Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 September 9

Guide to deletion

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 a week has not suggested anything else (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 06:43, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Eligible bachelor

Eligible bachelor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Unnotable subset of Bachelor, as undeserving of a separate article as, say, Confirmed bachelor. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:42, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:18, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:18, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:18, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:18, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

• Keep. Very common and notable phrase in literature, media, etc. Thousands of hits in RSes, centrepiece of every Jane Austen novel, several books with it in the title, newspapers write lists of "Britain's most eligible bachelor", etc... what's the argument for it not being notable, exactly? Also a distinct concept from bachelor and confirmed bachelor, as should be obvious from simply reading the articles. Joe Roe (talk) 16:32, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
• Keep I don't know what the nom meant by "unnotable" ("non-notable", perhaps?), but "eligible bachelor" satisfies WP:N, and that's what matters. If the nom wishes to merge the content of this article into Bachelor, AfD is not the place to propose that. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 19:22, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
• Keep Per above. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 09:50, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
• Keep per above discussion. Aoba47 (talk) 05:20, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
• Keep -- I don't see a reason to delete this article on a notable phrase. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:32, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

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

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

The result was redirect to Lutheran High School Association. Discussion went through several options, with changes of recommendation by several people, but the final consensus appears to be to redirect. MelanieN (talk) 01:17, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Lutheran High School East (Michigan)

Lutheran High School East (Michigan) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Unable to find any Reliable Sources for this school JMHamo (talk) 23:35, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

• Redirect [was Speedy Keep] It is or was a high school. By wp:SCHOOLOUTCOMES(?), we keep it. Any evidence that it exists, is enough. Classmates.com says it has 2000 alumni. Done. --doncram 23:43, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

User:Kudpung may be right about the article being misnamed or the school no longer existing. The Classmates.com link is actually for "Lutheran East High School", of Harper Woods, MI, not "Lutheran High School East". However, there is an alumni reunion scheduled for October 22nd, 2016, and the school reportedly has 2,180 alumni. --doncram 20:21, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article Notre Dame High School (Harper Woods, Michigan) states that the school was closed in 2004 (and I have now repeated that unsourced assertion in this article). This is not inconsistent with the football team's record linked by User:Clarityfiend, which provides its win-loss records for 2002 and 2003. --doncram 20:36, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Changing to Redirect, to LHSA of Greater Detroit, per my comment below. --doncram 04:36, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

• Comment. I found its football team's record.[1] Clarityfiend (talk) 01:46, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
• Redirect Keep - it exists, so we keep it per long standing consensus. Apparently fails WP:V. VMS Mosaic (talk) 04:09, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 04:53, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 04:53, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

• Delete. Keep. Comment: Changing my vote again to 'delete' based on further research done by John from Idegon and myself. There is decidedly something odd about this article. Such a school does not appear to exist. at least not under the name provided. There is a Lutherian High School, and there is a Harper Woods High School run by the Harper Woods School District, and there are other Lutheran High Schools in Mitchigan but none in Harper Woods and there is no Lutheran High School East (Michigan) in any Ghits. It's possible that the school once existed but has merged, moved, renamed or even closed down but util a street addresss can be found, I'm changing my vote to a neutral comment. The article Made in 1 edit by an SPA and could use some expansion and layout per WP:WPSCH/AG by someone willing.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:50, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep - article shouldn't have been nominated. Meets minimum requirements for notability for a school. Sure does need work tho. John from Idegon (talk) 16:38, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Ok, further. Kudpung and myself spent an extensive amount of time today researching this school. The only thing either of us found was this, a timeline from the website of the Lutheran school association of Detroit. It did verify the school's creation being branched off another school and clarified it's demise, being merged into another school in 2004. However, there was just one line simply stating each of those bare facts (even disregarding the lack of independence). Further issues: neither the original school, the school this one was folded into, nor the church's regional education association have an existing article. After extensive searching by two experienced editors, nothing more than that was found. Perhaps others would have different results. I've never done this before and probably never will again, but despite guidelines and outcomes, there is not enough to create an article on this school and no reasonable place to redirect it. I'm changing my vote to Delete Redirect, per doncram and thanks to him. John from Idegon (talk) 04:07, 11 September 2016 (UTC) signed for change John from Idegon (talk) 07:06, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

• Delete - fails WP:VERIFY and WP:GNG, as John's research shows. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:06, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
• Comment Thank you to John from Idegon and Kudpung for applying good effort. But this AFD, headed towards "Delete", is going off the rails, relative to what should happen IMHO. Deletion would simply go backwards, and would have persons arriving at Wikipedia and restarting the article, because it is a valid topic. It would "forget" everything figured out here, including that redirecting to Lutheran High School Association (at this moment of writing a red-link, but not for long) would be fine. So find an alternative (wp:ATD) that keeps edit history and discussion, including a Talk page link to this AFD... I'm creating LHSA as a stub and then this AFD should be closed as "Redirect" to there. Relatedly, please see Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy#Proposal: new "Merging to a list" section about expanding the Alternatives To Deletion guideline. --doncram 04:36, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the lecture Doncram but I know all about our deletion policies and alternatives to deletion (and OUTCOMES), which I regularly advocate myself. However, a school that does not exist or that cannot properly be identified as having existed can obviously not be a candidate for redirect - anywhere. Sorry. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:50, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Kudpung, I thought that your position, and the consensus emerging, was that there are not adequate sources to make a decent article, but that LHE certainly existed. So that you would agree a redirect is valid, if there is a suitable redirect target (but no redirect target seemed to exist, so then you would choose to delete instead). I think I am taking a broader view on the role of AFD. I think someone oughta take responsibility to create list-articles (as I argue at the linked proposal) and combo articles like the new LHSA article and/or whatever else is needed, in order to ensure retention of the information/content of contributions in question. I may have sounded critical of K and JfromI for not choosing to be that person, and to some extent I guess I really was critical. Please do accept my apology for that. I should be clear that the responsibility should be "the collective of AFD editors", not any one person's. I am willing to step up and be that person sometimes, as I did here, but I should not have blamed anyone else for not doing that. We are all volunteers, and I strongly believe that it is simply not right to demand that any one editor do any specific thing.

In conclusion, I want to eliminate AFD decisions like "delete because a needed target article does not yet exist" and to promote decisions like "someone needs to create at least a stub, and the AFD will not be closed until that is done" or "the AFD is closed with consensus that the topic should be kept until target article A has been created, and then it should be merged/redirected". --doncram 21:50, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

• Redirect to Lutheran High School Association. The school passes Wikipedia:Verifiability. Here are two sources:
  1. Harrison, Sheena (2003-03-12). "Volleyball team struggles through roller-coaster season". The Detroit News. Archived from the original on 2016-09-19. Retrieved 2016-09-19.

     The article notes:

     ROCHESTER HILLS -- It was a season full of extremes for the volleyball team at Lutheran High School Northwest.

     "We've had some very big highs and very big lows," Coach Bridgett Ohlrich said.

     With a 6-8-1 overall and 3-5 Metro Conference record, the Crusaders dealt with dramatic ups and downs all season. A loss to Harper Woods Lutheran High School East (15-2, 15-4) Jan. 28 dealt a blow to the team's morale.

  2. "Valley pounds out win". The Saginaw News. 2000-10-29. Archived from the original on 2016-09-19. Retrieved 2016-09-19.

     The article notes:

     Wolgast broke a scoreless tie with a pair of second-half goals sending his team on to face the Grosse Pointe University Liggett district winner at 4:30 p.m. Wednesday at Lutheran High School East in Harper Woods.

  Cunard (talk) 01:16, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sources have been presented that push the subject beyond WP:BLP1E, but no consensus has been reached on whether this is sufficient. (non-admin closure) SSTflyer 02:41, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Guerin Austin

Guerin Austin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Austin is from Bellevue, Nebraska, a suburb of Omaha, so the Omaha paper covering here win is local coverage. Even if we could consider this a reliable 3rd party source, we would only have one. The only source we have for her broadcasting career is a press release from her employer. Beyond this, winning a state beauty pageant is generally considered to be a one event occurance that does not justify having an article on the person John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:35, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:02, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:02, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:02, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:02, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:03, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

• (addend: Possibly) Redirect to Miss Nebraska USA as a valid search term, and the subject is mentioned there. The subject has received some non-pageant coverage for their news reporting (e.g. [2]), but not a great deal of coverage. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:05, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:15, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

• Redirect to Miss Nebraska USA; not independently notable. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:15, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
• Keep Beyond her two attempts to win Miss Nebraska, the second one successful, she also competed in Miss USA. Since then she has gone on to a sports reporting career at NESN. That career has at least one notable incident, the Gatorade celebration (dismissed casually above) that was covered by numerous sportscasts. Trackinfo (talk) 09:09, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
• Keep as per Trackinfo --- PageantUpdater (talk) 09:23, 5 September 2016 (UTC) Weak keep per outcome of the RFC. There really isn't much out there. I suspect there would have been more about her Miss Nebraska USA year not currently available in general searches but without access to databases that's pure speculation. --- PageantUpdater (talk) 23:49, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 21:30, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

• Closure Comment - I originally closed as Redirect however TrackInfo had an issue and unbeknown to me they'd actually added sources to the article[3], They're pretty crap IMHO but regardless they should be discussed, If consensus is to redirect I strongly suggest an admin closes it as such. –Davey2010^Talk 21:35, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

• Comment -- I do not consider the recent addition helping with the subject's notability:

• In June 2016, when the Red Sox made an extra inning comeback against the White Sox, Austin was caught in the crossfire of the teams exuberant Gatorade celebration, and incident covered by sportscasters around the world.

References

This is probably best described as trivia, and is not adding value to the article or the encyclopedia overall.

• She currently works as a reporter for NESN.

References

This is cited to the station itself, so it's not a source independent of the subject (employment at the station).

In short, these additions did not make me reconsider my !vote. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:09, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

In short, you, K.e.coffman, have too high of standards to be commenting on beauty pageants. Your motive in voting against every contestant is clear. Trivia is in the eye of the beholder. Multiple sources reporting an incident add up to coverage of this subject fulfilling WP:GNG and that is our standard here. Your or my opinion do not matter in regards to the overall world view of importance. We report what the press reports about the subject. If enough of them think it is worthy of mention, trivia becomes a story. Please take your habitual negativity toward this entire subject elsewhere. Trackinfo (talk) 00:51, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

The closing editor stated "They [new sources] are pretty crap IMHO" and somehow I have high standards? :-) K.e.coffman (talk) 00:59, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

CBS Sports, reporting about a sports reporter is crap? Trackinfo (talk) 01:28, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

I just added Vice Sports, Boston Globe and Irish Examiner. Trackinfo (talk) 01:50, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

All of those sources are more or less just mentions of the subject ... There needs to be more than just mentions, Despite your efforts the subject still doesn't meet the notability requirements and therefore should be deleted accordingly. –Davey2010^Talk 02:06, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

I have now added better sourcing for her Emmy Award win. Trackinfo (talk) 19:39, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:21, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Spenser Olson

Spenser Olson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:MUSIC with very limited secondary coverage. Please note MTV.com allows registered users and artists to create their own bio page and is not necessarily an indication of notability. Blackguard 21:17, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

I put a link on the article from a notable songwriter and artist Instagram who posted about his album release. Soworship (talk) 21:27, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

I added an instagram post about his release from a worship leader at my church, who was also a contestant on American Idol Season 13. Sharethemessage (talk) 22:08, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

The worship leader having been on American Idol is irrelevant to this article, as notability is not inherited(and that's assuming they're notable). 331dot (talk) 22:15, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

• Delete. My google searches turned up little beyond this person's social media accounts. No independent sources have been offered; the ones that have been are MTV(as stated by nominator), a blog post from this person's mom, and the iTunes listings of their music. I haven't yet seen how this musician meets notability guidelines. 331dot (talk) 22:15, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

It is still other people mentioning Spenser with their own opinion. Soworship (talk) 22:19, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Anyone can post an opinion about anyone else on the Internet. We deal in what is notable and can be supported. I have asked you specifically which notability criteria for musicians this person meets and haven't really gotten an answer. 331dot (talk) 22:27, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

He meets the first criteria. I just added an article I found about him in a notable talent competition (IMTA) he competed in and made it to the finals. It talks a lot about him, and I added a paragraph to the article explaining his time there from research I did. I hope this solves our problems with this article. Thank you! Soworship (talk) 04:09, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

• Keep. In my opinion, now that the article has the reference from that Casting Hub/IMTA article, it makes him notable enough. Because he does also have social media post about his album release from a notable artist/songwriter. The blog from his mom isn't perfect but it adds a touch more credit to the article as well. I think these three sources make him notable enough to keep. On the other hand, this article does seem to have some good information and is encyclopedic. 99.9.8.224 (talk) 04:24, 10 September 2016 (UTC) — 99.9.8.224 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Please review what independent reliable sources are- the sources given are not that and as such are not acceptable. "Having good information" is not sufficient for an article without such sources. 331dot (talk) 10:40, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

I just rewrote the bio using the MTV bio and one on his website as a reference. No more copyright issues. Thanks. Soworship (talk) 04:51, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

While you removed some of it, what remains is still lifted from MTV. It needs to be completely rewritten in your own words. You also don't seem to be understanding what independent reliable sources are, which are things like news stories or coverage that is not associated with this person in any way. 331dot (talk) 10:40, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

• Delete: as per nom. No third-party references, looks like self-promotion, and google search doesn't turn up anything else to demonstrate notability. Melcous (talk) 05:54, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Does the IMTA article not qualify as a reliable source? Soworship (talk) 19:48, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Whether it is or not, it isn't enough to sustain this article. In most cases, multiple sources are needed, or at least one that supports notability. All that piece stated was that he showed up at their event, whose notability itself seems questionable. 331dot (talk) 23:53, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:03, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:03, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

• Delete No independent, third party sources. Note to Soworship re: THe Casting Hub/IMTA article. It is not a third party source. That's the problem. It is simply the organization's newsletter reporting about an event it staged for it's members, of which this subject is one. ShelbyMarion (talk) 22:05, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
• Delete as you know there's certainly concerns when the best sources listed are simply her own album listings and similar; none of the information even actually comes close to forming substance. SwisterTwister talk 00:46, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete.  Sandstein  08:34, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Global Anti-Semitism Review Act of 2004

Global Anti-Semitism Review Act of 2004 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

WP:ENN. Not every Act of Congress is worthy of an article, and there's no assertion of notability here - it doesn't even call for an action save an annual report. MSJapan (talk) 20:58, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:17, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 07:53, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 07:53, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 07:53, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

• Comment Prior AfD at WP:Articles for deletion/US Department of Global Anti-semitism. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 16:00, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Probably should have been deleted the first time, too. Too many keep votes had nothing to do with policy whatsoever. MSJapan (talk) 03:55, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

• Delete Article doesn't cite any sources or even assert the notability of the law. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 16:00, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
• Merge + redirect into Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor; as it is an annual report made by this Bureau, --Ne0 (talk) 20:55, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

One among thousands of others. Why is this particular report notable such that it should be mentioned in a Bureau-level article? MSJapan (talk) 03:55, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

• Delete -- no indications of notability or significance, and no secondary RS offered. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:48, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
• I find it difficult to believe that act can be passed by Congress without attracting significant coverage in independent reliable sources, even if such sources are not readily available online. Surely there are legal reference works that cover every such act? 86.17.222.157 (talk) 16:11, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 16:16, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

• • Comment You'd still have to bring them here. And significant coverage means more than a mention of the act or details about the act. It means discussion. Doug Weller talk 16:25, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
• Delete. No claim to notability made – as the nominator noted, Acts of Congress aren't inherently notable. If Congress receives a global report on antisemitism each year (as the legislation seems to require), the report itself might be notable. But the enabling legislation doesn't seem to be. IgnorantArmies (talk) 09:14, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

I actually looked for that on the off chance that might be true. It's not. From 2004-15, there's only three reports available from the State Dept. online, I think two of them aren't the report required by the Act, and the newest is 2010. The one I read was tremendously boring, and seriously reads like a high school social studies report. I could feel the Powerpoint slides turning as I read. It's really just a digest of collected events. MSJapan (talk) 22:24, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for that, can't say I'm overly surprised. IgnorantArmies (talk) 08:32, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Redirect as not only has there been no actual Delete votes, but there has been repeated consensus before that junior high schools themselves are not convincing for an independent article, and therefore can be relinked to a closely related article (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 07:10, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Plum Grove Junior High School

Plum Grove Junior High School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

The article was not written by representatives of the school. It also is of local interest-does not meet notability standards.Nayakm (talk) 14:41, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 September 9. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:55, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
• Keep Not a valid reason for deletion. The draft article was submitted and accepted, and has been worked on by more than one editor. As I told the editor before he opened this AFD, having one of the editors decide to get rid of it simply because the school does not want an article is not a valid reason for deletion. It's not vandalism, there are no BLP issues, I didn't notice any copyvio problems, it's sourced... the only possible reason I can see for a deletion discussion on this article is that it might not meet notability requirements. Meters (talk) 20:59, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

There was a potential BLP issue with inappropriate material in a cited source but but it has been removed by another editor. Meters (talk) 23:20, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 07:54, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 07:54, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

• Strong Keep Sorry, but WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a valid reason for deletion. Score one for the inclusionists! But seriously, find an actual reason to torpedo the article and I'll reconsider. TomStar81 (Talk) 08:54, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Seems they found an actual reason for me to reconsider, so I'll amend my !vote to concede the point and support either redirecting or keeping the article pending a final tally on which position garners the greater support. TomStar81 (Talk) 16:25, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
• Redirect - This is a junior high school. It does not meet WP:ORG. Per guidelines and WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, it should be redirected to Community Consolidated School District 15. The nomination is faulty in just about every way but that doesn't change the way we should deal with this article. Pinging Meters and TomStar81 for reconsideration. John from Idegon (talk) 16:20, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
• Redirect to district page. Changing from Keep to Redirect now that the nominator has changed [4] the invalid deletion reason to lack of notability. The majority of the sources are merely school district and parents' association info. There are two major media sources in the article, but a nearly quarter-century old mention of a redevelopment project does not confer notability. The almost as old mention of the air quality investigation is potentially more useful for showing notability, but I would want to see solid sources showing that the investigation showed a major problem before this would be notable. Old buildings often have poor ventilation, asbestos, and other issues that need to be addressed. That's not notable. Parents worrying about their children's environment is not notable. Mini clusters of diseases are not notable unless they can be attributed to a cause rather than simply to coincidence. Since there is no mention of a positive result from the investigation I don't see anything particularly notable about this. Meters (talk) 18:09, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Agree that the air quality thing is interesting and different and would make great content in a notable article. Disagree on it's potential to show notability. It's not about the school in general. It doesn't speak to academics, activities or athletics....In other words the things that make the school a school. The only reason it isn't NOTNEWS is the academic source, and I haven't checked the vetting on that. The Tribune is a more or less local source and what came out of it is not discussion in detail. On another point, I'd sure like to know how this passed AfC. John from Idegon (talk) 19:00, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Good point. Even if the environmental issue were fleshed out to show notability it would still be about the building rather than the school itself. Meters (talk) 19:33, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

• Redirect to district page. There is decidedly something odd about this article. Even the claim to Blue Ribbon is untraceable in any official lists and the school web site itself doesn't mention it, which would be unsusual.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:24, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
• Redirect per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES --Majora (talk) 00:38, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
• Comment: The nominator here seems to be blamed off-wiki for this article existing and being threatened with punishment if it doesn't go away. See User:Nayakm#Explanation. --Closeapple (talk) 22:04, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

  Seems to be resolved already though: User talk:Closeapple#Re: Your Message on My Talk Page --Closeapple (talk) 22:22, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

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

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

The result was No consensus. I cannot see any other outcome for this discussion, which has already been open for 6 weeks (!). I will note that those users arguing for keeping this have said that the problems with original research can be fixed; therefore, if these problems prove intractable, the WP:TNT argument will be more persuasive. Vanamonde (talk) 04:32, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Timeline of popular Internet services

Timeline of popular Internet services (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-neutral by definition. damiens.rf 18:54, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

• As an indication of how non-neutral this is I note that Baidu, which must be either the most popular Internet service or very close to being so, doesn't even get a mention. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:40, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  • ? This is Wikipedia. It's not a static document. If something is missing, add it. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:39, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
    • Note that I didn't preface my comment with a bolded "delete", because I wasn't offering this as a reason for deletion. It was more shorthand for a sense that the content of the article doesn't match the title, so if this is kept a decision needs to be made about whether it should be edited so that the content matches the title, which would involve adding stuff about extremely popular services such as Baidu and Yandex, or whether it should be renamed to a title that reflects the content, something like Timeline of popular Internet services in anglophone countries. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 10:28, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
      • @86.17.222.157: These services were simply missing until now. Crucial information is missing on many articles so please just go ahead and add it. If you're asking for a reason why they've been missing until now it's probably because most of the page's editors are from anglophone countries. --Fixuture (talk) 19:13, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:54, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:54, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:54, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:56, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

• Comment - Not quite sure I understand the nomination. Are you saying that if it were renamed to be e.g. Timeline of websites in Alexa's top 100, it would be a workable list? In other words, I presume the problem is the "popular" part? Thing is -- and this is another aspect to this discussion -- there's already a timeline like this built into History of the Internet as "Examples of popular Internet services". So I guess the first question is whether that's problematic (I suspect there's a reasonable way to set inclusion criteria), and second is whether it should have its own stand-alone timeline. I'm not sure. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:39, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
• Delete as OR and unclear criteria for inclusion -- i.e. who determines which service was popular? Besides, History of the Internet already provides a similar timeline, so this is redundant. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:07, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
• Keep - please create a new talk page entry about establishing specific inclusion criteria if you think that's needed here instead of an AfD: notability of the topic and public interest is pretty high - there's no reason to delete the article. --Fixuture (talk) 19:13, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
  • @Fixuture: Not to try to change your mind, but since it's relevant to the deletion discussion, how would you work the criteria for inclusion? (I.e. what's "popular"?) — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:22, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
    • @Rhododendrites: That would be the matter of that talk page entry - I'd suggest something like "Internet services with over 20 million monthly (or registered?) users" (at one point in their lifetime; reliably sourced). --Fixuture (talk) 19:34, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
      • @Fixuture: I think it would be possible to do, but the ability to create such an inclusion criteria is relevant to deletion. For example, saying "20 million" defines it with WP:OR. It would have to be based on reliably sourced definitions of "popular"... and sources don't agree on that sort of thing. That's why I floated the idea of reframing it in more specific terms (I used Alexa, but anything with a clear bar that doesn't require OR would work). I've not yet looked to see what they used in the history of the Internet article... — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:38, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
        • @Rhododendrites: Well then I'd say at worst case it would be needed to have it moved - e.g. to "Timeline of Internet services with over 20 million monthly users" or so. But that's very inconvenient - instead the lead could simply state the inclusion criteria. --Fixuture (talk) 20:04, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
      • Update: Oh, hm. From the looks of it, there was no real discussion about that outline. It was added here in 2011, a few entries were added between then and 2013, when it was split off to Template:Internet history timeline. Damiens.rf tagged it as pov yesterday, but otherwise I'm not seeing much by way of discussion, so who knows. As an aside, Damiens, part of the usage guidelines for the pov template requires opening a discussion section the tag points to. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:51, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:42, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 20:30, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

• Delete. I agree that this is inherently original research. Who defines what's popular? How do you decide whether it should be restricted to the Alexa top 10 or 50 or 100? If all aspects of original research were removed, it would end up being a duplication of history of the internet, as above. I just don't see any way for this to survive. Either way, it's breaking policy. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:52, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment @NinjaRobotPirate:

Who defines what's popular? How do you decide whether it should be restricted to the Alexa top 10 or 50 or 100?

Per discussion. Just not here but on the page's talk page.

If all aspects of original research were removed, it would end up being a duplication of history of the internet

How that? The history of the Internet is a history of the infrastructure, technology and general usage and not the specific content and services on it.

I just don't see any way for this to survive. Either way, it's breaking policy.

I don't agree on that. At worst case the name of the article would need to be changed. But imo that's nitpicking / inconvenient.

--Fixuture (talk) 17:58, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2016 September 22 SSTflyer 12:50, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SSTflyer 12:50, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:NOT#OR. This is patent original research. There is no way to decide what is "popular" without a bit lot of OR. I see this list as totally unencyclopeadic and considering that the information already exists in other forms, I will go with a delete. No point in wasting time to find out a criteria for inclusion. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 13:01, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

@Lemongirl942: There are multiple ways how "popular" can be bound to specific inclusion criteria for this article. Also one could rename the article, removing "popular". In what other forms does this information exist in the extent & openness of the article in subject? I think a timeline of the content & services on the Internet is very useful and important info.--Fixuture (talk) 19:13, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

"Popular" is an unencyclopaedic word with no clear definitions. If someone can find a scholarly definition of "popular Internet service" I would be glad to keep the article. But I doubt anyone has ever found something like that in the entire history of Wikipedia and . If we define it ourselves, it will be OR. Basically I don't see any way this is useful for an encyclopaedia. There is no way to solve this by "editing" either. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:11, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

• Delete - Per my comments above. I was looking for an indication this could be salvaged, but nobody has suggested a way to do so here or on the talk page where I opened a discussion. I'll open the same discussion at history of the Internet and would not be opposed to it being spun off in the future if an appropriate inclusion criteria can be determined. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:59, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

@Rhododendrites: Well it hasn't been long since you started the discussion. Also the suggestions you made there seem good enough - why not use one or multiple of them? I'm wondering why you'd vote delete despite having made useful suggestions for the inclusion criteria. --Fixuture (talk) 19:13, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

@Fixuture: The point of that thread is to figure out what the list was to be based on (after the discussion was initially closed as no consensus). I didn't have a good answer -- all of those I listed are problematic in various ways -- and nobody suggested something better. I've now opened a similar thread at Talk:History of the Internet. If it can be worked out for the purpose of that sidebar, then I wouldn't be opposed to a stand-aloen article in the future. For now, however, we have a pile of OR and no inclusion criteria. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:18, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

• Weak Delete, or maybe WP:TNT. I think the concept is a valid basis for an article, and History of the Internet is such a broad topic (and long article), this could easily be spun off as a useful an interesting article on its own. But, as several people have pointed out, the inclusion criteria are are ill-defined. For example, the current article leaves one with the impression that Coursera, Vine, and Tinder were the three most important things to happen on the Internet in 2012. Were they? I don't know, but I'd like to have some better way to determine that. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:04, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

@RoySmith:

For example, the current article leaves one with the impression that Coursera, Vine, and Tinder were the three most important things to happen on the Internet in 2012. Were they?

Why do they leave you with that impression? The article is just about new services not about everything happening on the Internet. The list is incomplete but more or less these are the three most important new services/websites that were initiated in 2012.

But, as several people have pointed out, the inclusion criteria are are ill-defined.

As said earlier, the inclusion criteria can still get defined better on the talk page.

--Fixuture (talk) 19:13, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

• Keep this boils down to two issues: 1) WP:OR and 2) the content of the article. To me, the OR argument doesn't hold water because all of this information is searchable and retrievable through various sources. I find it highly unlikely that individual editors are using this as the source of their original research. As for the content of the article, those are all editing issues and not deletion issues. Therefore, I say we keep it.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:41, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
  • ?? What "information" are you talking about that's searchable and retrievable through various sources? The existence of websites with these names? What exactly determines inclusion here, and where can we "search and retrieve" information about that sense of "popular"? If there's no clear inclusion criteria, then it's WP:OR by definition. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:08, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Based on your comment, I don't believe you have a grasp on what WP:OR covers. Not having a clear inclusion criteria has nothing to do with Original Research. Not having a clear inclusion criteria covers decisions about specific content of the topic. This is a deletion review where we discuss the deletion or retention of the entire article, not the specific contents of the article.--Paul McDonald (talk) 22:17, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
    • Of course it does, when a title includes a word like "popular" that requires editors to apply their own interpretation. Not having a clear inclusion criteria means editors apply their own subjective interpretations when determining what should be on the list. The content of a list (the items it includes) is subject to WP:OR, WP:NPOV, WP:V, etc. and therefore inclusion criteria "should be unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources." When an editor decides for him/herself what "popular" means rather than basing it on a clear inclusion criteria (one that is unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources), that's original research. It's possible for a list to have no clear inclusion criteria and not have obvious OR problems, sure, but not when the title of the list includes a word like "popular", because without defining that term with reliable sources, editors must use original research in order to add to the list. Whether it be going by one's own personal definition of "popular" or choosing for themselves a sourced definition. At the most basic level, you could say that if every entry were sourced to something calling it "popular", then sure, you could say there's no OR -- it would just be utterly indiscriminate in its inconsistency. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:58, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
      • Editing can solve that issue. It's not a deletion issue.--Paul McDonald (talk) 02:55, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
        • Editing cannot solve this issue. The issue is that there is no unambiguous definition of the word popular. If the material in the article is valuable, the article can always be userfied/draftified. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 18:35, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
          • Selecting a different wording (Top 5 Internet Services by year, History of Internet Services, etc.) would solve that and word selection is indeed "editing" --Paul McDonald (talk) 11:58, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
            • "Top 5" according to whom? --damiens.rf 12:17, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
              • oh this is just speculation here but maybe the "top 5" according to search engine rank or ranked by revenue or customer count or service footprint by any one of a number of third party reliable sources that provide ongoing industry reviews. Or maybe not "top 5" but some other measure that is specific. In any event, that is word selection which is decidedly an editing issue.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:53, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
• Keep. It's a summary, not OR. We are capable of determining by discussion what items should be included in such a list. Summaries suchas this are an appropriate and accepted type of article. DGG ( talk ) 20:36, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
  • @DGG: what is it summarizing? We have a list of companies united by them being "popular", with the list duplicated in an article sidebar and a stand alone timeline, neither of which have ever defined "popular" or set criteria for what qualifies as "popular" — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:59, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:57, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

• Keep - Perhaps it would be better to change the title of the article, and refocus. It is more a collection of services that acquired most of the market share in their own area, and that has been changing over time. Neutrality of this topic is going to be always an issue, but it is nevertheless a useful article. If necessary discuss inclusion criteria on the talk page.--Micru (talk) 10:09, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
  • I have no objection to changing the title and being more specific in its criteria. In order to successfully do that we should close the AFD as keep so enthusiastic editors can discuss and edit.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:57, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
    • You (and some other editors above) are basically saying "Keep, as long as we change its title and its contents.". Mindblowing.--damiens.rf 14:13, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
      • Not exactly. I'm saying to keep it first. Then if consensus wants to change the title that's one avenue to a final solution.--19:59, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
• Keep - Even if it is OR, it is still useful information. Maybe the title should be changed to Timeline of Internet services so that way we don't get arguments about what is "popular". Swordman97 ^{talk to me} 16:31, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
  • WP:NOT#OR is a policy. As for your second suggestion, if we convert it to a timeline of all internet services, it would become a directory listing. This is not allowed per WP:NOTDIR. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 16:39, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
    • Since this is not original research, it doesn't matter.--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:31, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
• Delete – don't we have enough of these already? Between the Timeline of web browsers, List of Internet pioneers, more specific articles like List of virtual communities with more than 100 million users, History of blogging, and history of webcomics, and categories like Category:Internet properties by year of establishment‎, I'd want to see a pretty well-established list here or none at all. The topic ("internet services") is incredibly general. This timeline includes technologies, websites, and web applications, without distinction. "Popular" is even vaguer. Was Keenspot popular enough to be listed? The service was influential and used by many people, but I think everyone here would agree it doesn't even come near the likes of Yahoo!. How about Outlook.com? Used by millions, but so are plenty of other services. Honestly, I don't think this list can serve any purpose other than being a popularity contest. Can I add Marktplaats.nl? It's used by millions of people, so that counts as popular, right? ~Mable (chat) 19:44, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment @Maplestrip: None of these captures what this list is about. Category:Internet properties by year of establishment‎ includes every Internet property and not just the popular ones and the other articles are about specific types of Internet services. It's supposed to be that general - especially as there are new types of Internet websites/services/... getting established (innovation and novelties per year is a main point of the article). For the definition of "popular" please see the previous discussion - let's decide upon inclusion criteria on its talk page. Keenspot seems to have been several orders of magnitude beneath the other items of the list in terms of popularity - it may have been used by many people interested in webcomics which aren't that many. I think this list has been going fine until now so why should that change just now...and there is the issue of the missing inclusion criteria - but that's not a point for deleting the article but instead requires us to simply define some on the talk page. --Fixuture (talk) 20:15, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
    • I'm not just worried about the lack of inclusion criteria, however, but I am also audited about the actual scope. Are there even sources specifically listing or discussing major "Internet services"? If so, what sources would list web browsers and websites side-by-side? The vagueness of "internet services" worries me a lot. I would prefer a timeline of popular Internet technologies and a timeline of popular websites. I'm sure we already have a list of best-sold mobile apps (I'm on mobile right now, so checking is hard) (EDIT: like this?). These kind of things are much better defined and result in a meaningful collection of items. ~Mable (chat) 21:27, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
      • I'm not concerned. Bing News Search turns up many listings.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:43, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
        • Huh, seems like Bing only gives regional articles, so all I see is unrelated Dutch stuff. A Google News search using the same query also doesn't give anything useful. Could you link some of these articles directly? ~Mable (chat) 09:03, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. However, if anyone thinks they can improve this article by demonstrating sufficient notability for the subject, I am willing to userfy the article to allow them to give it another try. Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:37, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Barbi Losh

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Barbi Losh
• Articles for deletion/Barbi Losh (2nd nomination)

Barbi Losh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

In the previous discussion one of the weak keeps essentially said "I do not think Losh is notable for winning Miss Florida USA, but if there is consensus that such makes someone notable, we should follow it." We clearly now have consensus developed that such absolutely does not make someone notable. Losh's other roles were even more non-notable. State beauty pageant winners may go on to be notable in the future, but they are not notable for winning state beauty pageants. John Pack Lambert (talk) 08:02, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:37, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:44, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:44, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

• Delete -- a WP:PSEUDO BLP on a non-notable individual. State level pageant win is a WP:BIO1E and does not make someone notable. Coverage is trivial and local. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:30, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty Pageants-related deletion discussions. PageantUpdater (talk) 00:24, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

• Redirect to Miss Florida USA as a valid search term, and the subject is mentioned there as the 1985 winner. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:52, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:02, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 20:23, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

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

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

The result was redirect to Miss Michigan USA. Arguments in favor of deletion are generally stronger. (non-admin closure) SSTflyer 02:45, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Rashontae Wawrzyniak

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Rashontae Wawrzyniak
• Articles for deletion/Rashontae Wawrzyniak (2nd nomination)

Rashontae Wawrzyniak (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

The fact that this article plagued with "citation needed" and having no reliable sources at all, just a listing to IMDb (totally not reliable) and to whatever hometownlife is, can survive one deletion nomination and a reasonable redirect request just shows how flawed in favor of articles on totally unnotable people Wikipedia is. Wawrzyniak is a totally unnotable individual. Having an article on her is a total waste of space and computer storage. John Pack Lambert (talk) 08:17, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:03, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

• Delete -- an unsourced WP:PSEUDO BLP on a non-notable individual. State-level pageant win is a BIO1E and does not add to subject's notability. Add: the fact that Ms Wawrzyniak was quoted in the press is a trivial mention and lacks WP:PERSISTENCE. Further, Wikipedia is not WP:NEWS, but requires a balanced biography, which I do not see here. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:04, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:44, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:44, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:48, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

• Redirect to Miss Michigan USA as a valid search term, and the subject is mentioned there as the 2015 winner. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:48, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
• Keep All claims of WP:BIO1E against almost all beauty pageant winners are invalid. They win a State or National title, then, separately go on to compete at the next higher level. Equate this to WP:NSPORT where every athlete has to qualify at their preliminary level before going to a major competition. In this case she won Miss Michigan and then competed in the Miss USA. Additional to her case, she also has a credited role in a major motion picture, Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice and was quoted in the New York Times supporting Donald Trump after the network coverage for her pageant was cancelled due to his racist comments about Mexicans while announcing for president. Trackinfo (talk) 08:52, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:04, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

• Comment -- IMO, WP:BIO1E exactly applies. The state level winners may be notable for their state level win; but they are not notable for competing in the next level pageant, if they do not win. Miss America or Miss USA are not the Olympics :-). K.e.coffman (talk) 00:22, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
• Comment One of the keep votes above says "she had a credited role in Batman v. Superman:Dawn of Justice". Her role is listed as "beautiful woman". Having watched that film twice, that description gives me no clue as to where she appeared in the film. It is an extreme bit part. Not at all the stuff notability is made from. The Detroit Free Press article this is sourced from basically is "look, some local people are in a top billed film." Nothing in that references works towards notability. Especially since the mention to Wawrzyniak was a rushed one line mention even in the Free Press article. Also, being quoted in the NYT or anywhere else is not a sign of notability. What is needed to suggest passing GNG is indepth coverage, not a passing quote.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:01, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

While it was not a big role, it was meritorious of being credited and you have admitted that yourself. Trackinfo (talk) 20:46, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 20:23, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

• Comment Being "meritorious of being credited" is not at all any standard for inclusion of a person in Wikipedia, so I do not have to admit anything. I have zero memory of what her role was, so I don't have to admit anything. Actually, more to the point, the description tells us nothing. Having a the role as a character who lacks a name is almost universally a sign it is a very minor part. Having watched the film twice I know this is not an exception. Our notability guidelines say we need "significant" parts, which are almost never unnamed roles, not just "credited" roles. The only sources I could find on this were the Free Press article which is full of people whose role in the film is truly minor, and yet Wawzyniak gets even less coverage than the others, and IMDb, which is not a reliable source, and explicitly called a non-reliable source by our guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:37, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
• There is an RFC with possible implications for this article here Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Beauty_Pageants#RFC_on_creation_of_consensus_standard.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:53, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
• Delete as the nomination is exact with saying why and how this article is a concern and how there's no inherited notability in and of itself of simply participating at a beauty pageant, therefore there's no presumed basis we should automatically keep this simply because of the beauty pageant events or awards themselves. SwisterTwister talk 07:16, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

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

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

The result was redirect to Miss North Dakota USA. (non-admin closure) SSTflyer 02:52, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Rachel Mathson

Rachel Mathson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

If I have ever seen an article that stands up and shouts "this person is not notable" this article is it. Other than cites directly connected to beauty pageants, the only sources here are from the local Thief River Falls paper. This is a town well under 10,000. We do not have any indication that any media in the state of North Dakota felt it was worth noting she had been crowned Miss North Dakota USA. Only the paper in her small home town, across the state line in Minnesota. Just to show how not in the public eyeMathson is, the article speaks of what her current employment is, based on an article written 10 years ago. John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:53, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:38, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty Pageants-related deletion discussions. PageantUpdater (talk) 00:25, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

• Redirect to Miss North Dakota USA as a valid search term, and the subject is mentioned there. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:02, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:35, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:BIO1E; not otherwise notable. I don't believe a redirect is needed as the subject was unlikely to gain note for her name to become a valid search term. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:37, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 20:20, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

• Delete and then Redirect if needed, as there has been consensus at AfD there's absolutely no automatic or inherited notability from simply being at a beauty pageant or if there was a particular award at said pageant. SwisterTwister talk 07:17, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

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

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

The result was redirect to Miss Florida USA. (non-admin closure) SSTflyer 02:53, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Kristen Berset

Kristen Berset (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Berset was Miss Flordia USA, but this is not alone reason for notability. She has also been a television journalist in various local markets, but none of her TV journalism posts are enough to make her notable. John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:39, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:14, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:44, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:44, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty Pageants-related deletion discussions. PageantUpdater (talk) 00:25, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

• Redirect to Miss Florida USA as a valid search term, and the subject is mentioned there. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:29, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:54, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 20:20, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

• Delete -- insufficiently notable for being Miss Florida USA; the pageant win and the role as a news anchor are insufficient to establish individual notability. Redirect to the main article if desired (after delete). K.e.coffman (talk) 03:31, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
• Delete and then Redirect as there are no explanations as to why we should actually keep this and have it vulnerable to restarting or any other mistakes that should not happen; therefore, because it has been established there's no actual independent notability, there should be no presumptions it will happen, therefore it should be deleted and then redirected, since there's no inherited notability from simply having a beauty pageant. SwisterTwister talk 07:15, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus. No consensus to delete, however discussion should continue on the talk page about potentially renaming and refocusing the article solely on the topic of Zerg rush. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 14:05, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Rush (video gaming)

Rush (video gaming) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

mainly consists of a bunch of unsourced statements, full of possible WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Prisencolin (talk) 00:49, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:00, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 August 25. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:02, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

• Keep. The subject itself is inherently notable, which means it should have an article. In general, if an article is in a poor state, but the subject itself is inherently notable, then the proper actions are cleanup, improvement, and addition of references, not deletion, which is counterproductive as it just means the article will later have to be restarted from scratch. —Lowellian (reply) 03:45, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
  • There may be more sources, but the only two currently on the page discuss "alpha strike", which doesn't seem to be the exact same as "rushing".--Prisencolin (talk) 19:07, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
• Merge into Glossary of video game terms.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 23:52, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
• Merge into Glossary of video game terms as "Alpha Strike" and "Rush". I just don't know where to find sources for this topic, but as long as there aren't any in the article, there isn't enough content to keep it as a separate article. There's nothing to work with. ~Mable (chat) 10:04, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Neutral – Looks much better now. Not sure yet. ~Mable (chat) 09:32, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
• Merge. I always rather see a good article, than a selection of poorly sourced stubs. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 17:28, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
• Keep. I distinclty remember it being widely used in the context of Starcraft, primarily associated with the Zerg race; searches of the term in relation to that game should provide some useful reliable sources. "Zerg rush" seems to be a popular thing, in fact the term is so significant that Google dedicated it an easter egg (look at this video if you don't have javascript enabled). Diego (talk) 20:21, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
  • I do see more news articles mentioning the strategy now, but very few seem to go into any depth about it. The Wall Street Journal happens to give a dictionary definition, while summaries of high-level matches may make use of the word. PC Gamer mentioned it but didn't talk about it, while The Inquisitor indirectly does say something about the tactic, but drawing a conclusion from it would basically be original research on the editor's part. I'd still rather see this merged into the glossary and trimmed from its original research. If we find better sources, we can always apply them there, and it will always be possible to spin the article out again lateron. ~Mable (chat) 09:16, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Google Books provides a good number of further sources, which include further commentary and analysis of the tactic on players. [5][6][7][8][9]; one of them is a scholarly source that briefly explores its etymology [10]. None of that commentary fits in the VG glossary list article, which contains a very small blurb of text for each entry. Diego (talk) 10:44, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

I've added them to the article at relevant points, I think that should solve the concerns about sourcing and notability. Diego (talk) 10:58, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  17:49, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 20:18, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

• Delete. This article seems really problematic to me and I offer my condolences in advance to the admin who closes this debate. First of all, the article conflates the terms "alpha strike" and "rush"; I can see where the logic lies in that, but none of the cited references make this correlation, so that appears to be original research. Secondly, most of the sources are talking specifically about "Zerg rush", which is a term from the game Starcraft that bled through into wider nerd culture. I think there's an argument to be made for having a Zerg rush article (which exists as a redirect to the article in question as of now) but not the reverse. If this article is kept, the "alpha strike" content needs to be excised and moved somewhere else. A Train^talk 11:29, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

That is an argument for a move, right? If you delete this one, there will be no content for an article at Zerg rush. If you agree that there's a notable topic here, its limits and proper title can be discussed at the article Talk. Diego (talk) 19:35, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Sorry -- I didn't make my position very clear. I think the article ought to be deleted. If the article is kept then the article should be moved to Zerg rush, for which I think there is a slightly better argument. I'm not convinced that zerg rush merits an article of its own, but I could be persuaded. A Train^talk 11:42, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

@A Train: What do you think of just merging this article into two items on the Glossary of video game terminology? ~Mable (chat) 12:56, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

• The concept of Zerg rush clearly passes the GNG, with multiple independent coverage. What makes you think that the content referring to Zerg rush should be deleted? Diego (talk) 20:04, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

• I have difficulty believing an article on Zerg rush could be more than two paragraphs long, though I would love to be proven wrong. ~Mable (chat) 20:59, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

There are already four well-referenced paragraphs about the Zerg rush in the article now, not counting the part about alpha strike. Diego (talk) 05:58, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:21, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Catherine Thomas (model)

Catherine Thomas (model) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NMODEL. Appeared on two reality television seasons (Britain's Next Top Model (cycle 4) and America's Next Top Model (cycle 18)) but did not win either. No indication of notability. Linguist 111 ^Moi? Moi. 15:33, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

• Delete non-notable model.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:22, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:32, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:32, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

• Keep Sources in-depth and in-depth and interview and mention and several paragraphs and in-depth (the BBC) and multiple images of her and so on. Fairly decent pageviews at 35/day (correlates with notability). Meets the GNG.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:12, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

All of those sources (except the last) are just routine coverage of Britain's Next Top Model and America's Next Top Model, given to all contestants. The last one is a post from a LiveJournal blog, which is not a reliable source. Pageviews are irrelevant. No indication of notability. Linguist 111 ^Moi? Moi. 02:07, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

That other models get coverage is irrelevant; Catherine Thomas gets coverage -- that is what matters here. There are other in-depth sources.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:16, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Being a model, a contestant on two reality TV shows and the subject of run-of-the-mill reality TV coverage and interviews does not make you notable. She's just a run-of-the-mill model and reality TV show contestant. Still no separate notability. Linguist 111 ^Moi? Moi. 15:49, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

• Weak delete: If we had more of her career besides the reality shows, it might help, but I'm not seeing it. Pageviews on wikipedia do not confer notability, nor to photoshoot articles. the interviews help, but I do agree that the standard coverage given a contestant is not quite enough. I am willing to reassess my position if there are more WP:RS provided. Montanabw^(talk) 03:42, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 20:17, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

• Delete as the 1 confirmed Keep vote simply lists photo galleries, interviews and other trivial coverage and all of that is expected especially when it comes to entertainment subjects; none of this is establishing any actual independent notability substance, however. SwisterTwister talk 00:47, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:15, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Andrej Bauer

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Andrej Bauer
• Articles for deletion/Andrej Bauer (2nd nomination)

Andrej Bauer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Subject is a Professor. He appears to fail WP:NACADEMICS, but it is a fairly narrow fail. I would go with a very weak delete at this time. I declined PROD as no valid reason was given on the PROD template and because I feel this warrants a discussion. Safiel (talk) 15:52, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

• Comment Article was previously deleted at AfD, but that was ten years ago and he was a newly minted PhD at the time, making deletion the obvious choice. That is no longer the situation so the reasoning at the first AfD no longer applies. Safiel (talk) 15:55, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

• Keep: The deleting editor referred at one point to "self-promotion". So I checked the edit history and sure enough Bauer himself twice edited the page:

once to correct the town and date of his birth

once to change the field of study list from category theory and homotopy theory to constructive mathematics and 3 other fields

If this counts as self-promotion then we are all subject to deletion.

Bauer was a principal researcher at the Institute for Advanced Study during their seminar on Homotopy Theory. In fact, he apparently wrote most of the report summarizing that major initiative in mathematical theory of higher categories. He has worked with Steve Awodey, Michael Shulman, Thierry Coquand, and other major figures. How is he not notable?--Toploftical (talk) 21:03, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

I have now made a major revision to the article with emphasis on notability.--Toploftical (talk) 23:42, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

• Delete - No significant coverage in secondary sources. Unless more sources can be found, at the moment it fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG. Class455 (talk) 12:54, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Class455 (talk) 12:55, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Class455 (talk) 12:55, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Slovenia-related deletion discussions. Class455 (talk) 12:55, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

• Delete. The fact that he was a visiting scholar at a special semester at IAS does not make him notable -- that kind of thing is standard and happens to every moderately successful mathematician, usually on multiple occasions during their career. His mathematical footprint appears to have been fairly light thus far; MathSciNet gives him a grand total of only 105 citations, which is quite low. Presumably most of his work is in Computer Science, and GScholar give an h-index of 13; that's still pretty low, especially given that GScholar's h-index is an over-estimate as it includes citations to arXiv preprints and such. I looked at his webpage for more details, but I am not seeing anything else there to indicate notability per WP:PROF, such as journal editorships, named lectures, prizes/awards, etc. Just not seeing much here to hang one's hat on in terms of passing WP:PROF. Nsk92 (talk) 13:21, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
• Delete - I am Andrej Bauer. I have now been told by Class455 (on his talk page) that even adding my own date of birth to my page is a Conflict of Interest. This is completely absurd and it makes a travesty of Wikipeida. Wikipedia once again demonstrates that they care more about their bureaucracy than attracting well-meaning contributors who have better things to do in life than to memorize a thousand Wikipedia policies. Go ahead, delete the page. I'll be proud to have been deleted twice. And don't forget to delete the Slovenian version, too. Oh wait, perhaps there is a Wikipedia policy which states that I cannot vote about myself? AndrejBauer (talk) 13:48, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

You need to climb down off your high horse. Yes, even an innocuous edit of the type you describe by definition constitutes WP:COI, but that is not a significant reason to delete the article. When properly disclosed and managed, and confined to minor non-promotional edits, COI is perfectly fine and is no reason for deletion. There are thousands of pages on Wikipedia of that kind and they exist with no significant problems. If you notice, neither of the Delete voters above (myself, Class455 and the nominator) brought up the COI issue as a reason to delete the article here in this AfD discussion. The real issue is notability, in the sense of satisfying WP:PROF or WP:BIO or WP:GNG. If you can make the case for satisfying the requirements of one of these notability guidelines, then by all means, please do so. But if you just want to feel like a martyr on the pyre of righteousness, then indeed you should head for the exit sign. Nsk92 (talk) 15:13, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

So let me see if I understand this correctly. Providing my date of birth and field of work is a conflict of interest and/or self-promotion, but making a case for my own notability is not? Honestly? Just delete the page, please, and let this end. I made my opinion clear by casting my vote. I am not notable enough and I think you made a reasonable assessment. AndrejBauer (talk) 15:37, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

"Providing my date of birth and field of work is a conflict of interest and/or self-promotion, but making a case for my own notability is not?" In a strictly formal sense, that's correct. WP:COI makes it clear that COI editing refers to editing of Wikipedia articles. Edits in project space, such as editing of talk pages of articles, AfD discussions etc, are not considered to be COI edits (provided, of course, the relation to subject of the article is properly disclosed). So, you can make a case in an AfD that you are notable; or you can make a case at the talk page of an article about yourself that some favorable piece of information about you should be included in the article. Doing that would be perfectly fine, although, of course, it won't guarantee that your argument will carry the day. Nsk92 (talk) 16:10, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

I would not dream of making a case for myself that I am notable. That would violate AndrejBauer:NOSLFPRMTN policy. AndrejBauer (talk) 16:27, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:09, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

• Weak delete. Mathematics is a low-citation field so his citations on Google scholar don't give a convincing pass of WP:PROF#C1, but neither do they indicate any problem. And I think Bauer's own edits to the article can be discounted as an issue: they're the sort of thing anyone new to Wikipedia seeing an article about themself would do, and he's become aware of our autobiography policy and backed out the edits. The problem is, we don't have anything more than his position (full professor at a decent university) and citation record (good for pure mathematics but not enough to base a case for notability here) to go on. He's clearly a successful academic, and I think more accomplished than the median academic biography here on Wikipedia, but without verifiable evidence of notability I don't see how to argue to keep this article. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:22, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

• Keep: Have a look at Bauer's Random Art Gallery. It is a fascinating example of Computer Art. Tomo (talk) 22:32, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it may be cool computer art, but that's not a valid argument for keeping the article, it's basically a WP:ILIKEIT kind of argument. You need to argue on the basis of WP:PROF or WP:BIO or WP:GNG. Nsk92 (talk) 23:48, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

I disagree. I do not think WP:ILIKEIT applies here. I am not arguing about the article. I was just pointing out a source. The idea behind Random Art algorithm is extremely powerful. The program has been around for about 20 years and still attracts a lot of attention and produces remarkable effects by using a collection of simple rules. Very early it has been spotted as a prime example of hash visualization and user authentication through image recognition.Tomo (talk) 02:11, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Brianga (talk) 16:03, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 20:16, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

• Delete (although a weak one)

1. The subject's field is Computational Mathematics which is one of the low cited fields in Computer Science. For this, I usually tend to look for an h-index > 20 as opposed to the > 30 in other fields like security and computer vision. The current h-index of 13 is a bit on the low side unfortunately, but will probably increase.
2. I don't see significant coverage, so WP:PROF needs to be satisfied. Unfortunately, I'm unable to see the chair/distinguished professor requirement being fulfilled or significant coverage of any other research work. Neither are any of the other requirements satisfied.

I feel this is WP:TOOSOON right now but the subject may be notable in the future. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:48, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

• Keep I am the original creator of this article and have recently added more material and citations to it to buttress notability. Regarding the comment above about Computational mathematics: This is a vast and active field. I do not know why User:Lemongirl942 says that it is a "low cited field in Computer Science". Could you provide a link that cites this "low citation" rate. Moreover, this is just one of the fields in which Bauer has made significant contributions. He appears to be one of the key figures in the emerging field of Homotopy type theory a field which has attracted the attention of a lot of prominent people–Thierry Coquand, Vladimir Voevodsky, Peter Aczel, André Joyal, Per Martin-Löf, Michael Shulman, Steve Awodey, and Thorsten Altenkirch among others. Bauer is also an important reasearcher in programming languages, particularly in the areas such as Exception_handling and Effect systems. This work has had a direct effect on major languages such as OCaml and Haskell. Unfortunately this work has not been mentioned in the article. Somebody should add it.

• This deletion was originally proposed by User 50.252.116.51 who is apparently the same person as User:William Of Orange–see "I have proposed this article for deletion William Of Orange 14:21, 24 August 2016" on Talk:Andrej Bauer. Both these user identities are throwaway user pages and were apparently created solely for making this single deletion nomination. I must admit, I am curious as to who this person is.

• I am truly baffled as to why some people think this article should be deleted. If this guy is deleted for not being notable, then at least half of the mathematician articles in Wikipedia also qualify for deletion. I will be glad to provide a list.--Toploftical (talk) 19:42, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
  • You need to offer something more than angry recriminations as a reason to keep the article. Specifically, you need to indicate how and why it satisfies some specific criteria of WP:PROF. In your post above you explained that Bauer has worked in several important modern fields. But you need to show that Bauer's contributions to those fields are widely regarded as important. In his case all we seem to have to go by at the moment is the citability data in GScholar (which gives him a fairly low h-index of 13), and in MathSciNet, which gives him a total of 107 citations. That's it, there is nothing else that I can see in terms of indicating passing WP:PROF: no prestigious awards, no journal editorships, no named or particularly prestigious lectures (like ICM talks), no named chair/professor appointments, no being elected fellow/member of scholarly societies, no publications in particularly prestigious journals (for Math things like Annals of Mathematics, Inventiones Mathematicae and the like), or anything of the sort. Compare that to some of the other names you mention above. Lets put aside someone as obviously famous as Vladimir Voevodsky and look at Thierry Coquand. GScholar gives him an h-index of 27, with top cited publications of 1425, 436, 305, 285, 249, 219. That alone would easily make him pass WP:PROF#C1. Then, according to his CV, he won a Wallmarska prize from the Swedish Royal Academy of Science in 2001, gave the Skolem Lecture in Oslo in November 2005, and was elected a member of the Royal Society of Arts and Sciences in Gothenburg in 2011. Plus he is an editorial board member of two journals, and was a guest editor of two special issues of journals. Perhaps that's an extreme case, but this is a very different picture from what we have in the case if Andrej Bauer, where, at least for the moment, nothing of the sort has been brought to light. Nsk92 (talk) 20:41, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
    • I should qualify my comments by saying that Tomo's post above might actually have been onto something. Part of Bauer's work seems to do with computer visualization and computer art. If he produced some program/software that is widely used and is influential, that fact wouldn't necessarily up in standard citability searches, because people often cite the use of software in weird ways (e.g. in the form of footnotes rather than as bibliography items; I must admit that I have been guilty of doing that myself until some colleagues taught me that the proper way to cite the use of computer software package is to reference the user manual as a bibliography item.) However, if that is indeed the case here, and if Bauer has developed some widely influential computer art/visualization software, this fact still needs to be clearly demonstrated in convincing some way by sufficiently many references to independent WP:RS. Then I would be happy to change my vote to 'keep'. Nsk92 (talk) 00:03, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
      • Some of Bauer's work involves computer visualization, computer art, and authentication schemes based on visual recall of random images. It is a rather technical field and a bit above my pay grade. But if you think if would help, I know how to to find the appropriate sources and could document that material. It will take a bit of work. Will I have any warning if the article was about to be deleted? I am quite sincere that I do not understand why his notability is in question. When I look at User profiles for "Andrej Bauer" I see Cited by 701. I am not sure exactly what that number means but it seemed impressive to me. It is true that Bauer has apparently not published anything in Annals of Mathematics. But that is not the appropriate venue for the field that he is in. He has published lots of stuff in Annals of Pure and Applied Logic and the Journal of Logic and Computation and other journals in his several fields of interest. Moreover, a lot of Bauer's work is in online forums like GitHub and I am not sure Wikipedia fully recognizes work published in such forums. BTW, I am amazed that nobody has written an article for Annals of Pure and Applied Logic. It is cited in over 70 Wikipedia articles. You mentioned the h-index of Thierry Coquand in GScholar. I could not find this number. Could you tell me how to link to this information and also to the corresponding info for Bauer.--Toploftical (talk) 03:37, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
        • • 701 is the total number of citations in GScholar. When you click on the blue link with his name there, it takes you to his Scholar profile page where you can also see more detailed data, including his h-index (according to GScholar) of 13. Regarding 701 as a total number of citations, and h-index of 13 as the GScholar h-index: these are respectable numbers but no more than that. For pure math these are fairly average numbers for an active mathematician at Bauer's career stage, and for someone a part of whose work is in Computer Science, where publication and citation rates are higher, these numbers are kind of low. Compare these results with those of Thierry Coquand, where the top cited paper alone nets 1426 citations, more than twice 701 grand total of Bauer. About the journals. Annals of Mathematics is the premier mathematical journal for the entire Mathematics. Every mathematician, regardless of his/her area, be it logic, model theory, homotopy theory, differential equations, graph theory, number theory or whatever, dreams of publishing a paper there, and having done so is viewed as the signature achievement of one's career. So if a logician or a model theorist or a homotopy theorist has not published a paper in the Annals of Mathematics, it is certainly not because it is not "the appropriate venue" for their field. The two journals that you mentioned Annals of Pure and Applied Logic and "Journal of Logic and Computation" are OK journals, but they certainly don't have the same standing (either in math or in CS or as interdisciplinary journals) as Annals of Mathematics. For comparison, Journal Citation Reports gives Annals of Mathematics the impact factor of 3.116, while APAL gets 0.582 and JLC gets 0.585. Now, I am in pure math myself, but my colleagues tell me that in theoretical CS the most prestigious publications are actually not journals but conference proceedings of two premier conference series called FOCS and STOC. I did not see anything like that in Bauer's record either (although perhaps for computer visualization these venues do not really apply). To answer your last question about how I computed the h-index for Thierry Coquand in Scholar. I had to do this manually, using the definition of h-index and the results of GScholar search for his name [11]. I took the page with those results and counted down to find the latest n such the the n-th publication on the list has at least n citation. If I did not miscount, if was n=27. For some people, like Bauer, who have created their GScholar profile pages, the job is easier, because the h-index is already displayed there. But Coquand did not do that, and so his h-index had to be computed manually, from the results of the Scholar search. Nsk92 (talk) 13:17, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
            • It is correct that STOC and FOCS are the top conferences in theoretical computer science, but they're both much more Theory A than Theory B, and Bauer's work fits Theory B better. Looking through Bauer's CS pubs in DBLP I see one 2002 paper in ICALP (the top European theory conference, and much more friendly to Theory B), and other than that only more specialized conferences. For visualization the top conferences would be SIGGRAPH or InfoVis. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:10, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Reply to Nsk92: I did some checking of the metrics that you are applying. I agree that some of them, the h-level of 13 for Bauer, is low compared with many mathematician articles in WP (although I did find a couple lower than that). But before I throw in the towel, I want to make a couple of points. First, the field that Bauer is in only comprises twenty or thirty people at most. One has to know higher category theory, computer science, type theory, homotopy theory and other things to even participate. Homotopy type theory, in particular, is very new. It is unfamiliar to most mathematicians and they would have little reason to cite papers in that field. To some extent, these people mostly talk to each other–on GitHub and the n-Category Cafe– for instance. That does not mean that type theory, for example, is not important–far from it.

You emphasized that Bauer has no papers published in Annals of Mathematics or Inventiones Mathematicae. Quite honestly, these journals do not have the same prestige they had ten years ago. For one thing, there has been a rebellion among some mathematicians against publishing in such expensive and proprietary journals, John Baez and Timothy Gowers, for example, refuse to publish in Inventiones (owned by Springer Science+Business Media) on principal. They believe that a high-quality math journal can be inexpensively produced outside of the traditional, and extremely profitable, academic publishing industry. This partly explains why the book Homotopy Type Theory: Univalent Foundations of Mathematics (in which Bauer is a principal co-author) is absolutely free and why much of the work done in the field is online in the aforementioned GitHub and open access sites such as arXiv. In short, I am just not sure that the usual metrics for estimating notability apply in this case.--Toploftical (talk) 13:16, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

As an active professional mathematician myself, I can tell you that the big three, the Annals of Mathematics, Inventiones Mathematicae and Journal of the American Mathematical Society, remain enormously prestigious and influential. Of course, I am aware of Tim Gowers' endeavors and the Forum of Mathematics Pi and Sigma journals. It remains to be seen what the future of those journals will be because a huge portion of the mathematical community considers it an absolute anathema to make the authors pay for publishing their papers. But that is beside my main point. I am not saying that the fact that Baueur did not publish a paper in Annals/Inventiones/JAMS implies that he is not notable. But I am saying that we need some positive tangible evidence supporting the claim that he is notable. It is not enough to say that he works in an important area where some other famous people have done some famous work. It is also not enough to make a vague claim that the usual standards may not apply in this case. You still need to produce convincing positive evidence that this particular academic is in fact notable. Incidentally, regarding the journals: there are other highly prestigious journals, just below Inventiones, that are published by non-commercial publishers and with which people like Gowers and Baez have no problems: Duke, Acta Mathematica, Journal of the European Mathematical Society, for example. Plus Annals of Mathematics itself is quite affordable, as is the Journal of the American Mathematical Society. So people in Math concerned about high journal prices and looking for an elite journal need only avoid submitting to Inventiones. Plus since 2013 the Forum of Mathematics option set up by Gowers is available too. But WP:PROF offers many other ways of showing academic notability: Through prizes/awards, journal editorships, named/highly prestigious lectures, being an elected member/fellow of an academic society, etc. Or evidence of introducing some concept/idea/notion/innovation/theorem that turned out to be important in a particular subject. Etc. Nsk92 (talk) 14:02, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

• • • • • Just to clarify my comment of "low cited field". While I don't have exact stats, my personal experience shows that Computational mathematics is one of the lower cited fields in Computer Science. This is particularly true if you compare it to vision or security where it is much easier to publish papers leading to an inflated h-index. Which is why when I vote on AfDs, I adjust my threshold for h-index. For someone in computational mathematics, an h-index of 20 indicates a pretty good record (while for someone in security I will demand a higher h-index > 30). --Lemongirl942 (talk) 04:00, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Reply to Lemongirl942: You mention circumstances that would cause the h-index to be inflated. So is the h-index reliable or not? I hope the former is the case since so many people are depending on its accuracy. Are you arguing for or against Bauer's notability?--Toploftical (talk) 13:16, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

• My own opinion is that the h-index can be ok as a way of comparing people who work on the same research topic but not when comparing people in different topics, even of the same general discipline, because of issues like the one raised by Lemongirl where different topics have different patterns of citation. One should also make sure to use the same citation index because different indexes give different numbers and some of them miss important publication venues (Web of Science is bad for CS for that reason). I would also add that my impression (without much evidence) is that it is much harder for computational topics such as the ones Bauer works on to get into Annals or Inventiones, as it is not the sort of mathematics that the people who run those journals prefer. So (like the h-index) not having a paper in those places is not evidence of any problem. But it is also not evidence of notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:31, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

• Delete I'm not sure whether I have a vote here as the person who originally nominated the page for deletion, I'd imagine that I do not. I maintain that the notability criterion here is not satisfied by the material on his page. I am not familiar enough with mathematical computer science to know the overall importance of the field, but the page in question almost certainly does not provide information useful to people interested in either the social or mathematical advancement of the field.
• To respond to the thinly-veiled allegations above that I have some personal grudge against Professor Bauer, I refer you to my user page wherein it details that I am a graduate student in philosophy. I have no connection to the subject of the page outside of wikipedia edits (of course, I think the numerous other votes toward Delete suggest the irrelevance of this point). In the past I have similarly made suggestions of pages to delete, but since I am a scatterbrain my wikipedia accounts are only accessible via automatic logging associated with my computer. My university recently generously provided me with a new computer, and this page was the first I found after this that didn't seem to pass the notability criterion. Thank you all very much William Of Orange (talk) 20:02, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
• Delete as still nothing actually confident for WP:PROF or frankly WP:AUTHOR since there's only a 100-limited number of library holdings; simply being a chief coordinator of the international olympiad is still not going to be enough for its own convincing article. SwisterTwister talk 00:50, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus. Arguments roughly split between "merge" and "keep". (non-admin closure) SSTflyer 02:55, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Two Chinas

Two Chinas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

seems to be entirely a WP:POVFORK and mish-mash of content from various other articles, and probably a WP:COATRACK for various issues. Prisencolin (talk) 03:46, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. — Sam Sailor 10:34, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. — Sam Sailor 10:34, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 13:31, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 13:31, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 13:31, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

• Comment I have heard the term being used multiple times, but I will need to look through some scholarly sources first. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 13:32, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
• Keep zh:兩個中國 is a rather complete article and explains historical uses of the term not covered elsewehere here. The page is also linked from various other articles, and there is no single page it can redirect to. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 05:53, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
  • The Chinese Wiki page seems to have the same problems as this page to be honest.--Prisencolin (talk) 19:16, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:37, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

• Delete Although certainly an important topic all of its information is already given in other articles on the history and current situation of China and Taiwan. (I assert with confidence, but not having personally checked it out. If not it should be added there.) I don't think we would have an article on "Two United Stateses" to suppliment our articles on the American Civil War and the Confederate States of America, nor would we have "Two Vietnams" or "Two Germanies". Do we even have Two Koreas? Kitfoxxe (talk) 15:03, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

  The difference is that the Chinese Civil War is still technically ongoing, without even an armistice like the Korean War, and entirely unlike those in Vietnam, Germany, and America. There's Division of Korea, though that's more about the way in which they were divided. If this is considered equivalent to Division of China, most of the background would be in Chinese Civil War. There's 1992 Consensus, One Country on Each Side and One-China policy - which might be seen as a counterpart to this, as represented by the fact that this article is linked in that article's lede. GreenReaper (talk) 10:21, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

• Mostly merge to a comparative section within One-China policy, or perhaps other articles if deemed appropriate. Many of the topics raised here may be viewed as a "reality check" on the one-China policy as proposed by both parties, and separating it biases both that article and this one. "Two Chinas" as a phrase may have some importance, similar to "One Country on Each Side", but if so the article should be focused on that and backed up with references of its use in that context. GreenReaper (talk) 10:21, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
• Merge I'm certain that more political reasons influenced this rather than just contributors simply disagreeing with each other. As a important tpoic I'm very surprised there isn't a complete article explaining this in a clear manner. However, for merging, either keeping only One-China policy or only Two Chinas might be controversial, so I personally think should be a more neutral title. Or, keep, since this subject may qualify the reasoning "Articles whose subject is a POV". Blueeighthnote (talk) 04:47, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
• Keep This term seems to be used widely. It is actually interchangeably with "Two China policy" or "One China one Taiwan". It is essentially an alternative to the one China policy and refers to the situation where China would govern the current territory held by PRC and Taiwan governs the territory held by ROC. It seems the term used to have a previous meaning earlier though. (See [12]). Regardless, I think it is worth keeping this article and adding more information. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 13:26, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

See also [13], [14] and [15]. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 13:29, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 20:12, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

• Keep and consider renaming to One China principle. As the article on One-China policy states in its lede section:

  Quote: The One China policy is also different from the "One China principle" (一个中国原则; 一個中國原則; yīgè Zhōngguó yuánzé), which is the principle that insists both Taiwan and mainland China are inalienable parts of a single "China".[3]

  The two "Chinas" are quite different to the two Indies, the two Washingtons, the two Galicias or the multiple Guineas and Guyanas. It sometimes happens that two titles that appear to be near opposites are in fact the same topic and covered in the same article. One of the joys of reading Wikipedia is coming across such an article and realizing the equivalence. The phrase "Two Chinas" is thus equivalent to the One China principle.

  The article now reads too much like a disambiguation page. It would be better to move or copy the beginning of the section Current situation to the lede section of the article:

  Quote: "The People's Republic of China (which administers mainland China) and Republic of China (which administers Taiwan) do not officially recognize each other's sovereignty. The official position of the governments of both the People's Republic of China and Republic of China remain that there is only one sovereign entity of China, and that each of them represents the legitimate government of all of China - including both mainland China and Taiwan - and the other is illegitimate."

  -- Petri Krohn (talk) 10:47, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

• • Seems to me that they're opposites - Two Chinas says there are two Chinas, One China Principle says there is one. Either way, Keep as it's covered in ample sources. But oppose renaming since they're not the same at all. Smartyllama (talk) 21:10, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
  • I agree here. One China principle is actually a proposed approach of the Mainland Chinese government according to which Taiwan will ultimately be reunited with the mainland and it will be governed as "one country two systems". This is not the same as "Two Chinas" which advocates an independent Taiwan (as a country separate from Mainland China). --Lemongirl942 (talk) 13:58, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:31, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Live Oak School (San Francisco)

Live Oak School (San Francisco) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

nonnotable school below high school level, which do not get articles just for existing. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 06:50, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. — Sam Sailor 10:35, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. — Sam Sailor 10:35, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:35, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

• Delete per nom, and also a quick google search shows that there is absolutely nothing that can be added that gives the school notability. --MorbidEntree - _{(Talk to me! (っ◕‿◕)っ♥)}(please reply using {{ping}}) 05:52, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 20:11, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

• Delete. Spam, eeven if unintentional.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:04, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Speedy Deleted (A7) by Euryalus. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:12, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Institute for Business and Home Safety

Institute for Business and Home Safety (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Educational nonprofit org of some property insurers and reinsurers. Article is an orphan, without citations, and fails WP:ORGIN with WP:ROUTINE coverage UW Dawgs (talk) 17:45, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:29, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:29, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:29, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

• delete only a primary source provided. I could not find any in depth third party coverage. LibStar (talk) 14:00, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:59, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) SSTflyer 02:56, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

B. Shivadhar Reddy

B. Shivadhar Reddy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

promotional article for non notable police officer DGG ( talk ) 18:10, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

• Why do you consider the chief of police in a city with a population of over two million not to be notable? Would you say the same about a police chief in the same sized city in the USA, say, Houston? 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:48, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:39, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:29, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:PROMO. The subject does appear to be somewhat important figure, so I was not sure what my !vote should be. But I'm swayed by today's unsourced addition of "He is considered a no-nonsense officer that worshipped his service more than he did family." :-) This is strictly a vanity page, with no encyclopedic value. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:39, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:39, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

• Keep. I would agree that the commissioner of police of a city with over 2 million inhabitants is notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:17, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:17, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:59, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

• Delete: Subject is notable, but the tone used in article is totally unacceptable. Delete it for someone to start afresh. Open to change my !vote if tone is fixed and unsourced contents are purged. Anup [Talk] 19:42, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Irrelevant. We are discussing notability of the subject, not quality of the article. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:40, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
• Keep: Passes WP:GNG. The subject was awarded the president's medal which passes the first criteria of WP:ANYBIO. Ayub407^talk 06:30, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
• Delete instead as the only basis of the Keep votes is because of his career position, but in that and of itself, and examining this, has shown there's still no substance or otherwise convincing significance we can both improve and keep this sufficiently. SwisterTwister talk 07:22, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Merge and redirect as there's noticeable comments suggesting either a merge or a redirect which are essentially the same, and therefore since there's no flooded analysis or comments exactly what should and what should not be merge, is why I will only redirect alone; anyone who wants to merge whatever and however can, from the history (NAC); including since the target is in itself only a list, and not an actual full article. SwisterTwister talk 07:20, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Agyrophobia

Agyrophobia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

You would think this would be fear of spinning.... Anyway, the usual made-up phobia results, namely, nothing medical and precious little beyond the usual Greek-root mix and match lists. Mangoe (talk) 16:03, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

• Delete / merge to List of phobias Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:57, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:24, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:28, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

• Keep It's listed in The Guardian and The Times of India as a phobia; there's even an entry in Wiktionary and in this dictionary too. I know some people who are afraid of crossing streets (eg young children). Agree it's probably not a valid medical term although there is a definition here but then the article should say that it's not considered a real medical condition. Still, if the media such as USA Today continues to use it, it should stay in Wikipedia.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:23, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
• Merge/Redirect to List of phobias. That it's mentioned or used in various listicles and dictionaries doesn't mean it's a notable encyclopedic topic (i.e. WP:DICDEF, WP:GNG). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:39, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:58, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

• Delete wikipedia is not a dictionary. No significant content available per WP:MEDRS. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:46, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
• Delete/Merge to List of phobias. It doesn't seem notable, potentially enough to be put in a list. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 22:23, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:55, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

• Merge/Redirect to List of phobias. Sufficient notability to be in a list, insufficient reliably sourced content available to have its own article. Fieari (talk) 01:53, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
• Merge to List of phobias which is enough. The subject doesn't have reliable sourced content to have it's own article. Ayub407^talk 06:54, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

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

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

The result was redirect to list of phobias. The target already has a mention with the right amount of detail (i.e. very little), so redirect makes more sense than merge. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:53, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Amychophobia

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Amychophobia
• Articles for deletion/Amychophobia (2nd nomination)

Amychophobia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Deleted once a decade ago, this one is bad even by the standards of "list of phobias" standards, which incidentally are the only GScholar hits. Mangoe (talk) 19:29, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:24, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:27, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

• Merge/Redirect to list of phobias. Not enough coverage for a stand-alone article. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:41, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:58, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

• delete nonnotable coinage. No sources to attest notability per WP:MEDRS Staszek Lem (talk) 21:40, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:54, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

• Merge to list of phobias - No evidence of notability to warrant an article however can easily be merged or redirected in the list of phobias, Didn't really need a discussion here neither. –Davey2010^Talk 00:14, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:00, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Oklahoma D-Day

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Oklahoma D-Day
• Articles for deletion/Oklahoma D-Day (2nd nomination)

Oklahoma D-Day (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Page was deleted back in 2006 and looks to have been recreated with a ton of unsourced or primary sourced detail, citing no reliable independent sources at all. Some weak paintball-specific sources are available, but almost all the significant coverage looks to be connected to the event/park or very low quality. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:55, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:56, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:56, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:56, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

• Comment. Reliable source coverage does exist: articles from The Oklahoman [16], Fayetteville Observer [17], KOTV (in Tulsa) [18], Reuters [19], and even a photo feature from TIME [20]. Described as "the mother of all Scenario Games" in a Sports Illustrated article about paintball. [21] --Arxiloxos (talk) 21:41, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
• Keep. I looked at just the Time and Reuters sources provided by Arxiloxos and accept them as establishing notability. --doncram 23:51, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
• Keep. Not much sourcing in the article, but clearly notable per Arxiloxos' sources. I just copied the source to the article's Talk page. Alsee (talk) 15:41, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
• Comment - I'll go ahead and Withdraw this. Admittedly, I nominated this while down the Chaneyverse rabbithole and was predisposed to being cynical. Chalk it up to WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:58, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

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

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

The result was redirect to List of phobias. MBisanz ^talk 01:22, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Antlophobia

Antlophobia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Yet another WP:DICTDEF phobia with no clinical literature, padded with boilerplate phobia treatment text. Mangoe (talk) 20:13, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:24, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:27, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

• Merge/Redirect to List of phobias - As with so many others, there doesn't seem to be enough coverage in good enough sources to justify a stand-alone article. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:49, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:35, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

• Delete no significant coverage per WP:MEDRS. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:48, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:56, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

• Delete as there's no hope there would be a convincing separate article, because, as with all of these, they would simply contain a limited amount of information therefore best simply mentioned at the list altogether. SwisterTwister talk 00:48, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. Seems like this topic may be notable, although foreign language sources need inspection still. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:57, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Olga Jegunova

Olga Jegunova (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This article was declined three times at AfC before its creator, who has not edited outside of this page and related talk discussions, moved it into mainspace. There is no solid, independent evidence this pianist is notable; the article fails all criteria for WP:COMPOSER (or the other applicable music guidelines) and WP:ANYBIO; Jegunova received the Steinway Award, which does not appear to be terribly significant on its own, garnering no coverage in reliable sources. While Jegunova might prove notable in the future, the lack of relevant coverage in reliable sources make it clear it is simply too soon for an article. —^0xF₈E₈ (talk) 22:41, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:38, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latvia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:38, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:38, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

• Comment Not sure as yet, feels like someone there should be coverage of; two third-party reviews suggests there should be more, and there's the Russian news article, but could be a WP:TOOSOON, let's see if anything else comes up in the next few days. Pianogac, is there any other news media coverage of Olga Jegunova that you know of, in any language? - David Gerard (talk) 21:02, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:26, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:35, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

• Keep (tentative): I found this bio article in Diena, Latvia's daily newspaper, so appears to be RS: Latvian pianist Olga Jegunova's successful debut at the Edinburgh Festival. There's probably more available in Latvian; I reached out to WikiProject Latvia.

I see that the article is already included in references... But the 2008 Steinway award is something, as well. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:17, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

• Keep at least as the sources suggest this is enough, and that native language analysis would help also. SwisterTwister talk 06:52, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

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

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

The result was redirect to Cleveland Hustles. Consensus leans towards not having a separate article due to notability concerns. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:33, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Kumar Arora

Kumar Arora (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Declined a speedy deletion request for this article because it makes a notability claim as a CEO and there are some reliable sources. Bringing it here for wider audience review as (a) the company he is CEO of is small and arguably not notable, and (b) the references are reliable but small-scale (essentially local or regional media). Other views welcome. -- Euryalus (talk) 04:51, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

• Delete I had nominated it for CSD myself. The personality clearly fails notability claim. - Vivvt (Talk) 06:29, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
• Keep A few things from a quick search: in some articles it states he is President, while other he is CEO. Not sure if that is relevant. Beyond that, its safe to say its better to improve the article than to delete it as its very clear he is a television personality and on CNBC - and that alone should warrant a Wiki article. I have updated the article from the OP to fix some issues but it may just be better to revise pieces from Career. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clevelandhustlesfan23 (talk • contribs) 07:08, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
• Merge/Redirect to Cleveland Hustles: He does not appear to meet GNG/ANYBIO as his business coverage is thin, and appears to be primarily Ohio-based. Nor does he meet WP:ENTERTAINER, though as a regular participant on a CNBC reality show with a national reach and an angel investor focus, Cleveland Hustles, it could/should include compressed versions of the business history of Arora and any other regulars for whom individual notability cannot be clearly established. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 07:48, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:55, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

• Delete non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:46, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:34, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

• Delete as the Keep vote is from an SPA and then the Merge vote itself states how he's not actually independently notable. The article itself is noticeably PR-like and only contains sources that are apparently meant to suggest that alone is enough for an article, but it's of course not, because we would have needed actual substance from those sources and information for an acceptable article, SwisterTwister talk 07:23, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

• Here's WP:BEFORE#C4 verbatim: "If the topic is not important enough to merit an article on its own, consider merging or redirecting to an existing article. This should be done particularly if the topic name is a likely search term."

Is the topic a likely search term for someone watching Cleveland Hustles? Yes (although the show's viewership is not great, and declining). Does Arora need to be independently notable (to the level of GNG) to be merged? No. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 02:44, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

• ... and I have gone ahead and added cast info to the article, with Arora's info briefly folded in. Redirection is now appropriate. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 03:56, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:33, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Aarti V Raman

Aarti V Raman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Not enough coverage to pass the GNG. I could only come up with one review of her books in an independent, reliable source [22] and nothing on Raman herself Joe Roe (talk) 19:02, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

• Comment that one rs book review is all I could find as well except for an interview and lots of blogs, so unless someone finds rs offline perhaps or behind a paywall it seems to be a case of lack of rs. Atlantic306 (talk) 20:12, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Joe Roe (talk) 20:41, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Joe Roe (talk) 20:41, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

• Delete one review as the only reliable source mention is not enough to pass the GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:13, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

• Delete: Just not yet. There is two rs now, [23], [24]. If someone finds more, ping me, I will change my !vote. Anup [Talk] 16:09, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:33, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Frank Britton Wenzel

Frank Britton Wenzel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Delete: questionable notability. I did a lot of work on this article, including getting his correct dates of birth and death, but I don't think he is particularly notable and I am not sure what he is supposed to be particularly notable at being in the first place. Quis separabit? 18:56, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

• Delete non-notable performer and extremely local politician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:33, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:31, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:31, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:31, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:34, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

• Delete. Malverne is nowhere near large enough a town to hand its mayors an automatic presumption of notability under WP:NPOL, so his includability would be entirely dependent on passing WP:NMUSIC for the "Britton's Orchestra" stuff. But that's all completely unsourced, and even if sources can be found I'm betting dollars to donuts that they would support the notability of the band rather than a separate standalone article about him as an individual. All we've got for sourcing here is one article in the local newspaper about his appointment to the village council and a user-generated genealogy site for his birth and death dates — and that's not enough to get him over WP:GNG in lieu of the fact that he doesn't pass any subject-specific inclusion criteria. Bearcat (talk) 23:22, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:33, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Ramesh Magar

Ramesh Magar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Delete. Person not notable and fails WP:NMMA. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 18:40, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Just a courtesy note, @AKS.9955:: your nomination is and of itself considered a recommendation to delete, so if you format your nomination so that it looks like a !vote (i.e. by bolding the word delete) you might confuse the closing administrator. A Train^talk 11:17, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

• Delete, possibly speedy. This article might be total nonsense -- the subject came in (or will come in) third at the 2067 MMAC Junior Championship? It's good to know that Skynet hasn't destroyed mankind in 2067 but this looks like a WP:CSD G1. A Train^talk 11:11, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 14:06, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

• Delete This article was speedied for A11 at least twice and quickly recreated. Far from meeting any notability criteria.Peter Rehse (talk) 14:06, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:23, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:23, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

• Delete This article has no real sources, nor is there any indication WP:NSPORT or WP:MANOTE is met. I have to believe that the article's author is having us on by listing titles from the years 2062, 2067, and 6067. Papaursa (talk) 05:49, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:46, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Virtual filing cabinet

Virtual filing cabinet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Advert for non-notable product. Has already had a prod declined, hence AfD. Tagishsimon (talk) 18:23, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:24, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

• Delete, two of the three sources are press releases that say right on the page they're user-generated - David Gerard (talk) 18:39, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:24, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:24, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

• Delete yes, seems like one of many projects that did not last through the recession that came fairly quickly after it. It looks like the company now sells something called InfoFlow, but that also does not seem to meet notability thresholds. W Nowicki (talk) 17:09, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
• Delete concur with nom. History shows article created by SPA with no other edits in the past 8 years. Clearly COI/promotional intent. MB 17:27, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
• Delete as "corporate spam"; nothing else there. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:08, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. In spite of some well meaning efforts to improve the article, the consensus is clearly to delete. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:15, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Deep Medi Musik

Deep Medi Musik (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

plain advertising The Banner talk 21:31, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:57, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:57, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:57, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi The Banner, can you please tell me how it is advertising I have changed the text a lot now. I don't have any COI so I am not trying to advertise

Jalexlb (talk) 22:12, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

• Keep This page is not unambiguously promotional, because it simply states the facts. There might be room for improvement but it certainly doesn't have to be deleted. The Banner what exactly is your problem here? --Fixuture (talk) 19:52, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, like I am confused because this page now after the edits merely lists what its style is and the notable artists it has released that contribute to its notability as a label. Jalexlb (talk) 18:54, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

It makes me sad that you are unable to recognize an unsourced complete record catalogue. The Banner talk 19:29, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Hiya, it is sourced now. Jalexlb (talk) 23:42, 2 September 2016 (UTC

Great, so it is a copyrights violation... The Banner talk 23:19, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Comment @The Banner: This is exactly the behaviour that drives away newcomers to Wikipedia. That guy put work into creating a new Wikipedia article so be thankful! I'm always confounded of the unfriendliness of editors here. Don't you notice this yourself? For the alleged "copyrights violation" - where exactly does it say that record catalogs are copyrighted? It makes no sense as these are just factual lists. --Fixuture (talk) 10:37, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Actually the terms of discogs technically state that this kind of use would be ok as they technically have no right over the information as it is just the label's catalogue numbers and release names hence why there are exact copies here and here and here. It would only be an infringement if we were using the listings of discogs sellers, or somehow using the info for profit. However if need be, I shall edit the article to instead show a roster of artists.

Jalexlb (talk) 16:42, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  17:58, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Just copying to reignite the discussion but:

Actually the terms of discogs technically state that this kind of use would be ok as they technically have no right over the information as it is just the label's catalogue numbers and release names hence why there are exact copies here and here and here. It would only be an infringement if we were using the listings of discogs sellers, or somehow using the info for profit. HOWEVER if need be, I shall edit the article to instead show a roster of artists. Would that be a better solution

Jalexlb (talk) 11:37, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

References

• Delete per WP:PROMO. The article largely consists of a list of recording that the label issued, making it a WP:DIRECTORY, which is an additional rationale for deletion. K.e.coffman (talk) 15:44, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment @K.e.coffman: If there's truly a problem with that just remove that recording list instead of having the whole article deleted. --Fixuture (talk) 10:37, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

I changed that and some other things, so now there is no longer a list of recordings. It is a notable label as shown in the sources

Jalexlb (talk) 19:03, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:29, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

• Delete This is far from satisfying WP:CORPDEPTH. The best I found are some trivial mentions on some newsblogs. I don't see any indication that this is a significance record label. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:13, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

• • Comment @Lemongirl942: It is one of the most influential labels in the UK dubstep scene. Music labels typically aren't the center of medial attention but there#s enough coverage anyway (e.g. [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30]). Another showcase of this label's notability are the 43k likes of its facebook page. It would be more than biased to delete it. --Fixuture (talk) 10:37, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

But there are reviews, some of which are full length on big music sites, it is definitely significant to dubstep's history. If it wasn't significant, these big music sites and magazines such as NME and Pitchfork would not be covering it.

Also special note that they describe the label in Mixmag as 'treasured'

Jalexlb (talk) 11:48, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

References

• Comment: Fixuture, Jalexlb, a couple of points – firstly, Wikipedia doesn't recognise blogs as reliable independent sources. Secondly, while there are certainly some big names like Skream and James Blake with connections to the label, that and the interviews with artists on the label doesn't necessarily make the label itself notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Please see WP:INHERITORG which states that notability of a company isn't conferred by association with notable people. Richard3120 (talk) 18:44, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

NME and Mixmag aren't 'blogs' they are massive magazines, as is shown by the fact they have their own wikipedia pages. Jalexlb (talk) 15:52, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Correct, but you haven't referenced NME or Mixmag anywhere in the article, and have instead used blogs such as drumsofthesouth.com. I was talking about the article as it stands. And they are not articles about the label, they are articles about albums – again, please read WP:INHERITORG. Richard3120 (talk) 16:29, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

The article also uses a scientific journal in which deep medi is mentioned, also the documentary bassweight which was on the bbc, and many other notable sources. Also those albums were notable BECAUSE they were on Deep Medi, not the other way round. Also there is the vice feature on the history of dubstep which talks about deep medi. There are many sources I have shown on the talk page and the article which show its notability.

Also what about mixmag calling it treasured, it is from a reliable source and it talks about the label? Also labels are literally only about who they sign because music is how labels get well known, You could say therefore that Mala, a notable musician running it may not be enough on its own through that rule but the music is the very fabric of every label and with that, no labels would be notable because they would only be inhereting notability through releases.

Jalexlb (talk) 16:56, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Jalexlb (talk) 16:56, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

My point is that if you actually added them to the article rather than just listing them here or on the talk page, you would have a better chance of seeing the article kept – as it stands it has almost no reliable sources. You talk about a "scientific journal" and BBC documentary, and yet you haven't added any of them as references, so we have absolutely no proof of verifiability so far. I know the Guardian blog *talks* about the documentary, but there's no proof in the article that Deep Medi are mentioned. Richard3120 (talk) 18:10, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

@Richard3120: I added it, so now the journal is there in the references and I think that helps the cause. Jalexlb (talk) 18:44, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

So now we have quite a view verifiable sources actually Jalexlb (talk) 11:05, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, would you mind pointing out which one is the scientific journal, please? Richard3120 (talk) 01:59, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

This one, its in the journal of electronic dance music Jalexlb (talk) 12:13, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Hmm, OK, although it's really just a review by some teacher of the same BBC documentary that mentions Deep Medi in passing in the wider context of the dubstep scene. Richard3120 (talk) 14:06, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, but why do you think they chose Deep Medi out of any dubstep record label, because it is literally the most significant in the scene, they wouldn't have chosen it otherwise as one of the ones to talk about. Mixmag wouldn't have called it treasured, and its most recent release topper top by Sir Spyro wouldn't be currently at around 100 in the itunes chart despite dubstep supposedly having already had its best days behind it. Also it wasn't an in passing mention. A large part of the documentary is filmed about/ around a Deep Medi night

Jalexlb (talk) 18:46, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. The YouTube views claim causes the article to fail A9. Sources presented in this discussion establish WP:GNG notability. (non-admin closure) SSTflyer 02:59, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Pokémon Go Song

Pokémon Go Song (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable stub, only 1 source. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 16:39, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

• Delete youtube hits aren't notability WP:NOTNEWS. Widefox; talk 22:14, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
• Keep hilarious song, there are also Czech sources for this.--Prisencolin (talk) 19:16, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

WP:ILIKEIT isn't a strong argument. In what conceivable way does this get anywhere near meeting WP:NSONG? Widefox; talk 14:11, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm joking it's actually really terrible. It was covered in Metro, and some Czech news outlets.--Prisencolin (talk) 17:31, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

So basically WP:NOTNEWS, fails WP:NSONG and has zero secondary sources so also fails WP:GNG. Can you reason your keep based on policy/guideline? Widefox; talk 21:22, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Well WP:GNG its not true that it has zero secondary sources.--Prisencolin (talk) 04:35, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

See WP:SECONDARY. Widefox; talk 12:19, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Specifically WP:PRIMARYNEWS, a news source like [31] is tabloid, devoid of much but a primary source, close to the event - it says the video exists and the secondary parts are WP:NOTGOODSOURCE. Widefox; talk 11:54, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:47, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:47, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

• Delete as it stands or merge into the game article at best - David Gerard (talk) 11:59, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
• keep actually some sources including [32] which includes the quote "Misha is probably the most significant and most discussed personality of Czech and Slovak YouTube." [33], [34], [35] etc. Perhaps we should instead have an article about the kid, but we tend to get skittish about BLP articles for kids this young. Hobit (talk) 16:57, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

"Probably" is a clue that that concept fails WP:V, apart from this isn't a news site of the most important celebrities of this week. From NOTNEWS "...enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion", this is news right, completely without secondary sources and fails WP:10YT, I'm tagging recentism per that. Widefox; talk 21:33, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Erb? It's a song. A song that has coverage that seems to meet WP:N assuming those are reliable sources (and they seem to be, though they are ones I'm not familiar with). You are claiming this is "routine news reporting", but I don't see how something this unique (thank god) can be considered routine. Hobit (talk) 22:08, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Fails WP:NSONG 1. and 2. and 3., do you agree? also, see "Notability aside, a standalone article is only appropriate when there is enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album." - this is a WP:PERMASTUB with no artist to merge to, only location would be to the game. Widefox; talk 08:52, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Yep, but probably hits "Songs and singles are probably notable if they have been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the artist and label." So meets WP:SONG. Yeah, I actually think the right answer is to have an article on the singer and to merge that there. But, as I said, we are so skittish about BLP articles for kids this young, I just don't see that as an option that's likely to work. Hobit (talk) 01:01, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Even if this wasn't WP:NOTNEWS (which it is), then NSONG is clear it should be merged (per above). Even alternatively as a BLP this is BLP1E. There's many youtube videos with more hits, and trends/hashtags on social media. They all fail 10YT. This is WP:RECENTISM par excellence! It doesn't even fit in List of most viewed YouTube videos or List of most disliked YouTube videos . Widefox; talk 08:34, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  17:55, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

• Speedy delete per A9. Views are not an assertion of significance. Regards, James (^talk/_contribs) 21:36, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
• Comment this has picked up some BLP violating vandalism, so I asked for protection. I agree this also satisfies CSD A9, so can we close soon User:Sandstein. If this location turns into a repeated site for abusing this child, then suggest an early salt. Widefox; talk 11:47, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
• If it meets WP:N, which it does, it by definition meets CSD#A9. Sources are, by definition, an assertion of importance. Hobit (talk) 21:29, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
• Keep 1) Delete and speedy delete votes are inaccurately prejudiced by youtube. 2) in addition to the RS'es Hobit cites above there are other non-English RS mentions [36], [37], and a bazillion from blesk.cz. Jclemens (talk) 22:16, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

As it satisfies A9, and as explained above could only be a redirect at most due to WP:NSONG "stub", what's "prejudiced" about following policy? WP:NOTNEWS. Widefox; talk 20:32, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Sources are an assertion of notability. This clearly has reliable sources and arguably meets WP:N. Therefore it cannot meet CSD#A9 per the wording of A9. Hobit (talk) 21:29, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Due to notability concerns. The sources provided apparently do not satisfy GNG either. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:34, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Susantha Sisilchandra

Susantha Sisilchandra (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:BIO and WP:DIPLOMAT, simply being an consul for a country does not confer automatic notability. Dan arndt (talk) 01:49, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 01:51, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 01:51, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 01:51, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 01:51, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

• delete being an ambassador is not inherently notable, a consul less so. the award of ""International Businessman of The Year Award" awarded by Greater Dallas Asian American Chamber of Commerce " is hardly noteworthy. LibStar (talk) 02:35, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable individual. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 16:20, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
• Delete. Not enough sources found.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:13, 3 September 2016 (UTC) Keep Sources here and here and here and here. Meets the general notability guideline.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:17, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Tomwsulcer, achieving a 'Stevie Award' is hardly notable, given that you have to pay to be an entrant in the awards, for which there is over 50 categories and the organisation itself even admits that approximately 40% of all entrants win. As pointed out by LibStar the Greater Dallas Asian American Chamber Of Commerce awards are also hardly notable. Take away those and all you are left with is that he is a consul, which doesn't confer automatically notability. Dan arndt (talk) 01:59, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Dan arndt, I don't think it matters about the award or his position -- rather, the media coverage suggests he meets the general notability guideline.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:33, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  17:52, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

• Delete Simply being a consul is not an indication of notability. The coverage in reliable sources is about being appointed the honorary consul but nothing else. The little coverage about the awards seems to be redressed press releases. 2 of the sources 1 and 2 seem to be from the same website which doesn't seem like a reliable source. I don't think this is notable at this time. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 02:49, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
• Delete -- a non-notable diplomat; sources offered above are insufficient to meet GNG. With the coverage of the Stevie award, this is no RS at all (since you do have to pay to enter, and it's my understanding that almost anyone can win, as there are multiple levels within each category). K.e.coffman (talk) 05:53, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus. I'm closing this as 'No consensus' because it's basically a long drawn out argument between two users with no end in sight. There are suggestions for Redirect and/or Merge, so consider using the Merge Proposal process. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:47, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Fly (video gamer)

Fly (video gamer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Lack of significant coverage by reliable third party sources. Most sources are mere mentions that he played a game. The only source that really covers him is Redbull.com, which is questionable as a reliable source. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:45, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

• Keep he is the founder and captain of one of the most successful teams in Dota history, OG. The "mere mentions" that discuss this player are all within the context of OG's victories in major tournaments, which are covered by reliable sources. Additionally Redbull has generally been accepted as a reliable source.--Prisencolin (talk) 23:51, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:36, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:36, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:36, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

• Being part of the team (even the captain) doesn't make him inherently notable. The standard for GNG is significant coverage of him as a person. Those mere mentions of him being on a team support facts, but not notability. I've started a discussion at RSN about Redbull.com, but I couldn't find any discussion there before. If you have diffs to the discussion that showed this source is a RS, please share. Additionally, interviews are usually weak as a basis for GNG since it's really a primary source talking about himself. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:57, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
  • There are only five players on any Dota team, and being the captain means shouldering more than 1/5 of the responsibility. Also, the notability of this player is not based solely on that random interview, which is there only to back up his interest in Krav Maga. --Prisencolin (talk) 01:39, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

• We don't use speculations about the "amount of responsibility" to establish notability. That random interview is the only source that does more than talk about the fact that he played. It's the closest think you have to significant coverage. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:00, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

The bottom line is there is plenty more significant coverage for this person, and I'll add it right now.--Prisencolin (talk) 02:14, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

• Not sure how that doesn't make sense to you. I'll try again for you: 1) What guideline tells us to speculate about "amount of responsibility" on the team as a measure of notability? 2) I didn't say his notability was based on a random interview. I said that interview was the most significant amount of coverage, but it's him, talking about himself. 3) Articles saying he played a game isn't significant coverage. 4) If there's so much coverage, why wouldn't you put at least a little significant coverage in the article first? If it exists, you have it and didn't bother to put it in, that's exactly the opposite of what you are supposed to do. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:26, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
  • He didn't just "play a game", I don't know where you're getting that from, he played in many high profile tournaments and won two Majors. It is also significant coverage, a team is composed of its constituent members, so whenever there's an article about the team, it's also about each of its players, and this is especially true when there are literally only 5 players on a team.--Prisencolin (talk) 05:58, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

• "Play a game"= played video games in a tournament. Just like I'd say a baseball player in the World Series "played a game". Coverage of a TEAM doesn't project notability onto individual members. We see this all the time with music groups. The group is notable, but the individual members often aren't because of a lack of significant coverage. An example would be The Korgis. Notable group, but none of the members are notable. Same with Jump 'N the Saddle Band. Every FBS college football team is notable, every player is not. Is this making sense yet? Niteshift36 (talk) 15:16, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

You have a point about band members not being notable, but in pro gaming, players transfer from team to team quite frequently, and get coverage through this. There are over 100 players on a college football roster, so that analogy is not apt.--Prisencolin (talk) 16:58, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

• Again, notability isn't inherited. You don't become notable by being on a notable team, regardless of the size. You become notable for significant coverage by reliable third party sources. You're too hung up on the number of players. How about Timbaland? He and Melvin (Magoo) Barcliff were a notable act. Timbaland has sufficient coverage to warrant his own article. Magoo is a redirect to the Timbaland article because he doesn't have significant coverage. And because you're hung up on numbers, you don't see the football analogy. Individuals don't become notable by being on a notable team. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:14, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
  • There's coverage of this player independent of the team, such as http://www.redbull.com/en/esports/stories/1331801528382/esl-one-frankfurt-mvp. There's no notability inheritance going on here, because everything the team did, Fly did as well. WP:NOTINHERITED applies to stuff like "this guy is a friend of someone notable" or "this guy once worked with someone notable", being a team captain and a member of a five member squad transcends both. And also, there is no reasonable redirect for this page since he has played for several teams (eg Team Secret, compLexity Gaming, Fnatic, and OG).--Prisencolin (talk) 19:26, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

I know full well what NOTINHERITED applies to. I question if you do. What you are doing is trying to make him notable based on the fact that he's on a notable team. Notability doesn't transfer. And your newer source isn't really coverage about him, it's coverage of game play by him. In other words, if you removed all of the sentences about him playing in that single event, what would you have left about Aziz?

If it's his gameplay, then it's about him. Looking up his old tag "Simbaaa" I've found this and Daily Dot. which has been upheld many times as a reliable source.--Prisencolin (talk)|

• It's about the play of the team, including him. The Daily Dot piece is barely over a mention. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:33, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
  • That's right it's about the team, therefore significant coverage for him. The Daily Dof article lists him in the headline, which counts more than the two paragraphs about him on the article. And also Tal Aizik has played for several such teams, so out of the scope of WP:INHERITED section about group members.--Prisencolin (talk) 22:21, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

• Except it's not really about him, it's about what he did in a game. If you described him grocery shopping, would that be "notable". (Went down the aisle, selected cookies, put them in the basket, decided to return to dairy section). Niteshift36 (talk) 02:20, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Sounds like you're starting to argue that there is no way someone can become notable just by playing video games. Regardless of the criticism pro gaming can get, the bottom line is that there are reliable sources covering this, and many other pro gamers have been kept after being nominated for AFD Rekkles, for instance. Also, yes, is someone gets significant coverage in reliable, secondary sources for years of grocery shopping, they would meet WP:GNG.-Prisencolin (talk) 18:35, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

• You don't become notable by playing games. You become notable through significant coverage by reliable third party sources. Of course there are notable gamers, this just hasn't been shown to be one of them. This has nothing to do with gaming or not, it's about significant coverage by reliable third party sources. The bottom line here is not what you summed it up as. It is that THIS person lacks significant coverage. Despite your assertion, you can't add mentions together to build notability. This isn't Lego. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:13, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

It looks like the nominator and the article creator are edit-warring. Maybe work around that, regardless of the way this nomination goes. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 01:00, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

• I've removed almost no info from the article, just a couple of dubious sources. The only info I've removed was not even contained in the source that professed to say it. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:20, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm done reverting edits for now. I think we're in accordance with the article in its current state, aside from its notability of course.--Prisencolin (talk) 06:33, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Very good. I am keeping an eye on esports articles and will chime in wherever possible when they're brought up for debate. With this one? I have two minds on the matter and can't exactly vote for whether it should keep or be deleted. I think I've thus far endorsed the preservation of about half the articles I've come across, which seems pretty fair. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 08:18, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

• I'm not saying he will never be notable. It could happen, just that it hasn't yet. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:28, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  17:51, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

• Keep - per WP:GNG. plenty of good and reliable sources as well.BabbaQ (talk) 17:32, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

• Specifically, which of those plentiful sources do you feel is the most substantial coverage of this person? Niteshift36 (talk) 19:20, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

• Would still like to hear which specific source BabbaQ feels has the significant coverage. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:56, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

• LOL you do not know when to drop the stick do you. You have been told below. Niteshift36.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:24, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
• Simply doing a IDONTLIKEIT rationale and ignoring what other people are pointing out to you are just strange. I can if that would make you feel better add the exact same statement like Prisencolin does below but it would be a waste of time and energy. It all comes down to a interpretation of the sources, clearly I and Prisencolin sees it one way and you another. Based on the fact that you want this article merged/deleted. We could argue all day about the specific sources but we both know that we would not agree. --BabbaQ (talk) 13:29, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

• So let's gets this straight BabbaQ.... You claim there are "plenty of good sources" and I ask the simple question of which one you feel is the strongest, then you refuse to answer the question. This isn't about IDONTLIKEIT. I've actually cited policy. You've said there are "plenty" of good sources, but refuse to share them. So your rationale amounts to "because I said so". That's not to persuasive. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:26, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

• As seen in the article, sources include ESPN, The Daily Dot, Yahoo, and Sport1.--Prisencolin (talk) 05:51, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

• That doesn't answer the question that I asked BabbaQ. I didn't ask if there were sources, I asked which was the most substantial coverage. GNG doesn't require sources, it requires significant coverage by the reliable sources. Telling me "ESPN" when the ESPN article is about the event and doesn't even name the subject (Fly) by name, calling it significant coverage of him is pretty much wishful thinking. Now maybe the editor I asked will answer the question that I asked. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:23, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
  • I was talking about the other ESPN article, about the roster changes.--Prisencolin (talk) 03:45, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

• The one that literally mentions him in a single sentence along with another guy? Are you seriously going to assert that is significant coverage? Niteshift36 (talk) 21:18, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
• That single article aline doesn't amount to significant coverage obviously, but the totality of sources present do.--Prisencolin (talk) 05:30, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

• No, that's not how it works. 20 mere mentions don't add up to significant coverage, but a single instance of significant coverage can establish notability. Based on your notion, an actor who played roles like "Man on bus" and "bar patron #3" would become notable if he was listed enough times. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:06, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

• Again, the articles about this players achievements as part of a team aren't mere mentions, since whatever the team, each individual player did also, and in this case there are only five players on a team and this player as been with multiple notable such teams, so a redirect or merger may not be WP:NPOV.--Prisencolin (talk) 18:28, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

• And again, you're completely off base. Just as individual members of a band aren't notable just because the band is notable, being on a notable team doesn't confer individual notability. Clearly this concept is fuzzy to you. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:54, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
• That's the key difference between the music industry and gaming, the majority of band member are only part of one band dueing their entire career. On the other hand, pro gamers tend to be part of several notable teams.--16:46, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

• Actually, not true. Many go from one band to another, especially the non-notable ones. Still, it's the notable TEAM that they become a part of. Notability doesn't transfer to them solely because they become part of it. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:30, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
• The key point here is most pop musicians are only part of a single notable band; this player has been a part of several notable teams, ie ones that have standalone article on Wikipedia. The standard procedure to redirect a person into the organization they are most associated with is inappropriate for this case because there are several possibilities. Such a redirect would be WP:XY, WP:POV and WP:RECENTISM.--Prisencolin (talk) 18:58, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

• Except that your key point isn't really correct (many musicians end up playing studio tracks for numerous artists. They toil quietly in the background, never becoming notable) and it still hinges on the flawed notion that the notability of the team confers notability on individuals. And you do realize we want things to be NPOV, so why are you acting like NPOV is wrong? Niteshift36 (talk) 22:53, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
  • I actually meant that it would be POV, and is bad, I've corrected this in the above post. Musicians who have associates acts that are only a one time collaboration are probably not notable just for that one collaboration. I also don't think you can compare playing studio tracks with other artists with a sports or gaming team, because the former are less formal. Honestly I don't know too much about the recording industry, but this seems to be the case.--Prisencolin (talk) 17:49, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

• Why do you keep twisting what I say? Who is talking about one time collaborations? I'm not. Many artists use the same musicians on a regular basis. There are tons of musicians that are part of groups that are far more notable than any of these teams, but group notability isn't transferrable to individuals. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:26, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
• Okay, I'm not claiming to know that much about music, so I probably didn't get the analogy right. Anyways, a person doesn't get notability from a group they are part of, but if they are part of several notable groups, they are. There are sources discussing this player's transfers between teams.--Prisencolin (talk) 17:49, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

• Can you point to a policy that actually supports that notion? WP:NBIO says "That person A has a relationship with well-known person B, such as being a spouse or child, is not a reason for a standalone article on A (unless significant coverage can be found on A); relationships do not confer notability." This guideline then links to the essay WP:NOTINHERITED. Now, before you start talking about family, realize this addressed relationships too. It says "Inherited notability is the idea that something qualifies for an article merely because it was associated with some other, legitimately notable subjects." That's exactly what you're arguing here. You're claiming that because the team is notable, the individual is notable. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:06, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

• Merge to OG (eSports). Everything noteworthy about this topic appears to be in context of OG's wins and not Fly's contribution. Besides for the fact that OG's own sourcing is currently weak and could be bolstered by the sources/prose in this article, Fly's article is more about OG than him. There is one interview, but I'd consider it of little consequence. Merge to the team is the best solution, and it can always spin out summary style if the information on Fly becomes too much for the OG article to handle. The discussions above about significant coverage are really disappointing—either show the passages where the individual is discussed in depth or get on board the merge train czar 15:56, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

• I wouldn't oppose a merge and redirect. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:54, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

• Redirect as still nothing actually containing the substance as his own independent notability; also, there has in fact been consensus these are not automatically notable regardless of whatever or whoever. SwisterTwister talk 00:51, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

• Plenty of good sources. So why would a AfD be instigated if it is automatically non notable? That makes no sense. IDONTLIKEIT is irrelevant. BabbaQ (talk) 13:24, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

• Again, you refuse to talk about those sources, so why do you bother making the claim? Niteshift36 (talk) 17:26, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus. No consensus for a particular action has emerged within this discussion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:46, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Kim Se-jeong (singer)

Kim Se-jeong (singer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

• no notable work yet, she have not any notable solo work to need separate page in wikipedia such cast member in tv ,actng drama,album etc,delete and redirect to her bands.(Pikhmikh (talk) 02:13, 1 September 2016 (UTC))

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Random86 (talk) 02:16, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Random86 (talk) 02:16, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 September 1. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:32, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Keep - She is presenter of TV show Talents for Sale and also winner of reality program. -- Kanghuitari (talk) 07:38, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

• Delte non-notable television personality.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:43, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

• A TV presenter that by sources verified presents notable shows are not non-notable. IDONTLIKEIT does not apply.BabbaQ (talk) 06:04, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

• Can you show us the notability guideline that says that TV presenters that present notable shows are notable, BabbaQ? As a general rule, notability is not inherited by affiliation with other notable subjects. This is also fundamentally against WP:GNG. In order to pass GNG, there needs to be significant coverage of the subject, not significant coverage of related topics. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:27, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

• Keep - Article is about a TV presenter, per sources that verifies she is presenting notable shows. per WP:GNG.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  17:51, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:53, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

• Delete she is not notable at all, actually i do not know anything about her but this wikipedia article is not standard page for living people also i can not find any notable work in her career "Filmography" its cameo and too short (no notable at all) even she is notable, this article can not show this to us, delete and redirect to Gugudan. TULIm (talk) 09:37, 17 September 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.82.4.46 (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:17, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

• Delete: fails WP:GNG – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:22, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Apparently an editor thinks "redirect" is not a correct closure SSTflyer 10:26, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SSTflyer 10:26, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

• Keep. She's done a lot more than just present for a television show, and meets WP:MUSICBIO #6 by being a part of two notable groups. -- Tavix ^(talk) 14:40, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
• Keep I'm finding some sources that suggests the subject passes the general notability guideline.--Paul McDonald (talk) 02:15, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus. No consensus for a particular action has arisen in this discussion. Matters regarding the article can continue to be discussed on its talk page, if desired. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:52, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Hot and Sour Noodle

Hot and Sour Noodle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

No evidence of any notability. A single blog reference. Fails WP:NOTRECIPE and WP:GNG. Previous PROD removed by author without any improvement in the article  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   22:45, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

• Merge/Redirect with Hot and sour soup. The article isn't notable on its own, but it could warrant a section in Hot and sour soup. — Chevvin 23:00, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:45, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

• Comment There are many varieties of this soup. John Jaffar Janardan (talk) 17:10, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jujutacular (talk) 02:46, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  17:47, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

• Keep extensive coverage in Chinese sources: [38], [39], [40], [41], etc. for a clear pass of WP:GNG. SSTflyer 03:04, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
• Keep. I'm not sure what to make of the sources SSTflyer found. I don't read chinese, so I had to rely on the automatic translations. From that, these all seem to refer to hot and sour powder, which might be an ingredient in hot and sour noodle, but that's not quite the same thing.

Some sources I found:

1. Hot and Sour Sweet Potato Noodles-Suan La Fen. It's in a website which describes itself as a blog, and normally we don't like blogs as sources, but I'm inclined to think this one isn't bad as blogs go.
2. CHONGQING HOT AND SOUR CELLOPHANE NOODLES. Not exactly the same name, but sure looks like the same dish.
3. Easy Hot and Sour Sweet Potato Noodles, Chinese Sichuan (Szechuan) Style. Another variation on the title.

There also appears to be a copyvio problem with our lede text copied straight from here (I'll fix that right after I'm done here). The text of our article is badly written; it needs major editing (maybe WP:TNT) to get it into shape, but that's not a reason for deletion.

Merging into Hot and sour soup would be a mistake; while they share some flavors, they are distinctly different dishes. Hot and sour soup is more of a broth (usually thickened). this site (cited from the Google cache, because the site itself seems to be down) also refers to the dish. This dish looks like it's mostly noodles. So, yeah, we need better sourcing, and a lot of editing, but I think there's a reasonable chance this could develop into a useful article, so I'm inclined to keep it. Also suggest moving this to Hot and Sour Noodles (plural) since that seems to be a more common name for the dish. But leave the current title as a redirect, because I sometimes see it written in the singular as well. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:48, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

• • @RoySmith: "hot and sour powder" is an incorrect translation of 酸辣粉. 粉 can mean "powder" or "noodle" depending on context. In my sources, all instances of 酸辣粉 mean "hot and sour noodle", the article subject. SSTflyer 06:43, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
• Redirect instead because simply satisfying WP:GNG, as the 1st Keep vote states, would still not be enough and it sounds like a "eh, it's enough" vote, rather than stating clearly and thoroughly how and why this can be kept separately. It seems they are still in fact connected, regardless if they are not the same food course. There's never a clear line whether these articles themselves can in fact be substantially kept and improved. SwisterTwister talk 00:53, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. SSTflyer 06:44, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:35, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Adam Brouillard

Adam Brouillard (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:GNG. Only source is an authors page on Amazon. I can't find any other sources that reference or mention Brouillard. Strongjam (talk) 16:54, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:40, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

• Delete as it stands I can find only primary sources either - David Gerard (talk) 18:35, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable writer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:14, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
• Delete as completely non-notable since there's nothing for WP:AUTHOR or even basically WP:GNG, there are no convincing library holdings or sources. SwisterTwister talk 21:26, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 02:33, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Regilio

Regilio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable artists. DJ and producer, but exactly what he has done is difficult to establish as with most of these articles, which typically consist of a list of remixes and a link or two (well, more than that, but I pruned the linkfarm, incl. Beatport spam). So he released one single with someone else who is supposed to be notable, D-Wayne, and he remixed two songs. Remixes are a dime a dozen, that any of his singles charted is unclear but it doesn't seem to be that way, and a search of news articles (Dutchies, get ready for Temptation Island jive and Regilio Tuur gossip) delivers nothing. In other words, not notable as an artist, not notable per GNG. Drmies (talk) 15:55, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:19, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:19, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

• delete as it stands no evidence of WP:MUSBIO and I can't find anything in RSes about him. If someone else can I'm willing to be convinced, but ... - David Gerard (talk) 15:27, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:36, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

• Delete non-notable musician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:29, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Deleted after I tagged it (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 18:42, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Healthy Habits

Healthy Habits (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

fails WP:CORP. only a primary source given in the article after 8 years. Article claims 100+ stores when own website has about 25. LibStar (talk) 15:35, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:57, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:57, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:57, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

• delete as it stands - what news reports I can find talk about changes of corporate ownership )e.g. [42]), and there's an interview with the founder on a specialist franchise business site [43], which isn't nothing but isn't WP:CORP or WP:CORPDEPTH either. If there's better I'd be happy to be wrong though - David Gerard (talk) 17:30, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Not substantially contested.  Sandstein  17:55, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Targeting (film)

Targeting (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Unable to identify any reliable sources in any language with more than a trivial mention. —swpb^T 13:30, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:07, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

• We do have reliable primary sources (from what I can tell), such as this French gov't website item. Seems to be available from iTunes, Amazon (?) but yes a total lack of press coverage, from what I can see. Odd. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:12, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
  • It was in competition at a minor LA festival in 2014, as reported by Variety. Does seem to fail NFILM. Delete. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:15, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:07, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:36, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus.  Sandstein  17:52, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Leamington chess club

Leamington chess club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Chess club with no significant coverage of the club itself. There is some coverage of some of the members, but not of the club. David Hodgkins appears to deserve his own article, but the club doesn't become notable because it has a notable member.Jakejr (talk) 06:44, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:23, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:23, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:23, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

• Keep, seems to be some coverage in books, going back as much as 200 years ago.--Prisencolin (talk) 22:48, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
• Delete Fails GNG. The proposed sources only mention the club in passing, with the focus being on individual members who happen to be part of the club. Astudent0 (talk) 15:01, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
• Weak Keep. [44] is a brief mention but from 1908 when coverage was much more limited (paper cost money). There is evidence that there was more coverage back in the day, but it's not searchable online ([45] for example). [46] is a pretty brief mention in the more modern day. Hobit (talk) 17:32, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:36, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:34, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:36, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

James Courtney (soldier)

James Courtney (soldier) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Junior officer who won a single third-level decoration. One of many thousands in the First World War alone. No other apparent claim to notability. Therefore no notability at all, I'm afraid, per WP:SOLDIER or WP:GNG. Can't believe it's been here for eight years without anyone noticing. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:23, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:23, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:23, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. The Military Cross falls far short of SOLDIER. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:02, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
• Delete per nom Nick-D (talk) 10:27, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
• Delete not notable. Zawed (talk) 08:35, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Nice try, vampires of Nevada.  Sandstein  17:56, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Nevada Blood Donation Day

Nevada Blood Donation Day (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Delete. Article about a local event which makes no strong case that it's notable enough to need an encyclopedia article. The content consists of two sentences which offer little of substance beyond "this is a thing that exists", the sourcing that's substantively about it is entirely to local media rather than national coverage that would satisfy WP:AUD, the little bit of sourcing that is nationalized isn't substantive but merely namechecks its existence in the process of being about some other comparable event rather than about this one per se, and all of the sources are merely refbombing its existence rather than being used to support any actual substance about it. Further, the article was created by User:Drdaliah, an evident conflict of interest since one of the people named in the article as a creator of the event is "Dr. Daliah Wachs". As always, something like this is not automatically entitled to an article just because it exists; it has to demonstrate and properly source a credible pass of WP:ORG and or WP:EVENT. In truth I'd ordinarily have speedied this, but this is a followup recreation after an earlier version was speedied for not making an actual claim of notability. Bearcat (talk) 19:01, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:59, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:59, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:59, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:52, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

• delete; local event without broad notability. Promotional too. Jytdog (talk) 21:10, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Need some more input Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:14, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:14, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

• delete 2 gnews hits fails WP:GNG. a local event with no coverage outside of Nevada. LibStar (talk) 15:39, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
• Delete News item only. An article on the general topic of Blood dontation day might be possible.Borock (talk) 15:43, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:22, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Roehig Motorsports

Roehig Motorsports (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

No indication of significance. No sources. Promotional Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 02:06, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 02:42, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 02:43, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:08, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:50, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

• USERFY The subject might have merit but this article is poorly written and contains no sources. ShelbyMarion (talk) 21:16, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Needs more discussion. ShelbyMarion, who should this be userfied to? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:58, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

• The originator of the article, I guess? Perhaps with the suggestion that it be rewritten with references that are similar to other NASCAR Craftsman Truck Series Teams wikipages? But offering such advice is a bit outside of my wheelhouse. ShelbyMarion (talk) 16:53, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
  

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:58, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:PROMO; an unsourced vanity page at this point. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:24, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
• Delete as essentially speedy delete material; there's not only, no sources, but no actual significant information as to how and why the article is convincing of keeping itself. SwisterTwister talk 07:25, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Speedy Deleted (G3) by Rhaworth. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:15, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Top Gear Israel

Top Gear Israel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Top Gear Race to the South (an article about a car race to be "filmed in secret" next month for the yet-to-air Top Gear Israel) was prodded as an unsourced WP:CRYSTALBALL/WP:HOAX yesterday, and unprodded by the creator with nothing to refute this. They've since created a full article for Top Gear Israel, which doesn't have any sources either.

I can't find any news coverage of a Top Gear Israel series being planned for later this year, or ever having been planned at any point - just some mentions of the British show having filmed there in 2010. I can't find anything which links the show in general to Israeli actress Orna Banai - the author claims that she created the Israeli series and will be presenting it. McGeddon (talk) 14:55, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm also bundling in a nomination of the following article for deletion:

Top Gear Race to the South (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

--McGeddon (talk) 14:57, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:28, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:28, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

• Delete both. I didn't anything about Israeli version of the program, including in Hebrew. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 10:25, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
• Delete both as a potential hoax / no RS. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:50, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
• Just to let people know, I've speedy-tagged both pages as hoaxes. Linguist 111 ^Moi? Moi. 09:01, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:55, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Arun Behll

Arun Behll (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

non-notable actor, largely unsourced, no coverage in reliable sources, autobiography, most of the edits are from a COI editor, basically fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. - Managerarc™ ^talk 14:41, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:47, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:47, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: While we discourage the autobio and coi editing, that should not be a reason to drag articles to afd. There are other platforms to resolve those issues. As far as notability of subject is concerned, he may meet NACTOR#1 criteria for he seems to have had act of mixed length in multiple notable films and tv shows (refs are cited in article. there are not tons of them, may be because he predominately works in regional film and tv shows and sources in regional languages are not fully digitalised yet and whatsoever are, is not very well indexed by Google.). Anup [Talk] 16:31, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:25, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

• Delete He has had minor roles in several films, but none of them are named roles. He does not meet WP:NACTOR. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:04, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
• Comment : I want the Article to be kept. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 183.87.81.114 (talk) 15:41, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. czar 04:37, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

VentureNavigator

VentureNavigator (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Site is defunct and has been shut down for a while now. There is no redeeming historical value of this page being here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Misterpottery (talk • contribs) 11:25, August 6, 2016 (UTC)

• Comment - Discussion page was created without the {{afd2}} template and never transcluded to a daily log. Fixed now--I offer no opinion on the nomination itself at this time. @Misterpottery: If you wish to nominate other articles for deletion in the future, please fully follow the procedures at WP:AFDHOWTO. Thanks. --Finngall ^talk 14:23, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:13, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:13, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:13, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

• delete barring an influx of RSes - two links don't work and the third is a Telegraph promotion - and there's no reason to presume this went anywhere - David Gerard (talk) 15:20, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
• Delete no indications of notability, nor significant RS coverage. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:28, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

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

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

The result was merge to List of hotels in Spain#Tenerife. (non-admin closure) SSTflyer 03:08, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Bahía del Duque

Bahía del Duque (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Hotel failing [WP:GNG]. No coverage found except routine listings in travel guides/travel related websites. One of the three references is a dead link, the other two are not independent secondary sources. Had been tagged with REFIMPROV for about six months, but that was removed today (without justification) by a SPA who probably has a COI. MB 14:23, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:59, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:59, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:59, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

• Delete Almost no reliable sources about it. Interestingly enough, the Spanish language article on it has been deleted twice. Joseph2302 17:50, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
• Merge or redirect to List of hotels in Spain#Tenerife. The list-article serves good purpose of holding mention of significant hotels so that they each do not need an article. Items in the list-article can/should contain some information besides just the name of the hotel (e.g. 356 rooms for this one) but should be supported by references. There are too many AFDs about tall buildings and hotel buildings, which create unnecessary conflict between those who support having zero coverage (with deletion of all past discussion about sources etc. at its Talk page and all of the article's edit history, thereby losing even links to AFDs) vs. having too much coverage (in an under-reviewed article that tends to become promotional). The appropriate answer is inbetween: cover the building in the corresponding list-article, using proper references. The redirect's edit history and Talk page provide record of sources and debates. AFDs are not needed unless there is a dispute about merging; try merging the material first, before opening an AFD. --doncram 00:10, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
• 'Redirect to List of hotels in Spain#Tenerife is a good solution. Otherwise it's WP:PROMO and nothing else. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:05, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
• Delete VarunFEB2003 13:57, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy delete G12 (copyvio) by Fuhghettaboutit —David Eppstein (talk) 04:55, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Dr. Indira Priyadarshini Ravindran

Dr. Indira Priyadarshini Ravindran (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Doesn't meet the notability standards for WP:NACADEMIC. Marvellous Spider-Man 14:18, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:33, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:33, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

• Delete. The two sources presented in the article are an online copy of her cv and a press release from another university. I did a search but didn't find any reliable sources. There is not sufficient coverage for notability to have been established as per WP:BASIC. Drchriswilliams (talk) 18:50, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
• Delete (I've just speedied this as a copyright violation, but in case that's declined for some reason:) no indication that Ravindran meets WP:PROF. She is an Assistant Prof. and completed her PhD less than ten years ago, so I'd say it's clearly WP:TOOSOON for her to have made a significant impact. Joe Roe (talk) 18:54, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
• Delete. No scholarly impact, WP:Too soon. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:54, 9 September 2016 (UTC).

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) SSTflyer 03:08, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Crosby G&S

Crosby G&S (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

A general search for sources does not bring up anything very convincing.

Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources Marvellous Spider-Man 14:15, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

• Keep: I have added two sources from local newspapers, one refers to the company as "illustrious" and the other to the company winning two regional theatre awards. I have also added a source to the information about Beti Lloyd-Jones who was associated with the company and was for many years a member of the D'Oyly Carte Opera, which makes her very well-known and notable among Gilbert and Sullivan devotees.Smeat75 (talk) 15:24, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
• Keep as improved reliable sources references have been added as detailed above and awards won, long history passes WP:GNG Atlantic306 (talk) 17:09, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:56, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:56, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:56, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy delete WP:CSD#A7. With apologies to the article's creator, simply outlining a competent individual who had a reasonable job is not sufficiently significant for a biography in a worldwide encyclopedia. If somebody wants to create a draft article using the source found during this discussion, that would be a good way to proceed. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:55, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Charles Sproull Thompson

Charles Sproull Thompson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This article doesn't meet general notability guidelines as the subject didn't do anything to have a stand alone article. Marvellous Spider-Man 14:10, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

• As it stands the article is clearly in WP:A7 territory, but a glance at the Google Books results linked above shows that he might be notable as a mountain climber. Why on Earth didn't the article creator mention this? 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:31, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
• Charles Sproull Thompson just happened to be somewhere where an important event occurred. See Whyte archives if you can get in. He was present for the failed historic climb which killed Phillip Abbot. See the Abbott Pass hut wikipedia article. I'm trying to correct history. These are known facts by those of us who know. There is no plagiarism I report the facts and cite the sources which have info. If you require a major study, and legal proof, I will require payment for the research. Sorry for the errors in my correcting history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Betrway (talk • contribs) 23:17, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yellow Dingo (talk) 00:15, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

• Delete. He was a mountaineer who fell and couldn't get up (at least by himself), but survived.[47] Could be redirected to Mount Thompson (Alberta), which is named after him, if anybody is willing to create that article. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:57, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:44, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:59, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:59, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

• delete - article has nothing to show WP:NN / WP:BIO KylieTastic (talk) 17:06, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
• Delete per KylieTastic. Yes, I'm sure some sources could be found, but there's not enough for a real stub. Bearian (talk) 00:20, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:36, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Angni gami

Angni gami (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non notable poem noq (talk) 14:07, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

• Delete: One of several articles created by User:Kgka Little about one Ronjoy Brahma and his works. In this case, it appears to be a posting, possibly in the Bodo language, of an entire poem, which is presumably then a WP:COPYVIO? At any rate, searches, including Indian newspapers, are not locating any evidence of notability for this or any other Ronjoy Brahma works, and Wikipedia is not a hosting site for creative works. AllyD (talk) 14:16, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:18, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:18, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

• Delete: Fails WP:GNG. Angni gami translates to My Little Village, which is another article created by the same user. Anup [Talk] 16:39, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
• Comment: The article creator is now blocked as a result of this sockpuppetry investigation. AllyD (talk) 06:51, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:36, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Chandu Naik Ramawat

Chandu Naik Ramawat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This article fails WP:POLITICIAN and WP:GNG.

He never got elected to any important post. Very local level politician. Marvellous Spider-Man 14:01, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:42, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:42, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

• Delete, does not meet WP:NPOLITICIAN or WP:GNG, equivalent to a local councillor at a shire/county level only. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:56, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
• Delete: Neither WP:NPOL nor WP:GNG. Anup [Talk] 22:23, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:37, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Evans Karanja Ivanco

Evans Karanja Ivanco (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

The only claim to notability is being amongst "the most influential students in Kenya". I have attempted all kinds of RS search, using all combinations of the subject's name. Haven't been able to come up with anything. Recommend a Delete. Lourdes 13:55, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

• Delete. Looks like hoax, as the "references" listed, such as they are, do not mention the subject. Definitely a WP:AUTO case, based on the username of the page's creator. Nsk92 (talk) 14:03, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

• The references do mention the subject (search for "Karanja Evans"). Lourdes 14:05, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Ah, yes, you are right. Nsk92 (talk) 14:07, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

• Delete. As the references call him "Karanja Evans" let's see if we can find anything online under that name:

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

I also note that his year of birth is reported in the article variously as 19192 and 1924, the first being impossible and the second very improbable. I think that WP:A7 applies here, as nothing in the article gives the remotest indication of anything that is likely to mean that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 16:26, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

WP:A7 doesn't apply to articles where a credible claim of significance is given. Lourdes 17:04, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I know, and I don't see any credible (or incredible) claim of significance here. Having been listed as one of the hundred most influential students in Kenya is not a claim of significance when it doesn't say that he has been listed by anyone whose opinion counts for anything. He might as well have been listed as such by his mum. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 17:18, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Ha ha. True that! But yeah, you're probably right. If I had tagged it for A7, it would have probably got deleted. Just being cautious though on the interpretation. Lourdes 17:28, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:10, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. This article may be notable after all, but the consensus is that the current article is completely unusable. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:05, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Bangladeshi hackers

Bangladeshi hackers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

There are many "Bangaldeshi hackers" in the news, but this article is not clear how this would be a stand alone article. Marvellous Spider-Man 13:52, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:06, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:06, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Delete per nom. ~ Moheen ^(talk) 10:10, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yellow Dingo (talk) 05:43, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

• Delete as WP:OR; an unreferenced essay. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:04, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:05, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

• Keep but heavy overhaul of the article's content. No doubt this topic seems to be notable based on a google search, but as is the article content is unacceptable.--Prisencolin (talk) 18:40, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
• 'Delete Per nomination. Coderzombie (talk) 18:36, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NOT#OR. This is such a badly written article with no fixed scope. More importantly is purely being used for promotion with the addition of all those links. Per WP:NOTPROMO this is a perfect candidate for TNT. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 13:15, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:37, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Tracy Martin

Tracy Martin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable memorabilia collector. The best source for this mess of an article is probably a Dispatch article but I don't think enough sources are out there. Penale52 (talk) 13:15, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:19, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:19, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

• Delete Non-notable individual. This article comprises 100% of the contributions of 1869reds, leading me to suspect this is an WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:50, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
• Delete insufficient coverage, subject fails GNG. Lepricavark (talk) 03:54, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
• Delete Not notable person....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:01, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
• Delete not seeing evidence of notability. Rlendog (talk) 20:04, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
• Delete Does not pass GNG. Just a collector. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 20:51, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. JohnCD (talk) 11:25, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Wille And The Bandits

Wille And The Bandits (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Promotional article, no evidence they pass WP:NMUSIC. Refs mostly passing mentions; many do not support the claims they are listed against. GNews mostly passing mentions. PROD removed without addressing issues. NMUSIC#4 is the closest they might come, if there were actually international reviews in RSes (that could be easily verified, because the sourcing so far is simply not trustworthy). David Gerard (talk) 13:06, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 13:07, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 13:07, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 20:25, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:25, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

• Keep - added some reliable sources to address the claims not being supported, some minor ce, and will work on expanding later with more refs that I think will satisfy GNG.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 17:41, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Pretty good! Can we turn up international reviews? 'Cos that'd nail NMUSIC #4 - David Gerard (talk) 19:21, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
  • @Isaidnoway: Did you ever turn these up? 'Cos at present it's cited to a Dutch blog and some local papers - David Gerard (talk) 13:42, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:04, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

• Keep, good amount of coverage in news websites. Well known on the live scene and covered and referred to often. The article here needs to be done properly. I'm more than satisfied on the notability of this group. Karl Twist (talk) 09:41, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
  • "Well known on the live scene and covered and referred to often" - if you have the cites for that, please put them in - David Gerard (talk) 09:50, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
• Comment I just went on another cull of promotional language and bad sources. The sources are not good - the main sources are (1) a single CD review in a Dutch blog (2) local papers - David Gerard (talk) 13:33, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
• Delete -- does not meet WP:NBAND; sources are mostly local with the undertone of "local band does well" and not much else. This is run-of-the-mill coverage on an insignificant subject. Delete. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:35, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 20:06, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

• Keep. NBAND#4 says "Has received non-trivial coverage in independent reliable sources of an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country" The Daily Telegraph article here states that "The band had spent several weeks on tour in Europe with appearances in Germany, Belgium and Switzerland." (confirmed here which also indicates that they've played Glastonbury and the Isle of Wight festival) whilst any Google search of "Wille and the bandits" live review" will give you multiple - albeit local - reviews of shows all around the UK. Here's a Dutch article in Blues Magazine previewing an upcoming show, and whilst I know a primary source isn't useful, look at their tour page - UK, Ireland, Switzerland and Germany, and some of those UK dates are at decent-sized venues (the Brudenell, 100 Club, Thekla etc.). This is not your average non-notable band. Black Kite (talk) 09:56, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:37, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Alexander Portelli

Alexander Portelli (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

non notable politician, known only for founding a barely notable website. DGG ( talk ) 12:58, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:20, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:20, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:20, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

• Delete I don't think I have ever seen an article on a less notable politician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:33, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
• Neither being the first Libertarian ever to unsuccessfully run for mayor of a mid-sized city nor founding a not-particularly-notable website are claims of notability that get a person over WP:NPOL, and the sourcing here is nowhere near strong enough to claim WP:GNG instead. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 01:05, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:38, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Bradley Green (entrepreneur)

Bradley Green (entrepreneur) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

promotional article for founder of a non-notable pub and director of a non-notable film. The only RS if an obit of his father--who was a notable musician. DGG ( talk ) 12:58, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

• Delete: As I stated for my PROD of this article, "Does not meet WP:GNG. References are either not reliable, not independent, or mention subject only in passing. Notability not inherited from father. Also fairly promotional." ubiquity (talk) 13:07, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:19, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:19, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:19, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

• Delete - I did a fact check during the prod, it was just not up to scratch - David Gerard (talk) 13:25, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
• Delete His founding of a restaurant is not enough to make him notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:38, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:PROMO; a largely unsourced vanity page. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:04, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Speedy delete A7 by DGG. (non-admin closure) NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:57, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Red Rock Noodle Bar

Red Rock Noodle Bar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

fails WP:CORP. Unreferenced since article creation. 3 gnews hits which is routine coverage LibStar (talk) 12:23, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:40, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:40, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:40, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:PROMO; with sections "Menu" and "Locations" this article only serves to promoted the business. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:40, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:A7 I think this should just be a CSD problem I dont think this requires an AFD just my 2 cents however. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 21:28, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

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

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

The result was redirect to Sacha Baron Cohen. (non-admin closure) SSTflyer 03:08, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Spelthorne Community Television

Spelthorne Community Television (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Cohen is notable: this production company's notability is purely inherited. TheLongTone (talk) 12:12, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:33, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:33, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:33, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

• Obvious redirect to Sacha Baron Cohen - David Gerard (talk) 13:09, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
• Great name. Yes, created last year, a redirect to Sacha Baron Cohen is the best course for action, at least for now. The other company founder does not (yet) have a Wikipedia article on him. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:52, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus. No consensus due to lack of participation. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:21, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

20 Studio One Hits

20 Studio One Hits (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Absolutely unremarkable copilation album, about which article creator has nothing to say. Wikipedia is not a listing of every worthless chunk of vinyl in the known universe. TheLongTone (talk) 12:10, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

• Comment, Can't you give it a chance? I have just started the article and you elect to shoot it down straight away. Quote: Absolutely unremarkable copilation album, about which article creator has nothing to say. Wikipedia is not a listing of every worthless chunk of vinyl in the known universe. . TheLongTone (talk) 12:10, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
  Worthless Junk?????? This is an important historical item and a part of New Zealand history and culture. Just have a look at the caliber of the artists on the album before you start charging. Please! Karl Twist (talk) 12:17, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

IMO it's always a good idea to include some claim for notability in an article which might be dubious, like this one. Compilation aalbums tend to have notable songs on them on nobody would buy them, btw.TheLongTone (talk)

I'd also suggest that the TV programme which spawned this is more likely to be notable.TheLongTone (talk) 12:46, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

• KEEP, The albums have important historical and cultural value in New Zealand. They represent the Studio One competitions that were televised over six episodes in 1972 and I believe the same in 1973. The songs are supposedly (I haven't checked every single one) compositions by New Zealand and New Zealand artists. I'm making an educated guess here. I believe the songs that appeared on the 2 albums were only from the Studio One series and in that period of time never appeared on any other various artists compilations. As you can see here, "They are 20 songs that are composed and performed by New Zealanders for the N.Z.B.C.. They were shown on the Studio One television series. The songs were selected from over 2,000 original songs. >> Check here. , Thanks Karl Twist (talk) 13:01, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:33, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:33, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yellow Dingo (talk) 00:14, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:44, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:38, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

J. R. Hopf

J. R. Hopf (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable minor league baseball player. Wizardman 12:05, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:22, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:22, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

• Delete - doesn't meet WP:NBASEBALL and not finding significant coverage. Rlendog (talk) 13:43, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable minor league baseball player. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:49, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
• Delete due to the absence of coverage. Lepricavark (talk) 03:56, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable minor league player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:47, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
• Delete per John Pack Lambert....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 23:05, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
• Delete fails WP:NBASEBALL and WP:GNG.- Yellow Dingo (talk) 01:03, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Seems like the award(s) in question don't satisfy the PORNBIO requirements and other coverage does not meet GNG. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:39, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Kissa Sins

Kissa Sins (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Porn star that fails WP:PORNBIO and WP:GNG. Award win is minor. Sources are republished press releases. No non-trivial independent reliable source coverage found in search. PROD contested by article's creator. • Gene93k (talk) 11:42, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:44, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:45, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:45, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hawaii-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:45, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:45, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

• Delete. Nom is too kind to this article. NN award for best body part clearly fails PORNBIO standards. All references are primary sources or warmed-over press releases. PROD removed by article creator, an SPA, with the edit summary "Fixed Typo" [48]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk • contribs) 11:56, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
• Delete as only minor award so does not pass Pornbio and lack of reliable source references so does not pass WP:GNG Atlantic306 (talk) 16:53, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
• Delete nominated for a few AVN Awards in the industry however her lack of mainstream coverage fails WP:PORNBIO and WP:GNG. -- LuK3 (Talk) 16:43, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:PROMO; the article exists to promote the subject's business. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:41, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
• Delete, lacks any claim to notability; Inked award too obscure. -- fdewaele, 11 September 2016, 11:37 CET.
• Keep, Clearly meets PORNBIO and GNG ... Ofcourse yet again this has nothing to do with wp:HOTTIE and ofcourse I don't expect this comment to be ignored in its entirety. –Davey2010^Talk 21:57, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
• Delete Available industry produced coverage is of no value per WP:NRV. No independent reliable sources cover this topic, fails GNG and stringent BLP criteria. Fails PORNBIO. Steve Quinn (talk) 03:29, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable bornographic actress.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:58, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

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

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

The result was redirect to Odigma. Redirecting under the assumption that if that article stays, the redirect is useful (as said by Anupmehra and not disagreed with) and if not, the redirect will be deleted under G8. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:41, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Advit Sahdev

Advit Sahdev (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Notability. Lots of references, but all are reun of the mill coverasge princioally about companies rather than this individual. Some refs seem to be self-published. TheLongTone (talk) 11:33, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:35, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has b een included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:35, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

• delete, on balance - there's actually two interviews in RSes that supply information about him and serve as evidence of notability - but the rest is almost entirely about his companies, mentioning him tangentially or not even at all. Two interviews isn't enough to swing a BLP off I'd think - David Gerard (talk) 13:19, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

• Redirect to Odigma, the company he founded and is known for. Anup [Talk] 16:25, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Not entirely convinced by that article either ... - David Gerard (talk) 21:33, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Just Googled it and nominated for deletion. There are as usual tons of PR and WP:ROUTINE coverage. Needs to be checked against CORPDEPTH. In any case, if that gets deleted, this one too, under G8 criteria. Anup [Talk] 22:42, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:19, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

From Eva with Love

From Eva with Love (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:NFILM. Google finding very few sources. noq (talk) 11:06, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

• Delete - Confirming my PROD, "Fails WP:NFILM and I could not find any reviews in WP:RS". Appears to be being edited by the filmmaker himself. shoy (reactions) 12:11, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. shoy (reactions) 12:11, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

alts:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Comment: I found it difficult to believe that film (even a short film) receiving multiple awards (even if not seen as "major" as an Oscar) had received absolutely no coverage. In a quick look, I easily found an in-depth independent review by James McDonald at Irish Film Critic. I have convinced myself it is worth looking further before declaring them non-existent. At the very least, the author should be sent to WP:NAU to better understand the difficulties of WP:COI when editing. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 20:29, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

• Comment that link is a dup of [49] that is already on the article. noq (talk) 22:40, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

• Yes, and it is the original review of which the article ref was itself a dup. I still support a deeper search. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 17:14, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

WP:NFILM specifies a "major award". Any organization can make trophies and give them out. shoy (reactions) 12:45, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Ah, that's an "attribute to consider" which suggests that "sources may exist" and is not itself a mandate when it clarifies "Standards have not yet been established to define a major award, but it's not to be doubted that an Academy Award, or Palme D'or, Camera D'or, or Grand Prix from Cannes would certainly be included. Many major festivals such as Venice or Berlin should be expected to fit our standard as well"... essentially telling us that awards (even non-major) hint that coverage may exist. This is why I suggested Looking deeper. Simple. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 05:39, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

• Delete as even the comment above stating the links are still quite thin and are not coming close to the actual needed substance, let alone information, because all what's the listed here are some film show appearances. SwisterTwister talk 00:54, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
• Delete as a non-notable short film. The sources are weak, to say the least. Other than showing at mid-level film festivals, I don't see any evidence this has ever been shown in a regular movie theater, much less an "indie house". Unless a short film is shown at the Cannes Court Métrage or some similar high-profile shorts-fest or a World SF Con, it's unlikely to get much media attention. Furthermore, none of the actors are notable yet. Bearian (talk) 18:37, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. The validity of the sources provided have not been successfully argued that they meet our notability guidelines. J04n(talk page) 13:58, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

DeviceAtlas

DeviceAtlas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Software company that does not meet WP:CORP or the GNG. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kiwiprof (talk • contribs) 10:13, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 15:53, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

• Keep, clearly meets WP:CORP or the GNG. Loads of coverage from multiple independent sources including references to five books on web design. It definitely belongs on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pawelpiejko (talk • contribs) 22:53, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
• Delete: The sources cited and others I could find are press releases/announcements, routine coverage, unreliable, and/or don't cover DeviceAtlas in-depth. WP:CORPDEPTH is not satisfied. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:39, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment: I disagree, there are plenty of examples of in-depth coverage, and even if you don't find them "substantial", the WP:CORPDEPTH says: "If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability." There are multiple independent sources who wrote about DeviceAtlas and this coverage is not "routine coverage". If you search "deviceatlas" in Books.google.com you'll get 612 results. https://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&q=deviceatlas The book "Programming the mobile web" contains an in-depth analysis of how DeviceAtlas works, p. 324-326. An even longer analysis can be found in "Beginning Smartphone development", p. 111-123. Other notable examples of books where DeviceAtlas is covered include: "Professional Mobile Web Development with WordPress, Joomla! and Drupal", "Social Media Marketing For Dummies", "HTML, CSS, and JavaScript Mobile Development For Dummies", "iPhone and iPad Web Design For Dummies". You can find them all in Google Books. Examples from the web, other than then ones listed in the entry, include: nooshu.github.io, The Whir, an academic paper from Universidade do Porto, Department of Computer Science, DZone.com, GSMArena, PhoneArena, and a lot more. — Pawelpiejko (talk) 10:07, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
    • Firtman is not an in-depth analysis; there isn't any analysis. It doesn't have any more information than I would expect to find on the official website: pricing, features, available data. Frederick also isn't an analysis. Nooshu is a blog, so it is not a reliable source. The Whir is a press announcement. Queirós, DZone, GSMArena, and PhoneArena do not have in-depth coverage, mentions only. — JJMC89 (T·C) 17:43, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
      • "Firtman is not an in-depth analysis;" --> This is very subjective. Now you're claiming that a good few pages on a subject in a book(!) is not a substantial coverage -- this is very odd. The fact that Firtman uses information similar to what you think he was able to find on the website at the time of writing doesn't make the source unreliable or less substantial. However, even if this is true, again WP:CORPDEPTH says: "If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability." There is enough books and web articles that talk about DeviceAtlas to establish notability here. Pawelpiejko (talk) 10:36, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
        • You confuse mentioning/description with analysis. — JJMC89 (T·C) 19:23, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

References

• Keep : Pretty well known and has been around a long time, plenty of references to their data around the web, just do a search eg http://mobileadvertisingwatch.com/worm-in-the-apple-iconic-devices-actually-drop-in-market-share-in-many-countries-24028 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.78.96.59 (talk) 12:55, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
  • That source does not have in-depth coverage of DeviceAtlas. — JJMC89 (T·C) 17:43, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
• Delete and allow me to state exactly what is happening here; the first vote states WP:CORP is met given the sources, but even the sources themselves are not entirely acceptable. The sources include simple PR links, take the phonearena.com for example, which not only lists "report" at the name header, but the last sentence says "information given by DeviceAtlas", essentially a press release! The other sources listed even include elements of this, so we cannot blindly confide they were not either paid PR or PR supplied by the company itself. The Keep vote above my comment here then actually states "Google it and you'll see" instead of substantiating their own comment with analysis of why, how and where it can be kept and improveed; especially with these stated concerns including about PR. The first Keep vote then states afterwards from WP:CORPDEPTH, "If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability", but an article containing PR or otherwise advertising is always still open and able to be deleted if the PR concerns outweigh or otherwise becoming outstanding. Therefore, simply saying sources exist and may be substantial cannot be ascertained without then actually guaranteeing there's no risks of PR. The article seemingly goes to specifics about what the product is and then how to use it; the books themselves have concerns of simply being guides themselves. SwisterTwister talk 00:59, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:32, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

• • Comment: Sources you mentioned, such as PhoneArena, GSMArena, DZone, TheNextWeb, Ubergizmo, etc. are not "simple PR links" -- These are independently written articles commenting on DeviceAtlas data (yes, data released by DeviceAtlas, and this isn't something unusual -- companies release reports and other information, and then media post articles commenting on what they receive). A "simple PR link" (copy/paste) would be this -- http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20160815005070/en/Airpush-Chooses-DeviceAtlas-Provide-Device-Awareness-Mobile There's a huge difference. There are plenty of other sources apart from these ones, including books I linked to before, which are obviously independent even if you don't find them substantial (e.g. the "For Dummies" series). "The books themselves have concerns of simply being guides themselves" ---> And what's wrong with a source being a guide? A guide can be a perfect proof that the entry's subject is notable, given that people write books on how to use it, what to use it for, how much it costs, what it takes to implement it, etc. "Therefore, simply saying sources exist and may be substantial cannot be ascertained without then actually guaranteeing there's no risks of PR" --> Every single coverage on a company/product used as a source on Wikipedia has "PR risks". And yet companies/products are covered on Wikipedia. In this light, the "risks of PR" is not a sensible argument in a discussion regarding a commercial product. Pawelpiejko (talk) 10:19, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
• Keep : A couple of points on the noteworthiness and issues raised with depth of sources. There are a great many independent, scholarly, citations of DeviceAtlas in a whole range of peer-reviewed books on the topic of web development for mobile, and other topics relating to web design, programming and marketing. Many more references than were included in the initial article, so some of these should be added. https://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&q=deviceatlas#q=deviceatlas&tbm=bks&start=10
  DeviceAtlas data plays an important role in one of the most important web analytics platforms Adobe Marketing Cloud (and by extension the very large corporations who use a proprietary web analytics solution instead of free analytics solutions such as Google Analytics) - the argument here is not for inclusion by the reference to Adobe, but by reference to the fact that DeviceAtlas' data is being used to interpret the devices behind many millions of web requests every day in a Gartner magic quadrant listed platform. https://marketing.adobe.com/resources/help/en_US/insight/dataset/c_deviceAtlas_update.html
  There are many notable integrations and hooks available for DeviceAtlas including Varnish (software) https://www.varnish-cache.org/vmods, NGINX https://github.com/Sydsvenskan/opportunistic-device-detection and HAProxy which are all widely distributed.
  Access to the device data is open and free via the deviceatlas.com website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flanncha (talk • contribs) 14:14, 21 September 2016 (UTC) — Flanncha (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Notability is not inherited from associated topics, platforms, etc. Usage by many does not imply notability. — JJMC89 (T·C) 19:23, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
• Delete. I must agree with User:JJMC89's analysis here; while there are sources they are either not reliable, not substantial coverage, or not independent. This is no commentary on the quality of the product, but I don't see anything more out there than the standard marketing copy of any corporately developed IT product. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 02:33, 3 October 2016 (UTC).

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

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

The result was Speedy delete per WP:G4. Airplaneman ✈ 21:57, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Chhokar rajput

Chhokar rajput (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

No references, possible COI, editor keeps deleting maintenance tags without making appropriate improvements. Difficult to determine what the article is actually about. RexPatricius (talk) 10:16, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:40, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:40, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

• Delete is it yet more of what was discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chhokar. This article looks like a recreation of an old version of that one. It is certainly familiar to me and, as previously, is impossible to source reliably. - Sitush (talk) 13:08, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

• Delete: Doesn't seem to satisfy the Wikipedia's inclusion standard. Anup [Talk] 16:20, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:41, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Difference between Barometer and Manometer

Difference between Barometer and Manometer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Both articles exist, and there is no reason for a page comparing them Kostas20142 (talk) 10:08, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:48, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

• Delete. Wikipedia is not 'How Things Work'. This article is WP:OR or a use of WP as a private repository. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:04, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
• Delete -- unnecessary OR. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:21, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
• Delete nothing but OR and not encyclopedic . MB 02:17, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
• Delete as superfluous. Yeah, this is a bit silly. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 20:09, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:42, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

The Lahore Times

The Lahore Times (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This is not a print newspaper but just a ordinary online news website.It is not worth to have a WP article at this stage. Saqib (talk) 09:18, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

• Weak delete: Has a claim of notability, but no sources. -- MorbidEntree - _{(Talk to me! (っ◕‿◕)っ♥)}(please reply using {{ping}}) 10:03, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. MorbidEntree - _{(Talk to me! (っ◕‿◕)っ♥)}(please reply using {{ping}}) 10:03, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:37, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

• delete I attempted to source it by checking whether major international press had covered it. Started with a search of the NYTimes. got this: "After a Bullet in the Head, Assaults on a Pakistani Schoolgirl's ... thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/.../after-a-bullet-in-the-head-assaults-on-a-pakistani-school...Oct 16, 2012 - That report, from a Web site called The Lahore Times, which is set up to look like a replica of The New York Times..." In other words, This is not a "real" newspaper.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:49, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. —SpacemanSpiff 06:07, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Satpokhariya Rajputs

Satpokhariya Rajputs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:GNG. I get zero hits on GBooks and only 176 in the general GSearch, none of which are reliable. Nothing at JSTOR or Questia. Sitush (talk) 08:46, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:00, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:00, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

• Delete: Not sure if it even exists. All hits found of web seem to be a mirror of Wikipedia article. Anup [Talk] 14:14, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:45, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yellow Dingo (talk) 05:43, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

• Delete Could not find additional reliable sources for notability verification. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 05:59, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:N; unclear if this subject exists. The one-sentence unreferenced essay is not helping. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:06, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Sam Walton (talk) 09:47, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Moyara Ruehsen

Moyara Ruehsen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:PROF. MorbidEntree - _{(Talk to me! (っ◕‿◕)っ♥)}(please reply using {{ping}}) 07:50, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. MorbidEntree - _{(Talk to me! (っ◕‿◕)っ♥)}(please reply using {{ping}}) 07:50, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. MorbidEntree - _{(Talk to me! (っ◕‿◕)っ♥)}(please reply using {{ping}}) 07:51, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

• Delete. Fails WP:Prof with tiny citations in GS. WP:Too soon. Xxanthippe (talk) 08:08, 9 September 2016 (UTC).
• Delete. No indication that she meets WP:PROF. Joe Roe (talk) 10:17, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
• Keep per cursory Google New and Google Books searches to start. Article needs expansion, not deletion per WP:ATD. Hmlarson (talk) 04:27, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Search results pointed out by Hmlarson need to be analyzed Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:42, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:42, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

• Delete. None of the sources found by the searches linked above says anthing about Ruehson - they are either written by her or quote or cite her - so they can't be used to show a pass of WP:GNG, and as explained above there is no pass of WP:PROF. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 11:16, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
• Delete, the sources provided above show that Ruehsen is sometimes quoted on topics related to her area of expertise, but what we're actually looking for is sources about her. None of this is a comment on the quality of Ruehsen's work, which I am sure is excellent. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 02:33, 25 September 2016 (UTC).
• Delete and I meant to comment sooner, nothing here for WP:PROF, article contains nothing otherwise convincing. SwisterTwister talk 05:09, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
• Delete - Regarding what Hmlarson said, the article would need a very thorough TNT to convince me that it meets PROF or GNG. Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 07:10, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
• Comment - I've added a number of references that reinforce WP:PROF Criterion #7, including LA Times, Boston Globe, and others. Hmlarson (talk) 00:42, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
  • It should also be noted that she is often published as "Moyara De Moraes Ruehsen" which has been updated in the article. Hmlarson (talk) 00:45, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Just barrel-scraping. Still WP:Too soon. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:05, 26 September 2016 (UTC).

• Delete I don't see this passing WP:PROF with the sources I've seen so far. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:30, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
• Keep: Doesn't have to pass WP:PROF, it passes WP:BASIC, she is respected and quoted for her expertise, does not need to rely solely on academic credentials. Interviews that quote or cite her ARE "significant, third-party coverage" WP:N is met. Montanabw^(talk) 07:08, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Lourdes 01:29, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Dmitry Kawarga

Dmitry Kawarga (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Considerably lacking evidence of notability, mostly primary sources, appears to be promotional article created in several languages (the others are about this quality too). Not much on the web (except "Dmitry Kawarga is a mysterious artist, who never appears neither in photos nor on video") and zero GNews. A week at PROD did not turn up any improvement in sourcing. Previously CSDed, then recreated at Kawarga; SALTing for both may be appropriate, this is a BLP. David Gerard (talk) 07:44, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 07:45, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 07:46, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:02, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: I have filled out the details of the BBC and Süddeutsche Zeitung references which were already there but unclear, and added a Washington Post article as another. However as yet I am undecided as to whether there is enough to meet the rather onerous WP:ARTIST criteria, or whether the controversy about the Yeltsin sculpture sits under WP:BLP1E. AllyD (talk) 15:38, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:26, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

• Keep -- using the Cyrillic name I was able to locate this rather substantial article in the Russian version of Popular Mechanics magazine. This publication is licensed by English language magazine so appears to be RS: Dmitry Kawarga and biogenic sculpture. There's probably more out there. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:15, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:04, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

• Comment / Weak Keep -- I feel unqualified to search for and review Russian language sources. I'd be willing to give the benefit of the doubt, given what K.e.coffman found, above, but is there any way we could summon some Russian/English bilinguists to do a better search? I'd prefer if two articles could be found, not just one. Fieari (talk) 06:51, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
• Comment on additional sources:

• Here's a bit more in English, where he sometimes appears as Kavarga: Black Beast
• He also has an entry at the web site of the apparently prestigious Kandinsky Prize: Dmitry Kawarga. He was not a winner though. But this is a by-lined bio sketch.

Kawarga appears to be widely exhibited in Russia. Here's a profile from Erarta, "Russia's largest private museum of contemporary art": link (in English). According to the museum's web site, his works are in a permanent collection there.

K.e.coffman (talk) 07:10, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Changing my !vote from "weak keep" to "keep". Thank you for the sources, those are plenty to establish notability. Fieari (talk) 07:43, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, clearly meets WP:NARTIST with his works included in permanent collections at several substantial museums. I also found consistent coverage in Dialogue of Arts, the publication of the Moscow Museum of Modern Art, which seems to show interest beyond the "Yeltsin sculpture" coverage: link (in Russian). K.e.coffman (talk) 23:32, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

• Keep There are 20+ publications in mainstream newspapers, RFE/RL, etc. about him on corresponding page in ruwiki ru:Каварга,_Дмитрий_Викторович#.D0.9F.D1.83.D0.B1.D0.BB.D0.B8.D0.BA.D0.B0.D1.86.D0.B8.D0.B8. However, this is all in Russian and was not used for referencing on this page. My very best wishes (talk) 15:15, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
• Keep His art is featured in many museums, and I just added an English language source that includes a photo of one of his works at the largest museum of contemporary art in Russia.Timtempleton (talk) 22:12, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:47, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Tony Zarb

Tony Zarb (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable person. Every result on Google either briefly talks about Zarb, or is about a non-notable story. MorbidEntree - _{(Talk to me! (っ◕‿◕)っ♥)}(please reply using {{ping}}) 07:33, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malta-related deletion discussions. MorbidEntree - _{(Talk to me! (っ◕‿◕)っ♥)}(please reply using {{ping}}) 07:33, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. MorbidEntree - _{(Talk to me! (っ◕‿◕)っ♥)}(please reply using {{ping}}) 07:34, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

• He might be eligible to keep an article that was much more substantial and better-sourced than this, but being a leader of a labour union does not grant a person automatic inclusion rights for an article which just states that he exists, the end, and references that only to a single dead link. No prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody can actually do better than this, but this as written is not enough. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 23:26, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:32, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

• Keep. I fail to see how the head of a country's largest trade union could not be notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:02, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Lack of adequate sourceability Bearcat (talk) 05:15, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Adequate sourceability is pretty obviously shown by the searches automatically spoon-fed above by the deletion nomination process, which are there to be examined before commenting here rather than ignored. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:14, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

MorbidEntree specifically addressed in his nomination statement the fact that they did examine the "spoon-fed" sources, and found them all to be glancing namechecks of his existence in articles that weren't substantively about him. "Google hits exist" is not automatically the same thing as "quality references that would fulfill the demands of WP:RS and WP:GNG exist" — one has to examine the depth and quality of the Google hits, not merely their number, and MorbidEntree did examine their depth and quality. Bearcat (talk) 17:59, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

And I wasn't referring to the number of Google hits - I didn't even look at the general web search - but to the depth and quality of the sources found by the other searches that find mainly reliable sources. For example the first four of the news hits found are from independent reliable sources and have significant coverage of Zarb: [50] [51] [52] [53]. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:58, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:42, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

• delete or redirect to General Workers' Union (Malta) - Notability not shown fails WP:BIO and only ref currently is just a dead link. KylieTastic (talk) 17:42, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
• Keep He was the head of the general Maltese workers union for 16 years. He got plenty of coverage in Maltese national newspapers for decades. A quick Google search shows that very easily. There are lot of articles which are full scale coverages of his person. He also was awarded the Xirka Ġieħ ir-Repubblika, which is the Maltese highest honour awarded by the government of Malta. I expanded the article a bit and added some reportages about him in national Maltese newspapers (like the The Malta Independent, Times of Malta or the Malta Today). Its still a stub, but it should demonstrate the notability. Keep in mind that those are only a selection, there are hundreds of articles on him and events where he was involved out there (and probably even more offline), as he had a a lot of impact in Malta. He is clearly notable per WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO and the article should therefore stay. Dead Mary (talk) 18:19, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
• Keep, obviously, per the sources found by the spoon-fed searches above. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:14, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
• Keep sources provided above establish notability. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:24, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. postdlf (talk) 00:56, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

1250 in Ireland

1250 in Ireland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This list has only one entry and has had empty section tags for six years with no improvement. MorbidEntree - _{(Talk to me! (っ◕‿◕)っ♥)}(please reply using {{ping}}) 07:20, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. MorbidEntree - _{(Talk to me! (っ◕‿◕)っ♥)}(please reply using {{ping}}) 07:21, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:03, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

• Delete The single event already has its own article and the category is enough to locate it. But I suspect some larger cleanup is needed than just deleting an article here or there. Zero^talk
• Question. There are a few hundred other Year in Ireland articles and I don't think you can really consider any one independent of the whole series. Is taking individual years to AfD the proper venue for this discussion? Would it not be better to start a wider AfC on the fate of years-where-not-very-much happened in Ireland? (Genuine question; apologies if I'm unaware of a relevant previous consensus on year in... articles). Joe Roe (talk) 10:21, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
• Merge -- This and 5 or six others for the decade into 1250s in Ireland. The 1257 article has some substantive content, which may need to be moved to something more specific. As Zero said, a much wider ranging clean up is needed. There will be dozens of similar stubs for Ireland and hundreds worldwide to which the same objection applies. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:50, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:37, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

• Keep - this is a stub, part of a series of articles covering "years in Ireland" from 1100 onward. The stubs are created to be expanded; part of a systematic build-up. If you delete or merge this then there are at least 400 more articles in the series which would merit a similar approach. Sarah777 (talk) 18:44, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
• Comment I wouldn't support deleting this. However, given the number of redlinks in individual years in this series, and the length of time the improvement tags have languished on this article, it may be worth consolidating these early year articles into decades. The year articles could still redirect there. --John (talk) 22:19, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
• Keep. Having redlinks is no disadvantage. Articles like this allow expansion. And there is no deadline. --John (talk) 22:34, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
• Keep This current page is preferable to a 1250s page which, to me, would be messy with many sections and subsections. On a quick Google search, 1250 appears as a delimiting year for a number of book titles and historical websites (e.g. this). That is, the year is considered by some historians to mark the end of the initial Norman conquest period (from 1170) and the start of the Gaelic revival. The tagged subsections could be deleted, but keep the page. I'm sure Irish history specialists could add to this page. Declangi (talk) 03:49, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

• Keep: part of a series - so not every one will be highly populated but can be added to instead of deleting and making the series discontinuous. ww2censor (talk) 22:54, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete.  Sandstein  08:35, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Tap Tycoon - Country vs Country

Tap Tycoon - Country vs Country (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

The article fails WP:GNG and no claim of significance. It was previously speedy deleted under A7. Ayub407^talk 07:07, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:03, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

• Delete Non-notable game, seems to just be some random app. Smartyllama (talk) 15:17, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Notability does not seem to be established. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:47, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Marianna Yarovskaya

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Marianna Yarovskaya
• Articles for deletion/Marianna Yarovskaya (2nd nomination)
• Articles for deletion/Marianna Yarovskaya (3rd nomination)

Marianna Yarovskaya (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

A vanity article about a non-notable filmmaker. It was created by the subject and deleted as a result of AfD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marianna Yarovskaya. It was then recreated by a single-purpose account Iamothers. I speedy deleted it, was taken to DRV, and the majority thought that article is different from the previously deleted, so that my speedy deletion was overturned. The article was also created on the Russian Wikipedia and did not survive an AfD there. Since in a year nobody cared to bring it here, the the notability has still not been demonstrated, I open the nomination. Ymblanter (talk) 06:37, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:04, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:04, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:04, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

• Leaning delete per nom - fluff - David Gerard (talk) 08:41, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
• Weak Keep This article was accepted through the AfC process by LaMona. LaMona is a strict editor who, in my experience, adheres very closely to Wikipedia guidelines on notability, especially when reviewing articles. There are multiple reviews of her films cited in the article, too, and this book. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 23:54, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
  • That book one is literally a passing mention - David Gerard (talk) 00:27, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable filmmaker.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:43, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. —SpacemanSpiff 06:25, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Sree vana Sastha Sree Vana Thurga Temple

Sree vana Sastha Sree Vana Thurga Temple (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

No evidence of any notability. PamD 06:29, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:50, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:50, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:50, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

• Delete as no statement of notability such as age, and no reliable sources. If an article is created for the place it is situated a description of this temple could be added there with appropriate refs Atlantic306 (talk) 22:41, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yellow Dingo (talk) 05:42, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Needs more input. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:06, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:06, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete. As per WP:CSD criteria. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Democratics (talk • contribs) 09:57, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
• Delete without prejudice to recreation. I wasn't able to find anything when I searched for it, but there may well be foreign language sources I can't utilize. agtx 14:51, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. Hut 8.5 20:42, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

The F Word (Australian TV series)

The F Word (Australian TV series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Not notable television program with lack of references -- Whats new?^(talk) 06:29, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:05, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:05, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:05, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:26, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

• Delete. Three episodes? No substantial coverage in WP:RS? Buried on a secondary digital channel? Yeah. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:04, 16 September 2016 (UTC).

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A bit more input would be desirable. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:16, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:16, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

• Delete Searching for info just brings back bog-standard TV listings. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 11:36, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:V as no significant RS coverage can be found; no indications of notability or significance. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:50, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus. Unsurprisingly, few editors chose to get involved in this sometimes bad-tempered wall of text. I remind editors not to amend the contributions of others in discussions like this, to keep things brief and succinct, and to at least try to keep things collegiate and address the substance of the article rather than making insinuations about the motivations of other editors. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:25, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Structure of Temperament Questionnaire

Structure of Temperament Questionnaire (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This is a very long article on a very specific topic, written entirely from primary sources, almost all of which are by one or both of the originators of the questionnaire, one of whom actually wrote this article. Another co-author has edited it. Virtually no edits of any substance have been by anybody without a close connection to the subject. What's missing is any independent evidence of significance. Guy (Help!) 06:17, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

The article is no longer than the other articles on psychological tests. The "deletion" tag is therefore not justified, and the STQ page has significantly less grounds for being deleted, in comparison to the pages listed in my other comment. Please review the page again and, please, remove the "deletion" tag. I understand that your position of admin is often stressful, and it is easy to overlook the difference between an informative page and self-advertising. This page is just information about the most distributed test (among psychologists) in Russia that was adapted in Canada, USA and Australia in the 1980-90s. However, this test is a professional test, so only professional psychologists know about it, so it is useful for the general public to be aware of it. Hopefully this will help to clear the air.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:32, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

This might be a case of vandalism that should be reported

The user JzG called "Guy" (Guy) continues deleting the reference to American Journal of Psychology and now launched a discussion for a deletion of the page implying that the neutrality rule was violated. We suggest reading the material first: the authors of the STQ are Rusalov (mainly) and Trofimova (derivative), but none of them are main contributors. Yet, the page on this matter should be submitted by someone who knows the material. This is an encyclopedia after all. The user Guy makes cuts and changes without justifying them or commenting on anything in this talk page. I am going to reverse the changes (again!) - if you decide to have cuts please justify your actions. I understand that you want to improve the quality of the Wiki, so I suggest the same quality control over other Wikipedia pages related to psychological tests (much less verified by neurophysiological theories than the STQ). Here is the list for such important checking: Myers–Briggs Type Indicator, Keirsey Temperament Sorter, Revised NEO Personality Inventory,16PF Questionnaire,Self-Directed Search, Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory,Synthetic Aperture Personality Assessment,Personality Assessment Inventory,Temperament and Character Inventory,Tridimensional Personality Questionnaire, Karolinska Scales of Personality, and other pages on psychological tests. I also suggest to ask the authors of the page Temperament test to rename it as that page is about testing dogs, but the title can be used for tests of human temperaments. Sulisw (talk) 14:16, 9 September 2016 (UTC) — Sulisw (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. .

Factually incorrect on several levels, but who is "we"? You are a co-author on some of the papers, do you mean you and user:Iratrofimov? Guy (Help!) 19:17, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

What part is factually incorrect? "We" refers to scientists working in this field, who advise to admins of Wikipedia on something that they are not trained in. Problem is that sometimes admins take sides too, promoting one theory and suppressing the exposure of others. I hope we (Wikipedia contributors and admins) can keep the sociology of science aside when building this public encyclopedia. BTW, we, scientists, have to discuss if the Frontiers, a series of scientific journals, are sufficiently established journals to be cited in the Wikipedia. After all, they are indexed in all scientific catalogues, and prominent scientists publish in this series, but Guy deletes references to it as "predatory online journals". In this case the following pages should be deleted as well: Frontiers in Psychology, Frontiers in Zoology, Frontiers in Biology, Frontiers in Energy, Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, Frontiers in Endocrinology, Frontiers in Neuroscience, Frontiers in Information Technology & Electronic Engineering. I suggest just let the STQ page be, to remove the deletion tag, and appreciate the work of both, admins and contributors. I think none of us are getting paid for it, so we all do an important work with the best intentions, and we all want the same - to spread useful and often not known knowledge to people who need it. Sulisw (talk) 15:49, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

• Oh well. This stinks like a WP:FRINGE theory, but the publication list does not look completely bollocks either. Will give a chance before going delete.

Sulisw, if you want the article kept, could you point out a few (not more than 3) publications that qualify as reliable sources dealing with the subject in detail? Make sure to read the link before saying "scientific papers are reliable"; "reliable" has a specific meaning in Wikipedia.

I am asking you that because Wikipedia's standard of "notability" (again, this word has a specific meaning) require a few very good sources. It is very easy to have tons of poor sources, and it actually is a a common practice of proponents of unnotable theories to flood the "references" section in the hope none looks too closely.

Also, your latest posts are probably counterproductive. We are not discussing all personality tests', or scientific papers' pages. Wikipedia's objective is not to spread useful and often not known knowledge to people who need it; actually, it specifically is about well-known knowledge (in a broad sense), not cutting-edge research. Please keep your posts concise (else others will not read them). I also advise to read WP:COI (yes, even if you are not directly paid to edit Wikipedia).

Finally, I suggest you withdraw the "vandalism" accusation, which is simultaneously wrong (here is what vandalism means), laughable, and potentially grounds for blocking. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 16:36, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yellow Dingo (talk) 00:21, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Just to respond to the user Tigraan who reacts as an offended user Guy:

• Re: "could you point out a few (not more than 3) publications that qualify as reliable sources" - the body of the article lists references ##3, 5, 6, 7, 9, 13, 14 published in peer-review English-language journals plus at least 36 additional references to also English peer-review journals, plus 2 Manuals of the STQ. In case you don't know, Manuals are the description of technical procedures executed to make a test valid and reliable. Manuals are never published in peer review settings - this is just a format of the psychometric industry, however papers supporting these manuals are peer reviewed. In any case, in my humble opinion, N of sources here already exceeds 3.
• Re: "notability" - comes from the references cited. No need to be mentoring here. The page is not citing Russian-language sources, and I personally couldn't even read it, but from my communication with Russian psychologists, the STQ is known to every psychologist in Russia. The N of English-language citations shows that it was noted here as well.
• Re: "wikipedia is not to spread the knowledge" - we have to bring it to the attention of the owners of the Wikipedia, and review if the definition of encyclopedia applies to wiki in this case. If the owners agree with Tigraan's position, then wiki will risk to be just another tabloid source, recycling the most known and flashy (noticed) news but not informing people about something that was discovered earlier. Using "notability over value" criteria, wiki will end up having a number of cites related to the production of, for example, Star Wars and none related to physical concepts helping to build actual space ships and to calculate turbulence in passing through Mars' atmosphere. Most mathematical concepts are not known to 99.999% of people, and not known to 70% of mathematicians - simply because a single person can't learn everything right away, even when it comes to his or her profession. Yet, wiki's owners consider the pages related to these concepts useful. Notability is therefore not a priority, and shouldn't overshadow the value of knowledge. We have many very specialized areas or knowledge in which only experts know the terminology. Common people need to have access to this knowledge - and this is why encyclopedias were invented.
• the comment comparing the STQ page to the other tests' page is relevant here, as equal standards should be applied to similar pages. Otherwise there are reasons to suspect reviewer's bias.
• I also wonder how the expressions "stinks" and "bollocks" are compatible with the authorization of this page for deletion.

I therefore call for authorized parties to review the "marked for deletion" status of this page and to return this page to a functional status.Sulisw (talk) 21:36, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

You clearly have no idea at all how Wikipedia works, whihc is not a surprise as you're mainly here to promote your own work. Guy (Help!) 23:16, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Sulisw, we can forgive you for not understanding how Wikipedia works. We do not even require that you get familiar with the guidelines. However, you must display some basic understanding of English and consensus-building.

I specifically said no more than 3 references to avoid the WP:BOMBARD effect. Yet you cited 7 refs, in addition to others. I will therefore disregard anything except ref 3, 5 and 6. (Manuals for foo are never independent sources for foo - otherwise, our articles on acupuncture, dowsing and others would need some rewrite of dubious value.)

• Ref #3 is from Personality and Individual Differences, impact factor 2013 1.8. 39 cites since 1989. That is a somewhat decent article, since the cite list does not look too much puffed up by self-cites.
• Ref #5 is from Educational and Psychological Measurement. Same IF, but only 9 cites since 1996. That is not even a niche subject, that is one person and their PhD's subject, so clearly not worth much notability-wise.
• Ref #6 is from the same as ref #3. 9 cites since 1993, so same comments as ref #5.

So all in all, delete - maybe there was some one-time interest back in 1989, but clearly this has not made an enduring academic impact. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 10:40, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:43, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

• Delete per OP and WP:FRINGE 74.70.146.1 (talk) 04:32, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
• Delete per OP. This is just not that notable a topic, or at least its notability has not been demonstrated by the cites provided. Dbrodbeck (talk) 21:45, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Keep  Fringe, Really?!! I just found this discussion and I felt speechless at first... Here is the definition of a Fringe theory: "an idea or viewpoint which differs from the accepted scholarship in its field." Nowadays you don't need to be even a psychologist or a psychology student to know that verbal (word production and word understanding) and motor areas of the brain are regulated by different areas. This is main stream science. The first description of such specialisation came from Paul Broca, however it was Alexander Luria (Rusalov's PhD supervisor) who is known as the father of modern neurophysiological assessment. Specialists know that practically all neuropsych testing batteries are based on Luria's methods - just get the Luria-Nebraska neuropsychological battery and compare it with any other. So Luria's theory describing different functions of different brain areas is not Fringe, and his student Rusalov experimentally found a similar specialisation in neurophysiological systems regulating temperament traits. Main stream science supported the idea that physical-motor functions are regulated (partially) by the prefrontal and parietal cortex and verbal-social functions are regulated by the temporal cortex. There is therefore full support for all STQ components, and there is not a single publication against the theory behind the STQ.

If you attack the STQ test per se, then the word "theory" doesn't apply. FYI - there are about 20 000 psychological tests around the world and NONE of them has the support of majority of scientists, because tests are not theories but made-up instruments, like various screwdrivers with various handles, plus they are culture-specific. Unlike the table of multiplication, there are no universal tests, or ideal tests, even though some test developers like to claim universality and perfection. Each research group uses its own "pet package", and they often violently compete with each other for access to a "microphone", i.e for a space in journals. Since peer reviewed journals didn't want to accept the Big Five test in the 1990s, this group created 4 journals for followers of their test, and now they cite each other, boosting their citation index. Their notability is, however, just a bubble: neuroscience found no correlates for their scales. Still, the field of psychometrics exists, in spite of this imperfections, and unless you are a psychometrist working in the field&culture where this test was appropriate, please don't make a judgement about its notability. I don't know what is your motivation for putting down this site but I wish that voting on professionals issues was done by professionals. Plus you have to justify your vote. Iratrofimov (talk) 04:22, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Challenges in judgement

I don’t think that I deserve being insulted by the user who goes under various names "JzG"="Guy" and Tigraan, and who now appears to be a rather biased admin. I am not as young as he is, I am not British but just a 4th-generation Canadian, and, as a career scientist with an MD and 2 PhDs I don’t have as much confidence in scientific merit of journals impact factor (IF) as he does. So, we have differences, and we need to work on consensus being realistic about imperfection of the informational sources, in a civilized manner. Yes, I am not an admin, but I wish there were easy ways for admins to judge specialized wiki pages without much expertise. IF or citation rating are, perhaps, “better than nothing” to facilitate this judgement, but they should not be the main criteria. For example witness the problems now arising in the literature on the role of fat in heart disease. High impact journals promoted these ideas for decades and now we learn how much they were corrupted by second party influences. As another example, a paper linking vaccinations to autism had a very high citation index, even while long known for being a total fraud. It has been also recently shown that a citation index is often busted by “within-group” citations. Ultimately it is the scientific community and the test of time which determine the value of any work, and some concepts/products/tests get accepted so well that they are simply used but not being cited in recent publications. I could mention many areas of mathematics that are supported by small groups of researchers – does this user believe that such knowledge should be ignored or abandoned because it hasn’t achieved notability within the general public? By this logic the page Law of Continuity should not exist as the number of people who know/use this law is likely lesser that the number of people who used the STQ in their practice and research in the past 30 years.

Yes, I contributed only to a few Wiki pages in the field and I am sure that the majority of other wiki contributors do the same amount of modest editing, also only in a few areas. Putting down occasional contributors and bullying them is counterproductive. This user/admin also insists that I promote my own work. The STQ (or another page – Activity-specific approach) is not my work, I am not even a psychologist, I simply used the test for my studies and found it useful. I already commented on this matter and I find the continuing accusations rather insulting. I think that if this user-admin feels that his own personal information on Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:JzG might benefit the Wiki’s readers, the information about a useful psychological test coming from a verified neurophysiological research has no lesser value. We, scientists and the readers of the English Wikipedia, have to be aware of good scientific products that are used in English-language countries even if they were initially developed in other countries a couple decades ago.

We all wish we had easy criteria for selection what is valuable and what is not in science, or basic knowledge, but we don’t. Science is not only complex, in terms of its structure, concepts, multi-cultural sources and opinions, but also is “a living thing” that constantly changes. A mechanical approach to judgement on what is valuable what is not, and even what is notable and what is not, just by looking at citation statistics is not sufficient. After all the IFs of journals depend on applicability of the topics in industry, and this bias is overlooked here. When this user/admin points out to the low impact factor of the journals cited let me note that the majority of journals in psychology have low impact factors, in comparison to journals in medicine, biology, physics and engineering. This is just specifics of the field of psychology. Surely the user does not believe that much of the knowledge within psychology should be eliminated from the Wikipedia.

Let me also mention that notability of many TV shows and movies that have pages on Wikipedia is high not because of its quality but because there was a financing of an advertising, to make these shows notable. I hope the judgment on the value of the Wikipedia pages will not depend on finances spent on “notability” by advertising departments of the show producers. Science has significantly less finances for advertising than a show business, so, if we are not careful, the Wikipedia will be an encyclopaedia of show business but not of anything related to reality, including science. What is even more challenging is that historically we had a iron curtain over some cultures and so the “notability” of their scientific products did not catch up yet with the level of notability of Kardashians. This doesn’t mean that we have to continue with our Western ignorance to non-Western science. In my view there is science, not Western science or English science.

Having said this, I sincerely sympathize with the challenge for admins in dealing with scientific pages on the Wikipedia, as they have very limited ways to verify notability and value. That is why the early version of the STQ page had so many references (and I agree it was too many for the final version), to show notability of the STQ. I suggest we close the discussion about notability of the STQ as a general test (seriously, this is the test used by all psychology students in Russia, now multiply it on the N of students graduated over the past 20 years, plus it was adopted for school and daycare kids and was used in educational studies). The notability of the English-version of the STQ is based on at least listed references in English, and, considering the average IF of psychological journals, the list indicates sufficient notability (I mean, for a psychometric test, not for a movie). I also suggest that I edit the page leaving references to manuals on the page (they are the source of obligatory psychometric information of the tests) and reducing the references to 5 or so. That’s how I see the consensus.Sulisw (talk) 20:10, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

• @Sulisw: First of all, 80% of your post above falls under WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, to which I already pointed you. 100% also is a big wall of text which only masochists like me will read (again, already pointed to you).

Secondly, you made incorrect assumptions on my person (...Tigraan, and who now appears to be a rather biased admin. I am not as young as he is, I am not British but ...). Being reluctant to give out personal information, I will not disclose my age here, but my user page claims I live in France and speak French natively, and I am not an administrator.

Thirdly, user pages and the main Wikipedia pages are not the same thing; JzG's talk page will not pop up in internet searches. (This does not mean a pseudo-WP-page is appropriate in the User: space, see WP:USERPAGE).

Wikipedia is not about the truth. Sorry. It is about verifiably notable topics. (Arguably, it is already biaised toward the inclusion of scientific theories that have not been covered by mainstream media.) While I (and probably most Wikipedians) agree that impact factor is not a perfect proxy for reliability, it gives a (refutable) indication of the outreach of a journal.

If the mainstream press or mainstream scientific press is corrupted and valuable theories are silenced, there is nothing we can do about it. However, in the case of the MMR vaccine controversy, you will notice that although the media fuss makes the subject notable, the scientific literature pretty much agrees that it is bollocks, and that is how the article describes it.

When this user/admin points out to the low impact factor of the journals cited let me note that the majority of journals in psychology have low impact factors, in comparison to journals in medicine, biology, physics and engineering. - well that is an argument, which you could support with sources, maybe. But Surely the user does not believe that much of the knowledge within psychology should be eliminated from the Wikipedia. - please either withdraw that, or stand by it and go at the administrator's noticeboard (be aware of WP:BOOMERANG though). Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 10:07, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Keep  please see my comment above on the theory underlying the STQ, especially the Compact model. It is based on classic Alexander Luria theory separating sensory-orientational, programming and energetic "blocks" (in his terms), and such a separation was fully supported by neuropsychological studies over the past 60 years. Rusalov's idea of a separation between motor and verbal traits of temperament was based on main stream neuropsychology as well (he was Luria's PhD student), and corresponding neuroanatomical areas of cortex were identified. So the model of the test is not new at all and is based on notable science. Iratrofimov (talk) 04:22, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Duplicate !vote stuck.  Unscintillating (talk) 20:07, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

"I didn't see what was happening here for a while - who in a right mind would want to delete this page? The STQ is classic in Russia and now it is used in Australia and Canada. Those who are deleting it - are you psychologists? You obviously judge by wrong sources or have issues with the origin of the test. It is known for its use, it has 12 scales that are commonly cited in Russian psychology - this is if you worry about notablity. If you worry about citations with impact factor - the given list is sufficient. We, psychologists, will never have an international collaboration if we will not exchange information about our tools, and the STQ is a rare one that made it to the West from Russia." — Preceding unsigned comment added by SvSpar (talk • contribs) 20:27, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

• @SvSpar and Sulisw:, could you provide reliable sources saying that the STQ is classic in Russia ? If so, editors will probably reconsider. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 10:07, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Here are the Russian textbooks and University programs on psychological assessment that include the STQ info/model/test - I hope you have someone who knows Russian to check it out - I pulled it from the shelves in our University's library. I don't have an immediate access to the Rusalov & Trofimova (2007) book (published in English) but this book has an overview of studies done both in Russia and outside of Russia by 2005. I remember looking at it and noticing that several studies from 2006 and up were not included, but this book might be a start for English readers. I ordered these sources chronologically and took only this century's sources. I am sure that it is not a complete list. I just pooled it of the available print during a day, so other users might add whatever they know. I also know that many PhD-s are done using the STQ and these young scientists probably publish their material somewhere, so it is possible that I miss their references.

• Кураев Г.А., Пожарская Е.Н. (2002) Психология человека. Курс лекций . -- Ростов-на-Дону: Учебно-научно-исследовательском институт валеологии РГУ.

• Моисеева О.Ю. (2002). Психодиагностика индивидуальных особенностей личности. Учеб. пособие. Владивосток: Морской государственный университет им. адмирала Г.И.Невельского.

• Ракович Н.К. (2002). Практикум по психодиагностике личности. Минск: Современная школа

• Батаршев А.В. (2002) Темперамент и свойства высшей нервной деятельности: Психологическая диагностика. Москва: ТЦ Сфера,

• Долгова В.И., Шумакова О.А., Латюшин Я.В. (2004) Учебно-методический комплекс по практике в педагогическом училище (IV курс очной формы обучения). Челябинск.

• Гилев О.Б. (2005) Практическая диагностика в сфере профессиональной деятельности. Учебное пособие. Уральский государственный университет путей сообщения. Екатеринбург.Карпов А.В. (2005) Психология труда. Учебник для студентов вузов. - Москва: ВЛАДОС – ПРЕСС.

• Романова Е.С. (2005) Психодиагностика: Учебное пособие. Санкт-Петербург: Питер.

• Бурлачук Л.Ф. (2006) Психодиагностика. Санкт-Петербург: Питер.

• Райгородский Д.Я. (2006) Практическая психодиагностика. Учебное пособие. – Самара: Бахрах-М.

• Лисицын, С.А., Тарасов, С.В. (2006) Профессиональное развитие и поддержка педагогов, работающих с детьми группы риска (Методическое пособие). Санкт-Петербург: ЛОИР.

• Карелин А. (2007) Большая энциклопедия психологических тестов. Издательство: Москва, Эксмо.

• Батаршев А.В. (2007) Диагностика темперамента и характера 2-е изд. - Санкт-Петербург: Питер.

• Гребень Н.Ф. (2007) Психологические тесты для профессионалов. Минск: Современная школа.

• Посохова, С.Т. Соловьева, С.Л. (2008) Настольная книга практического психолога. - Москва: АСТ; Санкт-Петербурк: Сова

• Каратерзи В.А., Насонова Ю.В. (2008) Интегральные тестовые методы: учебно-методический комплекс. Учебное пособие. Изд-во: Витебский государственный университет им. П.М. Машерова.

• Макшанцева Л.В. (2009) Учебно-методический комплекс «Практикум по профориентации», Московский городской педагогический университет, Институт психологии, социологии и социальных отношений. Москва: МГПУ.

• Голев С.В., Голева О.С. (2010) Психодиагностика темперамента. Учебное пособие. Херсон: ВМУРоЛ «Украина» ХФ.

• Малышев И.А. (2010) Более 2000 психологических методик, тестов, тренингов, опросников и деловых игр: библиогр. указатель литературы (1996-2009 гг.). Ростов-на-Дону: ИУБиП.

• Ребрилова Е.С (2015) Рабочая программа дисциплины «Практикум по Психодиагностике», Специальность 37.05.01 «Клиническая Психология», Специализация «Патопсихологическая Диагностика и Психотерапия». Тверской государственный университет, Тверь.

• Тютюнник Е.И. (2015) Рабочая программа дисциплины «Психодиагностика в практике социальной работы». Санкт-Петербургский Государственный Институт Психологии и Социальной Работы. Санкт-Петербург, издательство ГИПСР.

Here is the psychological testing cite http://psylab.info/ - where the STQ is mentioned on 2 pages, [Опросник структуры темперамента Русалова] and [Опросник формально-динамических свойств индивидуальности] – both descriptions are very old, incomplete and in some places wrong, but this at least gives you an idea that the STQ “exists” in people’s minds. There is also an Ukranian site with similar matter - http://psychic.at.ua/ - [Опитувальник структури темпераменту В.М. Русалов (ОСТ)] and I believe there is a similar Belarusian cite.

I hope this will help to cool down this discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SvSpar (talk • contribs) 20:18, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

• Keep  Thank you, SvSpar for your valuable contribution. I don't have access to Russian texts here since I haven't lived in Russia for the past 20 years. You are right, there were studies done with the STQ after 2005 that I see occasionally online, so the Manual-2007 is incomplete and should be updated. However, it is hard to collect the information about non-English research, and especially Russian research while living in North America. I checked the 3 cites that you have listed above: they indeed have rather old and only basic information, but this should at least show that the STQ has been on the psychometric market in Russia and Ukraine for a while Iratrofimov (talk) 04:22, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Duplicate !vote stuck.  Unscintillating (talk) 20:07, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

• Keep  The nomination does not cite a WP:DEL-REASON.  The concern, stated without using policy-based terminology or WP:IAR, to have "independent evidence of significance", is directly answered by using WP:BEFORE D1 on Google web and Google books and reading the snippets.  Unscintillating (talk) 17:34, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
• Notice  Portions of this edit have edited the text of other editors.  See the Edit History for details.  Unscintillating (talk) 19:53, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Withdraw to G12 it for Copyvio. Sorry for creating an unwanted page. Anup [Talk] 06:32, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

V K Rajasekharan Pillai

V K Rajasekharan Pillai (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Doesn't seem to meet WP:BIO or WP:GNG. Anup [Talk] 06:15, 9 September 2016 (UTC) Anup [Talk] 06:15, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Anup [Talk] 06:15, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Anup [Talk] 06:16, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

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

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

The Matt King (producer) article was deleted by Northamerica1000 on 18 September 2016. The Andrew Ferguson (producer) article was deleted as per below on 8 October 2016. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:46, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:25, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Matt King (producer)

Matt King (producer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Andrew Ferguson (producer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Delete. Advertorially toned WP:BLPs of the main partners in a film and television production company, based entirely on primary sources and directories (IMDb is not a reliable or notability-conferring source) with the exception of a single piece of reliable source coverage which just namechecks their existence in conjunction with a project while failing to be about them. As well, the articles were created by User:Johnnylarue490 -- since the production company was named "LaRue Entertainment" in memory of John Candy's SCTV character "Johnny LaRue", the conflict of interest is apparent. People like this would be eligible to have Wikipedia articles if they could be sourced well enough to pass WP:GNG, but the mere fact of working as a film and television producer does not constitute an automatic WP:CREATIVE pass in and of itself, or an exemption from having to be sourced properly. Bearcat (talk) 16:42, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:00, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

• Delete non-notable producer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:30, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A bit more input would be desirable. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:52, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:52, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

• Delete both. The nomination lays out a good argument. They get mentioned in reliable sources, such as [54] from The Hollywood Reporter, but I don't see significant coverage about either. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:39, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
• Delete as the article noticeably simply lists names of other people and entities, nothing actually forming information confirming his own independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 01:02, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The Matt King (producer) article has been deleted, per consensus herein. However, only the nominator and the !vote by User:NinjaRobotPirate seem to address the nomination for Andrew Ferguson (producer). The other two !votes of "non-notable producer" and "... as the article noticeably simply lists names... (et al.)" imply that only the Matt King (producer) article listed atop the discussion was considered, per the singular forms of grammar used. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:38, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:38, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Andrew Ferguson (producer) remains nominated for deletion within this discussion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:32, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:32, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

• Delete If you search for Andrew Ferguson in this source, there is simply a passing mention. This essentially quotes the subject in relation to an event, but there is hardly anything about the subject. This is not significance coverage, so delete. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:19, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Johnpacklambert and SwisterTwister it would be helpful if you clarify per the concerns mentioned in the relisting. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:20, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:24, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Andy Cobb

Andy Cobb (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

No indication of notability. All referenes are either press releases (sometimes republished) or trivial passing mentions that do not cover Cobb in any detail. I removed some of the blatantly promotional content, but the rest would still need to be rewritten even if Cobb were notable. Huon (talk) 18:36, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

After conducting research I have found several media outlets that have significant coverage of Cobb speaking on behalf of the State Agency the employs him. He has been found to speak in place of the actual commissioner of that agency. I feel this displays a notable community presence as a community servant. Along with being awarded out of all state law enforcement. It is my opinion that his public standing to include being a racing figure is worthy of notability.

http://www.wftv.com/news/9-investigates/9-investigates-how-thieves-install-gas-pump-skimmers/411965152 http://www.wftv.com/news/9-investigates/9-investigates-arrests-made-in-orange-county-credit-card-skimming-scheme/412776701 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.106.249.199 (talk) 01:23, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

• Delete non-notable racecar driver.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:27, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

• Don't Delete notable, I find notability in the subject and person through a community standing and national standing. Press releases and reposts are out there however a lot of validity is as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.95.167.174 (talk) 18:57, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:15, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:15, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:49, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

• Delete. He competed in obscure circuits and, not surprisingly, hasn't gotten any significant press. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:09, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
• Don't Delete. If he was able to be a teammate to a World of Outlaws champion, which is verifiable through press, he is notable. With complete knowledge of the World of Outlaws that is no easy feat and would not happen to a non notable driver. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.95.6.131 (talk) 12:28, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
• Delete as not only is none of this establishes convincing information for the applicable notability, none of the listed information and sources then suggest guaranteed substance; the Keep votes above even themselves state "With complete knowledge of the World of Outlaws that is no easy feat and would not happen to a non notable driver" or "although there may be PR, there's validity as well". None of that outweighs the facts of what is needed for a confirmed acceptable article. SwisterTwister talk 01:04, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

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

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

The result was redirect to Raghuraj Pratap Singh. Sort of WP:SOFTDELETE (or the redirect equivalent thereof) given the low input. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:04, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Uday Pratap Singh (Bhadri)

Uday Pratap Singh (Bhadri) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Not notable. Unreferenced. Does not pass WP:BIO Jethwarp (talk) 01:59, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Jethwarp (talk) 02:01, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:39, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Further Comments' - the citation given in article are only for news of him being jailed for perpetrator of riots along with his son Raja Bhaiya. His individual notability apart from that he is father of Raja Bhaiya is zero. Please see WP:CRIME and WP:NOTNEWS. Also being in jail is not a crime untill proved in court hence am removing those references also as per WP:BLPCRIME. -- Jethwarp (talk) 04:43, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:36, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

• Redirect to Raghuraj Pratap Singh. Anup [Talk] 18:40, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yellow Dingo (talk) 00:17, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Keep as a week has suggested no other votes and comments (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 06:54, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

RCA Italiana Orchestra

RCA Italiana Orchestra (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Doesn't seem notable enough for a standalone article.--Prisencolin (talk) 23:15, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:44, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:44, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:44, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:25, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:35, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

• Keep: I have added references to two discographies of this orchestra which participated in many very famous opera recordings.Smeat75 (talk) 16:08, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
• Keep: The article could be expanded but the subject is notable, a well-known orchestra maintained by a major recording label, RCA, in the 1960s. It is featured on some major iconic recordings which have never gone out of print. OTH, it could be merged with RCA Victor Symphony Orchestra which might be another solution. Markhh (talk) 03:31, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
• Keep -- Here's a source describing one of the recordings link, and providing more info about the orchestra. More is probably available. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:04, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Sort of WP:SOFTDELETE given the low input. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:43, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Orchestra Camerata Italiana

Orchestra Camerata Italiana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

doesn't seem to have coverage in reliable sources Prisencolin (talk) 23:05, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:47, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:47, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:26, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

• Delete, I found basically just false positives (there are other Italian orchestras whose names start with "Orchestra Camerata"), very brief announcements/mentions of concerts and primary/unreliable sources. Not enough for a claim of notability. Cavarrone 20:11, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:35, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:44, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Kamen Rider Kiva (character)

Kamen Rider Kiva (character) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This character article fails to establish notability. TTN (talk) 22:33, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 22:33, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:26, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:34, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

• Delete as although there has not been a lot of participation here, there has, I will note, been longtime and noticeable consensus that characters themselves are never actually confirmed as independently notable simply because of a game or series; there has to be actual information and substance how and why it's acceptable independently. SwisterTwister talk 07:26, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
• Delete due to lack of third party, reliable sources to prove the subject's notability. Aoba47 (talk) 19:29, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Kind of WP:SOFTDELETE given the low input. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:45, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Troy's Fighting Irish

Troy's Fighting Irish (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Team in an amateur league. The league's article was deleted in February 2015. None of the league's other teams currently have articles – ones for Buffalo Gladiators, Monroe County Sting, and Southern Tier Diesel were previously deleted. Nick Number (talk) 21:15, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:47, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:47, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

• Delete we typically do not keep semi-pro teams although there are exceptions. This team does not seem to be one of them. There are an impressive number of sources, but they seem to fail the standard of reliable, third-party sources. Legitimate coverage seems to be local in nature.--Paul McDonald (talk) 01:07, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:27, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:34, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

• • Comment Recommend closing per WP:UNOPPOSED.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:30, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR) (non-admin closure) Yellow Dingo (talk) 00:20, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

The Save Jersey Blog

The Save Jersey Blog (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable political blog. There are no articles about this blog, and after searching Google News, I found a few mentions of it in other articles, about 4 to be exact. IllinoisPolska (talk) 19:35, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:07, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:07, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:07, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

• Sources It's Jersey, so I searched savejersey.com on the The Star-Ledger website: [ savejersey.com] and the The Philadelphia Inquirer : [55] then I ran a google news search on "Matt Rooney" + blog [56]. To me, this looks like a blog/blogger with significan t regional political influence - in era when blogs are significant political players. I'm leaning keep.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:07, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:28, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:33, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:45, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Starrah

Starrah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:ANYBIO; could find only three secondary sources: [57], [58], [59]. A paragraph here and there of trivial coverage, and within those sources there appeared little to enable this biography to meet the criteria of WP:MUSICBIO or WP:COMPOSER. Magnolia677 (talk) 14:35, 26 August 2016 (UTC) Magnolia677 (talk) 14:35, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

• Delete non-notable musician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:59, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:53, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

• Comment At least one of the sources, Fader, is credible enough. The other one is tough to gauge. But this article is going to need more than one solid source to back up a claim of significant coverage to convey notability. This might be saved with more legwork by someone who wants to suss out potential references under her real name. Although early in her career, she appears to have played significant roles on notable recordings that have charted, but without substantive references cited in the article it doesn't belong on wikipedia. ShelbyMarion (talk) 15:57, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:30, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

• Keep - Has notable articles here, here, here and here, meets notability. Xboxmanwar (talk) 23:02, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:32, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

• Leaning Keep -- may be a touch WP:TOOSOON but appears to be noted for her stand-alone work, as well as for getting credits on major artists' songs. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:27, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete RegentsPark (talk) 15:26, 10 September 2016‎ (UTC)

Senorita India

Senorita India (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable pageant.No mainstream media coverage only passing mentions also content about winners, most are from Femina Miss India. FITINDIA (talk) 07:58, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:04, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:04, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:52, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:32, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

• Delete non-notable beauty pageant.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:32, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:31, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

• Delete yet another beauty pageant with no indication of notability per WP:EVENT. The first one apparently hasn't been held yet, and I can find no coverage online from WP:RS, just blogs and social media, with zero hits on GNews. Little Will (talk) 10:27, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
• Comment - the cited references that aren't dead links mostly make no mention of this pageant. I've tried tagging the failed verifications, but the article creator keeps reverting. Tellingly, nearly all the references have access dates from years before article creation. Article creator couldn't even be bothered to click on the links before pasting, hence the numerous dead links. The list of previous winners and the gallery are both straight pastes from articles on other pageants. I'm not going to edit war on this, but the article is just a hot mess of lazy copy-pasting. Little Will (talk) 14:55, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus. No consensus; this clearly needs an experienced editor fluent in Korean to perform an in-depth analysis of the sourcing ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 14:08, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Kim Dong-soo (esports player)

Kim Dong-soo (esports player) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

doesn't seem notable, looking up ""김동수" on google yields mostly sources that aren't about the SC player Prisencolin (talk) 04:01, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

• Delete No coverage to be found except for this: [60] which isn't enough. Mr. Magoo (talk) 04:28, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep I searched for the Korean version of his name: "김동수" and found enough coverage concentrating on him, unlike what was stated before. Mr. Magoo (talk) 21:28, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:04, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:04, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

• There is quite a bit out there if you search under his username. My sense is he is notable in Korea, but I can't read Korean so.. Google news search turns up a fair bit. Hobit (talk) 17:21, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  • There are two kinds of coverage: coverage which focuses on the subject and coverage which doesn't. The latter can also be split into two subgroups. For there could be an article which talks about five people and gives each a fair share of coverage. But then there is the namedrop variety which just namedrops the subject amongst many others. This is the worst category to be in. Wikipedia rules say that the coverage should cover the subject in detail. It should be said that one shouldn't be absolute here, as in some rare cases hundreds of namedrops in big publications might be worth something after all. But in our case, there exist a small number of articles -- 5-6 years old from mostly the same websites covering the hobby in question -- that pretty much just list match results. Every single article seems to just have an extremely strenuous, random namedrop of our subject. Mr. Magoo (talk) 17:39, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:36, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:31, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

• Delete Significant coverage is required, not just any coverage at all. Name drops are not significant coverage, nor are results listings. Smartyllama (talk) 15:04, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

I updated the article with non-namedrop Korean articles just some time ago. Mr. Magoo (talk) 18:16, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

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

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

The result was draftify and redirect to Prithviraj Sukumaran. (non-admin closure) GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 04:40, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Detroit Crossing (film)

Detroit Crossing (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Clear case of WP:TOOSOON. Photography not begun. Please discuss, and ideally draftify. Nairspecht (talk) (work) 07:44, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:01, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:01, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

• Draftify per WP:TOOSOON and WP:CRYSTAL. Alsee (talk) 07:04, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:30, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

• Redirect to Prithviraj Sukumaran, for now and restore back the article when principle photography begins. Anup [Talk] 17:59, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

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

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

The result was G4: Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion. There's no time limit on this; the article is almost identical to the one deleted in 2005, and the same reason for deletion still applies: this extremely low quality article has no place here. If you wish to pursue this further, please post at WP:Deletion review. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:04, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Dechronifying

Dechronifying (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This article was tagged for lack of sources and other issues a month ago and has not improved. This article has no basis to determine the validity of the article. Also a possible recreation of a previously deleted page. RexPatricius (talk) 05:24, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Diannaa, is this the same as Dechronification (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)? If so, note Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dechronification. — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:39, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:07, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

JJMC89, not only was that one over 10 years ago, that former admin had later been found to be practicing ill acts contrary to Wikipedia's spirit and had been indef-blocked, especially after a CU investigation. Once an admin isn't an admin anymore, especially due to having committed wiki-crimes, their actions should not remain valid. Besides, there have been new edits and updates to the article. --Shultz the Editor (talk) 09:58, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

• Comment Even with those edits there is still a lack of any scientific basis for the creation of this article. Please improve the sources and in text citations in order to improve this article. RexPatricius (talk) 10:22, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus. Opinion is divided between stubify and redirect. So I guess it's stubify at a minimum for now.  Sandstein  09:20, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Hikmah

Hikmah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

"Hikmah is an Arabic word meaning wisdom" - I don't know if this falls under WP:NOTDICTIONARY or if this is a potentially legitimate article topic, but this should obviously be WP:TNT per gross violation of WP:NOTWIKIQUOTE.

I googled the sources. The majority of them are literally dictionaries, and everything is ancient. Typically 400-600 years old. Ref#1 looks recent, but even that source is just quoting someone who died 400 years ago. The entire lead being nothing but inline external links to the Quran, and the entire page is effectively proselytizing ancient in-religion-POV. WP:TNT WP:TNT WP:TNT. Alsee (talk) 07:49, 2 September 2016 (UTC) Alsee (talk) 07:49, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

• It is a legitimate Islamic philosophical concept as demonstrated by the included quote from Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, but the article is poor and I tagged it with {{Cv-unsure}} in 2015 because it seemed to be cut-and-pasted from some unacknowledged source. I think it should be reduced to a stub (there is one good reference) or changed into a redirect pointing to the wiktionary entry hikmah until someone can develop it. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 17:12, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:14, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:14, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

• Reduce to stub. Most of the citations are meaningless without edition information and probably not helpful for an encyclopedia article. gren グレン 21:48, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Uanfala (talk) 22:27, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Uanfala (talk) 22:27, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

• Redirect to its entry in Glossary of Islam. I cannot really see this developing beyond a dicdef. --HyperGaruda (talk) 03:42, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:24, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

• Reduce to Stub - An analysis of the concept within Arabic cultures is worth exploring, and all these quotes makes it clear that the subject has been studied extensively, so it CAN be expanded. That said, Wikipedia is not wikiquote, so cut all that out and let the article regrow with proper encyclopedic text, properly sourced of course. Fieari (talk) 07:42, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
• Redirect as there's still nothing actually confirming there's the needed information for its own confirmed and established article, there's simply listed explanations about what the word means. SwisterTwister talk 01:08, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
• Reduce to stub as the the current content consists overwhelmingly of primary sources that are very far from reflecting any sort of research on the topic, and these can still be transwikified to wikiquote. The topic however is notable, and there isn't a shortage of secondary sources, for example [61] , [62], [63]. Uanfala (talk) 07:47, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:43, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:00, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Business Evaluation and Management

Business Evaluation and Management (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Promotional article for quite not notable framework. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 09:06, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:05, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

• delete as it stands - I'm willing to be convinced, but one journal article from 30 years ago doesn't cut it - David Gerard (talk) 14:00, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:59, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:16, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:45, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:TOOSOON. I don't believe that this concept is established enough as Google books return nothing. Possibly a new business concept not quite ready for prime time. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:31, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 14:02, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Juicy M

Juicy M (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

No indication of importance, no indication of meeting notability guidelines, orphan article, sources may be paid and it has been like this for several months with no improvement. Rizhopper (talk) 10:11, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:02, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:02, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

• comment FHM is an article, Billboard chart is very minor but exists - this leads me to consider her likely marginally notable per NMUSIC, and that other sources are likely to exist (but that's hypothetical, so this isn't a "keep" yet) - David Gerard (talk) 14:17, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Comment: I don't think the FHM source in this article is legitimate because the actual FHM goes by FHM dot com but this one goes by FHM dot ph. Also there is nothing on Billboard that mentioned her name. When I look up Juicy M, I only see Juicy J (rapper). - Rizhopper (talk) 16:54, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Still appears to be a minor RS (but not one that would swing it for me). The Billboard ref was [64] which may or may not be any sort of actual chart, though it's listed in the charts section. Electronica Life also looks like a minor RS. The sources don't look sponsored (I could be wrong). Looking through Google News, this is IMO not bad: [65] These are fluffy fact-of-touring coverage, but suggest she's actually somewhat noteworthy in her field (not quite NMUSIC #4 because they're not serious critical reviews, but they are international touring getting coverage): [66][67][68][69][70][71][72][73] There's a lot of "World's Sexiest DJ" fluff, but I'm leaning marginal keep for actually being noteworthy in her field, and I think we could have an article on the sources there are - David Gerard (talk) 20:03, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Your opinion though, it doesn't qualify for WP:MUSICBIO. - Rizhopper (talk) 08:37, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm thinking the lower reaches of GNG. Bit of a stretch admittedly and may well be a WP:TOOSOON. But I think that's sufficient sourcing for a quite okay BLP - David Gerard (talk) 09:34, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Comment: I have a link here that shows that she works under Armada Music label [74]. I don't know if its of any importance or if it complies with the guidelines but, Armada Music is notable record label. Other than that I couldn't find more references than the ones already here. If the article still doesn't fulfill the criteria then I think it should be deleted as per norms. (Nipun Nayar 21:57, 5 September 2016 (UTC)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nipunnayar (talk • contribs)

Comment: WP:MUSICBIO number 5 says "Has released two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels" and she has not released even one album yet. Being signed to a notable label does not make an artist notable. - Rizhopper (talk) 09:23, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

• Delete. Not notable enough per WP:MUSICBIO - Rizhopper (talk) 08:40, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

• Struck duplicate !vote from nominator; the nomination is considered as your !vote. However, feel free to comment all you'd like. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:15, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:15, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

• Delete as the bottom line here in the nomination and article itself is that none of the sources listed are actual convincing substance, in fact they simply consist of her own album listings or otherwise discography websites; that's nearly always a guaranteed factor of what an article only uses if there's no actual in-depth sources. SwisterTwister talk 01:06, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:45, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

• Delete This person is not notable as a musician. However, she might be notable as a model but still the references doesn't prove it. JohnBangBang (talk) 12:19, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
• Keep - Media coverage in numerous countries, over 3.75 million followers on FB, similar counts on Youtube channel, and the first female signed by Armada Music. Notable. Article could use clean up and expansion, not deletion per WP:ATD. Hmlarson (talk) 04:43, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Comment - Having many fans on social media is not a criteria for notability. Being "the first female signed by Armada Music" in some way is sexist to be considered good enough for notability and I have been trying to expand this article for more than 6 months but I could not find much relevant sources. Just because you personally not want it to be deleted doesn't mean it shouldn't. There is not much media coverage. This article fails WP:MUSICBIO, WP:GNG, WP:NRV - TheMagnificentist (talk) 05:00, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

This is a new one in so many ways! LOL. Hmlarson (talk) 05:52, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. My decision is mainly based on the sources and their descriptions provided by Cunard which have not been questioned. This decision does not mean that a merge/redirect discussion cannot continue on its talkpage. J04n(talk page) 13:51, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

The Secret Team

The Secret Team (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This is an article on a book promoted of conspiracists, the only source is a conspiracist website.The article includes no independent commentary to establish the factual accuracy of any of the claims made, as would be required per WP:NPOV/WP:PARITY. Guy (Help!) 11:28, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: The book has some academic references - Google Scholar seems to be unable to keep different editions apart, but there seem to be about 80-100 references here. Following those references, the book is (somewhat) discussed in this article by Chip Berlet. I suspect there are more sources to be found. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:50, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:21, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

• delete. ludicrous overcoverage, amounting to strong promotionalism--almost a G11; if notable, it should be rewritten from scratch. DGG ( talk ) 21:07, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:14, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

• I don't know how this works, but adding a comment: this book is notable and very deserving of an entry, but the current article is not good at all. I'd suggest getting a good entry, not just deleting it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Craig234 (talk • contribs) 03:56, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yellow Dingo (talk) 05:42, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

• Delete Pls see below; Original comment: Delete per WP:PROMO; not adding value to the encyclopedia at this point. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:46, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
• Keep, according to this Reliable Sources Noticeboard thread, the aforementioned conspiracy website http://www.globalresearch.ca could be reliable for establishing notability. There are also the sources mentioned by Stephan Schulz.--Prisencolin (talk) 18:47, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

I have serious problems understanding your claim about the WP:RS/N discussion. I read exactly the the opposite from it. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:31, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: multiple editors on the aforementioned thread had stated that the web site is not reliable. Delete this article and be done with it :-) K.e.coffman (talk) 20:49, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

• Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
  1. Anderson, Jack (1973-03-06). "'Secret Team' Hits CIA 'Dirty Tricks Department'". Garden City Telegram. Archived from the original on 2016-09-25. Retrieved 2016-09-25.

     This is a 1973 book review.

  2. Pinkerman, John (1973-07-23). "CIA operations criticized. The Secret Team; by L. Fletcher Prouty; Prentice Hall; 496 pages; $8.95. Reviewed By John Pinkerman". New Castle News. Copley News Service. Archived from the original on 2016-09-25. Retrieved 2016-09-25 – via Newspapers.com.

     This is a 1973 book review.

  
  
  Here are less substantial sources about the subject:
  1. Ventura, Jesse (2011-04-15). "Jesse Ventura's 6 favorite books about conspiracies". The Week. Archived from the original on 2016-09-25. Retrieved 2016-09-25.

     The article notes:

     The Secret Team by L. Fletcher Prouty (Skyhorse, $17). This book is tremendous because Col. Prouty, who worked for special operations forces under JFK’s Joint Chiefs of Staff, reveals who really runs our government. These are the high-level bureaucrats who remain while administrations come and go, and run amok without our elected officials knowing what’s happening.

  2. Steinberg, Jeffrey (1992-11-13). "Unique view of JFK assassination". Executive Intelligence Review. 19 (45). Archived from the original (PDF) on 2016-09-25. Retrieved 2016-09-25.

     The article notes:

     Fletcher Prouty is known to many people as the author of The Secret Team, the mid-1970s epic history of the founding and corrupting of the post-World War II American intelli­gence establishment, and scores of articles on international finance and national security affairs. For a handful of cogno­scenti, he is also known as an expert on railroads and the author of annual encyclopedia entries on the subject. But for millions more people around the world, Colonel Prouty is better known as "Mr. X"-the enigmatic Washington nation­al security insider played by Donald Sutherland in Oliver Stone's recent nationally acclaimed motion picture about the John Kennedy assassination, "JFK."

     This is a passing mention but can be used as a source in the article.
  3. Carlson, Michael (2001-06-21). "Obituary: L Fletcher Prouty: US officer obsessed by the conspiracy theory of President Kennedy's assassination". The Guardian. Archived from the original on 2016-09-25. Retrieved 2016-09-25.

     The article notes:

     His 1973 book, The Secret Team, was reviewed seriously. In it, Prouty called the CIA, and the cold war, a cover story, which had allowed elements of the military and intelligence community to work on behalf of the interests of a "high cabal" of industrialists and bankers. It found a ready audience in the atmosphere of Watergate and the Pentagon Papers, and, in the light of Iran-Contra and CIA drug-running controversies, many of its revelations have been confirmed.

     A mass-market paperback was published by Ballantine in 1974, but the book immediately became hard to find. Prouty believed it was "disappeared"; at any rate, copies remain collectors' items.

  There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow The Secret Team to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

  Cunard (talk) 01:08, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria says that a book is notable if "The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself." I have provided two such sources.

  Regarding the promotional concerns: Wikipedia:Editing policy#Wikipedia is a work in progress: perfection is not required and Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#Surmountable problems.

  Cunard (talk) 01:08, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

• Weak Keep, a lot of the mentions in reliable press are just brief ones, but there's probably just enough there to poke it past the notability bar; and there are probably more print sources that are not online. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 01:20, 1 October 2016 (UTC).
• Delete for now at best as, although the listed sources above are suggestive of improvements, there are still concerns and I share thrm as they have been listed above. This would need need better evaluation to see if there is in fact enough, and to ensure there's not trivial and fluff coverage. SwisterTwister talk 01:43, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
• Merge/Redirect over to the author's related page, prehaps specifically L._Fletcher_Prouty#Controversial_claims or else delete this. I'm unpersuaded that short snippet references to this work count as sufficient reliable source coverage. As well, the likes of Executive Intelligence Review are in no way valid to use as references. Prouty as a human being is notable, yes, but not everything that he's written and/or said is. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 11:37, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
• Delete & redirect -- the sources offered above are passing mentions and the book is discussed only in context of the author. I don't see independent notability here; i.e. no stand-alone reviews. Perhaps redirect (name only) to author's article, but that's about it. The content of the article is still WP:PROMO garbage; there's nothing there that's worth merging. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:19, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
• I agree that most of the sources presented here are not substantial coverage. However, the 1973 articles from the Garden City Telegram and the New Castle News (Copley News Service) are substantial coverage. Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria says significant coverage in two reliable sources is sufficient to establish notability.

  Lankiveil's comment that "there are probably more print sources that are not online" is supported by this quote from The Guardian obituary I linked above: "His 1973 book, The Secret Team, was reviewed seriously."

  Cunard (talk) 01:14, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

• Comment -- I believe that the statement ("His 1973 book, The Secret Team, was reviewed seriously") invalidates these 1970s sources as dated and not reliable. A case could be made that these sources are uncritical, and could not be used for the purpose of establishing notability at this time. Contemporary sources would make a stronger case for keeping this page as a stand-alone article, but it appears that they've not reviewed the book "seriously". In fact, they appear to dismiss the book. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:52, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

• That statement does not invalidate the two 1973 sources I've provided. Wikipedia:Notability#Notability is not temporary. Contemporary sources are not required.

  The Guardian article noted (my bolding):

  It found a ready audience in the atmosphere of Watergate and the Pentagon Papers, and, in the light of Iran-Contra and CIA drug-running controversies, many of its revelations have been confirmed.

  That the book was reviewed seriously because it contained credible claims and "many of its revelations have been confirmed" does not render the 1970s sources unusable in establishing notability.

  Cunard (talk) 02:27, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 14:12, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Dunderpatrullen

Dunderpatrullen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:NBAND and WP:GNG. Smartyllama (talk) 13:04, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:11, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:11, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

• comment What sort of source is LTZ? It looks like a general news publication, though of course I can't read the language so can't tell - David Gerard (talk) 14:13, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

• I think it's short for "länstidningen", which basically means "local newspaper" - the publisher MittMedia is Sweden's biggest publisher of local daily newspapers, so I think that this is exactly what LTZ is. Richard3120 (talk) 14:52, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
• Yup, it's Länstidningen Östersund, if translations are required I'd be happy to provide.lovkal (talk) 15:28, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

• I was just wanting to know if the LTZ links in the article are the sort of think you think would count as nontrivial RS mentions for en:wp purposes on this article - David Gerard (talk) 19:37, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

• LTZ is a local newspaper with a seemingly clean record, and they certainly don't seem to be affiliated with the band. I'd say they count. They have been adressed multiple times by the Swedish state-run radio network as well. lovkal (talk) 20:01, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

• In that case, keep - David Gerard (talk) 20:14, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

• dispute I don't see how it fails Notability guidelines? It has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself, check the references list. If Swedish Wikipedia is allowed to have this article, why can't English Wikipedia have it as well? lovkal (talk) 15:26, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
• Delete due to lack of substantive coverage in reliable independent sources. Guy (Help!) 15:21, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
  • This doesn't match what's already in the article - David Gerard (talk) 08:22, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:14, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

• Keep Has substantial coverage in Swedish media. They also pass WP:BAND at least in point 5 (Warner Music Sweden belongs to the Warner Music Group), as well as point 11 and/or 12 (they have been aired/covered on Sveriges Radio apparently). Dead Mary (talk) 15:41, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy deleted per WP:G7 and WP:G10. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:10, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Kynan Shiel

Kynan Shiel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Reason Skullredemption (talk) 04:57, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 September 9. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:13, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 17:49, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Mr. Ugly

Mr. Ugly (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

No evidence of notability per WP:NALBUM, no charting, etc. Sourced only to a single forum site. This is also the same text that got deleted at PROD last month. I'm entirely willing to be convinced, but the primary contributor has been pointed at WP:RS a number of times. There seem to just be no good sources for this record. David Gerard (talk) 13:07, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 13:07, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 13:08, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

• Delete: fails WP:NALBUM, and as it's only released via mail order through the record company's own website shop, it's unlikely to ever pass notability. Richard3120 (talk) 18:21, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:00, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:13, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yellow Dingo (talk) 00:18, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

• Delete per above. KGirlTrucker81 ^{huh? what I'm been doing} 01:10, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sock votes don't count, otherwise there seem to be fair arguments both for and against notability, with no clearly preponderant opinion emerging despite two relists. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:56, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Ron Kolm

Ron Kolm (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

has written nothing notable and received no major awards. Article largely uncited and even if it was doesn't contain enough to meet WP:AUTHOR LibStar (talk) 13:57, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

• Comment Article creator blanked most of the text of the article, which I have now reverted. While it could be interpreted as a request for deletion by author, it looks more like sour grapes, so I will not move for CSD G7 and instead let this AfD continue on to conclusion. Richarddev (talk) 19:45, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

• Richarddev has left this identical comment in multiple irrelevant AfDs. There are no reversions of page-blanking in his recent contributions. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:54, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
• Struck content above posted by a user indefinitely blocked for socking, per WP:SOCKSTRIKE. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:40, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:29, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

• Leaning keep - the RSes present and the fact that a university took on his papers strongly suggests prima facie notability, though the article could do with better sourcing - David Gerard (talk) 18:45, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:13, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:20, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:24, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Polska Tales

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Polska Tales
• Articles for deletion/Polska Tales (2nd nomination)

Polska Tales (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Unable to identify a single reliable source indicating notability, either in the article or via Google. —swpb^T 14:29, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. —swpb^T 14:35, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. —swpb^T 14:35, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. —swpb^T 14:35, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

• Delete as it stands, sadly - David Gerard (talk) 19:30, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:13, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

• Delete as essentially G11, none of it is actual substance, let alone basic information and improvements of an acceptable article; certainly none of it establishes coverage for said improvements. SwisterTwister talk 01:09, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
• Delete as an article on a subject of only local community interest, as borne out by sources. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:46, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:47, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Justin Gullett

Justin Gullett (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

I don't think winning an online competition for a TV show that flopped big time and being second Unit director on a few films makes him notable enough for a WIkipedia page.

Thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.84.45.140 (talk) 08:26, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

• Comment Completing nomination on behalf of above IP. As for my own view, at a first pass the list of references looks to be heavy on primary sources and passing mentions. The fusedfilm.com and Commercial Appeal refs might be the best ones here, but the links aren't working for me. Notability looks sketchy, but I'll defer a formal !vote until I can look into it further. --Finngall ^talk 16:01, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 16:20, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 16:20, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:22, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

• Delete non-notable filmmaker. It appears to me we have another deletion nomination for a different article on this same, although the whole thing has confused me.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:31, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
  • On further review it seems Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/justin gullett is actually linked to this same article, just a seperate nomination. They probably should be combined into one.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:33, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:12, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

• Comment – A duplicate nomination was located at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/justin gullett, which I have procedureally closed. I have copied the nominator's rationale (link) here (below). User:Johnpacklambert has also opined to delete in this discussion, so I have not copied their delete !vote at that discussion to here. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:24, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
  • I am a single male, so my vote should be denominated as "his" not "their".John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:12, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
• does not match notability standards. Won filmmaking competition in TV show that was not successful and has not had major role in filmmaking world since. Unopeneddoor (talk) 08:36, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:25, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

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

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

The result was procedural close. A duplicate nomination is located at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Justin Gullett. I have copied the nominator's statement from here to that page (diff). User:Johnpacklambert has also opined to delete at that discussion, so I have not copied this comment there. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:23, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Justin Gullett

AfDs for this article:

Justin Gullett (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

does not match notability standards. Won filmmaking competition in TV show that was not successful and has not had major role in filmmaking world since. Unopeneddoor (talk) 08:36, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 September 2. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:53, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:06, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:06, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

• Delete non-notable filmmaker.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:28, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 04:37, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

C A Bhavani Devi

C A Bhavani Devi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable athlete. Has not competed at the Olympics nor has won any medals at any reputable international competitions. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 16:14, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

• Keep I have read and edited the article and removed non-independent, non-reliable sources present in it. I have also removed most autobiographic and biased information that violates the criterion for biographies on living people. Tuscany Cup is a notable tournament in Fencing and from what I gather from the mentioned sources, she looks like a notable sportsperson in India. Hridith Sudev Nambiar (talk) 17:56, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:21, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:21, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

• Keep the sources in the article show she has caught the attention of the Indian media so she easily passes WP:GNG. And there is much more to be found: [75]. Note that her name in Tamil is சி. ஏ. பவானி தேவி: [76], [77] and there are at least 3 pictures of her on Commons: [78], [79]... Thanks and regards, Biwom (talk) 11:38, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:12, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

• Keep: Meets WP:GNG. Sources are cited in the article. Anup [Talk] 18:01, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE per low input despite two relists. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:16, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Terror Tales of the Park (series)

Terror Tales of the Park (series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

I don't see why these set of episodes in this TV series should have its own stand alone article. It's not notable enough for its own article in my opinion. I think it would be better to delete or merge contents to the episode's season pages. There is also evidence of fancruft here. Class455 (talk) 17:35, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Class455 (talk) 17:36, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Class455 (talk) 17:36, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:12, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:27, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 04:38, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Vincenza Carrieri-Russo

Vincenza Carrieri-Russo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Carrieri-Russo is the rare pageant contestant who has done it so much that it is almost a career in and of itself for her, but she has never reached a level of notability, and the sources indicate that no one has taken note of her, outside the University of Delaware paper, which is not a good source to deomstrate one of their students is notable. John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:07, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:15, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:15, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty Pageants-related deletion discussions. PageantUpdater (talk) 00:25, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

• Strong keep Article has received copyedit and references indicate significant and sustained coverage before, during & after holding the Miss Delaware USA title, meets WP:GNG. Nominator clearly didn't do much research to claim "no one has taken note of her". PageantUpdater (talk) 01:41, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:32, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Delaware-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:33, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:53, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:11, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

• Keep -- this is actually a well-balanced bio highlighting a variety of accomplishments by Ms Carrieri-Russo. Coverage in not run-of-the-mill and presents the subject's career outside of pageantry in a reasonable fashion. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:01, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:59, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Exhibition Fading

Exhibition Fading (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

No clear indication of notability. Blackguard 18:46, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 08:01, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

• Comment The equivalent article in the Dutch Wikipedia has also been nominated for deletion.Mduvekot (talk) 16:41, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:20, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:20, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Delete There are some sources, but there is nothing that gives any indication of influence or importance of the show. Its impact was minimal and this review says as much, finding the concept "thin". Mduvekot (talk) 22:06, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:10, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yellow Dingo (talk) 05:41, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

• Delete: I am not seeing more than passing attention for this compendium exhibition (which does not inherit notability from the artists included) and hence it lacks evidence of notability. AllyD (talk) 09:48, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Euryalus (talk) 11:51, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Lindsay Seidel

Lindsay Seidel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

She starred in a horror flick called The Final, but it is not clear what is her leading roles in the voice acting / anime world. Not finding much coverage in papers outside of the one film. Only 2 conventions, one wasboth are local. All the ANN articles are just cast announcements. WP:TOOSOON? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:43, 26 August 2016 (UTC) updated 20:28, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:43, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:43, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:43, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:43, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:43, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

• Keep - Kyoko is a major character in terms of plot in the anime series Is This a Zombie?. She also provides the voice for Hecate in Shakugan no Shana (seasons 2-3), these would pass WP:ENT as they are two major antagonist roles. I also found this: [80], Constant Contact isn't a minor thing. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:28, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
• Weak Keep the roles mentioned seem to qualify subject. I'm close to thinking WP:TOOSOON but leaning keep. Will watch this discussion. ArchieOof (talk) 14:09, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
• Delete Only two anime conventions.Therainbowsend (talk) 18:45, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:38, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:07, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

• Delete as IMDb itself actually summarily states her works and there's nothing actually substantial or major to actually suggest independent notability; there's no inherited notability about anything from the listed films, if it means there would not then be a both substantial and improved article of her own. SwisterTwister talk 01:11, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

• IMDb is not a reliable source. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:32, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:47, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:47, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

• Keep In just a few clicks I found a good number of online sources about the subject. Passes WP:GNG.--Paul McDonald (talk) 17:35, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

What are those good number of sources? I've only seen cast announcements outside of the one interview. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:17, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Such as? anyone can say there are good sources but if you don't supply them how can we believe you or trust their neutrality or reliability?

• Weak keep: Substantial filmography, adequate sources. Voice actors don't get coverage live film actors do, so I'd say she passes GNG for her field. Would like to see source material used to improve article, though. Montanabw^(talk) 20:44, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

There are a few flaws in your argument. The filmography is a matter of opinion sure. While the sources are fine they only serve as confirmation of those roles, not the notability of the article's subject. Voice actor coverage has been sufficient for many years, easily long enough to cover the subject's time in the industry, never mind that you are assuming live action actors are all notable.. Giving a pass based on her field as if it somehow should have lesser requirements than any other actor is misguided.SephyTheThird (talk) 20:23, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

• Delete No evidence of notability, cast announcements generally are just that and do not denote or suggest merit.SephyTheThird (talk) 20:23, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
• Delete It is true that voice actors generally have less coverage. (Actually quite a few of them do have coverage, but many of them are in fan websites which are not exactly RS for our purpose). The way to decide notability is to look at their contributions. If they voiced any major role in an anime I tend to give them a pass. The problem here is that the subject has done a bunch of minor roles, none of which are exactly significant. Considering the lack of coverage and the lack of a significant role, I am going with a delete here. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 15:33, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Btw, I have not been able to locate any of the sources being talked about in the discussion. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 15:33, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Fan websites tend to have primary source interviews, which only help beef up some self-published facts about the person like where they went to high school, or what is their favorite part of voice acting, but doesn't establish whether they are notable since they tend to grab any upcoming voice actor for an interview. The interview for The Final is over at BridgeThink [81] That one's got a little more credibility, coming from the general acting/production industry. But still, that's about it, and it only helps her notability for The Final. She's cast in a web series called Morganville that itself barely has notability for being an adaptation of a book series: The_Morganville_Vampires#Morganville:_The_Series [82] and another web series that isn't Wikipedia-notable called Throwing Stones AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:21, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the links. Yup, it seems like a case of TOOSOON. She may become notable in the future, but not now. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 15:23, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

• Comment I am not sure about how notable but she did win a "Staff Choice Award for Voice Actress of the Year at the 4th Annual BTVA Anime Dub Awards. [83] - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:18, 27 September 2016 (UTC) [84]

I'm a bit on the fence for that one as BTVA staff choice is a nice accolade for their resume, and the voice actors do brag about being selected. But it doesn't give the winner any physical awards and there's no award ceremony like Annie Award or National Academy of Video Game Trade Reviewers (NAVGTR) awards. The BTVA People's Choice one is non-notable as it's a user-generated poll. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:24, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Well the only other one I could find is a "Fright Meter" award. [85] I will continue trying to look for interviews. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:31, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep and split into two separate articles (or two articles and disambiguation page). Deryck C. 15:33, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Swan neck duct

Swan neck duct (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Unsourced despite corresponding tag since 2009 (WP:V). Also, a collection of topics that have nothing in common but their name (WP:IINFO, WP:NOTDICT). If sourced, some content could be merged to related articles, but as it isn't sourced...  Sandstein  19:52, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:06, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Split; keep here just jet-engine meaning. Multiple meanings should be disambiguated each to their own page (or redirect to parent articles, etc.). The jet-engine meaning was the only topic of the article when it was created, up until User:81.111.216.41 added Pasteur's flask on 12 October 2009‎, and this meaning is now cited (thanks User:Mark viking!). The other meaning belongs somewhere else, probably Swan neck flask. That term is widely used for this experiment--I rewrote the content and added a ref. It could instead redirect to Louis Pasteur#Spontaneous generation, or else some content from there could be transferred to that new article on the apparatus. DMacks (talk) 03:48, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

See my comment below. On that note, Mark Viking's cite was to "Swan-neck flask" not "Swan neck duct" as you suggest. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:54, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Mark Viking's edit? DMacks (talk) 12:41, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Presumably not the edit you mentioned above which was said to have endorsed Pasteur's "duct". To be honest, I'm not sure who added that false citation, maybe Mark deserves more credit than that. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 15:56, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

In this article, I have added two references for the jet engine/gas turbine usage and have not touched the Pasteur section. --Mark viking (talk) 07:33, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

• Split per DMacks. While parts of the article are independently verifiable, the main sin here is synthesis per WP:SYNTH of two different subjects that are not discussed together in the literature. I was able to easily find a couple of reliable sources for the turbine interface and a GScholar search for "swan neck" turbine shows more RS to be had. This is a necessary component of jet engines and other high performance gas turbines and looks notable per WP:GNG. I agree with DMacks that the swan neck duct in chemistry or biology is most closely associated with the famous Pasteur experiment and is best merged and redirected into the Louis Pasteur#Spontaneous generation section. With those actions the article can become a well-formed stub that has WP:POTENTIAL for improvement. --Mark viking (talk) 11:17, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:02, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

• Delete. This article is presumably a reaction to the hijacking of the main swan neck by beer drinkers. From the aeronautical perspective, the term is a trivial description of any suitably-shaped duct and has no special relevance to turbines. Try the equivalent search for example on "swan neck" plumbing or "swan neck" coolant. In science, the swan neck is more normally met in the swan neck flask or a tube than a "duct". No, this article is not the way. Better to tackle the beer drinkers over the applicability of the "swan neck" as an ordinary phrase much used in the wider world. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:09, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Ping @LoopZilla and SilkTork:, who created Swan neck as an article and made it a redirect to Beer engine, respectively. Should "swan neck" become a disambiguation page since we have at least two (and maybe three) kinds of "swan neck..." things and one (and maybe more) are redirects (means it's hard to hatnote disambig/cross-link them). DMacks (talk) 22:26, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. We have Swan neck deformity (which looks like it could be considered for merging with Boutonniere deformity), Edith the Fair, Swan-neck bottle, Mega Trailer, Pediment, Spur, and other articles which are about topics which are often described with the term "swan neck" (swan neck spur, swan neck pediment, etc), so it would be appropriate to turn Swan neck into a disamb page, and I will do that shortly. I have no opinion on Swan neck duct, it is not a topic I am familiar with, but the current article is written as a Wikipedia:Broad-concept article, so it is worth discussing to see if that is appropriate, or if it should be turned into a regular disamb page. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:37, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:42, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:15, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

• Split/Disambiguate -- I feel like consensus has already been reached on this point, and I agree with it. See above for specific arguments. Fieari (talk) 04:39, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
• Keep and Split - Keep this article as the jet-engine duct. Split out the info on the flask into Swan neck flask. I think that is better than redirecting to Louis Pasteur#Spontaneous generation as there is also Spontaneous generation and both of these article could link to Swan neck flask. It seems that "swan neck duct" has been used prior to jet engines (here is a source from 1868 [[86]] but I think any usage related to air ducts (jet engine or otherwise) belongs here. MB 03:47, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
• Split - agreed - split into swan neck flask and swan neck duct. Gandalf61 (talk) 15:57, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Agreed, but I ask to delete the present content of "See also" from either. The explanation of eponymous resemblance to a swan's neck should be worked into the text of both articles, including the link to Swan. The "Hydro massage" link has nothing to do with either subject, and no reference to "swan" is found in the hydro massage article; if there really is a notable "swan-neck" type of water jet, then it should be stated in that article and listed instead on Swan neck (disambiguation). IveGoneAway (talk) 20:52, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

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

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

The result was redirect to Nick Jr.#International. Anyone who wishes to merge the contents of the redirected article may search the history of the redirect (which has been preserved) (non-admin closure) Lourdes 14:15, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Nick Jr. (Finland)

Nick Jr. (Finland) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable country branch of an international media organization. I looked for WP:GNG sources and found none. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:52, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

• Merge somewhere/Delete - Doesn't seem independently notable and seems to only exist for the purpose of including a program list, like Nickelodeon (Africa) and Nickelodeon (Israel). I strongly doubt anyone is going to flesh this out in any meaningful way that would describe the foundation of the Finnish channel, or provide any academically useful information. Typically they tend to just repeat content found at the main Nickelodeon article or included fluffed-up sections like Nickelodeon India and Nickelodeon Arabia do, the latter of which being awash in citation needed templates. Even if anything could be said of these channels, there is (from my experience) little in the way of references to help. We have far too many of these articles as-is, most are grossly undersourced, and most of them could probably be condensed and merged under Nickelodeon (international) (minus the programming lists). Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:22, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Cyphoidbomb feel free to nominate those others for deletion as well (preferably PORD first, as I did with this one until challenged). I found this through WP Finland articles, I don't usually deal with deletions and/or media articles. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:26, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Gaah. I am swamped... Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:29, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:53, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Comment None these programs aren't even unique to Finland. I'm leaning towards a delete and or merge into List of international Nickelodeon channels, but I'm not sure how the information regarding which programs specifically are shown in Finland will stay intact following such as merge.--Prisencolin (talk) 03:44, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

I suggest it won't, if it remains unsourced. Merging verifability problems elsewhere is not a good thing to do. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:51, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

The list of Nick programs shown in Finland is probably on their website, so as far as verifiability is concerned it's okay.--Prisencolin (talk) 03:58, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:42, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:14, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:40, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

• Redirect to Nick Jr.#International per already given reasons. This article and its section wasn't yet pointed out as a viable redirect target. Mr. Magoo (talk) 04:20, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 04:27, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Kalubowila

Kalubowila (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Unable to determine if this place actually exists - no sources available. Also, this article has no references to indicate its location - see: WP:GEOLAND Steve Quinn (talk) 20:33, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 21:15, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

• Keep I found it in google maps: [[87]] which shows actual boundaries and openstreetmap.org: [[88]] which lists it as a town with a population of 1000. If you look at the article Colombo, it is listed there as a one of about 30 suburbs (not citing WP as a reference), many of which are poorly referenced but all seem to exist. MB 02:56, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 14:17, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

• Keep Satisfies WP:GEOLAND. Remember, AFD is not cleanup. Smartyllama (talk) 17:28, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:09, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep and close... The nominator needs to undertake a standard recommended search BEFORE nominating articles like this on Afd. Even a Google news search would have been enough. Pinging Northamerica1000 on this (as he relisted this). Lourdes 04:14, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep as above, obvious lack of WP:BEFORE by the nominator, even a very generic Google search shows the existence of this place [89]. While I certainly don't like the current state of the article and I hope some Sri Lankan editor will improve it, AfD is not cleanup. Cavarrone 06:50, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
• Keep per observations that the place does, in fact, exist. Lepricavark (talk) 04:14, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:48, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Malta's Top Model

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Malta's Top Model
• Articles for deletion/Malta's Top Model (2nd nomination)

Malta's Top Model (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:NTV. Only two articles here and here, two more sites that contain trivial mentions of the show here and here, and an article written about it on a WordPress blog here. Last nomination received no votes. Linguist 111 ^Moi? Moi. 21:47, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:49, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:49, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malta-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:49, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:08, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

• Delete. There's a little bit of coverage, such as [90] from the Times of Malta (mentioned above) and [91] from The Malta Independent. However, I don't think this is really enough to establish notability. The rest of the hits I saw in a Google search were trivial mentions. List of newspapers in Malta may help in finding reliable sources. I only searched the English-language sources, so I suppose it's possible that Maltese-language sources may exist. It might be worthwhile to consider moving it to draft space to see if someone can locate them. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:35, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
• Delete. Much like NinjaRobotPirate above I found a few mentions of the TV show that don't go far enough to establish notability per the guidelines of WP:NTV. I note NTV specifies that national tv shows are likely to be notable, but, the prevalence of sources is the dominant factor is deciding whether a show is indeed notable. [A] national television program may not be notable if it was cancelled too quickly to have garnered any significant media coverage, it did indeed have enough time to get "significant" coverage, and failed to do so, Malta Independent and the Times of Malta are the only two reliable sources I came across myself. There's a bunch of unreliable ones like twitter and facebook and blogspots, but, that's about it. Add; I think it's quite telling that the first AfD didn't gather a single vote to keep or delete after three weeks and indicates to me that this is a non-controversial deletion request. Mr rnddude (talk) 17:20, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. Seems like coverage is good enough to justify an article. If the article works better when focused on the model plane and not its creator (i.e the ONEEVENT concern), I'd say that this is a change to be discussed on the talk page. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:50, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Luca Iaconi-Stewart

Luca Iaconi-Stewart (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

I wrote this article, however, on second thought I'm not sure if this really meets GNG. BlueSalix (talk) 23:28, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 September 2. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:43, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
• Delete living person notable for only one event, and even then it is a very trivial event.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:03, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

agreed, thanks BlueSalix (talk) 20:32, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

• Keep. I don't think in my 11 years on Wikipedia that I have ever voted to keep an article against the wishes of the editor who started it, but there's a first time for everything. This is an entirely well-sourced article that appears to pass the depth of coverage demanded by WP:GNG. There are several articles in reliable secondary sources entirely devoted to the subject. I don't think we could ask for more than that. A Train^talk 22:35, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:08, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

• Keep - The subject received focused coverage by multiple sources. This meets GNG. Fieari (talk) 04:58, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
• Comment, isn't this covered by WP:ONEEVENT so its the model plane that may be notable and could warrant an article not the maker? Coolabahapple (talk) 13:27, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus. This discussion has been open for over a month with no clear outcome or agreement on whether the sources get this person over WP:GNG. Some sources have been presented by User:Vanamonde which may be helpful in improving the article. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:46, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Udayanga Weeratunga

Udayanga Weeratunga (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:BIO and WP:DIPLOMAT, simply being a former ambassador for a country does not confer automatic notability. Also just because he is the first cousin of a former president does not make him notable - see WP:NOTINHERITED. Dan arndt (talk) 08:36, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 08:38, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 08:38, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 08:38, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 08:38, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

• Keep. I believe an ambassadorial position makes him pass WP:POLITICIAN. I believe any ambassador is notable, and I am not aware of any AfD deleting their bio. Thoughts? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:24, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Ambassadors are definitely not inherently notable, quite a few have been deleted. LibStar (talk) 09:34, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Piotrus as per WP:DIPLOMAT any individual (including any diplomat) needs to meet the criteria under WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO and not just be solely reliant on the fact that they were a diplomat (in this case an ambassador). After going through the article there is little there that supports him being considered as notable. Dan arndt (talk) 09:51, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

I read WP:DIPLOMAT and it is an essay, not a policy. In my opinion ambassadors pass WP:POLITICIAN and should be auto-notable by the virtue of their position. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:57, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

again you are arguing inherent notability. in fact there was a discussion to give ambassadors inherent notability which gained no consensus. LibStar (talk) 07:09, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

• Delete fails WP:BIO. no inherent notability in being ambassador. Coverage merely confirms he held the role. LibStar (talk) 09:34, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable individual. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 16:19, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
• Keep If being ambassador to Russia and notoriety about illegally selling arms in Ukraine isn't notable enough, a quick Google search shows that he passes WP:GNG.--obi2canibe^{talk contr} 17:49, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

It's an accusation of Arms selling only. Please show us the outcome of actual sources from your "quick google search"? LibStar (talk) 08:43, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Nearly 30,000 results on Google.--obi2canibe^{talk contr} 11:14, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

See WP:GOOGLEHITS. number of hits does not mean automatically notable. LibStar (talk) 12:00, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

• Keep. Ambassador passes GNG, or it should. We can change the notability rules if that's unclear. Ambassadors exert a huge impact on bilateral relations and their work becomes history.Zigzig20s (talk) 11:12, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

There is no inherent notability of ambassadors. LibStar (talk) 12:00, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Ambassadors exert a huge impact on bilateral relations and their work becomes history . Many in fact do very little. do you have actual evidence that Udayanga Weeratunga exerted a huge impact on bilateral relations. I'll happily change my !vote to keep if you do. LibStar (talk) 07:05, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

• Comment -- the subject of the article appears to be currently under investigation in his home country for fraud relating to purchase of MiG fighters:

• A warrant is out to arrest Weeratunga on charges of financial fraud, alleged to have taken place when seven MiG-27 ground attack aircraft were procured for the Sri Lanka Air Force (SLFA). The FCID launched investigation on Weeratunga following a complaint lodged by defence columnist and political writer Iqbal Athas on the financial irregularities that had taken place.

Whether this falls under WP:NOTNEWS or makes him notable, I'm not sure. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:36, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

• Keep. Ambassador of any country to Russia is clearly notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:19, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

here we go again. Maybe you can actually look for sources which you never do in ambassador AfDs . There is no inherent notability of being ambassador to Russia. Several have been deleted including where you have previously !voted.

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amir Hussain Sikder
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rénovat Ndayirukiye
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Diego José Tobón Echeverri
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Martha Elena Toledo-Ocampo Ureña
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ada Filip-Slivnik

LibStar (talk) 15:29, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The unsupported keep comments based on inherent notability of ambassadors have been disputed by other editors... and past Afds have been showcased to support their oppose/delete assertion... The Afd is therefore re-listed. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lourdes 03:55, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

• Keep - per WP:GNG, per WP:POLITICIAN. Simply because the statements of inherited notability is disputed by deletionists in this case does not mean they are correct. also per fraud relating to purchase of MiG fighters, just as an example of this persons notabilty beyond "just another diplomat".BabbaQ (talk) 18:39, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

does not meet WP:POLITICIAN. has held no political office. LibStar (talk) 07:17, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:51, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

• Why is this discussion relisted again. It is clearly a No consensus result, or leaning towards keep per rationales for Delete such as Non-notable individual., utterly pointless.--BabbaQ (talk) 06:27, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
• Delete being an ambassador is not default grounds for notability and we lack adequate sources otherwise.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:45, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
• Delete -- per the source I listed above, the MiG scandal is not sufficient for encyclopedia notability at this time. WP:TOOSOON possibly applies; the subject is not yet notable, per available sources. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:56, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
• Keep: Subject is notable and holds office. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 07:12, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

WP:ITSNOTABLE. None of the positions held confer automatic notability. LibStar (talk) 07:32, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

• Delete as certainly not convincingly notable as a politician and honestly nothing else otherwise, nothing to suggest what would need to actually happen for a confident fixing and keep. SwisterTwister talk 07:35, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
• Weak keep. While the consensus, based on many past deletion debates, is that diplomats do not normally pass our specific standards, in this case an ambassador to a world power would probably be notable. I'd agree to "userfication" until better sources were found. Bearian (talk) 17:56, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

This !vote contains zero demonstration of actual sources to establish WP:BIO is met, instead trying to argue inherently "probably notable". Nice try but seriously not an argument for keep. LibStar (talk) 22:14, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

• Keep. I think this just narrowly passes both WP:NPOL and WP:CRIME, and his corruption case seems to have generated substantial press coverage. FalconK (talk) 05:15, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

he was never a politician. LibStar (talk) 07:28, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

• Keep due to substantive coverage in multiple reliable sources: [92], [93], [94], [95], [96], [97], and several more available via a search for news sources. Vanamonde (talk) 08:07, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. Per the uncontested sources brought forward by Montanabw. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:51, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Midge Whiteman

Midge Whiteman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Subject doesn't appear to pass WP:BIO. Adam9007 (talk) 01:39, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

• Delete (weak one) A brief mention here, two listings here, a photo here, not sure this adds up to GNG material. If sources can be found (books? almanacs?) confirming her role, I can change my view.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:44, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

http://www.thethirdturn.com/wiki/Midge_Whiteman/Results/Bathurst_1000 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pjnugget (talk • contribs) 01:15, 3 September 2016 (UTC) http://uniquecarsandparts.com/bathurst_1967.htm http://www.v8central.com/wiki/index.php?title=1968_Bathurst_Results http://www.motoring.com.au/mini-returns-to-bathurst-1927/ http://autopics.com.au/bathurst-1968/ https://www.nmrm.com.au/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pjnugget (talk • contribs) 01:24, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Please see reliable sources guideline.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 09:41, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:47, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:47, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

• Comment, added women project to talkpage so participants are notified. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:01, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
• Keep Given the era, it was pretty remarkable for women to be auto racing. The article needs work and sources, but I think that GNG is met. In addition to the above, I found this, a brief mention, a video, and the following news stories from the time: [98], [99], [100] (subscription required to view the last two, but her name was in the Google snippet). Montanabw^(talk) 03:32, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:43, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

• Weak Keep, if it was the first all-woman team, I'm actually surprised at the scarcity of coverage, even in newspapers from the time. I was able to find a few brief mentions in addition to what User:Montanabw identified, and I think there's probably enough here. When I'm at work on Wednesday I'll dig into the archives of the SMH if I have time and have a closer look at those articles. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:21, 16 September 2016 (UTC).

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

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

The result was delete. NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:57, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

2011 First Flight High School protests and walkouts

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/2011 First Flight High School protests and walkouts
• Articles for deletion/2011 First Flight High School protests and walkouts (2nd nomination)

2011 First Flight High School protests and walkouts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Unremarkable and un-notable occurrence. A Speedy Afd Delete would be in order. Lourdes 03:42, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

• Speedy delete, but this really should have been a CSD per A7 using {{Db-event}}. -- MorbidEntree - _{(Talk to me! (っ◕‿◕)っ♥)}(please reply using {{ping}}) 03:47, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

• Hello MorbidEntree. I thought A7 was for organized events. Could not discern whether this was organized or unorganized. So did this Afd on the side of caution. Thanks. Lourdes 04:21, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

• @Lourdes: I think that protests would generally be included in A7. -- MorbidEntree - _{(Talk to me! (っ◕‿◕)っ♥)}(please reply using {{ping}}) 05:04, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

• Thanks . I notice there was an earlier Afd nomination too of this event... Lourdes 06:11, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. MorbidEntree - _{(Talk to me! (っ◕‿◕)っ♥)}(please reply using {{ping}}) 03:48, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. MorbidEntree - _{(Talk to me! (っ◕‿◕)っ♥)}(please reply using {{ping}}) 03:48, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

• Keep The events were very historic in the collective memory of the Outer Banks.--150.216.128.106 (talk) 04:12, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
  • It was part of the Impact of the Arab Spring--150.216.128.106 (talk) 04:14, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

    If you would like to improve it to be more than a sentence, then you can go ahead and do that. But as it is right now, it is very deletion-worthy. -- MorbidEntree - _{(Talk to me! (っ◕‿◕)っ♥)}(please reply using {{ping}}) 05:13, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

• Speedy delete per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:CSD#G4 based on the previous AfD. Joe Roe (talk) 10:14, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus.  Sandstein  16:13, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Robyn Semien

Robyn Semien (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Delete. Inadequately sourced WP:BLP of a radio producer. While there are claims here that probably would be enough to earn her an article if she could be sourced over WP:GNG for them, nothing here gives her an automatic pass of any subject-specific inclusion criterion -- and while it looks well sourced on the surface, every last one of the 15 citations here either (a) namechecks her existence in the process of failing to be about her, or (b) sources a tangential fact about the show she produces while entirely failing to even namecheck her existence at all. Which means none of the sources here get her over WP:GNG, because not even one of them is substantively about her. Bearcat (talk) 22:49, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

• Keep. So, I created the entry because I believe the subject is wiki-notable, but to summarize my reasons for that view:

1. A Peabody is the highest award in the field (often compared as audio equivalent to a Pulitzer for print journalism), qualifying for WP:ANYBIO.
2. WP:CREATIVE #3, "played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work" that has been "the primary subject...of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." There's no shortage of reviews and articles about the Harper High episode (a two-hour radio doc); she's named as a co-creator for the credits and on the many awards it's won; and in addition to the awards, a piece that draws action by the President and First Lady of the United States seems pretty squarely "significant" to me.
3. But all the same, here are additional available sources that haven't been incorporated into the entry yet. I consider the sum more than adequate for WP:BASIC.

More awards she's won:

• http://current.org/2014/11/radio-diaries-takes-gold-at-third-coast-and-other-awards-in-public-media/
• http://www.deadlineclub.org/archives/3929
• http://www.scripps.com/foundation/news/12-scripps-howard-awards-honor-best-journalism-in-the-nation-in-2013
• https://americanmediainstitute.com/awards/fred-m-hechinger-grand-prize-for-distinguished-education-reporting/

More secondary source coverage describing other aspects of her life:

• http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424127887324766604578459290946004814
• http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702304885404579547712514147246
• https://thebillfold.com/what-would-it-be-worth-to-you-to-be-a-laker-girl-93d830caa4f7#.kivrofasg
• http://www.nydailynews.com/life-style/real-estate/brink-article-1.270071

More secondary source notice for her radio work:

• http://nieman.harvard.edu/stories/stories-we-loved-some-favorite-narrative-from-2014/
• http://mije.org/richardprince/nabj-nahj-concerned-about-cnn-diversity#Harper%20High
• http://www.chicagonow.com/going-for-gusto/2012/06/blackjack-would-counting-cards-have-made-me-money-on-my-honeymoon/
• http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/2/19/1365362/-What-we-can-learn-from-implicit-bias-training
• http://www.newsworks.org/index.php/local/down-the-shore-jen-a-miller/39943-this-american-life-atlantic-city

So the entry seems wiki-notable to me by several standards, though of course only one need be satisfied; and I don't see any exclusion criteria that would apply, so, keep. Innisfree987 (talk) 01:52, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

A Peabody would support her notability if she had won it as an individual; it does not support her notability if you have to combine sources which say the show won a Peabody, but which fail to specifically single out her name in conjunction with that achievement, with the show's own self-published primary source content about itself to prove that she was involved in creating the content that won the award. None of those other awards are ones that confer an automatic WP:JOURNALIST pass on a person who isn't the subject of enough reliable source coverage to satisfy GNG. Those articles covering "other aspects of her life" aren't covering notable aspects of her life: getting covered in the real estate section for buying a condo doesn't make a person encyclopedically notable, owning an independent wine store doesn't make a person encyclopedically notable, and the "Laker Girl" article just namechecks her existence a single time in an article that isn't about her. And exactly zero of those "secondary source notice for her radio work" are in reliable sources; every last one of them is either a blog or a press release on the website of an organization, not a media outlet that can support notability. What you're missing is that there's a big difference between sources which verify that she exists, and sources which can validly confer notability — and you have yet to show even one source which does the latter. Bearcat (talk) 03:59, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

I have some disagreements with the analysis here, but for perhaps the simplest way to advance the discussion, here's the Peabody's announcement specifically naming her (as co-producer, which I've updated in the entry). I may come back later and expand on other questions, but for now I'd rather work on improving the entry; and perhaps others will weigh in in the meantime, which I think would be useful. Innisfree987 (talk) 16:42, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

That's still a primary source. What makes an award notable enough to confer a notability pass on a winner of that award is the existence of media coverage about the award win, not just the award's own self-published website about itself. Bearcat (talk) 21:45, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Innisfree987 (talk) 02:18, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Innisfree987 (talk) 02:18, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Innisfree987 (talk) 02:18, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Innisfree987 (talk) 02:18, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

• Keep (somewhat weak keep) Important journalist and producer although (admittedly) there is not much in-depth reporting on her, although she's clearly done great work. She is getting attention because of the wine store -- a second source of references so that puts her in the keep column for me, with sources like this one and this one.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:04, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:58, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:41, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

• Delete I searched like crazy and there are exactly Zero reliable secondary sources which present some significant coverage about the subject. Half of references in the article have absolutely no reference to the subject. I'm not convinced that the Peabody award grants automatic notability considering the number of people who are credited. Tangential coverage coatracked to articles about something else do not add up to notability. The coverage about the wine store is essentially about an independent wine store with a mention of the owners - nothing indicates that the store is notable. Overall I don't see any references talking about the subject and their work. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:42, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

For context on the Peabody: I searched the AfD archives to see how the award was usually treated in bios before I ivoted, and I could only find four AfDs with anyone promoting the idea the Peabody did not confer notability. In two the subject had not been named as a winner, but rather the network the person worked for had won: Margie Nichols and Nicholas Claxton. The other two were subjects who had not won a Peabody but only been nominated: JC Lamkin and Seema Jilani. By contrast, here is a Peabody-related bio AfD where the nominator said, "If we can verify his share in a Peabody, I'll gladly withdraw" and indeed the bio was kept (in fact there were no delete voters at all): Jeffrey Bushell. So it seems to me it would be a novel interpretation of the Peabody's significance not to count being explicitly named as a winner for WP:BIO, and I am quite reluctant to break fresh ground by counting achievements by women for less than we have previously counted the same achievement by men. Innisfree987 (talk) 17:15, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

If we focus on this bio, it has 2 problems.

1. A lack of significant coverage failing GNG. And

2. A lack of secondary sources about the subject's association with the peabody award.

Jeffrey Bushell was 6 years ago, it had 1 weak keep and 1 keep and overall lacked participation. Also consensus can change. (See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Railpage Australia (9th nomination) for an example). The essential reason for coverage is WP:WHYN that we should be able to write a good article on the subject and this significant coverage is missing here. Also, no one is suggesting that we are counting achievements by women for less than we have previously counted the same achievement by men. If WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, we nominate it for deletion per WP:SEWAGE. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:06, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

• Delete as it's still too closely focused with naming other people or other entities, and that's not what's needed for guaranteeing an acceptable article; this would then be best mentioned elsewhere instead given she's best known for that. SwisterTwister talk 01:05, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
• Keep per WP:BEFORE. The subject is a Peabody Award winner. End of story! Bearian (talk) 18:39, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

"Peabody Award winner" is not end of story, if "reliably sourceable as a" isn't in front of it. Bearcat (talk) 06:19, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

• Keep per WP:ANYBIO and WP:CREATIVE. Peabody award winner is reliably sourced numerous times. Hmlarson (talk) 21:21, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:52, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Circuit Static

Circuit Static (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Delete. Article about a musical group with no strong claim to passing WP:NMUSIC, and no strong reliable source coverage to support it. The referencing here is entirely to unreliable sources like Blogspot blogs and sales pages on online retail platforms, with the only remotely acceptable piece of reliable source coverage being a single article in the band's own hometown newspaper. As always, Wikipedia is not a free advertising platform on which a band is entitled to have an article just because they exist -- it's an encyclopedia, on which a credible claim of notability, and the volume of media coverage needed to support it, are necessary for an article to become earned. Bearcat (talk) 22:04, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:08, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

• Delete without prejudice as it stands - very WP:TOOSOON - David Gerard (talk) 11:35, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:03, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:40, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:PROMO and insufficient RS. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:01, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete.  Sandstein  08:39, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Material Handling Equipment Distributors Association

Material Handling Equipment Distributors Association (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Procedural nomination. The article isn't in a good state, but I'm seeing some evidence of notability after a search. Adam9007 (talk) 21:22, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

• Delete and there is no consensus against not using speedy again since Wiki is not the same; what's else is I was actually PRODing in the meantime.... None of thid suggests any form of actual substance or notability. SwisterTwister talk 22:02, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:34, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:06, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:40, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

• Delete Fails WP:ORGDEPTH. I do see a bunch of sources which shows that the organisation exists (for example this). However, beyond the trivial mentions, I don't see any other coverage. This is far short of the coverage required for WP:ORGDEPTH. Accordingly I will go with a delete. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:41, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:24, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Wafa Cdhir

Wafa Cdhir (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable person. Brianga (talk) 20:29, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:22, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:22, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

• Delete but preserve in some archive somewhere because the memory of "Kylie Menoug" and "Paris Halton" is too precious to be lost to the world. OK. Maybe not, but it did make me smile. Seriously though, while it hard to evaluate those references when I don't speak the language I find it very noticeable that she gets zero non-Wikipedia hits in Google News and Newspapers. Given the list of celebrities you might expect a passing mention in fashion columns and the like. I don't see it. --DanielRigal (talk) 18:26, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Note: Anybody who can read Arabic might want to take a look at the corresponding Arabic article. It might offer some improved sources and content to save this or it might also be worthy of deletion. --DanielRigal (talk) 18:30, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:16, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:40, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:52, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

SpaceTime Park

SpaceTime Park (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

While it is a nice educational concept, I can't find any links to demonstrate notability. Maybe its just too soon? Derek Andrews (talk) 20:24, 25 August 2016 (UTC) Derek Andrews (talk) 20:24, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:19, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:19, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:44, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

• Delete Yes, it doesn't exist yet and has no coverage at all about any future opening. And its Facebook page has photos captioned "these are what our dinosaurs look like, we will post more as we set our statues in place" -- and I'm not sure these aren't just someone else's photos. WP:NOTMADEUP may well apply, even. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:48, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:16, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:40, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

• Delete Agree with nom. Appears to be WP:TOOSOON. Not clear from the sources (or lack thereof) that the park exists yet. There certainly is not sufficient coverage in independent sources to write an article. Ajpolino (talk) 05:28, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus. WP:NPASR per low participation herein. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:46, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Sturle Dagsland

Sturle Dagsland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

No indication of notability, fails WP:GNG The Banner talk 19:27, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:34, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:34, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

• If there's more proper third-party reviews (not "Brooklyn Vegan" blog) of the international tours that would pass NMUSIC #4 handily. The Quietus piece is one. I'm seeing what looks like nontrivial tour coverage in Latvian and Estonian media, though I don't know the languages to verify. (They got a photo in Vice's Portugal edition, though not text.) They tour a lot, around the world. ping Mihoji, any more from the clippings file? At present I'm leaning keep on what I can find so far, though I'm not confident to add the languages I don't know as refs - David Gerard (talk) 09:14, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:18, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:40, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Keep as there's not only a reception section containing sources, but there has also been no other comments suggesting otherwise, thus no comments for deletion at this time (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 06:29, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

The Fabulous Udin

The Fabulous Udin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Blatantly promotional - no independent sources, tons of redlinks. There are no independent refs; the article exists simply to promote the movie by showing up in Google reports via Wikipedia. Jytdog (talk) 18:29, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

• Delete - Although the film itself may be worth an article (I do see a couple reliable sources, though only a few, and nothing all that in-depth), this is not it. This reaches the WP:TNT point. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:13, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
• Clear keep based on the recent updates by User:MRFazry -- seems like their are plenty of sources, and I am not seeing anything particularly promotional about the current version of the article. Also, redlinks are not a justification for deletion (they are actually really good reasons to include the article). Sadads (talk) 03:39, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

The sources are thinly veiled press releases, two by the same person and are mostly duplicates. One of the links in the refs goes no where already. Fwiw, none are in English. This is 100% promotional. Jytdog (talk) 04:59, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:25, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:25, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:22, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:39, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

• Keep - The new sources help muchly. Republika is clearly an RS, and as far as Indonesian online news portals go, Liputan6 is one of the better ones. It's not uncommon for the same reporter for the same source to report on the same film at different times; Tiga Dara, a GA, cites two stories from the same reporter for Rolling Stone Indonesia. I'm not particularly familiar with SINDONews, but it is owned by a major media corporation (MNC), so it may very well be reliable. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 05:41, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus. Merging can be addressed through normal channels as Chris Troutman proposes. postdlf (talk) 18:57, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Glossary of Wobbly terms

Glossary of Wobbly terms (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

WP should not be a dictionary or glossary, although of course other stuff exists. Although I am confident that many IWW members did use these expressions there is no evidence given that they are specific to this one group and in most cases did not originate with them. "No original research" seems to apply. Borock (talk) 15:18, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Correction: Since the IWW still exists (although more notable historically) there are probably still members saying some of these things. Borock (talk) 22:59, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:28, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:28, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:28, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:28, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:31, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

• Merge to Industrial Workers of the World#Lingo WP:STAND and MOS:GLOSSARIES allow glossary lists like this. Much of this is fancruft, written by an IWW member. This list needs to be cut down to linked and cited terms and most of this content should be on Wiktionary. I cannot !vote keep lest this article remain in poor shape. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:45, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:26, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:38, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

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

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

The result was redirect to Sony Pictures Networks. (non-admin closure) GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 04:30, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Sony Rox

Sony Rox (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

this article about invalid channel Tonyjaimy (talk) 10:40, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 August 25. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:03, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
• Nominator had also blanked the content of the article, objecting to it as spam. I've restored it for the purposes of the Afd. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:48, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:49, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:49, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:49, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

• This appears to be a newly licensed service. Recommend we redirect to Sony Pictures Networks, which appears to be where the upcoming channel would be grouped. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:57, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:08, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:35, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

• Redirect to Sony Pictures Networks. Anup [Talk] 19:55, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) LibStar (talk) 03:41, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Pancake Parlour

Pancake Parlour (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

fails WP:CORP. all I could find is routine coverage, like there was a pay dispute with employees, it was a pokemon zone and coverage of opening in a shopping centre. LibStar (talk) 02:53, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 September 9. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:10, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. MorbidEntree - _{(Talk to me! (っ◕‿◕)っ♥)}(please reply using {{ping}}) 03:39, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. MorbidEntree - _{(Talk to me! (っ◕‿◕)っ♥)}(please reply using {{ping}}) 03:39, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

• Keep have added additional references, now satisfies requirements under WP:GNG and WP:CORP. Dan arndt (talk) 00:58, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:53, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

James Demetriou

James Demetriou (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSPORTS. Hasn't been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources. Hasn't played in a fully professional football league Hack (talk) 02:55, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MorbidEntree - _{(Talk to me! (っ◕‿◕)っ♥)}(please reply using {{ping}}) 03:00, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. MorbidEntree - _{(Talk to me! (っ◕‿◕)っ♥)}(please reply using {{ping}}) 03:00, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. MorbidEntree - _{(Talk to me! (っ◕‿◕)っ♥)}(please reply using {{ping}}) 03:01, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 15:50, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

• Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 15:54, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable footballer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:14, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
• 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) 12:53, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
• Delete fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. - Yellow Dingo (talk) 05:50, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn per improvement by Anupmehra. (non-admin closure) -- Dane2007 ^talk 03:24, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Neel Madhav

Neel Madhav (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This article has been deleted and recreated several times always with the same issues. Moving to AfD per Explicit's advice after the last deletion. Notability is not established and the article is unsourced (as it remained for several weeks after the last creation). Suggesting deletion and salting. -- Dane2007 ^talk 02:18, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MorbidEntree - _{(Talk to me! (っ◕‿◕)っ♥)}(please reply using {{ping}}) 03:08, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MorbidEntree - _{(Talk to me! (っ◕‿◕)っ♥)}(please reply using {{ping}}) 03:08, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MorbidEntree - _{(Talk to me! (っ◕‿◕)っ♥)}(please reply using {{ping}}) 03:08, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. MorbidEntree - _{(Talk to me! (っ◕‿◕)っ♥)}(please reply using {{ping}}) 03:08, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: Meets WP:GNG. Sources: The Hindu, Indian Express, Deccan Herald, Menxp, Mid-day, Verve. There should be more than what I found on a cursory web search and listed here. One needs to work on the article though to make it comply wp:v & wp:npov. Anup [Talk] 06:53, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
• Keep. Seems to pass WP:N per User:Anupmehra's sources. Nonetheless the article has issues with promotion and sockpuppetry (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Medianetwork4) and so will need to be revised and monitored. —Psychonaut (talk) 11:44, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
• Keep: per previous comment. The article has been improved. I would ask nominator Dane2007 to take a look at the improved version and withdraw the nomination since their concern over notability and sourcing has been addressed. Anup [Talk] 03:16, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus. WP:NPASR per low participation herein. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:37, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

The Blackbirds (Norwegian band)

The Blackbirds (Norwegian band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Does not seem to have enough media attention, popularity, and Certifications to be considered notable per the notability guidelines in WP:BAND. Wasabi,the,one (talk) 02:07, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MorbidEntree - _{(Talk to me! (っ◕‿◕)っ♥)}(please reply using {{ping}}) 03:12, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. MorbidEntree - _{(Talk to me! (っ◕‿◕)っ♥)}(please reply using {{ping}}) 03:15, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: If the claims in the article can be verified, they pass point 10 and 11 in WP:BAND. They have been in rotation in Norways largest radio station (NPR) as well as lot of other radio stations throughout the country (passes point 11). They also may pass point 10, because apparently they provied music for some major Norwegian shows at least once according to the article. Dead Mary (talk) 15:16, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: There is a prior AfD for this article at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Blackbirds. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:53, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:28, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:03, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

• Comment -- I reached out to WikiProject Norway link; hopefully they can help. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:23, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete.  Sandstein  08:35, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Thai e-Sports Association

Thai e-Sports Association (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG, eSports in Thailand on the whole is not very notable. There seem to be some Thai language sources for this but they don't look reliable. Prisencolin (talk) 01:28, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

• Delete - Subject does not meet general notability requirements. Meatsgains (talk) 02:03, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:58, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:58, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:58, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:58, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: An article covering the subject has been published by the online arm of Thairath, Thailand's largest newspaper, though it's written by the association's acting president.[101] --Paul_012 (talk) 07:09, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:50, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:09, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

• Delete Little to no independent coverage. Article cited above is not independent. Smartyllama (talk) 15:09, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
• Delete For an organisation, it is essential that WP:ORGDEPTH is satisfied. That is clearly lacking here. Also, sources need to be independent of the organisation or its employees. I don't see the indepth coverage in reliable and independent sources at the moment. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:37, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 04:30, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Salt in the Bible

Salt in the Bible (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

• Delete as original research lacking secondary sources that discuss this topic or to confer specific notability of the topic. Of the sources listed, the only one that directly speaks to the topic is "versebyverse.com" (which fails WP:RS). A cursory search indicates there are no academic publications dealing directly with "salt in the bible"; this article is just analysis done by Wikipedia editors. / /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 00:33, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:10, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:10, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:10, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

• Comment - Google scholar comes up with this article, which is about the history of salt in general, but seems to have (from the search summary) a section dealing specifically with biblical references. I do not have access to the full article to confirm in more detail. I will leave determination as to whether this is a sufficient scholarly discussion to other wikipedians. Fieari (talk) 04:56, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
• Keep The article could certainly do with improvement and there are sources to draw on, for example [102][103][104][105][106]. I don't see a benefit in preventing this from being done. Thincat (talk) 08:16, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
• Keep or Merge to (or from) Salt and light. This is a notable topic about which I am sure that sources can be found. The passage in the Sermon on the Mount has certainly been the subject of much discussion. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:45, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bible-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:57, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

• Keep: notable subject as evidenced by articles in other publications - e.g. "Salt" in the New Bible Dictionary. StAnselm (talk) 19:18, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
• Keep primarily due to the sources found by Peterkingiron and Fieari. Aoba47 (talk) 05:21, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
• Keep Almost any X, where "X in the Bible" exists (that is, if it is mentioned, someone will have published about it), will have sufficient RS commentary to meet the GNG. Jclemens (talk) 20:18, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sam Walton (talk) 21:42, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

United Memorial Medical Center

United Memorial Medical Center (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

The only reference is the hospital's own. This draft does not identify notability as compared to other hospitals. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:21, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:10, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:10, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:11, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:28, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

• 'Merge to Rochester Regional Health; this center fails GNG on its own; seems to have been created as part of a campaign to promote various medical centers within the Rochester Regional Health group. Jytdog (talk) 03:17, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:28, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep, withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) Safehaven86 (talk) 23:32, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Cambridge Police Department (Massachusetts)

Cambridge Police Department (Massachusetts) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:ORG. John from Idegon (talk) 00:02, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:11, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:11, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:11, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

• Delete, fails WP:ORG as noted. Shelbystripes (talk) 03:34, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
• Redirect to Cambridge, Massachusetts#Police department instead of deleting. Per Brea Police Department. -- MorbidEntree - _{(Talk to me! (っ◕‿◕)っ♥)}(please reply using {{ping}}) 03:37, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
• Redirects are WP:CHEAP. Do so here, per MorbidEntree. Fieari (talk) 05:00, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
• Comment - Redirect would be a satisfactory outcome. John from Idegon (talk) 05:37, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
• Keep It is a paltry article, however, Cambridge is a significant place not at all comparable to Brea California. It is emphatically not a "suburb". It is an old industrial city (a factory in Cambridge brought you Fig Newtons, another brought you Polaroid) now a city of over 100,000 adjacent to but not a suburb of adjacent Boston, rather, it is a hotbed of tech start-ups with a number of major corporate headquarters located there, not to mention the campuses of 2 of the world's leading universities - MIT and Harvard cause security problems unknown to most far larger Amercan cities. Like regularly cooperating with other security services to protect assassination/kidnapping targets like scions of the families that run whole countries in Asia and Latin Americs (Benazir Bhutto) they do their studies; cooperating with the feds on security when heads of state drop in. Cambridge police deal routinely with international and national security that lots of much bigger cities never see. Plus, there have been in the national news cycle for arresting Henry Louis Gates arrest controversy and chasing down the Boston Marathon bombing who lived on a quiet side street in Cambridge. This is a significant police dept that needs a better article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:23, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

What does any of that have to do with notability? Every police department cooperates with other agencies when needed. If they didn't and it was written about that might be one piece toward notability. Crime stories are not sources in detail about the subject, they are passing mentions, quite akin to story about an athletic event. A particular player may be mentioned in said story, but the story is about the game; not detailed coverage of the player and of no use to show the players notability. A place where something might turn up for notability would be the department's long existence. If a book (note I didn't find any) has been written on its history, that would show notability. The size of the city is not a factor, altho some have argued that in other discussions. But Cambridge isn't even that big of a city. The Gates thing seems to be a one event thing and again not coverage in detail, altho I've only cursorly investigated it. It's possible a story came out of it that discussed the department in detail. But without other sources separate from that event, I'm still not seeing notability. John from Idegon (talk) 19:06, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

I brought up size because User: MorbidEntree asserted that Cambridge is comparable to Brea, California. It's not. "all of this" matters because the security problems Cambridge police cop with are more comparable to those of major cities, including neighboring Boston, than to those of cities it's size, or of larger cities without the constant comings and goings of major international figures. You are correct, someone needs to bring sources, but, this Dept. underwent intense national scrutiny in the wake of the (very very different) Gates and Marathon bombing incidents.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:27, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Again, any assertions about the importance of this department are inappropriate to this discussion. There is no notability guideline that equates importance with notability. Coverage of events generally do not provide the coverage in detail required to show notability. Show me three plus sources covering the department in detail, at least one of which is from outside metro Boston (which, despite your unreferenced assertion, Cambridge is a part of. See Metropolitan Boston), and I'll withdraw this. Despite a fair search, I found none. Hopefully your results are better. John from Idegon (talk) 22:49, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

• Richard Norton Smith, The Harvard Century: The Making of a University to a Nation, Harvard University Press, 1969, covers the events of April 1969, when undergraduates took over Harvard administration buildings to protest the Vietnam War, and were removed by the city police
• Liberation, Imagination and the Black Panther Party: A New Look at the Black Panthers and their Legacy, Kathleen Cleaver, George Katsiaficas, Routledge, 2014 covers the Cambridge police response to the 1970 Black Panther march. The Campus and a Nation in Crisis: From the American Revolution to Vietnam; Willis Rudy, Fairleigh Dickinson Univ Press, 1996, Chapter 5 also covers this incident. It was a Black Panther protest march that got out of hand and turned into a significant civil disturbance, with stores set on fire in Harvard Square which is not part of the campus, but a downtown shopping district. Extensive coverage of the way the Cambridge Police handled it exists.
• Bringing the War Home: The Weather Underground, the Red Army Faction, and Revolutionary Violence in the Sixties and Seventies, Jeremy Peter Veron, University of California Press, 2004, p 153, covers charges brought against the Weather Underground after shots were fired at Cambridge Police building
• Although our article on the Henry Louis Gates arrest controversy is so inadequate that it cites the wrong police Department (Boston instead of Cambridge, the incident has generated a mini-industry of academic analysis, much of ti focused on racism and policing: ("Afterword: The Inescapable Socio-Political Weight of Race: A Critical Analysis of President Barack Obama's, Professor Henry Louis Gates's, and Sgt. James Crowley's Racial Controversy." Counterpoints 351 (2010): 203-11. http://www.jstor.org/stable/42980556.)
• I suppose most major American cities have police departments that have been the subject of significan media and scholarly attention. Cambridge certainly does.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:48, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
• Keep. Largish (over 300 employees) police department of a significant city. No good reason here for deletion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:41, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment - I'm not acquainted with any notability guideline on any subject that equates size with notability. Please educate me. John from Idegon (talk) 19:32, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
    • It's that one that's increasingly absent from Wikipedia: common sense! -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:55, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:54, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

• Keep  I hadn't realized that the Henry Louis Gates arrest controversy is associated with the Cambridge police department, but I immediately thought of the policeman shot after the Boston Marathon bombing. 

  I looked at WP:ORG and it doesn't use the word "government", so the argument in the nomination may be bogus because a police department is a part of the city government.  As part of a larger organization, and given the requirement that WP:DEL8 deletions are subject to the WP:ATD, there is never a theoretical case for deletion of a city department. 

  A WP:BEFORE review of the "What Links Here" shows the MIT Crime Club, which might have been a clue that a city police department receives more attention from the public at large than a university crime club that relies in part on the Cambridge Police Department radio transmissions. 

  The results from WP:BEFORE D1 are numerous.  A search on Google books for ["Cambridge Police Department" Massachusetts] yields the top link as

• David J. Degou (1 April 2009). Cambridge Police Department. Arcadia Publishing. p. 130. ISBN 978-0-7385-6201-8. 

One shouldn't be surprised, knowing the schools in the area, to find academic attention at Google scholar.  Google news is rich with sources.  The article itself shows that the topic has existed since 1859, and the nomination shows no evidence of checking the archives of the leading Boston newspapers for 150 years.  Unscintillating (talk) 22:22, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

• Withdrawn - Finally, a reliable source on the department as a whole. Thank you. John from Idegon (talk) 22:35, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

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