're objecting that his top paper only got 92 citations not 100? Msnicki (talk) 00:57, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:27, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:27, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Msnicki (talk) 14:57, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sources give only passing mention. None of the sources is about Ousterhout at all; they just include a quote or two from him. He appears only to have edited books (which does not meet ACADEMIC) rather than author them (which does meet ACADEMIC). Number of citations is not in ACADEMIC at all.Frumiousbandersnatch2 (talk) 18:16, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Passing mention? The SF Chronicle article is almost 1800 words and devotes paragraph after paragraph exclusively to him and what he does. The only paragraphs that aren't about him and what he does are there to give context, e.g., some brief sketches of a few of his patients and how he's changed their lives. At most AfDs, a brief mention is a sentence or two, not an 1800 word article in the Chron devoted to the subject.

Re: citations in WP:SCHOLAR, sure it's there: Wikipedia:Notability (academics)#Citation metrics. It just doesn't give a number. It leaves it up to us to consider. Msnicki (talk) 00:57, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As per nom. — James Cantor (talk) 13:18, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:PERNOM. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:18, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. User:Msnicki, you are perfectly entitled to disagree with me (and any or everyone) in this or any issue. It is perfectly inappropriate, however, for you to retaliate by POV-editing the wiki page about me. I have indicated this at AN/I here, and on your talk page here. — James Cantor (talk) 18:25, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm genuinely surprised by this reaction. Response here. I was trying to be nice. Msnicki (talk) 20:08, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete another article on a non-notable surgeon.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:25, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:JUSTNOTNOTABLE. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:19, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notable surgeon per Msnicki. PaleAqua (talk) 20:00, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I have just added two book sources.[48] One is by a Pulitzer Prize winner who devotes a whole chapter to describing what Ousterhout has done to a patient named Mel. The other is by an assistant professor of sociology reflecting on what Ousterhout promises his patients, published by the New York University Press.

When we have such solid sources supporting notability, the WP:ATA !votes to delete seem surprising. Are these other individuals actually examining the sources in an WP:NPOV fashion or are they working an agenda? Msnicki (talk) 21:42, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. As with the previous sources, both of these again provide only passing mentioning; neither provides in depth coverage. Indeed, the sources are not actually about Ousterhout at all, they are about facial feminization (when discussing their transitions, some patients name their surgeons). The gratitude is understandable, but it does not demonstrate notability for WP's purposes:

In the one by the Pulitzer Prize winner, the author was trying to understand her father's transition to female (i.e., the author was not an expert in trans issues). The book is searchable on Amazon, and searching for "Ousterhout" revealed three hits, all on the same page. It quotes a former patient, Mel, who says:

“'I wouldn’t have done the surgery if I couldn’t have the face,' Mel said. 'I could never be a clown. If I’m going to be seen in women’s clothes, I’m going to be genuine. I had one of the best facial surgeons in the country, Dr. Douglas Ousterhout'." (I'm not a fan of someone saying that trans folks who can't afford facial surgery are "clowns," but that's neither here nor there regarding notability.)
Then: “I’d look up Ousterhout on the Internet and find before-and-after photographs of his patients, YouTube promotional videos, and patient testimonials to his magic touch.”
And finally, the passage cites a blog by another former patient, Diane, who wrote, “Dr. Ousterhout will try to improve your appearance so that you feel that you fit back into society as the person you want to see in the mirror.”

Happy patients are all well and good, but neither customer testimonials, nor their blogs, nor mentions of those blogs by non-experts establish notability.

In the other book, Saving Face: Disfigurement and the Politics of Appearance, I again searched on “Ousterhout” which found 10 mentions. Of those, 6 were in a footnote or a citation in the reference list. (Again, citations are fine, but do not establish notability.) The remaining 4 hits were:

A quote from a former patient’s blog, which says, “Many thanks to Douglas Ousterhout [FFS surgeon] for understanding and caring…” (p. 83). All well and good, but, again, patient testimonials do not indicate notability.
“In a pamphlet distributed by FFS surgeon Douglas K. Ousterhout…techniques of facial feminization are described in detail” (p. 88). Fine to cite Ousterhout’s pamphlet for the information about FFS, but the bar for PROF is higher than that.
“Ousterhout asserts that…skulls of men and women differ in both shape and size” (p. 89). Again, fine to use Ousterhout as a source of the statement, but it does not establish notability on Ousterhout’s part.
“Ousterhout suggests a sliding genioplasty” (p. 90). Ditto.

Whether user:Msnicki is conveying the content of these sources faithfully or with excessive spin-doctoring is better left up to other readers.

— James Cantor (talk) 12:48, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If it takes this much space to summarize these two "passing mentions", they clearly were not passing mentions. Anyone is free to examine the four sources I rely on, SF Chronicle (1800 words), Allure, In the Darkroom and Saving Face, to verify these are sources discussing the subject and what he does at length. None is offered in support of WP:SCHOLAR (support for that is found in the citations for his scholarly work) nor as support for any medical claims. They are offered as evidence that multiple reliable independent secondary sources have written about him in detail, which is all it takes to establish notability at AfD. Everything else is a content question to be taken to the article talk page. Msnicki (talk) 14:42, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't summarize anything. I provided the mentions in their entirety, so that readers could assess your claim that an RS "devotes a whole chapter to describing what Ousterhout has done." I also recommend folks read the sources for themselves and decide whether testimonials on blogs from satisfied clients counts as detailed coverage. — James Cantor (talk) 15:59, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please identify which of the four sources I rely on you think are blogs. Msnicki (talk) 16:04, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say your sources were blogs; I pointed out that the sources you added were themselves merely reiterating client testimonials on blogs. — James Cantor (talk) 16:12, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that these clearly WP:RS have decided to report and discuss material they found on blogs (however unreliable that material may be) does not make these sources unreliable. It makes them WP:SECONDARY. They are both reliable sources. One author is a Pulitzer Prize winner and the the other is an associate professor in sociology. Both publishers are similarly reliable. Moreover, they do not just "reiterat[e] client testimonials", they offer their own reporting and thoughts, which is the essence of a good secondary source. Not every sentence has to have Ousterhout's name in it to count. Msnicki (talk) 16:45, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I've added[49] two news sources, NBC and SFGATE about his residence in the famous Mrs. Doubtfire home. Msnicki (talk) 15:40, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think one can find a better illustration of scraping the bottom of the notability barrel. Living in a house that appeared in a movie does not a notable person make. Indeed, there is little (if any) evidence that the house itself is notable, nevermind its current owner. — James Cantor (talk) 15:59, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It could be worse. At least it's not an ambiguous quote in a tabloid story, remarking that self-identified shemales "change their stories".[50] Msnicki (talk) 16:28, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as promotional. Surprised it has survived this long. Coretheapple (talk) 23:24, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Even if true, that's a complaint about content, to be dealt with on the talk page. At AfD, we care only about notability as defined by WP:GNG, which asks that there be multiple reliable independent secondary sources discussing the subject. Those sources exist. Msnicki (talk) 23:52, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Promotional articles are deleted all the time. However, one way of dealing with it is to merge Facial feminization surgery, as suggested by the editor below. Coretheapple (talk) 03:29, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

merge and redirect to Facial feminization surgery His claim to fame is having pioneered that surgery but we really don't have enough on him for an article outside of that achievement. The target article is pretty bad; I am working on fixing that and will mention him there as a pioneer; that fact is very well sourced. Jytdog (talk) 00:16, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's a possibility. Hey, what a coinky-dink to see you here. Coretheapple (talk) 03:26, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jytdog, you've done a lot of really, really good work on both the FFS and Ousterhout articles. I argued that we concern ourselves here at AfD with notability, not content, and obviously believed the sources were there to satisfy WP:GNG. But others have argued that it was promotional and you argued there wasn't really enough to report.

Since then, you've completely rewritten the article. You've turned the Ousterhout article into a pretty good article about him and how he invented FFS. I think your changes should satisfy arguments it was promotional and perhaps your argument as well that there just isn't enough to report.

Would you now be willing to reconsider your own !vote and change to keep? Msnicki (talk) 17:31, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! The content I added here was just copied from content I generated at the FFS article and it works fine there; there is no need for a separate article on him. Jytdog (talk) 17:54, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Guthmann, Edward (2006-04-26). "Facing facts". San Francisco Chronicle. Archived from the original on 2016-06-26. Retrieved 2016-06-26.
  The article notes:
  
  Ousterhout, who practices at the California Pacific Medical Center's Davies campus on Castro Street, is widely considered the country's foremost facial feminization surgeon. This is because of the cranial and maxillofacial techniques he developed to change the shape of the skull. Unlike most plastic surgeons with their standard menu of tummy tucks, eyelid lifts and rhinoplasties, Ousterhout, 70, brings skills he acquired at the Center for Craniofacial Anomalies at the UCSF Medical Center, where for 25 years he was head surgeon and worked on children born with severe skull deformities. In 1998, when HMOs reduced reimbursements for skull surgery ("I wasn't going to be able to afford my practice"), he switched to female feminization surgery full time.
  ...
  For $22,000 to $40,000 -- roughly twice the cost of sexual reassignment surgery -- Ousterhout's patients undergo as much as 10 1/2 hours of surgery. They remain in the hospital two days after surgery, then transfer to the Cocoon House, a bed-and-breakfast facility run by two nurses in Noe Valley, for eight days of convalescence.
  Eighty-five to 90 percent of Ousterhout's patients are transgender. Ninety-five percent come from outside the Bay Area. "I have one patient who wants the surgery so badly," he says. "She's in a coal-mining town somewhere in Kentucky and she says, 'I don't dare dress as a female where anybody can see me. Literally, I'll be killed.' And she's probably right."
2. Kron, Joan (2015-06-12). "A Look at Caitlyn Jenner's Facial Feminization Surgery". Allure. Archived from the original on 2016-06-26. Retrieved 2016-06-26.
  The article notes:
  
  Facial feminization is an aggressive remodeling of every aspect of the facial skeleton. A mere face-lift won’t do it—saws are involved, along with burrs to whittle down bones. A typical operation can last up to 12 hours. But for the patients, it’s worth the risks, the pain, and the high five-figure price. “As a transgendered individual, perhaps nothing is more vital to you than having a body that matches how you feel,” wrote Douglas K. Ousterhout in his 2009 book, Facial Feminization Surgery: A Guide for the Transgendered Woman (Addicus Books).
  Semiretired now, Ousterhout is the San Francisco plastic- and cranio-facial surgeon who pioneered the specialty in 1982, after his first transgender patient asked for help. “Dr. O. has done more than 2,000 of these surgeries,” says his associate and handpicked successor, Jordan Deschamps-Braly, who did not do Jenner’s surgery.
  ...
  In the 1980s, facial feminization was uncharted territory. To plan his first operation, Ousterhout, who had devoted 25 years to pediatric birth defects, first studied the 1,500 human crania in the Atkinson Skull Collection at the University of Pacific School of Dentistry, comparing male and female bone structure. His work eventually became the basis of a whole new surgical specialty. We don't know exactly what procedures Jenner underwent, but the following is Ousterhout and Deschamps-Braly’s menu of the most important feminization procedures—and a tiny snapshot of what’s involved. (Warning: What follows is not for the squeamish.)
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Douglas Ousterhout to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 02:04, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources identified by Cunard. SJK (talk) 07:35, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 10:51, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per focused, non-incidental coverage in reliable, bylined, secondary sources. The article is somewhat poorly written, and could use more encyclopedic style, but AfD is not cleanup. I find arguments that reliable secondary sources are not allowed to themselves use what we consider to be unreliable sources as their own sources to be unfounded, and against WP policy. Reliable secondary sources are perfectly allowed to go to primary sources for their information, and in fact SHOULD do so. Reliable secondary sources are perfectly allowed to evaluate and selectively integrate from sources non-independent to the subject, and in fact, should do so. Multiple reliable bylined secondary sources are all that is required to establish notability, and we have that. We not only have WP:BASIC, but WP:GNG, and WP:SCHOLAR as well. I must !vote keep. Fieari (talk) 07:12, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per !votes by Fieari and Cunard. Ceosad (talk) 19:22, 27 June 2016 (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. MBisanz ^talk 21:44, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Knowles(Actor)

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

I almost speedied this as G4, however the article does have a few more roles that weren't there previously and there is an article that wasn't existent at the January 2015 AfD. It's enough to where this might potentially knock it out of G4 contention. If anyone wants to just speedy it I won't mind, but I figure this would ensure that it couldn't be overturned at DRV.

However that said, there's not really anything to otherwise suggest that Knowles would now pass notability guidelines. Especially curious is the claim that he hosted the 2015 Oscars in China, given that the Oscars have always been held in the United States and always in Hollywood. China has the Golden Rooster Awards and Hundred Flowers Awards, but they're unrelated to the Oscars and if he did host them there would likely be some sort of record somewhere and you'd think that the news article I listed above would have it mentioned somewhere. Hosting a major ceremony of that nature would be a pretty big deal and would get a mention somewhere. That leads me to believe that the Oscar claim is pretty much a hoax. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:44, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

About hosting the 2015 Oscars in China, he hosted the live oscar broadcast from hollywood to China for Youku. Here is a link to part of the broadcast: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p-0OuJHieDQ

This is the interview with Mingna, Agent May from Marvel Agents of SHIELD. Godwinme (talk) 21:02, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If that's the case then that's a huge, huge difference from how the article was phrased, as it gave off the impression that he was an official host. The difference between being an official host and covering the show for a website or channel is like the difference between playing football for a small local team and playing for Manchester United. However even though that's been cleared up, the problem of coverage still exists. Hosting a show in and of itself would not give Knowles notability, although it does make it more likely that someone will be covered in independent and reliable sources. Since he's pretty much a complete unknown in the English speaking world it's most likely that any coverage would be in Chinese, given the way the article is phrased. You can use foreign language coverage to establish notability, as long as it's in a place Wikipedia would consider independent and reliable and so long as it can be verified. Now something else to take into consideration is that being the first to do something doesn't automatically give notability either, as being first is only notable if various RS have written about it. In other words, Knowles being the first Caucasian to attend the BFA only holds water on Wikipedia if people are writing about it. Now if these sources can be found the article will still need to be re-written since you've inserted a lot of extremely promotional prose. Words like "prestigious" are typically used by people looking to promote the topic and are seen as WP:PEACOCK WP:BUZZWORDS. There are a ton of issues with the article, but one of the first things you need to do is search for and provide foreign language coverage. If this doesn't exist then he won't pass NACTOR on this round either, not unless you can establish notability for the shows and films he's been in (ie, write articles for those productions that establish notability) and show that his roles in them have been major. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:45, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I have encountered this article before and there's still consensus for deletion regarding the current questionability and there certainly is nothing else better to suggest it's acceptable now. SwisterTwister talk 00:46, 23 June 2016 (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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 09:51, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

$uicideboy$

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

I came across this as an WP:A7, but on the talk page the article's creator claims that they've collaborated with Bones. Bones's article offhand has issues with sourcing (an over reliance on social media and non-RS like Vice), but his article isn't the one up for discussion and this is enough to give at least a slight assertion of notability.

A search for sourcing brings up little to nothing that would establish notability. There are a few mentions here and there, typically in routine notifications of performances. There are some places like Vice that give some coverage, but not in a place that would be both in-depth and reliable. (The problem with Vice is that they engage in gonzo journalism and have frequently been deemed non-reliable at WP:RS/N.) They've occasionally featured on other people's mixtapes but none of this has translated into in-depth coverage for the group. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:25, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. RA0808 ^talk _contribs 19:33, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, for now. The band is certainly bubbling under in terms of mentions-in-passing, but I can't see any sign that this article meets the WP:MUSIC notability standard yet. Once they've had more success, the article can then be re-proposed for creation. -- The Anome (talk) 17:44, 19 June 2016 (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. Default to keep. WP:NPASR. (non-admin closure) ansh 666 02:49, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Calling (sculpture)

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

Public sculpture that isn't notable. The only reference on this article is a dead end (the government department that it references has changed its name and I can't find the page). I can't find anything else to do with the sculpture, no significant coverage online and can't find anything to prove its notability. I've only found one single image of it, but that's it. Fails WP:GNG. st170e^talk 02:03, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. st170e^talk 02:03, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. st170e^talk 02:03, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:24, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It's become a somewhat iconic sculpture for Belfast. Google "The Belfast Art Guide". It might be better to have an article for Paddy McCann, see his CV. His work is owned by the Arts Councils of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, but doesn't seem to be in major museum collections. StarryGrandma (talk) 21:04, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I added a couple of decent references from periodicals. There is not a lot of reporting on the piece, but as StarryGrandma says, this is the kind of thing that unfailingly enters the public consciousness, as it is permanently installed. Just the creation of a permanent work, in public, could be considered to satisfy WP:ARTIST, in that the artist has created a major permanent public work. I'll bet 1 of every 100 local residents could tell you the name of the artist-- and that 99/100 could tell you where the sculpture is. HappyValleyEditor (talk) 21:54, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@HappyValleyEditor: A public work does not simply make it notable, it ought to have coverage to justify an article on its own. The article just gives a description of what it actually is. I agree with StarryGrandma; the author ought to have his own article with a mention to this sculpture. --st170e^talk 16:09, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:26, 23 June 2016 (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. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 10:53, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Valley Report

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

New article created by SPA. I have attempted to work with creator by advising him on what reliable sourcing is. Article is about a little-known satire/faux news website created by a little-known comedian that has once or twice created a WP:SENSATION when an individual gag is mentioned in the Daily Mail or on Buzzfeed. Delete as WP:PROMO E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:07, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nominating both comedian and his website. Dave Weasel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:28, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:52, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, I have listed several sources and examples of the hoax stories being reported as real news, just like the dozens of other satire sites with Wikipedia pages. It is not one of the "lesser known" satire websites, that is the opinion of the person nominating this for deletion. Use any buzz finder program or website and you can see its significantly more shared and viewed than most other satire websites on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yeahimadethis (talk • contribs) 18:52, 30 May 2016 (UTC) — Yeahimadethis (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. is a new editor and article creator.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:59, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Seems notable and sufficiently documented with 10 inline citations.--DThomsen8 (talk) 19:35, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can you be specific about which sources you regard as significant, reliable and independent as per WP:GNG, because aside from a debunking by Snopes of a viral Valley Report [51] , and one story in the Daily Mail [52], the citations consist of a handful of Facebook reposts of Valley Report faux news stories, most since removed by teh people who reposted them, believing that they were actual "news."E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:39, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter how many "inline citations" there are when almost all of them are Facebook posts, which do not count as reliable sources under any circumstance.

Keep - There are four instances of Snopes debunking the articles as fake, far more than most entries on wikipedia. I am a new contributor but I don't see how that should discredit me completely. There are also dozens of radio stations reporting it as real, should I go find all of them and source all of them instead of just a few? The article was created 8 months ago and since then only one user has come along to discredit me, the article and the page of the founder, using personal opinions of how popular the website is instead of using facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yeahimadethis (talk • contribs) 19:04, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

— Yeahimadethis (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. and is article creator.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:14, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The internet is littered with thousands of would-be-Onions. Oh did you miss the one about how Shailene Woodley Forages For Boyfriend, Finds Pauly Shore? Has this one crossed the line? Even if not, it would be nice if there was some place to write that its super duper fake.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 20:07, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Pretty much the only sources are the small handful of Snopes posts, which discredit a few of the individual hoaxes but do not really say anything meaningful about the website itself, and a single article on The Daily Mail that pretty much talks about the one, single fake news story and fake news in general, rather than about the website. All of the other "sources" cited on the page are Facebook posts, which are unquestioningly not counted as reliable sources. And, looking around, I can not find any other places that could be used to actually give some real reliable sources to the article. Looking at the related AFD going on right now, on the comedian who runs the site, it seems like there could be more of an argument made there for him potentially being notable. But even if the consensus over there results in him being declared notable, notability is not inherited and would have no bearing on whether or not the website he runs is or not. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 17:04, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both instead as I have simply found nothing better to suggest a better notable article compared to the facts this is newly started and there's nothing particularly better convincing at all. SwisterTwister talk 07:29, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 01:48, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:23, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Silverman, Craig (2016-05-06). "A Comedian Is Getting Tons Of Facebook Shares For His Fake News Articles". BuzzFeed. Archived from the original on 2016-06-16. Retrieved 2016-06-16.
  The article notes:
  
  The story is from the The Valley Report, a website that mostly publishes satirical articles. It occasionally puts out a fake news stories like this one in order to drive traffic and revenue, according to its owner, a comedian who goes by the name Dave Weasel.
  Weasel, a Canadian living in Los Angeles, said the story is one of the site’s biggest hits since it launched in August. His initial plan for Valley News was to publish satirical articles that offer an element of social commentary. But then he tried his first hoax and it instantly went viral on Facebook.
  His first hit was a fake news story about a woman who stabbed her boyfriend in the face because he took longer than 10 minutes to like her selfie. “That one just took off, getting hits and shares from all over the place,” Weasel said.
  As noted at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 188#Buzzfeed, Mother Jones for BLP's., "One of the challenges with sources like Buzzfeed is the wild inconsistency in article quality, so it really depends on the specific circumstances. If written by one of their real journalists as a legitimate news item, then it should be fine to treat it as a reliable source." And as another editor wrote, "BuzzFeed articles are, as [the previous editor] says, situationally reliable depending on who they were authored by."
  This article was by Craig Silverman, BuzzFeed Founding Editor, Canada. Silverman is an established journalist. At https://ca.linkedin.com/in/craigjsilverman, he noted that he was an adjunct faculty at the Poynter Institute, was a managing editor at PBS MediaShift, and was a columnist at the Columbia Journalism Review, The Globe and Mail, and the Toronto Star. http://www.poynter.org/author/craigsilverman/ lists his Poynter Institute articles and this article from Poynter and this article from The Globe and Mail verify his background.
  Since this article was written by a reputable, established journalist, it is reliable and can be used to establish notability for The Valley Report.
2. Gamp, Joseph (2016-05-07). "Viral lottery winner 'defecating on boss's desk' news story revealed as fake". International Business Times. Archived from the original on 2016-06-16. Retrieved 2016-06-16.
  The article notes:
  
  A recent news story that became a viral smash, detailing how a woman defecated on her boss' desk after winning the lottery and amassed tens of thousands of views in the process, has since been revealed as a fake by the story's author. Dave Weasel – who runs The Valley Report, a spoof news site like The Onion and The Daily Mash –admitted to BuzzFeed that the story had been fabricated, but was also one of the best stories to have been published on the site.
  ...
  The piece, headlined Woman arrested for defecating on boss' des after winning the lottery' was the site's most popular article in the site's nine-month history. Reportedly, Valley News earns Weasel "thousands of dollars per month from ads".
  ...
  Weasel, who is based in Los Angeles, stated that he thought the majority of people that read the article believed it to be true on first read. But he claimed that, "Most of the people that share it do not read it."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow The Valley Report to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 06:03, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – The AfD discussion for the Dave Weasel article was closed with a keep result. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:43, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is nothing which indicates that the website is independently notable of its creator. I also noticed that information about the website is already present at Dave Weasel. Delete this article or redirect to Dave Weasel. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 15:07, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Ibtimes links mentions the website briefly. The Buzzfeed is so so - considering the fact that it is easy to "get into" buzzfeed, it should usually not be used for purposes of notability. In any case, these are not enough. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 15:12, 25 June 2016 (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. MBisanz ^talk 21:44, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

8-bit (band)

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

Article makes no claim to notability. JDDJS (talk) 03:24, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article is too short. 2602:306:3357:BA0:8EC:C96E:3A67:4DCD (talk) 03:49, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - 2602:306:3357:BA0:8EC:C96E:3A67:4DCD, the current length of an article is not, has never been, and never will be a deletion criterion. I do note that the article does make one claim to notability, that being an article in Hightimes magazine, which I believe is a reliable source, though I'm not certain. The network I'm currently editing from has hightimes.com blocked, so I can't review the reference. Could someone take a peek for me, please? Thanks. Fieari (talk) 06:10, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See also: WP:TOOSHORT. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:01, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:41, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:41, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per hightimes magazine source that will likely be added soon. notability.BabbaQ (talk) 17:57, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 01:40, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:22, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment-I don't know that one single good source necessarily meets Wikipedia's standards for notability found in WP:Music, and don't know if that article alone would constitute notability either. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Makk3232 (talk • contribs) 03:51, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete instead as the Keep vote is suggesting solidity from only 1 listed source, but not actually insinuating how any other better improvements can actually be made. I myself have found nothing else better. SwisterTwister talk 00:41, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not enough reliable sources to satisfy WP:GNG. Tom29739 ^[talk] 00:53, 23 June 2016 (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. Some reasonable sources provided during the debate, sufficient to bring this over the line. Euryalus (talk) 12:24, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Howard Bellin

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

Non notable plastic surgeon. His book is in only 113 libraries; his second seems to be self-published. For a plastic surgeon to be featured on a few TV programs means he has a good PR agent and nothing more. He does seem to know a number of notable people, but that doesn't count much here. DGG ( talk ) 21:06, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Howard Bellin actually has been one of New York's best known plastic surgeons going back to the 1960s, although some of this notoriety related to his colorful role in New York society and his tempestuous open marriages to model Christina Paolozzi Bellin, who was noted among other things for being the first model to pose nude in Harper's Bazaar.[53][54][55] A 1993 Washington Post article sums up nicely: Bellin "was for a long time one of the city's major jet-setters, married to a wealthy countess with whom he had a well-publicized open marriage that lasted 18 years before their first divorce. Then she developed a brain tumor and they remarried, and divorced again when she seemed to be recovering. She died in 1988. He was also once famous for having been sued successfully by a woman who claimed he misaligned her belly button during tummy tuck surgery. She was awarded $854,219, later reduced to $200,000, but he said in newspaper stories at the time that his business had boomed as a result of all the publicity. But that was a long time ago. Now Bellin, 52, is repairing ripped earlobes, although he says 'rhinoplasty and breast implantation is what I do best.'" [56][57] The usual searches reveal multiple sources that say as much. --Arxiloxos (talk) 23:10, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:42, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:42, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:57, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:57, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:57, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I also found only a few pieces of coverage, nothing beyond convincing at all. SwisterTwister talk 06:03, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 01:31, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:22, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The subject passes WP:BASIC per a review of available sources from the 1970s and also in contemporary times. Source examples are listed below. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:57, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

[58]
[59]
[60]
[61]
[62]
[63]
[64]
[65]
[66]
[67]
[68] (subscription required)
[69] (subscription required)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 21:44, 25 June 2016 (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. Euryalus (talk) 12:21, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

CubicWeb

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

Minimal evidence of notability for this web application framework. The papers and conference talks relating to CubicWeb all seem to have been created or co-created by employees of Logilab, the makers of CubicWeb. As far as notable third-party mentions of CubicWeb, all I could find was this 2011 InfoWorld article, which is not currently included in the Wikipedia article. It does provide some evidence of notability, but I don't think it's enough. Yaron K. (talk) 17:36, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:40, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:40, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:40, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and searches have found nothing better at all, article shows no convincing signs. SwisterTwister talk 06:14, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 01:28, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:21, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Meets WP:GNG. Some source examples are listed below. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:19, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

[70]
[71]
[72] (subscription required)
[73]
[74]
[75] (seems to be reasonably reliable)
[76] (seems to be reasonably reliable)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 21:43, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Per G7. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 10:55, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Slověne (journal)

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

Fails all the three criteria of WP:NJOURNAL. — kashmiri ^TALK 15:39, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I was on the verge of PRODding this, but Kashmiri beat me to it. No independent sources. Not included in any selective databases. The article originally claimed that the journal is indexed in Scopus (as does the journal's own homepage), but that failed verification (not in the journal list linked here). Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NJournals. --Randykitty (talk) 15:52, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Are ESCI (Web of Science, Core Collection), MLA International Bibliography, and Linguistic Bibliography not selective database?Grisha fomenko (talk) 17:43, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The fact is that Scopus indexes its content very slowly. This journal has been accepted for indexing in Scopus only in March, 2016. Of course there is no entries about it here. But you can translate from Russian this one: it's only independent sources for the Scopus acceptace yet. So, are we waiting for a trusty infromation from here -- or delete soon?Grisha fomenko (talk) 17:43, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So, you can read about this journal from its website and make your own impression about it. The institution, which publishes it, is rather authoritative, it isn't a predatory journal anyway. Hey, real specialists in Slavic studies, please say something about this journal! Grisha fomenko (talk) 17:43, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Grisha fomenko, agreed it is a real journal, it perhaps is not predatory - but encyclopaedic notability is not related to being "predatory" (it is perfectly possible for a predatory journal to be notable!). At WP:NJOURNAL, you can read the minimum requirements for a journal to be included in Wikipedia. As a general guideline, journals that are only a few years old are not considered established enough to be notable in their field, as it usually takes many years or decades to gain worldwide respect and name. Hope this helps. — kashmiri ^TALK 19:41, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi kashmiri, the Slavic studies in Russia (more precisely, in the Soviet Union) were destroyed in 1930s-40s by the totalitarian regime, therefore the age of corresponding journals doesn't matter. Our scholarship lived in underground for a long time, and now we are happy to be visible for English speakers indeed.Grisha fomenko (talk) 20:06, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Grisha, there is nothing wrong with non-English speaking countries not having many notable English-language journals. I am sure ru-wiki has many notable Russian-language journals, also in Slavic studies. En-wiki does not list "the best English journals available" for each country in each academic field - but only those titles which are likely to be encountered by a casual English-speaking reader. Regards, — kashmiri ^TALK

Dear kashmiri, I understand. But this journal is multi-lingual, and it does issue papers in English too, saying nothing of the full English abstract for each paper.Grisha fomenko (talk) 20:38, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are tens of thousands of English-language journals in the world. Wikipedia has to be selective. — kashmiri ^TALK 21:48, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, Princeton University Library, Bodleian Library, and Research Libraries UK subscribe to the journal, therefore Wikipedia may ignore it. See also the personal webpage of a prominent specialist in Slavic studies from Leiden University who isn't ashamed to show his membership in the editorial board of this journal. I continue to insist that this periodical is important in the field of Slavic studies despite its youth.Grisha fomenko (talk) 02:38, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:02, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:02, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:02, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:02, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Nobody says that this is not a respectable journal. Unfortunately, as Kashmiri already pointed out above, being respectable (or not) is not enough to be included in WP. This article is just too soon, with a little more patience it will eventually meet our inclusion criteria. Just not yet. --Randykitty (talk) 06:10, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Randykitty, ok, you're right.Grisha fomenko (talk) 06:18, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 01:27, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Since this is an official periodical of the Russian Academy of Sciences[77], I cannot see why this wouldn't be a valid entry. Google Scholar shows quite a number of references, [78] which means that IMO criterion 2 has been met. —IJzeren Jan _Uszkiełtu? 17:37, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect. Google Scholar shows barely 8 (eight) references if you remove results from the journal itself - those from slovene.ru and cyberleninka.ru [79]. Eight refs for an academic journal is somewhat little for a Wikipedia article. — kashmiri ^TALK 05:18, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And being published by the Russian Academy of Sciences does not confer notability. And Kashmiri is rather generous saying that "Eight refs for an academic journal is somewhat little for a Wikipedia article." If this were a single researcher with 8 citations, we wouldn't even be talking about this. For a whole journal, 8 is basically proof of non-notability (insofar as a negative can be proven). --Randykitty (talk) 20:05, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:20, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin: Please note that the article creator agreed with deletion above (and actually proceeded with blanking the article). --Randykitty (talk) 08:32, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Draft instead as a compromise as there's consensus for at least removing from mainspace but also at least keeping somehow and that's the solution: Draft. Examining the article currently still found questionability and is thus best Drafted until better is actually available. SwisterTwister talk 00:43, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. As illustrated, there are multiple sources covering the topic. And, in absence of convincing arguments for deletion, closing this as keep. (non-admin closure) Ya sh ! 19:51, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Out on a Limb Records

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

Non-notable record label. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 00:33, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:28, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:28, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:28, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:28, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as searches have found nothing better at all and that's not surprising considering this is only a local indie label, nothing at all satisfying any applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 22:20, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your searches rarely seem to find "anything better", do they? --Michig (talk) 13:35, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 01:25, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:19, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Longstanding record label, with a decent amount of coverage from multiple sources: [80], [81], [82], [83], [84], [85], [86], [87], [88], [89]. No evidence that anyone else here has performed a competent web search before offering an opinion. --Michig (talk) 13:35, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep plenty of Google hits relating to the record label, and also per the hits supplied by Michig. SwisterTwister you may wish to change your !vote. -- st170e^talk 16:06, 22 June 2016 (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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:53, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Aleksandr Viktorovich Bulgakov

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

Unable to find any coverage to verify if this individual actually exists never mind if he meets GNG. If sources can be found to verify the info on the page I'm not sure if it meets FOOTY because the team he played for, FC Ekibastuz, plays in a second tier league, Kazakhstan First Division. J04n(talk page) 00:56, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. J04n(talk page) 00:56, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. J04n(talk page) 00:56, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. J04n(talk page) 00:56, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. J04n(talk page) 00:56, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 08:34, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence he meets WP:GNG or WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 08:53, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:19, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - in its current state it is an unreferenced BLP. The only reference there ever was is from a now defunct site and I can find no archived version. @Geregen2: can you find any sources for the player, because if one can be added, the player appears to pass WP:NFOOTY, Lada Togliatti were in the Russian second division when he played for the according to RSSSF, whilst Dinamo Omsk were in the third tier (RSSSF) as were Sibiryak Bratsk (RSSSF), all of which are listed as fully professional leagues. Fenix down (talk) 08:08, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - possibly meets criteria but no solid evidence to confirm this Spiderone 11:12, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nothing at all actually suggesting the needed independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 00:43, 23 June 2016 (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. Barely any participation from other editors with one keep !vote against the nomination. Two re-lists and over 3 weeks at AfD, a third re-list wouldn't benefit this discussion so I'm closing this as no consensus. (non-admin closure) st170e^talk 16:04, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Elisha Krauss

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

The subject is not notable. No notable sources for the subject. Fails WP:NOT Coderzombie (talk) 08:07, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:14, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:14, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:54, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:54, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Nom appears not to have followed WP:BEFORE. Article created by SPA linked with SPA who just reeated The Daily Wire, however, a quick google news search on Kraus turns up significant coverage of her and of her career [90] from which a substantive article can be created.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:00, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Very few neutral sources in the search. Most of these are her own profiles such as linkedin, facebook, twitter, soundcloud. And even among the other results, not WP:RS Coderzombie (talk) 05:46, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 01:21, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:18, 15 June 2016 (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) st170e^talk 16:02, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

AVCOE

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

Only reference is the company's own website, and a quick search found nothing but the usual blogs and social media. Clearly fails GNG. Omni Flames ^{let's talk about it} 11:49, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Omni Flames ^{let's talk about it} 11:54, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Omni Flames ^{let's talk about it} 11:54, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Omni Flames ^{let's talk about it} 11:54, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 01:19, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as existing, accredited degree-awarding institution. Appable (talk) 02:52, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Care to back up this argument with a reliable source? You claim it's "existing" but how can you prove that without an independent reference? Omni Flames ^{let's talk about it} 06:25, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying it's a potential hoax? The accreditor's website has it on its registry. Appable (talk) 18:55, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as an accredited degree-awarding institution per longstanding precedent and consensus. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:30, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:17, 15 June 2016 (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, technically speaking, unsourced BLP--Ymblanter (talk) 07:41, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Reynolds (actor)

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

No evidence of any notability. Refs are IMDb and own web-site. Looks like a non-notable bit-part actor. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 12:27, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:55, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:55, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 01:21, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:16, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. no major films. DGG ( talk ) 16:44, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, he has 56 credits. He had a memorable role as Officer Wedge in Prisoners. He also has an increasing profile. Karl Twist (talk) 11:33, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Being a "journeyman" (guest) actor is no guarantee of independent press and media coverage. Quite the opposite in fact. But nothing here suggests meeting WP:NACTOR. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:10, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I intended to comment earlier multiple times, examining this again simply found nothing else actually convincing and there's nothing at all particular for independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 23:42, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unable to find independent reliable coverage in the media and is unable to qualify for WP:NACTOR. Also, Wikipedia is not a platform for predicting the future notability of a given subject WP:CRYSTAL. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 06:05, 23 June 2016 (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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:49, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No Idea (band)

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

Still no notability established after WP:PROD removed, and doesn't pass WP:NM. There is a lack of sources available for this group, the only sources seem to be self-published sources (such as blogspot) Ajf773 (talk) 05:13, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 05:33, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails SIGCOV. Suspected self-promotion or at least COI. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)}
Delete I'm frankly surprised that nonsense like this has to be put through an AFD process. It should have been deleted at the PROD stage. Notability non existent from what I can see. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.153.23.148 (talk) 19:12, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- This was through the WP:PROD process and it was declined by one single editor (I don't know what they were thinking!)(Ajf773 (talk) 05:20, 20 June 2016 (UTC))[reply]
Delete. Doesn't come close to meeting the notability guidelines for musicians. NewYorkActuary (talk) 05:59, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and PROD was an acceptable form of deletion, examining this still found nothing for solid independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 00:45, 23 June 2016 (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. Clear consensus to keep the article. (non-admin closure) st170e^talk 15:59, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Bible and violence

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

This is pretty obviously an essay, and I'm not seeing how one could write an article on the subject that wasn't. One can talk about religion and violence, but I do not see how you can talk about the biblical text without committing exegesis. Mangoe (talk) 02:28, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:52, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bible-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:52, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The method of avoiding exegesis is to rely on repeating only what reliable sources say. I'm not saying this article doesn't have WP:OR problems... (I'm not saying it does, either, I haven't thoroughly reviewed it). What I am saying, is that this is a topic that is VERY well covered in academic research. Google scholar comes up with 61 results for "The Bible and violence", in quotes, and 111 results for "violence and the bible" in quotes. I'm sure that even more results would appear with other minor rephrasings. This is an issue that is discussed in secular universities, in seminaries, in yeshivas, and so on and so on. This is also a topic discussed amongst "laypeople", and of general interest to many, many people. If WP:OR is a problem, send it to cleanup. Not AfD. Fieari (talk) 02:58, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
keep here is one of shitloads of bibliographies you can find of scholarship on this topic, which has been written about by biblical scholars and theologians many, many times. This is a standard course in many seminaries. User:Mangoe you should just withdraw this. Jytdog (talk) 03:27, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep RS already present in article show that it's a notable topic of discussion. Jclemens (talk) 04:25, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I agree with the others in that this is a notable topic, but I do want to say that I think that Mangoe wrote this in all good faith, since it's easy for religious themed articles to turn into essays. I'd like to echo Fieari's comment that if OR is present in the article then that's a cleaning issue, not an AfD issue - I'd recommend that you enlist the help of WP:CHRISTIANITY if this needs to be re-written. (Also haven't really reviewed the article fully, but I've seen enough academic discourse to know that this is a reoccurring and prevalent topic in religious studies. Heck, one of my senior capstone classes in college actually spent a couple of weeks on domestic and sexual violence in the Bible and how it's been used over time to justify continued abuse.) Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:10, 15 June 2016 (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 Chickpea. (non-admin closure) Ya sh ! 19:44, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Heat and Micronutrient Cultivation in Perennial Chickpea Species

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

Admittedly, a student paper. Well written but is a synthesis of sources. 68.148.186.93 (talk) 10:05, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Completing nomination on behalf of above IP editor. I offer no opinion of my own at this time. --Finngall ^talk 17:25, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:34, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:34, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge to Chickpea, perhaps as a section on "Cultivation." The article can stand a bit of copyediting, but then what article here cannot? I linked it as a "See Also" in the Chickpea article for now. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 16:58, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge to Chickpea - Without being able to read the sources, one has to come with specific pointers for the SYN accusation. Quotes from sources seem to agree with the article. DeVerm (talk) 20:04, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I added merge as that is just fine with me as well.DeVerm (talk) 03:56, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Chickpea. The information is useful but a freestanding article about aspects of cultivation of a particular agricultural product isn't necessary. Julietdeltalima (talk) 00:57, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep or merge? SST flyer 02:29, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SST flyer 02:29, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Chickpea - It's notable, it's not synthesis (as far as I can tell), it's not WP:OR, but it's also a better fit for being a subsection of the main chickpea article. Fieari (talk) 03:10, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Chickpea better to be a subsection, per above. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 12:01, 15 June 2016 (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) GSS (talk) 17:02, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Joanne N. Smith

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

WP:BLP of the executive director of a non-profit agency, which is written like a cross between a résumé and a high school "my personal hero" essay rather than like an encyclopedia article. The referencing, further, is parked far too strongly on primary sources, with only a very few pieces of actual reliable source coverage scattered among the weeds. This is simply not good enough. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 02:28, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete article full of NPOV problems, combined with very weak sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:30, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:53, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

'Keep. Articles should not be deleted on quality grounds. There are sufficient sources to support notability.--Ipigott (talk) 10:08, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: nothing essay-like (now I've removed the many occurrences of her given name and a couple of words here and there). Appears to be a notable woman, recognised and quoted in many sources. PamD 10:40, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's probably a close call either way. The Yes magazine piece on her is great; but too many of the other news sources, esp. The Nation and WaPo, are mere mentions, including around her being invited to White House function. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:36, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes general notability guidelines. Also, remember folks, "quality" is not grounds for nomination for deletion. Always improve first. Missvain (talk) 23:47, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She passes GNG with the non-primary references in the article. In addition, her work is reviewed in Sex Roles: A Journal of Research and ~~Feminist Press~~ (which are unfortunately behind a paywall for me). Her work is also described in a paragraph in The Washington Post and more significantly in The New York Times. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:15, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Multiple reliable sources, meets GNG. Article needs some improvement,but notability established. Montanabw ^(talk) 08:06, 19 June 2016 (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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:46, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jacob Wohl

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

Not a notable investor, just a kid who hit the news a couple of times. Drmies (talk) 02:12, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - Being "just a kid" has no bearing on notability. Kids become notable when reported on by reliable sources. That said... I'm not convinced that Zero Hedge, value walk, and fusion.net count as reliable sources for this subject. So, I'll lean towards delete on this one, but I might be able to be convinced otherwise. Fieari (talk) 02:27, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not the "kid" part... Drmies (talk) 20:33, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I myself had encountered this and would have also nominated soon, nothing at all regarding the solidity of any minimal notability. SwisterTwister talk 02:31, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:55, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom and Fieari. I can't find anything good. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 12:02, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing here that asserts notability enough for inclusion. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 21:00, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I did gNews/gNewspaper searches under a variety of styles, from his name to his companies, etc. Nothing reliable turns up, just blogs, blurbs, YouTube, LinkedIn, and so on. Not enough reliable sources can be found in order to establish notability. One brief Fox News mention and one brief KTLA segment do not notability make. And I don't think he was writing to Santa in 2007; has to be another Jacob Wohl, no? (He's not asking for a Bloomberg terminal, for instance. Just sayin', is all.) Also, in general, the article fails Wikipedia:Notability (people) as, for example, he's too new at what he does to have achieved historical significance. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 23:37, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Insufficiently notable. Promotional article written by two SPAs. Softlavender (talk) 02:37, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Edited to add: Aw isn't that cute. His Assets Under Management are about $200,000 and he has over 20 investors -- so each "investor" (read: mom, dad, and a few of their friends) has invested less than $10,000. Calling this a "hedge fund" is insane; it's little more than a glorified piggy bank or playtoy. Softlavender (talk) 07:47, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable investor. He is managing about $200,000. While I wish I had that much money, this is not a significant amount of money in even a very small scale economy.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:53, 20 June 2016 (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. Consensus is for article retention. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:03, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nomophobia

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable neologism from a somewhat widely-reported press release (WP:ONEEVENT). There's been a smattering of use after that, but nothing that rises to the Medical reliable sources policy that it should be being held to. A great deal of the article is coatracking or synthesis; for example, the last sentence at time of nomination reads: Even though nomophobia is a fairly new concept, there are validated psychometric scales available to help in the diagnostic, an example of one of these scales is the "Questionnaire of Dependence of Mobile Phone/Test of Mobile Phone Dependence (QDMP/TMPD)" - the source for that information does not mention the neologism.

In short, a widely-reported press-release used the term, after which, it was occasionally revived. There's no evidence of the term being taken seriously by any significant number of people since then, however, and as a concept, it has very questionable validity. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 02:04, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - Ugh. Okay, this one leaves a bad taste in my mouth. The problem with this article is that it is being written as if it were a medical condition, without there being any support for it being a medical condition. On the other hand, it is well sourced, as a term, from reliable sources, as a concept in pop-culture, or at least in modern counter culture (those damn kids and always needing to be on the phone all the time). As a cultural phenominon, it seems to be notable enough... there are multiple, indepedant reliable sources using the term, and the subject of the term (people paying attention to the fact that cell phones are now ubiquitous, and being upset that people seem to need them all the time now) seems obviously notable. The various sources all back up this being a cultural thing. Pity the article isn't written in terms of being a cultural phenomina. THAT SAID, I am opposed to deleting any article based solely on the current content of the article, ever. As much as this article sucks, I just can't bring myself to !vote delete. Fieari (talk) 02:21, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the article is well sourced about a notable topic, and the usage of the term does not seem to be concentrated around WP:ONEEVENT but span several years from 2010-2014. I don't think MEDRS applies as the article states "It is, however, arguable that the word "phobia" is misused and that in the majority of cases it is only a normal anxiety". That said I think there is an argument for deleting the SYNTH moving this article to a better name, if one can be found, to emphasize this is not a recognized medical condition but a cultural phenomenon. Intelligentsium 02:28, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:56, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:56, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes GNG. Fieari hit the nail on the head. It needs to be written like a cultural phenomenon as opposed to like a medical article. See Trypophobia for an example of a better way it can be presented. I'm trying to work a little on nomophobia now. It's very similar to trypophobia in the sense that it's a pop psych neologism with enough coverage in mainstream media to warrant an article, but only primary research available as far as academic publications. Here are some quotes from the trypophobia article that I think sums up the deal with all of the random names of phobias that get press coverage and subsequently WP articles:

Abbasi said, 'professionals who study and treat phobias tend not to use all the Latin and Greek names that get tossed around on message boards and in the press.'^[91]... Psychiatrist Carol Mathews said, "There might really be people out there with phobias to holes, because people can really have a phobia to anything, but just reading what's on the Internet, that doesn't seem to be what people actually have.^[92]

—PermStrump(talk) 08:06, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Fieari. 92.9.158.191 (talk) 21:36, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The claim that this is not notable is clearly false. For example, see Encyclopedia of Mobile Phone Behavior or The Wiley Handbook of Psychology, Technology and Society. Andrew D. (talk) 22:10, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per arguments above. Multiple sources over almost a decade means the term passes GNG. Roches (talk) 08:34, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - even the briefest search for sources returns enough to satisfy GNG. Just look at the number of scholarly sources which use the term in the title. Yes, it's a neologism, and satisfies WP:NEO. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:54, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Easily passes GNG, 119 hits from HighBeam ranging in dates from March 2008 to May 2016. Merriam-Webster Unabridged added nomophobia to its lexicon in April 2016.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 17:18, 18 June 2016 (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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:43, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Paul C. McKain

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

WP:BLP of a person notable primarily as a non-winning candidate for political office. While this tries harder than usual to show preexisting notability for other endeavours independent of his candidacy, it misses the boat for reliably sourcing that -- his career in business is sourced entirely to patent directories, deadlinks and his own self-written content about himself rather than to any media coverage about him -- which means it hasn't been properly demonstrated that he passes our inclusion rules for businesspeople. And nothing about the candidacy section suggests any reason why he could be considered more notable than the norm for non-winning candidates, either. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 00:49, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I find the nominator's arguments convincing. I have reviewed the notability claims (aside from political candidacy), and found them wanting. Belongs on ballotpedia, not wikipedia. Fieari (talk) 02:31, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 02:43, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 02:43, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable unelected politician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:37, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as he would've only been notable had he actually assumed the House of Representatives position, but since he had not and there's nothing else convincing, there's nothing to save. SwisterTwister talk 00:39, 23 June 2016 (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. Per SNOW. (non-admin closure) Sam Sailor ^Talk! 16:45, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Britt Marie Hermes

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

I recognize there are citations, and she might even be notable, but this article is too promotional for me to rewrite. The only practical course is to blow it up and start over again. If anyone can manage to fix this, I'll withdraw the AfD. DGG ( talk ) 00:47, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@DGG:There is a possible middle ground. Would you mind tagging the bits that bother you with {{promotion-inline}} so that others can fix them? I don't see much of a problem there myself.LeadSongDog come howl! 15:58, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I honestly don't see it as promotional, or at least not "too" promotional. Most of it seems simply stating what she is known for. If any rewriting is necessary, it would be very minor tweaking into more encyclopedic voice, not wholesale gutting of the article. Notability seems to be established, and besides, I am philosophically opposed to WP:TNT anyway. Fieari (talk) 02:13, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable critic of naturalpathic medicine.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:36, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Johnpacklambert, Did you examine the sources? Delta13C (talk) 10:56, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:57, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Not sure how she can be deemed a "non-notable critic of naturalpathic medicine" when the news link above yields substantial coverage in pretty impressive list of media. On the first page of the Gnews hits alone, there are articles in Forbes, which headlines her feature article, "Why Is Big Naturopathy Afraid Of This Lone Whistleblower?", then National Post, CBC, etc. The nominator suggests that WP:TNT applies. I don't see this as anywhere near bad enough for TNT. I am not philosophically opposed to TNT but the nominator is drastically overstating things. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:03, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:04, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article spent a bunch of time in Draft status and was denied several times for these very same reasons. DGG, you were involved in that process. But then the author worked on the wording and added some recent news coverage to fix the notability problem, and the article was accepted. Now suddenly it doesn't pass muster again? What changed? (I realize DGG you didn't do the acceptance, but you can see how this ping-pong is extremely frustrating for a new editor like Medicalreporter). --Krelnik (talk) 03:35, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

the only way to end the ping-pong is to make a decision here one way or another. DGG ( talk ) 03:49, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While I'm the author of the article, I think it is pretty clear that she passes notability: 1) Significant coverage in Vox, Forbes, National Post, CBC, and KPLU; 2) Significant coverage by leading experts and critics of complementary and alternative medicine (David Gorski, Steven Novella, and Edzard Ernst); 3) Significant coverage by media sources who wanted her opinion on major news stories concerning naturopaths, like the toddler's death in Canada and pending legislation in California; 4) Significant coverage by foreign press including a Taiwanese and French source. I think this is important given the fact that her status comes out of a topic that is typically vulnerable to fringe issues. I did another round of looking for sources and found this news article in Healthline which quotes her substantially along with other experts in nutrition on the topic of dubious naturopathic vitamins. There was also coverage of her by Edzard Ernst just yesterday, who is the leading authority on the scientific evaluation of complementary and alternative medicine. He writes about the smear campaign that naturopathic groups have launched against her, which was also covered in the Forbes article. When I drafted the article I asked for specific help to reduce any promo tone, even directly to DGG, the nominator of the AfD and other users with experience on the topic of naturopathy, LeadSongDog, Delta13C, Alexbrn, JzG, Pepperbeast. ---Medicalreporter (talk) 06:53, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Lots of in-depth coverage in mainstream media and by prominent physicians who are established experts in and critics of alternative medicine. Her being the only naturopathic defector and a significant voice against an alternative-medicine profession that is trying to become mainstream warrants inclusion in Wikipedia. I'd say that WP:TNT is being wrongly invoked by nominator. Issues with promo tone can be sorted out on article's talk page. Delta13C (talk) 10:56, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment' As I said, I'lll be glad to withdraw the AfD if someone will take responsibility for improving it. DGG ( talk ) 18:45, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- But I think the consensus is that it's not so badly in need of attention -- and you're way off the mark in even raising TNT -- or it seems, understanding what TNT is intended to address. As for the promotional tone issue, the article is populated with what appear to me to be neutral statements: "She contends... She has described... She has characterized." The whole Afd appears to me to be way off the mark and I would respectfully suggest the nominator needs to "take responsibility" for his actions, and withdraw this, regardless. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:57, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Does not seem overly promotional, documents her history and advocacy. No need to delete, normal editing can deal with any perceived bias. Fences&Windows 21:44, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I went through the history of the article and I can't see where it was ever very "promotional." The fact that this is an activist that is being written about means that there will be a certain slant to the article based on the activist's views. If she's against a topic, she will be talking against it. I think that may be where the idea that the article is "promotional" came about. I am glad that the creator, Medicalreporter stuck with the article. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 22:55, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Clearly adequate indicia of notability. Once again, we confuse cleanup with notability. The article needs a more neutral tone, but it is well-sourced and the individual appears notable within the field. Perhaps editors who work on pseudoscience issues might wish to comment here, also. Montanabw ^(talk) 03:07, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly notable. It needs some clean up, it is notable. I'm not going to make the same arguments, see above. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 12:09, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The sources cited in the article are plenty to satisfy WP:BIO, and while the article needs work, I don't see that it sinks to the level of WP:TNT. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:27, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Shawn.142.105.159.60 (talk) 04:28, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This nomination is so far from the point of WP:TNT. As other editors have mentioned, it needs cleanup to sound more encyclopedic in tone. Cleanup is warranted, but saying it's promotional is an overstatement. Notability is clearly established in the sources. ERK^talk 07:43, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Since there is attention on the article now thanks to this AfD, perhaps is a good time to ~~address~~ begin the clean up. I made a note on the article's talk page about an ugly sentence in the lede. I also adjusted the content in the Advocacy section to be more fluid. Delta13C (talk) 15:36, 21 June 2016 (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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:40, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Max Linn

AfDs for this article:

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

Completely unsourced WP:BLP of a person notable only as a non-winning minor party candidate for office. This is not a claim of notability that gets a person over WP:NPOL in and of itself -- if you cannot demonstrate and properly source that they previously or subsequently got over an inclusion criterion for some other accomplishment, then they have to win politicial office, not just run for it, to claim notability as a politician per se. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 00:24, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-winning minor political candidate, belongs on ballotpedia, not wikipedia. Fieari (talk) 02:09, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I ran for office and lost, and I don't have a wiki page. -- Logical Premise^Ergo? 22:30, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 02:43, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 02:43, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable politician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:13, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as he had never actually assumed an actual political position thus not acceptable for that notability and examining this still found nothing actually better convincing at all. SwisterTwister talk 00:47, 23 June 2016 (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) Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 02:53, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Penn Foster Career School

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

Seems to fail WP:GNG. (talk to) Gaelan('s contributions) 21:35, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 21:46, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 21:46, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is Penn Foster College the same group?--Milowent • ^hasspoken 04:22, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes.(talk to) Gaelan('s contributions) 04:38, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also, ICS Learn (International Correspondence Schools) seemed to be related in some way. But ICS may be notable? [93]--Milowent • ^hasspoken 04:27, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:21, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOME. It is an existing degree awarding accredited school, which thus meets our notability standards. Fieari (talk) 02:37, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per longstanding consensus on schools. VMS Mosaic (talk) 16:19, 22 June 2016 (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 as G4 and G3.---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 03:44, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Trembulo

AfDs for this article:

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

This was once deleted as a hoax (relevant links: Wikipedia:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia/Trembulo, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trembulo). Has anything changed to show this is not a hoax?

(Please don't shoot I'm just the messenger asking questions!) Magog the Ogre (t • c) 00:17, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. The sources are clearly not reliable, and I could find nothing verifying that this even exists. The only Books hit is a reprint of Wikipedia, and most of the 96 hits on Google don't actually even mention it. It's still a hoax. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:14, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:51, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above deletion debate is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). 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/redirect per prior AfD. Singles are not automatically notable and nothing has changed since the last AfD. See my comments below for further detail. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:18, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Take the Time

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NSONGS. Was until recently a redirect to the album's page. I would have suggested a merge, but I'm not sure it's notable enough even for that. I think the redirect should be reinstated. Adam9007 (talk) 00:01, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Revert to Redirect to Images and Words. In fact, this could have been done without an AfD, which would have been preferable, given that the AfD is so overloaded all the time. If you wanted to discuss it first, a better place would have been the article talk page. Seriously, I'd close this AfD, but I'm not really familiar with the non-admin closing process... Fieari (talk) 02:45, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The general rule of thumb is that redirects are WP:CHEAP on Wikipedia and there's really not much lost to keeping them as long as they make sense and they seem like a reasonable redirect. Since the article was created there appears to have been two attempts to un-redirect the article, so that suggests that there are likely people looking for this so it'd be a valid search term. However that said, it looks like a 2009 AfD closed as redirect and there's nothing in the article that suggests that anything has changed since then. I'm going to close this, delete the article history, turn it into a redirect, and protect it against recreation until sourcing can be provided to establish independent notability. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:15, 15 June 2016 (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.