Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 March 12

Articles for deletion/Log/2015 March 12
Medal record
Mens Judo
Representing USA
All Marine Judo
All Marine Judo
All Marine Judo
US Senior Nationals, Master Division
US Senior Nationals, Master Division
Pan-Am Championships
Military Games

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 11 March	13 March >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was no consensus. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:33, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Doug Ralph

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

No real assertion of notability; insufficient coverage in reliable sources. Frickeg (talk) 22:49, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Doug is a figure who is recently deceased and this can colour opinions of a person's standing. However, he was a significant contributor to environmental action in the Castlemaine and Central Goldfields area. He was a well recognised Castlemaine identity. He is a published author as the article shows. He has been a candidate in several elections, one at the Federal level, gaining significant percentage of votes for the Greens party in some cases above the average for the state.

As the article is unfinished and I have further to add which will make a case for his inclusion in Wikipedia, may I ask that this deletion be at least delayed until more data is presented? Thank you for your consideration, James McArdle sinarau (talk) 23:20, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

- Taking into account the fact that the subject is recently deceased, there still isn't really much assertion of serious notability in the article. To clarify the author thing: he is a self-published co-author. Frickeg (talk) 00:33, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, As a candidate in a Federal election, all such candidates are notable. Polypipe Wrangler (talk) 03:36, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- This is very, very wrong. See WP:POLITICIAN. The Drover's Wife (talk) 03:44, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 00:02, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm not seeing a case for notability, though I think it's borderline and could be easily swayed with more sources. The Drover's Wife (talk) 03:44, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(from article author) I have checked the biography rules concerning notability and believe Doug Ralph fulfils the Basic Criteria of Notability.

After checking the new references I have added it is clear his ideas and work are referenced by a number of sources including the newspaper The Bendigo Advertiser (other news article refs. to come), and by other environmentalists and environmental organisations.
I have removed category "Australian Politicians" as it has been a distraction in this discussion - he is most significant as an environmentalist and motivated by that role to join the Greens. Assessment of the standing of an 'activist' is different from assessing that of a mainstream politician (he compares favourably in terms of notability to others in the category 'Australian Environmentalists'). Nevertheless he satisfies the criteria 'Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage' and (point 2 of 'Notability (people) Politicians') had "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article".
The references demonstrate that Ralph's opinion on the specific environment of the Box-Ironbark Forest of North Central Victoria (and in other places in Victoria) was sought and noted (notability), indicating he was regarded as an expert.
Being a self-published co-author is not in itself a disqualification when the article is online at La Trobe University and the co-authors are recognised academics (Ralph was self-taught, and yet evidently highly regarded enough to be included). He is not the publisher and therefore not justifiably to be described as 'self-published'
Inclusion of an interview with Ralph in the film cited (and mention in reports about the film and the associated event) is further evidence of such regard.
I am concerned that the obstacles to achieving 'notability' in a regional rural setting are not being considered in his case, when in fact it is this isolation which has built the expertise in Ralph that others have sought.

I urge reconsideration of, or at least a delay in the application of this election. sinarau (talk) 07:27, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:57, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:59, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As a candidate for a federal election, the subject does not meet WP:Politician and the usual outcome per WP:POLOUTCOMES is to delete or merge or redirect to an appropriate page about that election. I also do not believe the subject meets WP:AUTHOR. There is no assertion that as an author, the subject is "widely cited by peers or successors," " is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique," or "created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work" that was "the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." Enos733 (talk) 17:09, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly an early and significant figure in raising awareness of environmental and historical issues for the region. Bahudhara (talk) 05:05, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Obviously a noted environmentalist in central Victoria. —Jonny Nixon - (Talk) 08:06, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I was halfway through a comment here about how appreciative I was of the expansion that had been done here, even if I still didn't think Ralph was really notable. Then I had a closer look at some of the references. Not only did I find no fewer than three which did not support what they were claimed to support (and removed them - and I can't even check anything offline!), almost none of them can be considered independent coverage under WP:GNG. Everything from Connecting Country (a no-doubt worthy, but undeniably local organisation - not notable) can be discounted as he was a co-founder and its first president. Everything from the radio station (again local and minor) the same. So where does that leave us? We have the book on Sanger, which was published by Friends of the Box Ironbark Forest (and where the entire group is credited as a co-author, so we have no idea how many people really wrote the book) - another local group of which Ralph was a member. So not independent. We have his blog: not independent. We have a couple of passing mentions in the Bendigo Advertiser. We have what from my reading are a few brief quotes in a couple of journal articles (correct me if I'm wrong on this). Based on all of that, I'm not seeing significant, independent, reliable coverage. The only one on which I might be convinced is the (offline) EarthSong interview - but even then, that's only one, and it's also in a source that has, at the very least, questionable reliability (it is not an academic journal, and while I don't know a lot about it, I have questions about its significance and standing. Very happy to be corrected or receive further information from those more familiar).

I do not see how we have a figure here who is notable for our purposes. I see a local activist - worthy, yes. Admirable, yes. Someone who I would absolutely vote for, yes. But someone who meets our notability standards? No. Frickeg (talk) 11:02, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Article can be expanded but easily passes notability. Billy Hathorn (talk) 03:23, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Look, I don't want to badger people, but it would be really nice if a few of these keep !voters could explain what makes them think he is "easily", "obviously" or "clearly" notable, especially given the points made above. Frickeg (talk) 03:54, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Frickeg's analysis of the sources included in the expanded article accord with my own. They are either very small tidbits from barely reliable publications, or longer pieces from non-reliable sources. A rough guide to notability for someone recently deceased would be an obituary in a major metropolitan newspaper. There is nothing of a kind here. This suggests to me that he was not a person of significance beyond a very narrow local and political area. That does not amount to notability for Wikipedia purposes. --Mkativerata (talk) 23:54, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I have reviewed the sources in the article and concur with Frickeg's analysis. -- Whpq (talk) 19:54, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The problem of a lack of "reliable sources" is really one of media bias - volunteer environmental work of this sort rarely receives coverage in the press - even a national event such as Clean Up Australia Day receives only a few lines in the media, such as this. (It seems that environmental work isn't considered "sexy" or "newsworthy" enough in our sport and celebrity-obsessed society.) Through being involved in the field myself, I personally know at least half-a-dozen OAM recipients, as well as other academic scientists (including one who has had an asteroid named after him!) who don't have Wikipedia articles (or at least, not yet!), despite making very significant comparable contributions, or even, in some cases, having a prominent media profile. I have only a limited knowledge of how the nomination process for these awards is carried out, but it's possible that he wasn't considered for an award because of his political activity as a candidate for elections (as recently as 2010); and OAMs are not granted posthumously (unless nominated while still living).

Being from South Australia, I don't know how the Landcare system operates in Victoria - my understanding is that Landcare was a 1990s Howard Government initiative to put federal environmental funding into local projects, bypassing the state governments, that has since been rolled into a natural resource management framework involving a collaboration of state and local governments. "Connecting Country" is one such service delivery element in this framework - I note from their website that they have an independent board and 9 paid employees, so I certainly wouldn't regard them as a "non-reliable source". Having myself sat in the gallery and watched the proceedings during innumerable Catchment Board meeting in my home state, I can well imagine that, as the inaugural president of Connecting Country, and especially given his background, Ralph must have been an exceptional leader during the pioneering phase of the establishment of the organisation. Bahudhara (talk) 03:17, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think the OAM thing is a bit of a dead end - plenty of partisan people win OAMs every year. It's done through a non-partisan Council; although appointed on the PM's recommendation, the awards are rarely seen to have "vetoed" appointments to the Order on partisan grounds. It's not counted really as a factor towards establishing notability anyway, as plenty of non-notable people receive it. In some cases you're saying people have a "prominent media profile" - if that were the case, I doubt they'd have trouble passing GNG.

I didn't say Connecting Country was a non-reliable source, I said they were not an independent source, since Ralph was a long-time member and co-founder. It's not a notable organisation as far as I can tell (although no doubt a very useful one). I'm sure Ralph was a great local leader for his area's environment, but that doesn't make him notable. Bear in mind most local councillors aren't notable either. They still have to pass the GNG. Frickeg (talk) 13:01, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:04, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete Non-notable politician and I don't see enough to convince me he passes WP:GNG. 131.118.229.17 (talk) 22:46, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 23:21, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Nakon 00:14, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ruby Yadav Bjp Leader

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

Non notable politician. Has not yet won an election. "won" a minor beauty contest , but actually was runner up. DGG ( talk ) 20:03, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The subject of the article is notable as she won the runner up title in a National beauty contest. Any contest at national level can not be termed as to be the minor contest. Today Kiran bedi is also a looser politically but her notability as a person of repute or as a social activist is definitely not lost. Similarly, Ruby the article subject is also an active social worker who has been a part of leading news papers. She is a member of Executive council of renowned party, the Bharatiya Janta Party, though lost in delhi state but ruling at centre. I think we must consider keeping the article.-- Mahensingha _{(Talk) "Thanx n Regards"} 11:16, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As the sources of article suggests Ruby stood as the most popular lady candidate of BJP, who performed remarkably better than others in the election.-- Mahensingha _{(Talk) "Thanx n Regards"} 11:16, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:40, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:40, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:40, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Failed political candidate (as an independent, not for the BJP, which she joined less than a year ago) and runner up in a beauty contest (which doesn't itself have an article). Not seeing a lot of notability here. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:42, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Notability - Google gives 65,300 hits for Ruby Yadav BJP, News -441, Check for Images search results news paper search count - 5,13,000 -- Mahensingha _{(Talk) "Thanx n Regards"} 19:23, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - This is the fifth recreation (11 April 2014, 12 April 2014, 14 April 2014, 19 May 2014). It was at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ruby Yadav and closed as "delete" by User:King of Hearts. It think this should be deleted per WP:G4 because it is a "...sufficiently identical and unimproved copy..." being the same promotional article about the same beauty pageant and political career. However, her political career may have garnered enough press now to pass WP:NPOL. If that is the case, the article may be viable. Then again, the last AfD was calling for delete and salt, and I just removed very promotional content from this new creation. Plus, there was, and probably still is, serious WP:COI and self-promo here. There are over 200 images of this person at commons, and the whole article, as it stands, appears to have been written by a fan or someone on her team. I say delete and recreation ought to have prior approval of King of Hearts. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:28, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tentative delete as failing WP:POLITICIAN and ~~WP:BLP1E~~WP:BIO1E. She is in news sources, but only in passing mentions as a BJP candidate. She can't get a "free pass" on notability unless she wins an election and takes office. However, all news coverage is within the past year, and her BJP membership has raised her public profile, so I don't think this is necessarily going to be last time we're going to see an article about her. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:58, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete & Salt - I agree user Ritchie333 as failing WP:POLITICIAN and WP:BLP1E also WP:NOTNEWS. She does not pass notability unless she wins an election. Jethwarp (talk) 16:21, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The title "Ruby Yadav" was salted. It was moved from Ruby Yadav Bjp Leader to Ruby Yadav by an admin. When an admin does this, there is no warning they are moving to a salted page. There is a post here about that. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:03, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - let's deal with the easy questions first. 1) It isn't a G4 case as the article is not the same as one deleted via AfD. Being deleted multiple times prior to that under A7 is irrelevant to this discussion in any way. 2) There is no proven COI by the current article creator (who has many edits outside the topic and is not the creator of the many deleted versions) & even if there was that would not be a reason for deletion. 3) The current article is not promotional. 4) BLP1E does not apply - that guideline is intended to protect private individuals caught up in news stories, not say people notable for only one thing can't have articles. Ultimately, most notable people are known primarily for one thing. 5) arguments such as "didn't win election, therefore non-notable" are invalid. Passing NPOL establishes notability; failing it does not establish non-notability.

Now the only actually relevant - does Ruby Yadav pass the WP:GNG? I would suggest the answer is yes, barely, per coverage such as [1],,[2], [3], and [4] which is biographical or semi-biographical and is certainly reliable and of significant length. Keep in mind that Google News does not properly index Indian newspapers - see WP:INDAFD - so many more sources exist than those one finds there. Alternatively, the page could be merged to South Delhi (Lok Sabha constituency)#2014 general election. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:08, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mea culpa, I meant WP:BIO1E instead of WP:BLP1E as Yadav is clearly trying to become a notable politician, but the rest of my argument still stands. A merge to South Delhi (Lok Sabha constituency)#2014 general election would be a suitable compromise. Alternatively, we could incubate the article in draft space in anticipation of more news sources turning up over time. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:23, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:37, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm not seeing anything that meets any notability standards. A few articles about being on the campaign trail don't distinguish her from millions of other politicians.131.118.229.17 (talk) 22:44, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Coverage, not accomplishments, establish notability on Wikipedia (which is a rather different thing than the usual definition of notability). Fact is that most politicians are notable - all that is necessary is that some of the coverage is biographical, which is the case here. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:12, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 23:20, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete"'Significant coverage' addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." This is a quote from [[Wikipedia:Notability. I do not think this article explicitly follows guidelines, and it seems that some research is original. Carwile2 ^{*Shoot me a message*} 23:27, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete She doesn't meet the criteria for WP:POLITICIAN. The argument "placing" in a national competition makes her notable finds its roots in the policy we have for musicians: Has won or placed in a major music competition. I don't even believe "Mrs. India Queen" is a national competition as Mrs. India is the current national beauty competition. Ruby's name does not appear as a runner-up if the two are being confused as the same thing and all the sources clearly cite "Mrs. India Queen". Since this individual is not a musician, and has not been "nominated" or "received a well-known and significant award or honor" as stated at WP:ANYBIO then we must look at WP:SIGCOV.The coverage is split between both and I'm not overly convinced it's enough to break away from WP:ROUTINE. Also put me down for SALT with the cavat that if an editor feel the subject now meets WP:POLITICIAN, the request for removal of protection should be granted liberally. Mkdw ^talk 21:33, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Since no reliable sources have been provided showing the subject being covered directly and in detail, as is required by our notability policies, the subject is found to not be notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:38, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Chester Evans

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

Non-notable judoka. There is no indication he ever competed at the highest level of his sport. He fails all of the notability criteria for martial artists at WP:MANOTE and lacks the significant independent coverage required by GNG. The only articles that mention him are in local papers. He is not mentioned at all at Judoinside.com even though he supposedly competed at some of the events listed. At the very least he had no notable successes. I don't think being on the all Marine judo team is enough to show notability.Mdtemp (talk) 19:49, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep During an era of discrimination, Chester succeeded as an African American Vietnam veteran and member of a US National Team thus meets Meets Meets WP:ATHLETE. Judoinside is a good source but is definitely an incomplete source. Chester has a lot of notable success including a member of the US National Team in Judo and participated in four Olympic Training Camps. Chester would participate in 7 CISM games.
CrazyAces489 (talk) 20:47, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Passes MANOTE [5] by either being (1) Subject of an independent article/documentary, (3) Repeated medalist (as an adult black belt, i.e. 1st dan equivalent or higher rank) in another significant event; - (e.g. competitors from multiple nations or significant national tournament, not an internal school champion). The high ranking rationale that you stated for deletion for a number of them applies when ... "Only achievement seems to be that they teach an art (or founded a non-notable art); perhaps also avoid even mentioning them in the article of the art unless they are one of a few high-ranked artists in an art that has thousands of students." Judo has hundred of thousand practitioners.CrazyAces489 (talk) 20:47, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I see no evidence that the subject satisfies WP:MANOTE. Local and non-independent articles are not the type of coverage envisioned by criterion 1. His participation in Olympic Training Camps and International Military Sports Council tournaments does not constitute either being a "repeated medalist" (criterion 4) nor a world-championship-level competitor (criterion 3). And, indeed, although judo has hundreds of thousands of students, this subject is not, relative to the art as a whole, a high-ranked artist (the article seems confused whether he's 5th or 6th dan, but such ranks are not uncommon). Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:40, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
comment He was a member of the US National Team for Judo. ^[1] This is no small accomplishment. Remember Judo is an Olympic Sport and does not have a professional setting. So this is the highest that someone will get. ^[2] He was also a member of the US Marine Corp Judo Team. ^[3] He is a member of an initiative to regrow Judo on military bases via Team USA. ^[4]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 22:43, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And yet somehow he doesn't show up as a competitor in anything at JudoInside.com.Mdtemp (talk) 23:53, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Judoinside isn't complete. It is still building up its database. This is a good example of a national champion whom doesn't even have his date of birth listed. http://www.judoinside.com/judoka/55016 They do ask for submission help if a person knows information. [6] CrazyAces489 (talk) 00:01, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

comment In 1985 Chester would be a member of the US National Team in Judo.^[1] Chester would earn the Senior Nationals, Masters Tournament 1st. Place: 1988 3rd. Place: 1989. ^[2]CrazyAces489 (talk) 04:29, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

^ "Star-News - Google News Archive Search". google.com.
^ http://neardb.com/place/235328836517922/Y-M-C-A

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:38, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:38, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Judo is an olympic sport is true and what that means is competing at the highest levels is taking part in either the World Championships or the Olympics. In this context being a team member is a training designation and not notable. Neither are medals in age limited competitions. I don't even see his coaching career as being notable. Can not really comment on the era of discrimination other than to say that it did not seem to prevent other African Americans from reaching the olympics.Peter Rehse (talk) 15:04, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- CommentYou should research racial discrimination in Judo. It still exists to this day. It did prevent other African Americans from reaching the Olympics in that time! How do I know? Well there was only 1 African American in the Olympics in the 1960's! That was George Harris! You can read this article to learn more. [7] Additionally, there Chester Evans was a national champion in Judo! a member of the US National Team. He passes WP:BIO, WP:GNG and WP:MANOTE. CrazyAces489 (talk) 18:01, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Winning some senior titles does not show he's competed at the highest level. The references are from local papers ("Friends, Family, & Neighbors" section) which I believe are insufficient to meet GNG. The "Circle of 100" sounds impressive, but it's just a list of people who donated money to the U.S. Judo Team. There's no evidence he was a member of "the" U.S. national team wold would have competed at the highest level of international competitions. Being a member of "a" U.S. national team could be as a junior, a senior citizen, or a special subset such as military. None of those would show he competed at the highest level (and there's no supporting evidence he even did that except for the autobiographical info submitted to "Circle of 100"). Papaursa (talk) 18:38, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

CommentThe US National Team as shown above is notable. Many things are divided into subsections. Such as MEN and Women! Additionally the CISM games are especially notable international competition. CrazyAces489 (talk) 04:31, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What national team did he compete on besides the military one? Papaursa (talk) 05:11, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

US Senior National Team. CrazyAces489 (talk) 05:37, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

comment 1988 – 2000 National Police Team Member – Santo Domingo 1988 – 2000 Dominican Republic Team Member 1988 – 2000 Gold – National Championship (Santo Domingo) 1988 – 1995 Gold – Military Games (Santo Domingo) 78kg and Open weight classes 1991 Participant – Pan-Am (La Habana, Cuba) 1991 Participant – World Championship (Barcelona, Spain) 1993 Bronze – Pan-Am Games (Ponce, Puerto Rico) CrazyAces489 (talk) 05:45, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused how an American serviceman was competing on the Dominican Republic national team when he was 50. Are you sure you're not confusing him with someone else?

Omar Cook is an African American who played on the national team for Montenegro.^[1]CrazyAces489 (talk) 11:32, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Irrelevant. Can you produce some sources that show Chester Evans competed at the 1991 world championships and won a bronze at the 1993 Pan-Am games (especially since there were no Pan-Am games in 1993)? There doesn't seem to be any sources that connect Chester Evans to the competitions listed in the previous comment. Papaursa (talk) 02:43, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:ATHLETE, WP:GNG, and WP:MANOTE. JudoInside.coom lists 96,000 judoka and results from 10,000 events yet somehow he fails to show up in any results. The coverage is passing mentions or from local papers so I don't believe he meets the GNG. So far no one has shown any evidence he ever competed at the highest level.204.126.132.231 (talk) 21:46, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
commentJudoinside is 100% not complete! Many people don't have key information and events. It is still growing! Think about this, John Watts (judo) competed in the 1972 Olympics but his complete record isn't even remotely listed in Judoinside. [8]. His results in the 1967 is shown in black belt magazine, but not in the Judoinside [9]CrazyAces489 (talk) 05:45, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

commentPlease look at WP:MANOTE "Subject of an independent article/documentary" - ^[2], and "Repeated medalist (as an adult black belt, i.e. 1st dan equivalent or higher rank) in another significant event; - (e.g. competitors from multiple nations or significant national tournament, not an internal school champion)" - ^[3] He was also a member of the US National Team. ^[4]

keep by WP:Athlete and WP:GNG.24.103.234.74 (talk) 20:49, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:40, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources to support claims of being a notable martial artist. I'm with those who claim winning a two old person division is not enough. I don't see the coverage I think is needed to meet WP:GNG. 131.118.229.17 (talk) 22:41, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

comment There are numerous medals outside of the "two old person divisions" That are listed as well as the qualifications for WP:MANOTE including independent article as well as winner of multiple medals in a black belt division. Which is what he has, so he meets WP:GNG CrazyAces489 (talk) 04:25, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You need to source these claims. When I look at the 1993 Pan-Am championships (which are different from the Pan-Am Games) I see no record of either event taking place in 1993[10]. Judoinside.com also has no record of the World Military championships being held in 1995. Without sources, it looks like you're either making things up or confusing events. There needs to be documented evidence of meeting WP:GNG or WP:MANOTE and I would say right now there is neither. Papaursa (talk) 22:13, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Judoinside is incomplete. I am willing to remove the 1993 Pan-Am's. I saw a source for it somewhere. Here are some records for you [11], [12], [13] [14] [15]CrazyAces489 (talk) 23:09, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What source do you have for claiming he was the U.S. national senior champion in 1968? He didn't even joined the Marines until a year later and would have been competing as a junior (assuming he was even doing judo). Looks like another indication that your claims of his successes are exaggerated or wrong. Mdtemp (talk) 19:06, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 23:19, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

'keep satisfies gng, and Comment. Criterion 4 says "4.Repeated medalist (as an adult black belt, i.e. 1st dan equivalent or higher rank) in another significant event; - (e.g. competitors from multiple nations or significant national tournament". 172.56.22.48 (talk) 13:49, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:40, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Monkey Kingdom

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

I'm bringing this to AfD per a request by User:Koala15. Months ago I'd redirected this to Disneynature#Films since the film had not yet released and the sole sources on the article was this link to a website (which offhand does not look to be a reliable source per WP:RS) that announced that Gregson would be scoring the film and this Deadline article that doesn't even mention the film at all. A search for the article title "Focus Sets Stephen Hawking Pic ‘Theory Of Everything’ For November; Disneynature Dates ‘Monkey Kingdom’ For 2015" brings up this article which merely announces that the film will be made. An additional look for sources did not bring up anything useful, as all I could find were articles that announced that the film would release and/or linked to the trailer and did not go into any true depth about the film itself. I redirected the article but this action was reverted several times. Koala15 has requested that the article go to AfD, so here it is. The thing about this film is that there just isn't anything out there to show that the film passes either WP:NFILM or WP:NFF. It's likely that it will gain more coverage once it releases, but that's not a guarantee even for a Disney film. Heck, there's not even a guarantee that this will release on time as even Disney has pushed back release dates at the last minute. I just think that this is too soon for an article at this point in time. I'd like for this to be reverted back to a redirect if the consensus is to delete, with this to only be reverted once the film has received coverage to where it passes NFILM. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:10, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think that this source was probably the most in-depth source that I could find and even then this just isn't enough right now. It's one source and we'd need quite a bit more to show notability. The rest are along the lines of routine announcements like this article. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:22, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:TOOSOON. It is rather expected to be lacking in in-depth sources given the movie is not yet released. No prejudice of recreation when it approaches that date. 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 13:42, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:20, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:20, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:21, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:08, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect for now. There's routine coverage at Variety, Deadline.com, and the Los Angeles Times, but you can't really make an article out of the announcement of a trailer. It's likely to become notable upon release, but Wikipedia is not in the prognostication business. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:29, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@NinjaRobotPirate: Have you looked at the suggested target? It contains no sourced information about this film... no content, no context... and in lacking sources is subject to immediate removal. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 09:56, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article clearly meets WP:GNG. Koala15 (talk) 15:25, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can you give examples as to how the coverage is enough to pass WP:NFILM aside from saying WP:Clearly notable? So far the coverage is not heavy enough to warrant an article, so you will have to show how there is enough in-depth coverage in reliable sources to pass notability guidelines. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:11, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per meeting WP:NFF (paragraph 3). Filming is confirmed, and the topic has the coverage to meet WP:GNG. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 12:47, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Normally I'd agree with you in most matters, but all we have are brief mentions of the trailer and an announcement of the film. I just don't see where there's a depth of coverage here. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 19:03, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

While not currently used to cite the article (not immediately required), the trailer brought us some more-than-trivial coverage of the production that gives us considerable information about the completed film that releases in just SIX WEEKS. [16] [17] [18] So yes Tokyogirl79... I am of the policy and guideline supported opinion that what we have is a suitable stub that can remain and and grow over time and through editorial attention. WP:NFF (paragraph 3) is met. Cheers. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 23:47, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't think that it's enough to really pass notability guidelines since the only one that really goes into any depth other than "here's the trailer" is the first link. I really think that this would be better off as a redirect until more coverage comes out. I just don't see where some announcements of trailers show a depth of coverage in this instance. If we had more lengthy articles that did more than say that the trailer is here and that the film would release I'd be more willing to see your POV, but right now this coverage just isn't out there. While it's likely that the film will gain more coverage when it releases, we can't guarantee that and we have to judge the notability based on the current sources, which just aren't really enough to pass. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:00, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A completed Disney nature film with a sourcable release date for NEXT month that will not get additional coverage? Now who's the one speculating? Had the release date been perhaps 8 or 9 months away, you might sway me... but it's next month. Now that I have some time, I'll go ahead and flesh out the stub per available sources. Thanks. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 06:20, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I know, but at the same time there have been Disney films that have released (even theatrically) and received little to no coverage. I just don't feel comfortable keeping an article on the idea that it will gain coverage since we can't guarantee that it will- that was my main reason for redirecting the page. It just hasn't gotten that coverage yet except for brief mentions of the trailer releasing. What if it does release and gains no coverage? It may seem unlikely but again, it has happened. A redirect wouldn't be permanent- it'd only be until that coverage does come in. If by some chance it doesn't get the coverage, all we'd have are a handful of articles about the trailer, which are routine and trivial at best with how they are written. If you can find more in-depth coverage like the first source then I'm open to negotiation (which is ultimately all I wanted from the other editor from the start), but I just don't see where it's out there. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:47, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

O ye, of little faith. It is already being marketed to and has planned release world-wide. It's a suitable stub that does not violate policy, and we may expect it to grow and improve over time and through editorial attention. WP:FFNOTE WP:FFEXCEPTIONS Or we can simply undelete it in two or three weeks. And worse, there is no sourced information at the "suggested" redirect to in any way increase a reader's understanding of the topic... and unsourced information is subject to a flat removal-without-discussion. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 06:56, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:58, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Monkey Kingdom doesn't have great coverage but it does have enough to prove its notability, especially given its Disney pedigree. It is the 8th Disneynature release, and in the past they have always released these films on or around Earth Day, so there is no reason to think Monkey Kingdom won't come out on its expected release date. It has been averaging more than 240 views per day over the past month, so there is clearly interest in the film, enough to warrant an article. And as Schmidt points out, the movie comes out next month, at which point it can be expanded as it will likely garner more press at that time.--Bernie44 (talk) 15:59, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

However if you look at the sources, they're pretty much all small blurbs based on the press release that was released with the trailer. (Like this one. Pretty much if you look at any labeled "trailer" then they are almost all trivial sources.) There's no in-depth coverage at all when you get down to it. At this point the only thing that the film has going for it is the Disney logo- otherwise all we have is one in-depth article and several brief, trivial articles that just cover the release of a film trailer. Some of them, like this one and this one are pretty much blog sources that wouldn't really pass muster at WP:RS/N. This link is little better than an official blurb on a database like listing. I hate to sound like a hard nose, but the coverage just isn't here yet and I really dislike the idea that we should keep this because it's a Disney film, which is essentially what the arguments boil down to- and while I can be fairly lenient with sources, I'm really uncomfortable with us keeping this based on the idea that since it is a Disney film that it will release and get coverage. I mean, when people come on here and cry foul about us playing favorites and keeping articles based on lackluster sourcing, this is pretty much what they're referring to. I'm not arguing for deletion, all I want is for this to redirect to the main Disneynature page until more substantial sourcing is released. When you consider that this is a Disney release and look at how little coverage it has received so far- only months before its release, then you can understand where I'm concerned about overall notability. I mean, what if the sourcing never comes? A keep in this situation would be done essentially because of the Disney name and because we're WP:CRYSTAL balling that it will gain coverage. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:07, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Policy WP:CBALL cuts both ways, and does not state a completed film slated to release in mere weeks cannot have an article (to be be expanded and improved over time and through regular editing). And to address your own prediction toward Disney films... can you share the list of completed Disney feature films with world-wide release plans that were not determined as notable?

While you shared only the weakest, not all sources are simply short blurbs, and both longer and shorter provide information directly related to the topic for policy mandated verifiability.

In your own crystal prediction, you have offered no sources even hinting that the thing will not be released as planned.

Perhaps per existing coverage the article should be moved temporarily to Monkey Kingdom (trailer) or Monkey Kingdom (film plans) or Monkey Kingdom (April release) or Monkey Kingdom (Earth day) or similar... and simply moved back a few days later when it is released? Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 01:16, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't, but then in this situation we have a Disney film that has yet to receive more than one in-depth article doesn't really pass notability guidelines. That's where my concern comes from: the film is set to release soon and other than the one MovieFone article, all we have are a handful of articles that say the same thing about a trailer's release. Sorry to be stubborn, but I just don't see the depth of coverage here. That's what concerns me: we have a film that hasn't received anything beyond one in-depth article and a bunch of articles that talk about the trailer's release, despite it being a film by a big name company with a release date coming up. If the film releases and doesn't gain coverage then what? Yes, it's likely but we can't guarantee that it will. That's the crux of my argument, that we just don't have the coverage. I think we'll have to respectfully agree to disagree on this since this particular conversation isn't going anywhere and just let the closing admin decide. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:58, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The repeated crux seems to be more toward "What if it does not gain coverage". Do you believe Wikipedia is somehow irrevocably harmed by waiting four weeks? Or do you doubt the verifiability of the information within the present article that currently informs readers? WP:IDEALSTUB tells us a short article can allowed to remain and grow, and your earlier redirect to Disneynature#Films sent readers to a name with no sourced information to serve the project or readers interested in learning more about this particular sourcable topic. After two more WP:RELISTings this discussion will be rendered moot, for more and more sources become available as each day passes. WP:IMPATIENT? or WP:OUTCOMES? Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 06:34, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It may be harmless and interesting, and it may become more notable soon, but I don't think any of those are especially compelling reasons to keep it. Right now, the article seems like trivia sourced to announcements of a trailer. If it gets reviewed in reliable sources, then it will become notable. That's not the only way for a film to become notable, but I don't think routine announcements are anything like a detailed story in Total Film about the making of a upcoming film. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:24, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@NinjaRobotPirate: Not all are simple announcements, and most include information that serves our readers, but fine... ignoring the few that discuss the film production in detail, we can declare WP:NFF (paragraph 3) as failed for it as "a completed and soon to release feature-length film" and, as we have plenty of sources discussing the trailer in relationship to the soon-to-release film, we can move the article to Monkey Kingdom (trailer) or similar to avoid that concern that a completed Disney film does not merit being an exception to guideline. And I will gladly move it back to its proper title in a few weeks when it is released. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 10:02, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It may not be harmed irrevocably, but then if it doesn't get the coverage then we have to go through another AfD to just redirect the article to the main page for Disneynature. I'm just extremely uncomfortable with making an exception for a large company when we don't make them for smaller companies where their films have a similar chance of gaining coverage. Normally I do agree with you, but I don't see where the article itself will be harmed if we redirect this for a few weeks until the movie releases and gains that additional coverage. The only difference will be that it won't be in the mainspace for a few weeks, that's all. It's not forever unless the film fails to gain more coverage. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:52, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Tokyogirl79: Your suggested redirect does not serve to inform our readers. I asked you above and was not answered. To address your own unsourced guess that a completed Disney feature film might eventually be non-notable ( I suppose it could happen ), can you at least share the list of completed Disney feature films with world-wide release plans that were determined as non-notable? I remind that we strive to preserve information, Wikipedia accepts that it is a work-in-progress and immediate perfection is not a mandate. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 10:02, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's a whole list of cancelled films and projects here, in various stages of completion. There are also the widely released feature film sequels for various film franchises, some of which saw a limited releases in multiple countries, and then there are also television projects in production like this one that don't seem to pass guidelines either. Again, I just don't see where the coverage is heavy enough yet. I'm all for this getting dragged out until more coverage becomes available though. It's just that right now the coverage isn't heavy enough and again, I don't like the idea that we should make an exception for Disney when we don't make them for other films and other companies. The rules need to be applied to all or none, or at the very least the rules need to be altered to take mainstream companies into consideration, although some could argue that it could run into WP:NOTINHERITED territory. Also, the redirect isn't completely unhelpful in that the film is listed on the page as a Disneynature film, which is something that is extremely common with a lot of film production companies. And again, I'm not arguing for full fledged deletion. I just think that this should redirect to the main company's page until the film has released and gained more coverage. It's a redirect, not a death sentence. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:14, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think either of us are going to agree with the other, so I really think that we should agree to disagree and wait for the closing admin's decision. If they choose to keep it, I won't contest it. However us going back and forth over the same points is not changing either person's opinion. I still say the coverage is too light and a redirect will not harm a thing since it will likely not be permanent when the film releases. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:17, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How did you choose to not nominate the more poorly sourced 2016 announced project The Lion Guard (TV series)?? Is it existing more for WP:INHERIT due to it's base article, or because it was spoken of in some terrific sources as planned... it was only recently announced as being planned, it has not yet filmed, and it might not ever be. No matter, I will adopt your logic and in the morning will myself send IT to AFD as failing WP:NFF. Please merge and source pertinent information to your suggested target so as to inform our readers and I would then be happy to consider this one's removal from mainspace. We can always ignore WP:IAR. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 10:29, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 23:16, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 19:17, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Chatr (HP-UX command)

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

Does not warrant its own article per WP:NOTDIC. Liam987 (talk) 21:58, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. -- Orduin ^Discuss 23:55, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – We do have articles on many of the better known Unix commands, but this one is just a linker tool that operates on object files. The only people who need it are programmers using HP compilers. They can read the manual. – Margin1522 (talk) 00:56, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's a very bad idea to start creating even more of these UNIX commands. We've already got too many articles on trivial UNIX commands, and the last thing we need is a walled garden of how-to guides based on a specific UNIX variant. If it were up to me, we'd be deleting the whole lot of them, but that didn't go too well last time I argued it. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:01, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'd have to agree with the deletes, that this seems to be a pretty niche, unencyclopedic topic; but that's interesting, Ninja. Do you recall anyone's 'keep' reasoning (or where I might find that discussion)? AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 09:50, 19 March 2015 (UTC)\[reply]
Delete per NOTDIC]. Agree with Margin1522's reasoning. APerson (talk!) 13:23, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 19:29, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Barry Farkas

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

Does not meet notability guidelines at WP:BIO. Liam987 (talk) 21:44, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. Not notable. -- Orduin ^Discuss 23:56, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - without any allegation of notability, I don't know even where to start. Have any of you readers been to New York City since 2011? The whole island of Manhattan is being developed. Developers and landlords in the Big Apple are a dime a dozen. The two sources in the stub are not reliable. The only single news article on the interwebs about him barely mentions him, and even then, basically calls him a slumlord. The only article that could be created would be a disaster. Bearian (talk) 01:48, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While some real estate developers develop enough stuff or in unique enough ways to get notable, no evidence that Farkas is anywhere near doing either, and no adequate sources to show such either.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:09, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no notability claimed or demonstrated. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 10:31, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Nakon 00:16, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kyrian Nwabueze

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

Recreation of an article previously deleted by PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. This remains valid. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:28, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:28, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 00:08, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 12:52, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. – Michael (talk) 23:28, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTBALL as he hasn't played in a Fully Professional League and doesn't have any senior international caps. IJA (talk) 13:57, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Draftspace I fail to see what is gained by deleting the article for a player for a fully-professional squad a few days before the season starts. Do you really think a USL squad doesn't play 22-year old forwards? Nfitz (talk) 20:17, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Also Orduin please stop with the emoji bollocks - Everyone over the age of 10 knows what the hell a Crystal ball is. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 02:41, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2017 Women's Cricket World Cup

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

Deletion under criteria in Wikipedia:Future event. Article is prima facie unencyclopedic, because this event, which is 6 years away, is unverifiable with a non-reliable source. Carwile2 ^{*Shoot me a message*} 21:11, 12 March 2015 (UTC) Carwile2 ^{*Shoot me a message*} 21:12, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Liam987 (talk) 22:00, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete - per nom; Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Simple as that. -- Orduin ^Discuss 00:26, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, pulled a blank on that one Facepalm .
Keep - per Lugnuts. -- Orduin ^Discuss 19:23, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - the event is 2 years away, not 6, planning is well underway (qualifying started last year) and the article is referenced to the BBC! The-Pope (talk) 04:04, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I agree with what The-Pope says. Sadly, the article shows a lack of attention being given to it compared to the article on the next men's World Cup which will be held in 2019. But that does not diminish this article's notability. Removing it now would only discourage improvement. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 07:19, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:CRYSTAL Orduin - you may want to actually read the policy you're citing, as point 1 clearly states - "1.Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place." Which this is. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:47, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Women's Cricket World Cup. (non-admin closure) Esquivalience ^t 00:49, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2021 Women's Cricket World Cup

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

Deletion under criteria in Wikipedia:Future event. Article is prima facie unencyclopedic, because this event, which is 6 years away, is unverifiable with a non-reliable source. Carwile2 ^{*Shoot me a message*} 21:11, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom; Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Simple as that. -- Orduin ^Discuss 00:26, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Women's Cricket World Cup until a bit closer to the event. But why would you call The Hindu a non-reliable source? The-Pope (talk) 04:09, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per The Pope. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:48, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - Crystal ball exercise. Carrite (talk) 14:56, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 19:29, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Anas Chrifi

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

Subject of the article fails WP:GNG. I can't find the significant coverages in multiple reliable source that establish the subject notability. No evidence of passing WP:NACTOR perhaps , WP:TOOSOON to be a subject of encyclopedia. No lead role in a notable film recorded and having featured in a notable film does not make him notable becaues notability is not inherited. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 20:01, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I had initial apprehension since this was nominated for AfD 17 minutes after its creation, which seemed hasty. I should also correct the nominator that Chrifi is male.

However this actor is not yet notable per WP:TOOSOON WP:NACTOR. He's 17 and made his debut in Queen of the Desert in a minor role (None of the reviews at the Berlin Film Festival mentioned him e.g. [[19]], [[20]]). When I searched, I couldn't find any supporting notability per WP:GNG.
It should also be noted that the current article is basically a copypaste of his IMDb bio: [[21]]

Cowlibob (talk) 20:26, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your concern on "hasty" seemed reasonable but since his notability is in doubt, I felt the best decision is to bring it here. Wikipedia cannot continue to keep articles on non-notable subject. Nonetheless, thanks for letting me know, I will take that into consideration in the future. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 22:16, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

i dont think it should be deleted, i am moroccan, this actor is very famous here because he partcipated in a lot of moroccan series, but it is his first appearence in a big movie as queen of the desert — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chamsoune (talk • contribs) 20:39, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Chamsoune: If you could provide sources of these appearances on Moroccan series that would support your case for notability. They do not have to be English language but should meet WP:RS. Cowlibob (talk) 20:51, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

i can provide paper sources from famous moroccan journals where can i post that ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chamsoune (talk • contribs) 18:28, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails the notability requirements for actors. There even more need to apply when the subject is under 18.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:29, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Esquivalience ^t 02:37, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Joy Springer

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

Non notable author; A/c worldcat, her first book is in only 13 libraries, her second in only 2. DGG ( talk ) 19:55, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Seems to meet GNG, especially with the San Diego Union Tribune ref. The review of her book in The Journal is also substantial. Aside from being a writer, Springer was also the singer for Blatz and Cypher in the Snow. gobonobo ⁺ ^c 15:57, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes general notability guidelines, also in the punk rock world. In fact, my first car accident as a teenager with my first car was listening to a Blatz album. Awe.... :) Missvain (talk) 04:16, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - seems to meet GNG. --Rosiestep (talk) 14:28, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, seems notable enough. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 16:18, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Along with the sources already in the article, here are three more small-press interviews [22] [23] [24] and another in-depth book review in a well-established journal [25]. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:13, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, seems borderline notable as a punk rock musician + writer. I added one additional ref to the article about her punk rock career. Kaldari (talk) 04:06, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep - Tons of WP:RS provided in the article. Meets GNG. Kindzmarauli (talk) 15:03, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Esquivalience ^t 00:39, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Elisabet Gunnarsdottir

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

Looks like a fail according to GNG, doubtful if general criterias is met. Grrahnbahr (talk) 19:30, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 March 12. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:52, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:33, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iceland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 12:52, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Well, apart from the fact that Damallsvenskan - where Elísabet Gunnarsdóttir currently coaches - is a WP:FPL, there is plenty of sustained coverage in Icelandic/Swedish media: [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], etc. Målfarlig! (talk) 20:50, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per User:Målfarlig!. Nfitz (talk) 20:19, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes the football-specific notability guideline, which reads "Players who have played, and managers who have managed in a fully professional league, will generally be regarded as notable" (my bolding). Subject is, and has been for some time, manager of Kristianstads DFF, they call it head coach but it's the equivalent position, who play in Damallsvenskan, which is one of two women's leagues listed as fully professional within the meaning of that guideline. Målfarlig!'s link #9 seems to tell us that in 2010, she was the only female head coach in that league. I'd be amazed if she couldn't pass WP:BIO.
Incidentally, when this AfD finishes, the page should be moved to the name with the correct diacritics, as redlinked above in Målfarlig!'s comment. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:05, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The nomination was a mistake, as I haven't noticed Damallsvenskan was added as a fully professional league. I will not mind if it speedy kept. Grrahnbahr (talk) 11:55, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Målfarlig! and Struway2.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:05, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The article's subject is found to not be notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:42, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Robert E. Love

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

Non notable militate career (highest rank was Colonel), non-notable DoD civilian career (head of subdivision of an agency task force) , ceo of non-notable firm, no significant publications, trivial government awards.

Created by contributor whose edit history shows nothing else, but who understands details of WP syntax... DGG ( talk ) 19:45, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would submit that "the second highest award presented by the Secretary of Defense to non-career Federal employees, private citizens, and foreign nationals for contributions, assistance, or support to Department of Defense..." is non-trivial. Further, members of the Senior Executive Service are flag-level (general officer-level) equivalents within the civilian ranks of the federal government. I am open for debate, however.

Although I have not contributed before, I researched publishing requirements, methods and wiki-code fairly extensively in an attempt to present a somewhat compliant article.

Thank you for your feedback.

Lemchuhalik (talk) 20:27, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 00:12, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 00:16, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, shame on you DGG for failing to assume good faith and making a vague claim that the creator may be a sock puppet/recreation of a previous user. That has no place at AfD and no bearing on notability. Someone of your experience should know to use the proper channels if you want to make such accusations and should know to stick to relevant issues here.

Now, as far as relevant issues goes, it does not appear that Love is notable. Specifically, only one provided source is about him and that is a press release. The rest either don't mention him at all, are by him, or mention him in passing as a gov't spokesperson. My efforts to find sources didn't turn up anything new for Love or Daedalus Solutions. Thus I must vote delete. Please note, this is not a judgement on Love as a person. His work may well be very notable in the real world definition of the word. It just means it hasn't been noticed by reliable sources and therefore is not possible to write a balanced article on Love. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:11, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lemchuhalik. I apologize. Unfortunately, instances like this are the exception. Unlike ThaddeusB, I am very reluctant to go to SPI with no more than this to go on. We have a great deluge of commercial sockpuppettry, and we can deal with it best by removing the articles, than the usual inconclusive result at an SPI--the more intelligent of the actual undeclared paid editors have learned how to evade checkuser. DGG ( talk ) 16:10, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Nakon 00:17, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kamian Michelle "Mikki" Allen

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

one relatively minor role as her best known role-- for which she did not receive an award , trivial award for "rising stars" , like all such "upcoming" type awards translated in WP terms as "not yet notable" DGG ( talk ) 19:36, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 00:13, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. She got a bit of coverage for her one role, but that seems to have been her only role, ever. And she hasn't gotten any coverage as a communications professional. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 21:34, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 19:31, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tia Cyrus

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

Subject fails the WP:GNG, links to trade industry magazine interviews are not sufficiently independent. Subject also fails the updated WP:PORNBIO criteria with a single AVN nomination. Tarc (talk) 18:38, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:03, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:06, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:06, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails GNG, PORNBIO and other possible relevant guidelines. A couple of interviews in some minor websites are not enough. --Cavarrone 19:24, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
delete blps require better sourcing then this. Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:40, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted--Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:11, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Florida A&M Concert Choir History

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

I couldn't establish that this is WP:NOTABLE Boleyn (talk) 18:28, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

- It fails several criteria. I've speedily deleted it. Deb (talk) 14:28, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to United States Senate election in California, 2016. Randykitty (talk) 19:33, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stewart Albertson

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

individual is not notable ALPolitico (talk) 17:37, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 March 12. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:56, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 00:44, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 00:44, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 00:44, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE - This isWP:TOOSOON does not meet WP:POLITICIAN or WP:GNG. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 00:49, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per McMatter. Does not pass WP:42 by any stretch of the imagination. Bearian (talk) 01:37, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete. Merge/redirect if necessary. Per WP:NOT42, I do not think that an article should ever be deleted on the basis of WP:42. I was under the impression that non-notable candidates were typically redirected to the article on the election per WP:POLITICIAN, which in this case is United States Senate election in California, 2016. James500 (talk) 06:37, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. Hekerui (talk) 12:30, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a notable person. Tiller54 (talk) 18:36, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. WP:POLITICIAN, which is a notability guideline, says: "In the case of candidates for political office who do not meet this guideline, the general rule is to redirect to an appropriate page covering the election or political office sought in lieu of deletion" (my emphasis). Footnote 12 of that guideline then goes on to say that "Deleting a biography in these cases instead of merely redirecting it makes recovering useful information from the page history difficult, and should be done only when there are relevant reasons other than lack of notability for removing the article from the mainspace" (my emphasis again). So I don't see how non-notability can be a grounds for deletion when the notability guideline clearly says in express words that it isn't. James500 (talk) 15:51, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You have made this argument above and it absolutely a valid argument. Consensus drives this process, WP:Politician is a guideline to help guide consensus but does not dictate it. At this point this article offers nothing worth saving in my opinion, especially since almost the entire history has been revdel'd, after it has been deleted a redirect may be created to the election page.- McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 23:19, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was WP:SNOW keep. Discussions about content (title, bias, etc.) should be and already are on the talkpage. (non-admin closure) ansh 666 00:27, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2015 University of Oklahoma Sigma Alpha Epsilon racial incident

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

Attack page about an insignificant incident, meant to smear a historical organization. Not notable.Zigzig20s (talk) 17:52, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The page has been renamed, 2015 University of Oklahoma Sigma Alpha Epsilon racism incident, which sounds even more slanderous.Zigzig20s (talk) 20:26, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Racism incident" seems like a reasonable and accurate descriptor, if not a flattering one. If you really have a problem with it then the Talk page for the article is probably a better venue than AFD. Artw (talk) 20:50, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Artw: I did, to no avail so far. The other editors seem very ideologically driven. I think Wikipedia should remain neutral/encyclopedic. I added a comment here because the page for deletion has been renamed; it sounds even more like an attack page IMO.Zigzig20s (talk) 20:58, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously? Renamed in a slanderous manner? A. I undid your undiscussed move; B. The page-name I returned it to was consistent with the cited sources; and C. Please read Wikipedia:No_legal_threats#Perceived_legal_threats and stop making accusations like this. Guettarda (talk) 21:11, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It seems inappropriate/like original research/an opinion to use that word unless it is a direct quote. See the talkpage. I only added a comment here to let everyone know the title has been changed (for the worse) since I created this AFD. We can discuss this more on the talkpage.Zigzig20s (talk) 21:17, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - no one is going to think that all members of SAE are racist, which makes it not an attack page Inicholson (talk) 17:54, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Insufficient notability at this time (the story is all of four days old). I have suggested a few sentences in University of Oklahoma. Note that I am an observer and am not otherwise involved. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:00, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Current events are often included in Wikipedia. We started writing the MH370 articles 6 hours after it disappeared. I don't think that's enough of a reason to delete it, simply because it's current. We can edit it as more facts come up. AvatarQX (talk) 21:45, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep An incident that has received national attention and fulfills many Wikipedia notability tenets. An event that is a precedent or catalyst for something else of lasting significance. Already SAE chapters are being investigated nationwide. This incident has ramifications for fraternities at many other universities.--The lorax (talk) 18:16, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We report lasting impact, we don't anticipate it. We have no idea where this will lead, if anywhere. BTW, if the word "strong" means anything here, please count me as "Strong delete"; if not, it just looks silly. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:20, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now. The story is everywhere in the media and appears to have potential for long term significance. Meanwhile the editing disputes were overwhelming the main articles about OU and SAE. I was intially disposed against having a spinout article about this, but I've changed my mind in light of the continued furor. This article allows us to develop the content about this story in an orderly fashion, and if the story really does disappear in 6 months, we can merge it back in. --Arxiloxos (talk) 18:23, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now. Incident has some lasting consequences (closing the chapter of the fraternity, putting increased scrutiny on this and other organisations) and has depth of coverage and a diversity of sources. Guettarda (talk) 18:45, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Certainly no lack of sources, and likely to have some lasting consequences. Artw (talk) 19:19, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is not an attack page, and it should not become one. It is also not an insignificant event based on the level of national media coverage it has received and reaction to it on the campus of OU. The article should remain so that the content can develop, similar to the way that 2005 University of Oklahoma bombing was developed over time. FFM784 (talk) 19:22, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Certainley passes all notability standards.--75 * 19:33, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:42, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:42, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:42, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:42, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I guess. It's too soon to tell if this has a lasting impact and persistent coverage, but it certainly meets all the other criteria laid out for Wikipedia:Notability (events). Expanding coverage at Sigma Alpha Epsilon would be fine, too. Grayfell (talk) 20:19, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, for sure. This will no doubt add to the effect of the already happening racism discussion in the U.S., it's been in the news for weeks, and it's definitely something that will have an impact of SAE, if not the university itself. I can't see why we'd not keep it. It hardly seems like a hate page, and if anything posted is controversial or biased, we can edit it. It doesn't become polarized until we make it polarized - by that logic, we shouldn't have definitions of Benghazi either. AvatarQX (talk) 21:40, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, wide discussion in thousands of secondary sources across our planet. — Cirt (talk) 22:42, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy and strong keep In all fairness, I personally spent a fair amount of time last evening working on the prose, and making it neutral. We can work on the title, and do additional good faith editing to make it better, but this was clearly a notable event because of the level of media coverage, and the constitutional issues raised by the students expulsion. Strong keep, and based on the !votes so far, we are headed toward a speedy close of this AfD. Juneau Mike (talk) 23:51, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Nakon 00:20, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bryan Kramer

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

Non notable and promotional. Founder of one apparently non notable company, author of one self published book that worldcat shows in exactly one library. [35]

Trivial awards, of which the most important are only for his social media presence. . DGG ( talk ) 17:51, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:01, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:01, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nominator. Founder of a non-notable company, author of a self-published book. Any article that describes its subject as a "published author" (rather than just "author"), and brags about making Eagle Scout at age 13, is really stretching. --MelanieN (talk) 21:41, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Nakon 00:21, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Patton (Restaurateur)

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

no evidence for notability, The only 3rd party references sen routine PR in restaurant guides DGG ( talk ) 17:25, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete as this comes across as a totally promotional article {Huddsblue (talk) 17:29, 13 March 2015 (UTC)}[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Paul Graham (computer programmer)#Arc programming language. (non-admin closure) Esquivalience ^t 00:42, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Arc (programming language)

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

Lacks multiple reliable independent secondary sources to establish notability as required by WP:GNG. Sources offered are all WP:PRIMARY or WP:Self-published sources. Googling turned up nothing helpful. Though it appears the authors are notable, notability is not inherited by everything they create. In the previous AfD ten years ago, the outcome was merge; that may still be an appropriate outcome. The article has been tagged for primary sources for 4 years. Msnicki (talk) 17:15, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Merge with Paul Graham remains the right thing, probably trimming some of the details. --Macrakis (talk) 19:16, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Paul Graham (computer programmer). Most of the content is already the same. The language itself seems to be dormant compared to other List dialects, like Clojure. Few posts on the user forum, little evidence that it is being used in applications. – Margin1522 (talk) 20:23, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Selective merge to Paul Graham (computer programmer) – Arc programming language. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:27, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with the article on Paul Graham. Like Margin1522, didn't see too much notability or usage out there. APerson (talk!) 16:35, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Partially Merge with Paul Graham, though some of it can be trashed. Kharkiv07 ^Talk 18:20, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a decently sourced article on the language used for an influential web site. Suggest giving people who care about it time to improve sources. --Zippy (talk) 23:17, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- fwiw, a github-hosted implementation of arc, Arcadia has >100 stars and ~15 forks, which is pretty popular.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Imageboard. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 02:44, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Anonymous Image Board

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

The subject is non-notable (a WordPress plugin). Currently no references, likely because a quick Google search doesn't turn up anything that would qualify under WP:WEB. Fisheriesmgmt (talk) 17:07, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Imageboard as a plausible search phrase, but no, not notable on its own. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:52, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Imageboard. It's difficult to filter out all the news stories about 4chan which use this phrase, but the plugin doesn't seem to have significant coverage in reliable sources. "anonymous image board" "aimbox" returns very few results, none of which seem to be reliable. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:03, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. This article was subject to a speedy delete because it was created by a blocked user who was a sock of User:Ghassul. JodyB_talk 13:20, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Aroubi people

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

Possible WP:HOAX or, at best, WP:Original research. I can find information online about an Aroubi dialect of Arabic [36], but not about an Aroubi people. There seems to be much WP:Original research in the article, with many unreferenced sections. The references cited do not mention an Aroubi people. Article creator is new to Wikipedia, and insists on removing the maintenance templates, including the expert-attention tag. No response yet at the article talk page. Dai Pritchard (talk) 16:56, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. Dai Pritchard (talk) 16:57, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The 3aroubi dialect (or Hilalian / Pre-Hilalian Arabic dialects) is a Bedawi dialect. The aroubi people means a type of population from a common strain (Hilalian Tribe). It is normal that is not mentioned in the sources.

I think it must be replaced by something else aroubi people so that there is not misunderstood.

I recall that this refers either to a dialect or a language or ethnic group but a type of person who shares a stump or a common ancestor. Cordially. --BFKTR (talk) 17:02, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As I replied at Talk:Aroubi people, if it's not mentioned in any WP:Reliable sources, then it's considered WP:Original research, which isn't allowed on Wikipedia. We need to WP:Verify what's written here, and personal recollections are unfortunately not considered reliable sources. Please stop removing the AFD template from the article. Thank you. Dai Pritchard (talk) 17:27, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment an identical article has just been created by a new account at Aroubi dialect. I've asked at the "new" user's talk page if they were the same person, but my post there was deleted without reply [37]. Dai Pritchard (talk) 17:44, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for the reason given above:

Delete the Aroubi people version, as no "people" associated with this subdialect are recognized in the literature. Redirect the newly-created Aroubi dialect to Moroccan Arabic, where it is already covered (and where it can and should be cited to Jeffrey Heath's excellent 2002 Jewish and Muslim Dialects of Moroccan Arabic). No further merger is warranted, as the remaining material in this article constitutes original research. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 19:55, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 19:37, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sunil Sanjan

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

Not quite a contested prod as someone else deleted it (or I'm just guessing, oddly both contributors just registered today with this page being there only thing) Anyway-the director has only one credit and it is a unotable short film. Too soon. Wgolf (talk) 16:01, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

I am not sure about other comments. But I think, its fair enough to keep this page. There is nothing wrong or promotional on the page. Its purely information. There are enough references to support facts mentioned there. So I do not see any point in recommending this for deletion. Kumarsunils (talk) 17:31, 12 March 2015 (UTC)— Kumarsunils (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

page does not violate any rules. So should not be deleted Kumarsunils (talk) 17:31, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dear admin. I have few questions:

1. Don't you get new users every day ? So I can not be one of them ? If you are saying users just registered today ? What is wrong if persons happened to contribute to page same day ? This does not mean this page qualifies for deletion. If some one is not interested in updating anything, this does not mean he or she should keep registered on wikipedia. May be I found interest today to update so registered it. Earlier I didn't. Whats wrong in that ?

2. You said only one credit. Second credit is also there for feature film. Seems you did not check the IMDb and other references. Please do check and do not say that these are fake :) And does it mean if some one has just few credits, he or she can not be called director ? :)

3. Also you wrote. Not so soon ? So now you want to control if when public should know about some one. Very funny dear friend.

4. Bro if you want to delete the page. Go ahead and do it now but please do not put such reasons which does not make sense. Do not wait it, delete it if you think you are right. Go ahead.

Appreciate your time. Alishasamuel (talk) 17:32, 12 March 2015 (UTC)— Alishasamuel (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete - no evidence of any notability. Maybe too soon but more likely just a vanity article. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 17:33, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But admin, I agree with them that page should not be deleted. There seems nothing wrong with the page. I can see good number of references already provided. So suggest to keep the page.

Good day.. take care.As I said .Page should stay..nothing wrong with it. No violations. Its with in rules and regulations. It has enough references as commented by others as well.

Also do not see any vanity admin. Its just two or three line article. And also it looks person is not the creator of page.. How can you say that. ? Bit surprised here dear.. Natashasencute (talk) 17:36, 12 March 2015 (UTC) — Natashasencute (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Still insist..page should stay..Lols Notability ? Go and google yourself...lot of references there...And nothing is fake..Its in open domain in public. Whole info about person. All references are provided to support.. Evry person has this phase in life.. no one is born super star or famous..very funny :) Alishasamuel (talk) 17:45, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

use Wgolf seems jealous of person lols......Could see some arrogance.. he he he ..Just kidding..Alishasamuel (talk) 17:47, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete ..Hey guys....I still could not understand what is wrong with page ? Please keep it. It is not violating any thing. Surekha Rao (talk) 18:30, 12 March 2015 (UTC) — Surekha Rao (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:44, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:44, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wgolf I think you should nominate his upcoming film Flat 211 as well as it suffers from the same problems as this article. Much worse in the aspect of vanity.

General note to the comments above (excluding Velella), you need to provide sources for notability not such suggest that he is because you say so. Taking a combative attitude as the above have done will only reflect negatively on your case especially the personal attack you made above on the nominator. Also, this is wikipedia not a chatroom.

Promotional tone, "He is filmmaker by choice and IT professional by necessity."

Having a look at the refs: Ref 3 is by the production company owned by Sanjan so not independent or RS, Ref 4, and 7 are IMDb so not RS, Ref 1 (Odagam) looks like a blog like site not likely to be RS (also very promotional tone), Ref 5 (Bollywood Tadka) looks like a gossip site/ blog like so not likely to be RS. Ref 2 is from an epaper of Punjab Kesari but the short piece alone is probably not enough.

In summary, this looks like a vanity article for an aspiring filmmaker who hasn't yet attained notability per WP:GNG. No prejudice to recreate the article if the film turns out to actually be notable and mark something in his career but not right now. Cowlibob (talk) 23:08, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Cowlibob-done, check here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flat 211 (Film). Wgolf (talk) 23:15, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. Not notable. -- Orduin ^Discuss 00:22, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keeep~~ Still insist we should keep the page. Additional references have been added. Alishasamuel (talk) 09:35, 13 March 2015 (UTC)— Alishasamuel (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

~~Keep~~ -- Since new ifno and references are added. Check the page. And page also seems more refined. So request to keep the page. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Natashasencute (talk • contribs) 09:40, 13 March 2015 (UTC) — Natashasencute (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

~~Keep~~ -- request to keep the page. It is refined and ref are added. No one is making any personal remarks here @ Cowlibob. If any apologies for same. But teaming up and recommending additional actions for other pages is also not good. Sorry if u didnt mean that. But it just looked like that. Thanks for understanding. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Surekha Rao (talk • contribs) 09:46, 13 March 2015 (UTC) — Surekha Rao (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

It was a reminder to just discuss the article and not the character of the nominator. The film article is intrinsically linked to this one so both should be discussed at same time. Cowlibob (talk) 10:38, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~-- Sorry guys no personal comments. But request the nominators to check page, additional info and references are added. So request to keep the page. I feel there is no promotional. If some one has some attributes or qualities, those can not be labeled as promotional. Others should know the real character of same person. Thanks. request to keep the page. Kumarsunils (talk) 09:55, 13 March 2015 (UTC)— Kumarsunils (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Please note that you should sign your comments at the end of your statement not at the beginning. I'm also not seeing these additional sources you're talking about. The IndiaTV mention is very brief only 7 seconds hardly enough. Please read WP:GNG. Cowlibob (talk) 10:38, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, vanity page just created for promotional purpuses. The socks above did not made a single valid argument. Cavarrone 06:51, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree with the others. It's a vanity page created for promotional purposes. The sock puppets above just seal the deal. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:12, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails wP:GNG and is promotional .Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 04:12, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Let the film become a historical hit, not only himself, but also his film would be welcomed here. Now quick delete. Educationtemple (talk) 18:40, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have struck out votes from sockpuppets of Kumarsunils (Natashasencute, Alishasamuel, and Surekha Rao as confirmed by CheckUser evidence) - see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kumarsunils/Archive. Esquivalience ^t 02:32, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No evidence of notability. Lakun.patra (talk) 12:38, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. This has been going on for long enough now, with only the article's subject arguing for a "keep". I am closing this one day early as snow delete. Randykitty (talk) 18:50, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Madura Kulatunga

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

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

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

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. The references seem to be about the subject's alleged product, not him. For that matter, the article is mostly about his product, not him. If one removes all the promotional information, what is left is very sparse indeed, and not backed up by citations. Also, violates WP:COI and Wikipedia:Autobiography. ubiquity (talk) 15:50, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Autobio and not sure how much of this is even accurate. (Almost sounds a little boastful too!) Wgolf (talk) 15:52, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dear User:Wgolf Check out the hard copy of Lankadeepa Sandella article about Madura Kulatunga on YouTube (Video duration 56 seconds only) Madura Kulatunga (talk) 09:05, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: an IP continues to remove all coi and autobiography tags. ubiquity (talk) 15:57, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a pointless bio about a non-notable person. No good ref's. To the person sockpuppetting: if you have read articles about him, please citate them properly and add them. The only info in this bio is a product he made.Jcmcc450 (talk) 15:51, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dear User:Jcmcc450 Sinhala newspaper articles about Madura Kulatunga are not available online. Madura Kulatunga (talk) 19:07, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Collapsing IP comments from the same individual. Mike V • Talk 04:04, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This is well known person in Sri Lanka. I read so many articles about him from Sri Lanka National News papers... "Vijaya Pariganaka" , "Daily Mirror" , "Silumina" , "Lankadeepa" , "Dinamina" , etc... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.135.191.213 (talk) 03:16, 13 March 2015 (UTC) — 112.135.191.213 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep: Madura Kulatunga did noble work in Sri Lanka by providing such a valuable english & sinhala dictionary free of charge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.134.140.61 (talk) 06:08, 13 March 2015 (UTC) — 112.134.140.61 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep: Over 80% computer users in Sri Lanka know about Madura Kulatunga. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.135.82.51 (talk) 06:57, 13 March 2015 (UTC) — 112.135.82.51 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment the preceding three comments are single edit editors, most likely Sock Puppets of the articles creator, solely established to give the impression of more support for a position than actually exists. Dan arndt (talk) 15:04, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Contents of this article about Mr. Madura Kulatunga are almost accurate. But article must be rewritten according to Wikipedia guidelines. I suggest this can be done by experienced Wikipedia editor from Sri Lanka. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.135.82.11 (talk) 17:38, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Subject Madura Kulatunga is already qualified according to Wikipedia:Notability (people) guidelines under Additional criteria > Any biography > 2. The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.135.36.69 (talk) 19:00, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment When !voting, please make sure that your arguments are based in policy. If you want to assert notability for this person, then claims (like being known by 80% of computer users in Sri Lanka) need to be verifiable by references in reliable sources. Just saying something like "this person is very notable" will make it very likely that your !vote will be ignored by the closing admin. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 19:33, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable and dependent on poor quality references GoneWilde (talk) 04:01, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dear User:GoneWilde Sinhala newspaper articles about Madura Kulatunga are not available online. Madura Kulatunga (talk) 19:35, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable individual - lacking any verifiable or reliable sources. Dan arndt (talk) 09:04, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dear User:Dan arndt Check out the hard copy of Lankadeepa Sandella article about Madura Kulatunga on YouTube (Video duration 56 seconds only) Madura Kulatunga (talk) 09:10, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I made changes to article and improved it according to Wikipedia policies. I really appreciate your suggestions. Give me more time to make this article better. Thank you. Madura Kulatunga (talk) 17:48, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I read the revised article. Except for one biographical paragraph, it is still mostly about the product, and so are the references. The references include directory listings. I still believe this subject does not come anywhere near meeting the general notability guidelines. ubiquity (talk) 23:19, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with User:Ubiquity in that the references only establish the potential notability of the 'Madura English-Sinhala Dictionary' and do not establish notability for the creator. Dan arndt (talk) 06:19, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I want to thanks User:Dan arndt for identifying the potential notability of the 'Madura English-Sinhala Dictionary' by using established references. The references establish the potential notability of the 'Madura English-Sinhala Dictionary' also confirm Madura Kulatunga as the creator. By creating potentially notable 'Madura English-Sinhala Dictionary' Madura Kulatunga is notable for that creation. Madura Kulatunga (talk) 11:29, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Firstly before I comment, I have major concerns that there is a potential COI with the editor, Madura Kulatunga, who created and continues to substantially edit this article? Secondly I said the dictionary is 'potentially' notable. Thirdly notability is not necessarily inheritable. Finally I stand by my early comments this article fails to establish how Madura Kulatunga is notable. Dan arndt (talk) 12:08, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment News articles about Madura Kulatunga are published on national newspapers. Year 2003 - Wijaya Pariganaka Magazine, Year 2004 - Dailymirror, Year 2004 - Sunday Lankadeepa, Year 2006 - Sunday Lankadeepa (not repeat / new article), Year 2006 - Sunday Silumina, Year 2007 - Dinamina, Year 2011 - Lankadeepa Sandella magazine, Sinhala newspaper article archives are currently not available on internet. Madura Kulatunga (talk) 12:58, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Lankadeepa Sandella magazine is only publish articles about notable people in Sri Lanka. Most of them are actors and actresses. Lankadeepa Sandella on 14-August-2011 (Page 11) they published article about Madura Kulatunga. Watch hard copy of this article on YouTube (56 seconds only / Change video quality to HD 1080p) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wObY45ySvUU Thank you Madura Kulatunga (talk) 15:50, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; non-notable individual. APerson (talk!) 16:36, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The Madura Kulatunga has made a widely recognized contribution Madura English-Sinhala Dictionary that is part of the enduring historical record in his specific field. Madura Kulatunga (talk) 18:23, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Madura Kulatunga, so why doesn't the article say so using a reliable, third-party source? APerson (talk!) 16:26, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dear User:APerson Sinhala newspaper articles about Madura Kulatunga are not available online. Madura Kulatunga (talk) 16:57, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; insufficient sources on him to establish notability. my attention was brought to this article by a posting at WP:COIN. Jytdog (talk) 12:41, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dear User:Jytdog There are sufficient offline sources available on Madura Kulatunga to establish notability. Such as Year 2003 - Wijaya Pariganaka Magazine, Year 2004 - Dailymirror, Year 2004 - Sunday Lankadeepa, Year 2006 - Sunday Lankadeepa (not repeat / new article), Year 2006 - Sunday Silumina, Year 2007 - Dinamina, Year 2011 - Lankadeepa Sandella magazine. Madura Kulatunga (talk) 15:12, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please refer to the Wikipedia:Offline sources - Wikipedia's reliable sources guideline states that articles should be sourced with reliable, third-party, published sources. Even though Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia, there is no distinction between using online versus offline sources. In fact, many great sources are only available offline. Don't let that fact scare you away from using them as a source in Wikipedia. Madura Kulatunga (talk) 15:12, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

are any of those sources in english? Jytdog (talk) 16:40, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi User:Jytdog Available only in Sinhala language. But we can translate. Madura Kulatunga (talk) 17:12, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

speedy and strong delete Should never have been allowed to exist for this long. Spectacularly fails WP:BIO. ukexpat (talk) 16:20, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please refer to the Wikipedia:Notability (people) > Additional criteria > Any biography > The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field. Madura Kulatunga (talk) 18:39, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Madura Kulatunga is the Developer of Madura English-Sinhala Dictionary available in Online Edition, Android App and Software Package. Madura Kulatunga (talk) 18:40, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Madura English-Sinhala Dictionary Online Edition available at http://www.maduraonline.com/?find=Mother Madura Kulatunga (talk) 18:40, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Madura English-Sinhala Dictionary Android App available at https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.maduraonline Madura Kulatunga (talk) 18:40, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Madura English-Sinhala Dictionary Software Package available at http://download.cnet.com/windows/madura-kulatunga/3260-20_4-6285889-1.html Madura Kulatunga (talk) 18:40, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 19:37, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Berger

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

Subject's notability is dubious. Work as an artist on TMNT, but not any other claim to significance. Fails WP:CREATIVE and WP:GNG. PROD declined without explanation by an IP. Safiel (talk) 15:06, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of notability only two sources [38], [39], neither gives him significant coverage. Article creator is probably promotion SPA. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 05:29, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with all due dispatch. Sketchily-sourced WP:BLP with no evidence of significance. Guy (Help!) 15:17, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it stands - I was originally under the impression he'd created them, but evidently he was just one of several artists on the newspaper strip - David Gerard (talk) 23:14, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The article's subject is found to not be notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:53, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ramchandra Siras

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

WP:NOTNEWS, WP:ONEEVENT. No Significant coverage of life found. Coverage about his suspension and suicide. Recent coverage is embedded on news reports of Aligarh, a film on the incident is been made. Redtigerxyz ^Talk 13:26, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: According to the sources listed, he was a Gay and that's why he was suspended from his job of Professorship at the University. As per Indian law, homosexual relations is not legal and nothing unusual if he was suspended. What is there then to write an article about him on Wikipedia! Not a notable figure. Educationtemple (talk) 18:11, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Nakon 05:04, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad Ali Abdur Rahkman

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

Queried AfD as hoax: Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:00, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion copied to here from my user talk page :: Muhammad Ali Abdur Rahkman

Is this not real?--Bbb23 (talk) 06:06, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@User:Bbb23: It still looks not notable. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:08, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Bbb23: This was my mistake. The article looked like a copy of a different article with just the name changed. I hadn't heard of the player (I haven't followed UM's most recent games), so I tagged it G3. I should have tagged it with a different rationale. -Niceguyedc ^{Go Huskies!} 16:03, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's up to you, Anthony, but if you think it should be deleted per A7, then you should restore it and delete it again with that criterion. Having an article deleted as a hoax when it's not a hoax casts an unfair aspersion on the author.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:37, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Continued discussion :: Muhammad Ali Abdur Rahkman

Query notability. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 08:34, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - College athletes are not inherently notable. If subject does not meet either the WP:GNG or WP:NCOLLATH, no article is warranted. Tarc (talk) 14:40, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:48, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:48, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:48, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:48, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Article created 2 days ago. Rahkman is a freshman and relatively new as a starter. This article was created on the early end of the spectrum, and the coverage will likely increase as his career progresses. However, he already appears to have enough significant coverage (i.e., stories focused on him rather than passing mentions in game coverage) in reliable, mainstream media outlets to satisfy WP:GNG. Such overage includes: (1) "The peculiar story of Michigan recruit Muhammad Ali Abdur-Rahkman", Mlive.com (Booth Newspapers), April 2014; (2) Central Catholic grad Muhammad-Ali Abdur-Rahkman ready for increased workload at Michigan, The Morning Call, Jan. 2015, (3) "Abdur-Rahkman gaining trust, minutes at U-M," Detroit Free Press, Feb. 2015; (4) "Michigan 'very excited' to add basketball recruit Muhammad Ali Abdur-Rahkman", Detroit Free Press, April 2014; (5) Michigan's Muhammad-Ali Abdur-Rahkman goes from surprise starter to hero in win over Northwestern," Mlive, Jan. 2015. Cbl62 (talk) 18:17, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per Cbl62. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 18:57, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NCOLLATH and the coverage appears to be that which would be given to any starter on a college basketball team--school and local coverage. 204.126.132.231 (talk) 21:34, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:58, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep he is now an important starter and getting press.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:25, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 13:22, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I am inherently skeptical of stand-alone articles about hyped college freshman athletes, and I will scrutinize the sources of such articles to make sure that the coverage is significant (not blogs, not recruiting service coverage, not routine post-game articles), there are multiple sources (multiple articles from the same publication count once), that the sources are reliable (not blogs; not all local), and that the sources are independent (not school newspapers; not athletic department, conference, NCAA releases; not recruiting services). Even with that kind of scrutiny, the coverage of this topic clearly passes the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG. (Thanks to Cbl62 for his usual thorough research.) Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:21, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Move to userspace. I'm skeptical of Rahkman's notability as of the moment. However, that may chance 1-2 years down the road. Right now he is a starter on a non NIT team, which I don't think qualifies as notable as a rule of thumb. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 23:01, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Nakon 05:00, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Let It Break Your Heart

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

Song fails WP:NSONGS and WP:GNG. It is not discussed independently in third party media and nor has any notable chart action that a separate article is needed. —Indian:BIO ^{[ ChitChat ]} 06:23, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 20:56, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ⨹ 13:14, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. SilentDan (talk) 07:55, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. There is no agreement on whether the sources provided, such as the Deseret News, are sufficiently independent to push Richards past the notability line. I suggest further discussion about whether such publications are notable when talking about LDS people generally, perhaps at WP:RS. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:39, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kent F. Richards

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

Doesn't have any sourcing that is independently notable of the topic. He's a Mormon leader who's only sourcing comes from the Mormon church. Some claim that any high-ranking church leader is automatically notable, but that is not supported by any policy or guideline. p b p 17:57, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:32, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:32, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:32, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Leaning towards "delete", but I'm not sure whether or not the Deseret News is an independent source or not. Yes, it's owned by the LDS Church, but does that mean it's an LDS publication? We'd cite most other mainstream newspapers when writing about their own owners, no? Relentlessly (talk) 20:14, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's a tough issue. I think that when one thinks about independence, there is such a thing as a single source being "not independent" but also being "not not independent" simultaneously: I guess we could call it "quasi-independent". The Deseret News is owned by the LDS Church, but is editorially independent of the church's religious leadership. The LDS Church does not directly control content, but the paper's editorial positions are consistently in line with LDS religious teachings. Arguments can be made on either side of the independent source issue, so I think it's probably valid to regard it as being kind of in a middle region. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:50, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails notability guidelines, no significant reliable coverage outside Mormon Church-related sources. Cavarrone 05:13, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep although I may be biased as the creator of the page. Some papers: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=richards+kf with http://proceedings.spiedigitallibrary.org/proceeding.aspx?articleid=958222 for further information. The Deseret News, as noted previously, is editorially independent and there aren't really many state-wide choices in Utah as far as newspapers go -- most newspapers are local-only. He's a member of one of the governing members of a 15-million-member church, and I think that situation should be analogous to the List of living cardinals. Some claim that any high-ranking member of a notable church is not notable by virtue of that alone but that is not supported by any policy or guideline. Other things about him are listed in the article. However, I could see the case being made that he's only in the "Second Quorum" and not the "First Quorum". Oh, there's also that book he put together: http://www.amazon.com/Family-Faith-Intimate-Generations-Apostles/dp/1609073940 Banaticus (talk) 22:11, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think a book Richards wrote is admissible per WP:PRIMARYSOURCE. I don't really see the connect between the Catholic Church and Mormonism either, as the Catholic church is two orders of magnitude larger. If you believe all general authorities are automatically notable, propose that that be enacted in one of the specific guidelines on notability. At present, there's not a policy or guideline backing up the assertion that all general authorities are notable. p b p 23:11, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Books written or edited contribute to notability (except self-published ones, unless they are the rare case of a a self-published work that becomes notable). Of course, the more notable the book, the more it contributes to notability. In this case, the fact that it is published by a sectarian house limits notability, as does the fact that it has been reviewed only on mormon blogs and - surprise! - in Deseret News. Still, it's a real book so it does contribute its mite to notability. It belongs on the page. I added it. And then there is the fact that the book is about an ancestor and two relatives all named Richards. Despite WP:NOTINHERITED, in the real worlds notability can be inherited in the sense that the name resonates: young politicians related to President Kennedy, writers (Jack Hemingway, Leicester Hemingway, Lorian Hemingway) related to and named Hemingway who have careers they might not have earned if named Smith. Richards seems to be that sort of name in LDS. I suspect this of being a sort of Mormon campaign book.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:18, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think all general authorities are automatically notable. For instance, I mentioned that he is only in the second quorum of the seventy, not the first. :) Banaticus (talk) 22:56, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The sources like the Deseret News are independent. The sources are adequate and demonstrate Richards notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:32, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I've though a lot about this issue in light of past discussions and have carefully considered both sides. I think there are valid points to be made on either side. However, I have to agree that as far as notability is concerned—for LDS Church general authorities who do not hold life tenure, this can only be established by independent sources. If the Deseret News is as close as we can get to non–LDS Church independent sourcing (and I think it's in a category of quasi-independence from the LDS Church), then I'm afraid it is simply not enough. There has no be at least some coverage in a source that is completely independent from the LDS Church. I can't find any in this case. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:25, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

added an article, it' brief but biographical. I think the Daily Herald (Utah) is a for-profit, albeit small paper, owned by Lee Enterprises. Also, he has a book out, from Deseret Book Company, Mormorm publishing house, church owned publishing houses can be selective. I have no idea if this one is.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:56, 17 March 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 13:11, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep his role as a church leader aside, he was chief of surgery at a major medical center.[40] ~~I suspect that a section on his medical career could be sources and would help establish notability.~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by E.M.Gregory (talk • contribs) 15:17, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Article I just added from the Daily Herald is brief, but the paper appears to be independently owned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by E.M.Gregory (talk • contribs)

He set medical career (both as surgeon and as administrator) aside to answer a call from the church, see my comments (fascinating) below.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:40, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But the sources User:Banaticus brought add to the fact of being Chair of surgery to demonstrate that he has considerable stature as a physician in a major university medical center.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=richards+kf with http://proceedings.spiedigitallibrary.org/proceeding.aspx?articleid=958222 E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:50, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Articles ABOUT Kent F. Richards could help to assess notability, but articles written BY Kent F. Richards himself (as the one from ncbi you linked above) certainly not. Being a chief of surgery does not provide automatic notability, and in my searches I cannot found any evidence his medical career is somewhat notable. Cavarrone 17:40, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't add it to article, it's an article he wrote in a medical journal, brought it here to make the point that someone who knows how medical careers work could probably source a brief section about his professional career, Chairman of the Department of Surgery at a major medical center is not a minor achievement.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:23, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Being chairman of a medical department could even be a good achievement in real life, but says nothing in terms of encyclopedic notability, except there are secondary sources covering his professional career (apparently not). Cavarrone 20:09, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is cumulative. It lies to some degree in his publication record in medical journals, in his appointment as Chair, and in his management role at Intermountain HealthCare. These are added to a published book, and, most significantly, to his clerical eminence. This happens all the time with academics, minor scholar, not notable. But minor scholar + minor political activist = notable. We add it all up because the sum is often greater than the parts. E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:09, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, our guidelines do not support your interpretations. A non-notable medical career + non-notable management roles = non-notable individual. Notability lies on independent secondary sources, and sources do not support your claims he was ever notable as a doctor nor as a chairman of a medical department. Cavarrone 19:07, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but I cannot dismiss being Chairman of the Department of Surgery at a large teaching hospital, or a physician being selected to sit on the Board of Directors of a major medical center as a null indicator.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:18, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is an inherent problem with articles about people and doings in Salt Lake City. In other cities the local radio, TV stations, and newspaper are reliable sources. Articles in them establish notability. Consider the South Bend Tribune or the The News & Observer, or The News-Gazette (Champaign-Urbana). we regard coverage in these newspaper as reliable, even though Notre Dame, Duke, UNC the University of Illinois are the biggest, in some sense the only significant institutions in these towns (OK, I concede that the News & Observer covers the state capitol, but still) and the relationship between paper and university is symbiotic, bordering on sycophantic. Although, of course, they are independently owned. Deseret is a major newspaper and covers a lot of ordinary local sports, business and news. It is a special case and, I think, should rightly count somewhat more towards notability than a mere house organ like the Harvard Gazette or a Diocesan magazines, although these can be cited for facts. The Gazette, to pick on an example I know well, or Harvard Magazine exist solely for self-promotion of the university. But a profile in Harvard Magazine is often cited as though it was an independent magazine. Like Deseret, the Harvard Gazette, and Harvard Magazine have a paid staff, even well-paid, and a degree of editorial independence, despite their mission of self-promotion. So, I do think that profiles in Deseret attest to notability. I have sourced facts about Richards sources to independent, for-profit papers, Idaho State Journal, Standard-Examiner, Sun-Sentinel, Daily Herald (Utah). But in the matter of notability, long articles focused on him in Deseret should be regarded like an article about a university administrator in the The News-Gazette (Champaign-Urbana). It shows that the individual is a big deal in South Bend, it shows this more strongly than the Illinois Alumni Magazine, but less persuasively than an article in the Chicago Tribune, which , itself , is less persuasive than a profile in the Washington Post (In terms of supporting notability for people and events in Illinois). As [[User talk:Good Olfactory says, we really have to treat Deseret as a special case, in articles about LDS. Deseret covers LDS not only because it is church owned, but because church members read it. Almost like WSJ covering capital markets; they don't do it merely because they are capitalists, but because their readers are. E.M.Gregory (talk)E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:09, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

fascinating I've been keeping this file open and returning to this man and his career, getting an education in LDS. I've expanded the article a little (mostly I've sourced it). What I hadn't known is that he put his medical career on hold for 7 years to take a full time "mission" (read: LDS regional management job) in San Antonio. Then stepped away permanently form his medical practice and career as vice president of a very major health care corporation in 2009, to become a Mormon church official. But only in the last few months has he risen to the level of job where he now flies around to open new Mormon temples, and gives devotional speeches to huge audience that get covered in detail in the press (OK - Deseret News) [41]. I am now firmly convinced that: KEEP, partly because it is now clear to me that, for Mormon leader, he's early career. (I love the part in one of the articles where in 2008 his wife - already a grandmother - was on the board of an Mormon outfit called the "Young Women's"... something. I don't mean disrespect. au contraire both husband and wife are in serious leadership roles in the Mormon world. What I want to point out is that Richard's career in church leadership appears to still be on the rise. It always seems wasteful to me to delete article on early career individuals where there is solid sourcing and a plausible case for notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:25, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

summing up Here's what I mean, when you organize a news search on his name by date [42], you see that all of a sudden he's the guy issuing major statements on church policy changes, and keynoting big deal events [43], [44], [45]. Overwhelmingly Deseret News, but big deal stuff within the Mormon world, and the Mormon world is a big world to be a mover and a shaker within. E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:50, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If he was significant, there would be more reliable sources about him. p b p 22:55, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was deleted as G3 speedy by RHaworth (G3: Blatant hoax). Housekeeping closure. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 13:22, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bodhi stones

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

No info found about any Bodhi stone from the Mahabharata. Seems to be a candidate for one of the oldest hoaxes on wikipedia. This article is the only contribution by the creator. PS: there are some Buddhist Bodhi stones, which are unrelated to claims in this article. Redtigerxyz ^Talk 13:10, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete Having searched this several ways I'm not coming up with any positive hits that are not exact reproductions of our text. Mangoe (talk) 13:52, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't escape the same conclusion. There is a Bodhi Stone, an actual artifact at Bodh Gaya with a Harappan carving. But that's clearly not what this article is purportedly about (and isn't notable, I don't think). The Mahabharata is, needless to say, very well studied, and none of the analyses I have rapid access to seem to make any mention of "Bodhi stones", or anything fitting this description. I do find a commercial massage company that uses this as the backstory for stone massage, but given the age of this content, I'm unable to discern if this was added to Wikipedia as stealth-advertising, or if the company adopted the Wikipedia material to their business in good faith. Either way, barring convincing sources to the contrary, the outcome's the same. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 14:01, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. I have found no reliable sources and such stones "exist" as "stones" used for massage therapy. One Google hit appeared to be a Wikipedia fork. The Snowager-is sleeping 21:29, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as no evidence of notability, Fails GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 23:20, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - per nom. Fails GNG. -- Orduin ^Discuss 00:14, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and add to list of hoaxes Only 'evidence' is unreliable and probably taken from here - or the massage connection (which I didn't investigate). Not a blatant hoax for me - those don't take delving into several pages of ghits. Peridon (talk) 13:02, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's no non-mirror evidence for the involvement of Kunz either, and how you could have 'historical occurrences' of something made out a myth I don't quite understand. Those massaging stones look a bit like the wooden things used in the West for darning - usually known as mushrooms. Peridon (talk) 13:12, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above deletion debate is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was delete. Nakon 05:00, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lineillism

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

There are WP:EXTRAORDINARY claims in this article, comparing this guy to the impressionists, but I can't find any sources on "Lineillism" that seem to be authoritative on art. There seem to be a couple of bits in local newspapers, but I don't think that's enough to establish a new artistic movement-or enough notability for an article. Geogene (talk) 02:10, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – There was this review of the show on a local radio station. But two reviews of a show by local media is not enough to pass WP:NARTIST. The claim would have to be that "Lineillism" is significant, and that isn't shown. ¶ The story about vision impairment and vertical lines was interesting. It might be possible to merge that somewhere, but I don't know exactly where. – Margin1522 (talk) 06:39, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That radio piece isn't independent. I Googled the name of the person that did the piece for the station, and it pulled up the Twitter feed of a publicist based in Cincinnati that represents artists. The same publicist's name appears at the end of announcement for this artist in the Cincinnati Enquirer. So, how much of the rest of what little coverage we do find is astroturf? Geogene (talk) 23:21, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I question the qualifications of any critic on here to question a media outlet's worth. Just because they are not in New York or Los Angeles doesn't make them not credible. Much like establishing a copyright, Jim Hall followed standard procedures: he staged an extensive show in a legitimate gallery that was covered by the media and looked at by critics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.49.183.49 (talk) 21:18, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If a media outlet is being paid to write about something, it's worth nothing. Geogene (talk) 23:30, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And that glowing review that's the centerpiece of the article? Look at this: [46]. Art critic? No--corporate PR professional. This article is toast. Geogene (talk) 23:33, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ⨹ 13:09, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Local radio coverage is insufficient to establish notability. The excerpted review is not independent, and not from a reliable source (indeed, as noted above, it's a corporate PR piece). At this point, AFD will grind onward, but I would honestly have considered this a candidate for deletion as G11 unambiguous promotion. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 14:14, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Nakon 04:59, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Sung-kyung

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

Person fails general notability guidelines. She has not debuted yet as a singer, and has had only a couple of tiny roles in TV/movies/music videos. Only one reliable, independent source is used in the article. It's hard to find information on her in Korean because there is another person more famous than her who has the same name. Only super-hardcore SM Entertainment fans know or care who she is, at this point. (She's 12 years old.) Way WP:TOO SOON. Shinyang-i (talk) 03:30, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Shinyang-i (talk) 03:31, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:OUTCOMES - we almost always delete articles about marginally famous or non-notable child actors. Bearian (talk) 20:29, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ⨹ 13:09, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nakon 04:58, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Aligarh (film)

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

The film is unreleased and does meet WP:NFF, the original editor deleted the WP:PROD but did not address the fact that the film is in production Walkabout14 (talk) 04:59, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

it should read ".. does not meet WP:NFF" Walkabout14 (talk) 05:01, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Rahat (Message) 16:09, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Rahat (Message) 16:10, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect temporarily to director Hansal Mehta where his project-being-filmed may be written of and sourced. It already has coverage,[47][48][49] but not quite enough coverage to meet WP:NFF (paragraph 3). Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 18:02, 4 March 2015 (UTC) Struck my delete. WP:NFF (paragraph 3) is shown as being met. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 02:33, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as filming is confirmed and topic has the coverage to meet WP:NFF (paragraph 3). My thanks to the due diligence of Redtigerxyz. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 02:33, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JodyB_talk 13:06, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep [50] principal photography has begun. So meets NFF. [51] Has significant coverage, especially related to the first look recently. News coverage before commencement of shooting also exist. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 13:36, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Esquivalience ^t 00:44, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Twilight fandom

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

No evidence that there is anything resembling an actual organized fandom, as compared to the fandoms of everything from Firefly to Insane Clown Posse. A mere nickname does not constitute a fandom. Even the "convention" was apparently an ad-hoc commercial show put on to extract money from suckers. Orange Mike | Talk 12:12, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral/Rename - I know very little about the subject matter at hand (nor do I want to know, for the record), but I would point out that the term "Twihard" (i.e. a die-hard Twilight fan) seems to have a reasonable amount of coverage in R.S. Perhaps this would be a rename? NickCT (talk) 12:23, 12 March 2015 (UTC) P.S. Go team Edward. [reply]
Weak keep with 50 Shades the news we've certainly been hearing a lot about Twilight fandom and the Twilight fanfic community lately, so I assume it can be expanded, but the actual article here seems very weak. Artw (talk) 14:42, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The idea that the fandom for Twilight is insignificant is absurd. I have just added a couple of books about the phenomenon to the page and there's plenty more material out there. Andrew D. (talk) 19:05, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I think that the article should be kept, as the topic is probably notable, although it clearly requires cleanup and expansion. BenLinus 1214^talk 23:31, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There are fans of movies, songs, actors everywhere so I'm failing to understand what makes this one so special ?, Personally I see no harm with perhaps merging in to Twilight. –Davey2010^Talk 03:55, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Well seeing as we have Star Trek fandom I guess there's no harm in having a Twilight fan thing, Meh I'm not overly convinced on keeping but I'll go with the rest here .... –Davey2010^Talk 03:58, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep and rename Twihards per THIS decent source and many others that show this topic of Twilight fandom as meeting inclusion criteria. Sorry Davey2010... sorry Orange Mike... a properly sourced fan or cult following is a decent criteria of notability. Article can benefit from expansion and development. [52][53][54] Organized as some "official" fan club or not, the series having fans is a global phenomena. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 06:37, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There's really no difference between this and Star Trek fandom except how long they've been around. And that this happens to be dominated by young females. But I think the current title should be kept since "Twihard" is hardly well-known outside the movement itself. Even the far more well-known "Trekkies" isn't used as an actual article title. Peter ^Isotalo 20:55, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Question to Orange Mike: You've edited some pretty darned specific fandom articles like Browncoat and GAFIA. Would you honestly say that either of those are more notable? Peter ^Isotalo 21:17, 13 March 2015 (UTC)--[reply]
  - Reply to very reasonable question - Browncoats are much more heavily documented, and more organized, as well as being responsible in large part for the very existence of Serenity the film. They are active in ways that Twihards are not, and have thus become more notable to the mundane world. GAFIA is a more marginal case, tipping (barely) over the line from dictionary entry primarily because it has been used in the titles of science fiction fanzines by three notable figures of the field, has spawned derivative terms, and was used extensively in a commercially-published novel by some highly notable writers, which sold well. --Orange Mike | Talk 03:42, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - It seems that your core argument is that there is "less documentation" of this than the classic sci-fi fandoms. I personally doubt that Twilight fans actually are "less organized", but even if they are, notability for fandom topics isn't dictated by sci-fi fans. They might have been around longer and have seen more exposure, but they certainly don't dictate notability criteria.. In sheer numbers, Twilight fandom is most likely comparable to Beatlesmania. With all of that in mind, and the clear consensus against deletion that seems to be building, I think you should consider withdrawing the AfD. Peter ^Isotalo 11:52, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's an actual fandom with a significant female fanbase. Not sure why this isn't as important as the ~~Star Wars~~ Star Trek one per Peter Isotalo. Aside from the policy-based arguments, personal experience and research on Fanfiction.Net finds it the fandom with the second-largest amount of fanfiction written, just behind Harry Potter. I don't see how it's non-notable. Twilight clearly is a popular series, how does it not have fans?— kikichugirl ^oh hello! 00:06, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Peter and Kikichugirl above (@Kikichugirl: Star Treak, Star Wars...different things :P). There is a huge fanbase for this and the sources exists. I see no reason why not to keep it. P.S. Go team BELLA. Bella! You don't need a man! (t) Josve05a (c) 10:22, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Wikipedia catalogs a lot of pointless pop culture fluff once it reaches the mainstream, and fan communities are one example. Although older fan communities are more established and have the weight of scholarly investigation, there's still a ton of hits for "twihard" on Google News, including this article from The Hollywood Reporter about how a parody resulted in legal action. It has obviously become a serious topic in reliable sources. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:37, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Peter and others. By the way, Twihard has been a redirect to it since 2013. --do ncr am 23:00, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable, although I am against a rename per WP:NPOV. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:15, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect to Ivanuku Thannila Gandam, an article about the same film under the most correct name. (non-admin closure) Cavarrone 06:21, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thannila Kandam

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

Subject of the article fails WP:GNG and no evidence of passing WP:NFILM. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 11:10, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment On my search I found these articles from Reliable sources mentioning the film under its title "Ivanuku Thannila Kandam" not what the article is currently is called so a name change maybe in order: [[55]], [[56]] (confirms it was in post production as of October 2014), and [[57]). It's releasing tomorrow from what I searched so coverage is only going to increase in terms of reviews etc. Cowlibob (talk) 20:47, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

WP:INDAFD: Ivanuku Thannila Kandam Ivanuku Thannila Kandam

Keep and move to proper name. We have a completed film with plenty of coverage. Sad that the nom's searches failed him, as WP:NFF was met when nominated, and WP:NF is met now. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 08:57, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I did another search. There is already an article for this film under its proper name: Ivanuku Thannila Gandam. This can be closed as redirect to it as well as ensuring the useful relevant info is moved over which I'm in the process of doing. Cowlibob (talk) 11:40, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay I've done up the main article so should be safe now to convert this to redirect as a plausible search term. Cowlibob (talk) 12:45, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No objection. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 12:55, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 19:41, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stitches (rapper)

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

Not notable. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 10:35, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 March 12. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:59, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are a few possibly marginally-acceptable sources on this guy, but most of them either repeat his implausible claims of drug-dealing etc which we clearly can't include, or simply express doubt about them. There is very little of actual substance regarding his music (and nothing to establish that he meets WP:MUSICBIO) - accordingly, we lack the in depth coverage in reliable sources necessary to establish notability, and to actually write a meaningful biography of a performer who appears to be more of a self-publicist than anything of more enduring significance. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:36, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to lack of sources to accommodate this WP:BLP article. Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 18:38, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have found nothing to indicate that this person is notable as required by WP:GNG. Mattg82 (talk) 18:16, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Per CSD G12. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 13:26, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Culture and Activities at University of Dhaka

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

As per WP:NOTGUIDE. Purely a guide for students and no encyclopedic value. LibStar (talk) 09:41, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:42, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:42, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Quite aside from it's questionable notability, much of the original text has been copied verbatim from here: http://www.du.ac.bd/tsc.php and here http://www.du.ac.bd/art_culture.php Dtellett (talk) 12:16, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I've tagged the article for speedy deletion under G11. Pishcal — ♣ 17:02, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy per all the above. –Davey2010^Talk 23:22, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as copyright violation and WP:NOTGUIDE.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:56, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 19:41, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Riddle Diaries

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

Prod removed by creator without comment, who also removed a notability tag. My concern is that there is no evidence that this exists or meets GNG. No WP:RS Gbawden (talk) 06:49, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:06, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Someone's created a WP article for their 9-day-old blog. No indication of importance on the page, the blog, or elsewhere to be found (there are some unrelated hits for Harry Potter fan fiction, etc.) Could've been speedied as A7. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 23:50, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Rock On!!#Sequel . No objections to anyone reverting me providing the filming's begun and there's sources to back it up. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 02:46, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rock On 2

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

Per WP:NFF: "Films that have not ... commenced principal photography should not have their own articles". The article was deprodded by an IP editor who also added to the article an assertion that principal photography has started but the reference provided in fact confirms that it has not. RichardOSmith (talk) 06:21, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Rock On!!#Sequel. Chander 15:12, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- That's a good proposal. RichardOSmith (talk)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:48, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:48, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Redirect temporarily to and expand and source at Rock On!!#Sequel until filming has been confirmed. The project is getting enough coverage to meet WP:NFF (paragraph 3) once we know it is filming. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 23:03, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nakon 04:57, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

F2c (disambiguation)

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

The second entry violates the principle (stated in WP:DDD) "Don't include entries without a blue link." Remove this entry and there is no need for a DP. ubiquity (talk) 20:06, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It now has two other links which do lead to articles. Always worth checking for other potential links when you find a short dab page. Ϣere SpielChequers 15:37, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:31, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:16, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep "F2C"s are mentioned in all links. The only question I have is why the f2c program is put as the primary topic in this group and not Factory-to-consumer. But that's for further tune up and not AfD. 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 11:02, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Nakon 04:57, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Abul Irfan

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

I cannot find sources that indicate the notability of this person. Sammy1339 (talk) 03:12, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 03:22, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:51, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:51, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:10, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Typical of this OR-fest: "...But could not satisfy his soul, he resigned his job and started writing Islamic literature..." At this point it's a safe bet that anything అహ్మద్_నిసార్ touches is AfD-worthy. Pax 06:58, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Nakon 04:56, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Syed Naseer Ahamed

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

Appears to fail notability guidelines, and totally lacks references. Sammy1339 (talk) 03:06, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 03:54, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:50, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:50, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:50, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment He has book reviews: [58], [59] and [60]. I haven't added them to the article because I was not sure if they are RS. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 17:41, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:10, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Another jihad-lauding niche writer with fans putting cruft on Wikipedia. Insufficient (if any) RS. Pax 06:54, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination, due to lack of coverage by reliable publications/sources. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 18:39, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom fails WP:GNG lacks reliable references.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 10:20, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Nakon 04:55, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Habeebur Rahman Bijli

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

There is no indication of the significance of this individual other than the consistent praise. Sammy1339 (talk) 03:02, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:48, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:48, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:48, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:48, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:08, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:Author, and nothing else he's doing meets GNG. Pax 07:04, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Self-closing as a de facto expired WP:PROD given the circumstances. If there's disagreement, anyone's obviously free to speedily restore it themselves or drop a line at WP:UNDELETE. slakr^\ talk / 00:45, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gonzalo Manuel Gómez y Martínez de Escobar

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

Originally came from a declined WP:REVDEL request for inaccurate information and dubious copyright status of the picture. Family requests deletion, and evidence (or rather, lack thereof) suggests the subject likely fails WP:BIO. That said, I don't speak Spanish, so I, personally, have no idea. Cheers. slakr^\ talk / 01:34, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:43, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:43, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:07, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The article needs to be expanded, but its about a real place and the problems listed by the nominator have been remedied. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:52, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mekavaripalem

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

If this is a location, it is an unreferenced WP:NOTESSAY/WP:OR. Would need a dose of WP:TNT to make it encyclopedic. ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 04:54, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Keep. Incoherent to the point of being patent-nonsense (and so tagged). Also suspect a misspelled Makavarapalem (thereby solidifying opposition to this article). Pax 07:16, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum. I trashed the entirely of the rambling OR, and the article is now a single sentence asserting a town in India. Pax 10:17, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment ~~While it could be a mispelled Makavarapalem~~, Google Maps seems to recognize each as distinct locations, 150km apart. The region identified as 'Mekavaripalem' looks from aerial/satellite imagery to actually be a town.--Robin Thayler (talk) 10:45, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Makavarapalem is in the Visakhapatnam district, Mekavaripalem is in the Krishna district. The article has colorful and potentially encyclopedic content, but needs to be completely rewritten. Until then, stub seems the best compromise.--Robin Thayler (talk) 10:57, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Needs all the unencyclopedic junk removed. Will start on that now. — Bill W. (Talk) (Contrib) (User:Wtwilson3) — 12:30, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:58, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Deleted (G5) by JohnCD. –Davey2010^Talk 13:43, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shanky Gupta

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

Article is written by Shanky Gupta himself, resulting in an obvious COI. To classify as a legitimate wikipedia article, it would require quite a fundamental rewrite. I also would like to see a bit more information regarding notability, as the COI results in a slanted bias Carwile2 ^{*Shoot me a message*} 03:07, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. All ten sources are useless (and most of them are clones). Pax 07:24, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Vnipl. Dai Pritchard (talk) 08:04, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Nakon 04:54, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Academic dress of University of Newcastle (Australia)

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

I don't see how this meets WP:NOTABILITY at all, but I see that there are similar articles on a few other universities (only a fraction of the universities in the world though). Boleyn (talk) 08:49, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 23:25, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've noticed a few of these 'academic dress' articles popping up recently - Google can currently see 20 to 30 of them. Is it possible to consider them as a group and decide whether or not they are appropriate content? If they are dealt with one-by-one, it's likely that more will keep appearing on the basis that 'Wikipedia has them for other universities'. Helenabella (Talk) 07:52, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Since nobody has voted yet, I don't see why those that don't demonstrate notability can't be added to this nomination. There are quite a few articles in Category:Academic dress by institution that seem to demonstrate notability. --AussieLegend (✉) 12:39, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 02:11, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this article, which clearly fails to demonstrate notability of the subject. --AussieLegend (✉) 11:43, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
delete of zero interest or encyclopedic value to anyone outside the university. LibStar (talk) 13:39, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Esquivalience ^t 03:35, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of Phi Eta Sigma chapters

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

A list of chapters that does not contain a single link to a chapter (as far as I checked) The Banner talk 14:29, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 17:54, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - appears to be a typical list. I am confused by the deletion reason; there appear to be multiple such links. VMS Mosaic (talk) 02:19, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- For a useful list there should be links to Wikipedia articles. Not external links. The Banner talk 09:56, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Strong Keep: There are links to all the universities and their respective locations. In terms of links to the chapters, fraternity/greek letter organization chapters virtually never have independent Wikipedia articles, so I don't know why this would be different. Look at List of Zeta Psi chapters or List of Sigma Phi Epsilon chapters for reference. Upjav (talk) 22:22, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - The main difference is that those articles give a list of chapters with the university where they are located. This article is a list of universities with some external links. The Banner talk 00:13, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:58, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the fact that the individual chapters don't have articles is not a valid deletion reason. Tavix | Talk 21:34, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Why? Making a list not mentioning the intended subject is not by far useful. The Banner talk 22:18, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The intended subject is "Phi Eta Sigma chapters." It does list all of the chapters of Phi Eta Sigma by including the university, location, and date founded. That is useful. Tavix | Talk 23:14, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The confusion may be that there's no specified chapter name unlike in, say, Zeta Psi, where each university is given a chapter name such as Omega or Omicron. According to the external link on the page to the fraternity's official website's list of chapters, it seems like they just refer to each chapter by its affiliated university (e.g. The University of Alabama Chapter), which would mean that this is complete as-is as far as I can tell. Upjav (talk) 16:57, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Gilbert Ling. I would like to commend PaulGWiki on his efforts to keep this article intact. Much work has been done and it is without a doubt in my mind that in deleting this article, some useful knowledge will be lost to the English Wikipedia and its readers. That being said, there is clearly a strong argument from the delete camp that cites a number of fundamental problems that surround the complex issues of scientific articles that deal in alternate theories. Especially ones that are against the popular scientific convention of the time. This article and its content were very difficult to verify. Not only does it reference esoteric content, but also publications that would not be widely available to the general public. In what was a difficult and possibly a contentious decision, I had to examine the points of the discussion against what was available at the article in its current state. I found that for the key statements and claims made in the article, almost 8 of out 10 times directly referenced material published by the theories creator, Gilbert Ling, including much of the criticisms section. The issues of WP:FRINGE, WP:PRIMARY, WP:OVERREF, and WP:BURDEN were not addressed or countered strongly enough (though valiantly and verbosely) to offset the concerns of the wider community. There were also off-wiki canvassing concerns as multiple single purpose editors weighed in. Mkdw ^talk 21:07, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Association induction hypothesis

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

In short : WP:FRINGE. To establish otherwise, please do not cite numerous sources, but only a couple of them, which you have checked to be relevant.

I came here via Category:Science_articles_needing_expert_attention. Although I am not working in the field, the article and its talk page raises multiple red flags for WP:FRINGE:

One person doing the bulk of the editing, and contesting content disputes (on the talk page, saying that a source from the Economist should be dismissed).
A very, very, very bad case of WP:OVERREF, in the article but also in the talk page. Note that the sources are merely cited, not discussed - there might be, in the bulk, something about the mating behavior of beavers, that I would not have noticed it.
Extraordinary claims that would need extraordinary proof: "Water and ions in cells exist in a different physical state than in a dilute water solution", wow! Or, in a related note, statements that are not even wrong, as "Although much extracellular sodium ion and water molecules diffuse in and out of the cell, no energy is required for the exchange." (diffusion does not require "energy" - is that talking about ATP generation or what?).

It seems, from my reading of a few of the references, that some simply have nothing to do with the subject. Tigraan (talk) 14:53, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete per Tigraan. This definitely has all the hallmarks of fringe science, but may *just barely* rise to the level of notable fringe science. I don't quite see it, however, and even if it is kept, needs to be heavily rewritten to make clear that these are fringe theories. PianoDan (talk) 20:19, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Fringe or valid alternative hypothesis? What are the criteria to decide?--94.53.199.249 (talk) 20:19, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is a very clear case of WP:FRINGE. Although the quantity is impressive, the exposition describes one outlandish idea after the other, the most clearly wrong of which is this one: "Although much extracellular sodium ion and water molecules diffuse in and out of the cell, no energy is required for the exchange. In theory, the cell could hold these asymmetrical concentrations forever without using energy." ~~In my view,~~ violations of the second law of thermodynamics ~~should~~ do automatically qualify anything for FRINGE per an explicit example in WP:FRINGE/PS. I should also add that I have found no sources that would qualify this for WP:NFRINGE, but given the amount that has been written about the subject by its primary proponent, I would not be surprised if such sources existed. Even if they did, though, the article that could be written on this subject would be vastly different from the present one, which promotes the theory. --Sammy1339 (talk) 03:33, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Technically, each of those sentences taken separately is not a violation of the Second law, and they could be read not to imply one: a solid wall would allow to "hold" assymmetric concentration on each side with no energy, "in theory", even if in practice there is exchange through the membrane and this is not possible to have a cycle. Hence my call on not even wrong: it is written so obscurely that it could be wrong and stupid or trivial and uninteresting, and choosing between the two is up to the reader's choice. Tigraan (talk) 13:23, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable WP:FRINGE. -- 120.17.113.201 (talk) 04:39, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is long and densely referenced and completely incoherent. Clearly fringe; author seems to be an SPA. (Related article Gilbert Ling badly needs a cleanup - despite its length I'm not convinced he's notable either.) It's too bad that being reasonably well-formatted at first glance seems to have allowed this article to survive this long. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:43, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as notable WP:FRINGE. With regards Fringe Theory Notability as described below I thought I have already addressed the same issues raised above in the Articles Talk page, in particular http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Association_induction_hypothesis#Comments_Relating_to_reverts_from_Red_Pen_of_doom. Please read the extended content carefully and come back with what I am failing to show.

policy quote collapsed by Tigraan

For a fringe theory to be considered notable it is not sufficient that it has been discussed, positively or negatively, by groups or individuals – even if those groups are notable enough for a Wikipedia article themselves. To be notable, a topic must receive significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Otherwise it is not notable enough for a dedicated article in Wikipedia. A fringe subject (a fringe theory, organization or aspect of a fringe theory) is considered notable enough for a dedicated article if it has been referenced extensively, and in a serious and reliable manner, by major publications that are independent of their promulgators and popularizers. References that debunk or disparage the fringe view can be adequate, as they establish the notability of the theory outside of its group of adherents. References that are employed because of the notability of a related subject – such as the creator of a theory – should be given far less weight when deciding on notability. Due consideration should be given to the fact that reputable news sources often cover less than strictly notable topics in a lighthearted fashion, such as on April Fool's Day, as "News of the Weird", or during "slow news days" (see junk food news and silly season)."

I would characterize the AIH as an Alternative theoretical theory of how the cell works, yes it is fringe but nonetheless the only complete and scientifically reasoned alternative that has reliable third-party sources and significant independent coverage or recognition from reliable and recognized peer reviewed publications or credible and authoritative books and is therefore notable.

policy quote collapsed by Tigraan

From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Fringe_theories#Pseudoscience_and_other_fringe_theories

"Alternative theoretical formulations from within the scientific community are not pseudoscience, but part of the scientific process. They should not be classified as pseudoscience but should still be put into context with respect to the mainstream perspective. Such theoretical formulations may fail to explain some aspect of reality, but, should they succeed in doing so, will usually be rapidly accepted. For instance, continental drift was heavily criticized because there was no known mechanism for continents to move and the proposed mechanisms were implausible. When a mechanism was discovered through plate tectonics, it became mainstream. In other cases an alternative theoretical formulation lacks significant evidence to show its validity, but when such evidence is produced, the theory can become mainstream. Such examples of this are the existence of Troy,[4][5] heliocentrism,[6] the Norse colonization of the Americas, and Big Bang Theory[7]

To determine whether something is pseudoscientific or merely an alternative theoretical formulation, consider this: Alternative theoretical formulations generally tweak things on the frontiers of science, or deal with strong, puzzling evidence—which is difficult to explain away—in an effort to create a model that better explains reality. Pseudoscience generally proposes changes in the basic laws of nature to allow some phenomenon which the supporters want to believe occurs, but lack the strong scientific evidence or rigour that would justify such major changes. Pseudoscience usually relies on attacking mainstream scientific theories and methodology while lacking a critical discourse itself (as is common among Biblical creationists), relies on weak evidence such as anecdotal evidence or weak statistical evidence (as for example in parapsychology), or indulges a suspect theoretical premise (such as the claims of water memory made by advocates of homeopathy)."

PaulGWiki (talk) 10:14, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@PaulGWiki: As the creator of the page, you did provide many references, which is part of the problem. I do not think anyone else than you is going to read them all (if you did), and many of them are simply irrelevant, which I stated in this AfD. Please read WP:BOMBARD carefully, it is not long, and it is the problem I ask you to address.

Could you give one, two or maybe three references that establish notability of the theory? Not more. If possible, discuss those sources in less than 200 words.

Of course you are under no obligation to do that. However, if you did and were able to demonstrate notability under those space constraints, I would withdraw my nomination. It does not mean other sources would be useless or should be taken off the article; it would mean that there is significant coverage in reliable sources etc.

Now, since you brought up the question of whether this is scientific fringe (e.g. volcanic death of dinosaurs) or pseudoscience (e.g. motors that "turn water into water with positive energy output", from another Wikipedian's formulation in a talk page), I do think this article "indulges a suspect theoretical premise" as well as "proposes changes in the basic laws of nature (...) but lack the strong scientific evidence or rigour that would justify such major changes". See above Sammy1339's comment.

I collapsed your quotes from policy to shorten the page. Feel free to remove the collapse-top and collapse-bottom templates if you do not like it.

Tigraan (talk) 13:23, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As a Neurosurgeon, Ling work was critical in formation of the original MRI machine from the Fonar Company and Ray Damadian. Moreover, the basis of all of Gerald Pollack's work on water chemistry comes from Ling's work and is an extension of it. I cannot fathom where we might be in neurosurgery if Ling's work was openly discussed. The man has changed the trajectory of neurosurgery with his work on imaging. 67.142.96.10 (talk) 13:06, 5 March 2015 (UTC)Jack Kruse — 67.142.96.10 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

It may be so, but so is any claim that is not in direct contradiction with the laws of logic and physics. Where is the proof? Feel free to be WP:BOLD and edit the article. Tigraan (talk) 13:23, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It may deserve to be noted that the main reason this theory has been published in scientific journals is that Ling is the editor-in-chief of this one: [61], and has extensively published there, as well as accepted submissions from other investigators of this theory. --Sammy1339 (talk) 23:57, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Gilbert Ling. This theory doesn't seem to have any traction among other researchers; it's nearly uniquely associated with Dr. Ling. There's already a reasonably sized discussion of the theory in Dr. Ling's article, and there's insufficient independent coverage of this fringe theory to justify a separate article. Pburka (talk) 01:29, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nonsense. We are an encyclopedia, not a web host for every failed theory. Bearian (talk) 18:49, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it is clearly fringe and nonsense. Per arguments by Bearian, Opabinia regalis, and Tigraan --MadScientistX11 (talk) 00:22, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What are the objective criteria for labeling it clearly fringe and nonsense?--94.53.199.249 (talk) 20:14, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

see the various comments and articles sighted by the editors I mentioned. I think they make it very clear what the criteria are and why this article clearly meets them. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 22:27, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:57, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not really sure this was worth re-listing. We need more reliable sources and more significant coverage, not simply more "sources". St★lwart¹¹¹ 08:04, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is no harm re-listing, it allows more people, more time to comment and make improvement. Jonpatterns (talk) 10:01, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely right - no harm at all. Just don't like the idea of dragging a deletion discussion out and delaying the inevitable. St★lwart¹¹¹ 10:10, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or at most *Redirect - no reason to delete per my two comments above.--94.53.199.249 (talk) 20:23, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
delete or redirect to Gilbert Ling and then seriously go about cleaning up the Ling article. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:03, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an unnecessarily extended and non-neutral treatment of a minor fringe theory. Possible redirect to Gilbert Ling#Association induction hypothesis, where the tone and referencing of the discussion of this failed hypothesis needs attention. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 01:38, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Having looked a bit more closely, I'll note that Gilbert Ling needs some attention in general. Most of the section on the AI hypothesis was a straight copy-paste from Ling's website. There are other passages in the article which are copy-pasted or which have dubious sourcing and neutrality as well. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:46, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if enough sources are found per WP:FRIND. Wikipedia has an article about flat Earth, so being fringe isn't a reason for deletion. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:52, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The flat earth article is quite different. First, flat earth is a fringe theory that had and even still has quite a bit of discussion in good sources. Second, the flat earth article doesn't present the theory as a legitimate theory, it describes it AS a fringe theory, where as the current article under discussion treats association induction as a legitimate theory rather than as the patent nonsense that it is. The question is does AI rate the attention of flat earth or creationism where it treats the article as a fringe theory (which would essentially require rewriting the whole article) I think it clearly doesn't, it doesn't have anywhere near the traction of often discussed fringe theories such as flat earth. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 20:35, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Apologies for lack of feedback been busy on a project. I will attempt to fairly summarise the criticisms above, provide my take on things and address specific comments

Bad case of WP:OVERREF and WP:BOMBARD

Agree with this

Theory is nonsense or incoherent

Comments relating to the theory as being nonsense, incoherent or violating the third law of thermodynamics need qualification otherwise there are just personal opinion and not relevant to the debate. I think it would be useful to provide:

Specific examples
How many of Ling’s books and articles you have read or alternatively how much time you have spent looking at the Wiki article and the related references
An indication of your level of education and expertise in Biochemistry and Cell physiology

Addressing Individual Comments

@Bearian: "nonsense. We are an encyclopedia, not a web host for every failed theory."

See comments above

@MadScientistX11: "It is clearly fringe and nonsense. Per arguments by Bearian, Opabinia regalis, and Tigraan"

See comments above

@Opabinia regalis: "this is long and densely referenced and completely incoherent. Clearly fringe; author seems to be an SPA."

See comments above. Author is not Self published. He has written books by various publishers.^[5] and submitted 19 papers to independent peer reviewed journals

WP:FRINGE or WP:NFRINGE

Majority of comments relate to this and the basis for suggestion that article should be deleted. So, my understanding of the policy is that for the AIH to be considered a Notable Fringe theory it must meet these criteria:

Significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject
Referenced extensively, and in a serious and reliable manner by publications that are independent of their promulgators and popularizers.
Peer-Reviewed by people of similar competence to the Author

In the section of the article entitled List of papers independent of Ling submitted to peer reviewed scientific journals I list 19 articles that meet these criteria.

Is this not enough to be considered significant? Are there not independent? Are they not reliable?

In the section of the article entitled List of some books that discuss the Association Induction Hypothesis I list 16 books that meet these criteria and that contain significant sections on Ling. For example Pollack’s book Cell, Gells and the Engines of Life was heavily influenced and inspired by Ling's work.

Again Is this not enough to be considered significant? Are there not independent? Are they not reliable?

In the section entitled Criticisms of the theory there are 22 cites from respected scientist that have peer reviewed and providing criticisms of the AIH theory.

Again Is this not enough to be considered significant? Are there not independent? Are they not reliable?

In addition Ling has submitted 19 papers to independent peer reviewed journals.

Addressing Individual Comments

@Sammy1339:

"I have found no sources that would qualify this for WP:NFRINGE"

Which of the 57 independent cites listed above do you consider not supporting the notability criteria?

"It may deserve to be noted that the main reason this theory has been published in scientific journals is that Ling is the editor-in-chief of this one: [62], and has extensively published there, as well as accepted submissions from other investigators of this theory. "-

Whilst this is true it ignores the 19 independent articles, the 16 independent books,the 22 independent scientists of similar competence to the author that have peer reviewed aspects of the AIH and the 19 papers Ling submitted to independent peer reviewed journals.

@Pburka:

"Redirect to Gilbert Ling. This theory doesn't seem to have any traction among other researchers; it's nearly uniquely associated with Dr. Ling. There's already a reasonably sized discussion of the theory in Dr. Ling's article, and there's insufficient independent coverage of this fringe theory to justify a separate article."

It is fair to say that Ling's work has been marginalised and ignored by mainstream science, however there has been accumulation of evidence that for example intracellular water is structured. See response to Tigraan below.

@Tigraan:

"It seems, from my reading of a few of the references, that some simply have nothing to do with the subject."

All the cites refer to the subject matter I wouldn't have put them in otherwise. This is an unfair comment. Please provide specific examples.

"Extraordinary claims that would need extraordinary proof: "Water and ions in cells exist in a different physical state than in a dilute water solution", wow!"

In 1965, Gilbert Ling wrote a paper entitled “The Physical State of Water in Living Cell and Model Systems” in which he argued and showed evidence for intracellular water being in a different state to normal water. This was not accepted at the time by mainstream science and was largely ignored but since that time evidence has been amassing that intracellular water is in fact different to normal water. Martin Chaplin, a renowned scientific expert on water and water structure argues that yes, intracellular water is structured.^[6]. PaulGWiki (talk) 04:22, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Dr. Ling's answers to the question of "what is life" are based on the unified physical theory of the living cell created by Dr. G. Ling half century ago. Archimedes once said: "Give me a fulcrum and I shall move the world." Dr. Ling has found the fulcrum to move the world of cell physiology. It is adsorption properties of proteins. Indeed, Dr. Ling explained fundamental physical properties of the living cell basing only on protein ability to adsorb water, ions and other solutes by their molecular surface. Ling's theory, as a good physical theory, explains of great number of facts starting from a modest amount of initial principles (similar to how few Newton's laws explain physical world at large from properties of a dirty stone up to the beautiful Universe). Ling's theory contradicts many "truths" that we know from our school time. This book is delicacy for a person who loves exploring the contradictions. If no one contradicted Ptolemy, we still lived in the center of the Universe. I appeal the Editor to save this page so that a reader can have a choice between conventional theories and new ideas. Genuine science is impossible without new ideas. Let the scientific community and the time will decide which way is the best. Colleagues should be aware of this theory to judge it. Dr. Vladimir Matveev, VladimirMatveev (talk • contribs) 06:25, 16 March 2015 (UTC) — VladimirMatveev (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Unfortunately, doctor, Wikipedia has very specific prohibitions on the publication of original ideas, new ideas or original research. Ideas must have been the subject of significant coverage from others (effectively, "the mainstream") before we publish them here. In short, it is not Wikipedia's job to "contradict Ptolemy". We don't do that here and arguments that we should make an exception for this particular subject are likely to fall on deaf ears. Respectfully, St★lwart¹¹¹ 06:59, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To put it bluntly, if Wikipedia existed in 1616, it would feature heliocentrism as a fringe view held by lunatics, or not feature it at all because of WP:FRINGE.

By the way, I am amazed that for his first edit, VladimirMatveev (who has a conflict of interest if it is his real name, see ref.6) found the way of the articles for deletion page and knew how to format a 'keep' !vote. Tigraan (talk) 11:15, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tigraan, he didn't - his comments were cleaned up after for clarity. St★lwart¹¹¹ 12:49, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@PaulGWiki: aabout your remarks to Sammy1339:

"I have found no sources that would qualify this for WP:NFRINGE"

Which of the 57 independent cites listed above do you consider not supporting the notability criteria?

WP:BURDEN. Again, 57 is probably 53 more than necessary, it just obfuscates the issue. Why are you agreeing with the WP:BOMBARD issue if you immediately pursue the same bad habit?

"It may deserve to be noted that the main reason this theory has been published in scientific journals is that Ling is the editor-in-chief of this one: [2], and has extensively published there, as well as accepted submissions from other investigators of this theory. "

Whilst this is true it ignores the 19 independent articles, the 16 independent books,the 22 independent scientists of similar competence to the author that have peer reviewed aspects of the AIH and the 19 papers Ling submitted to independent peer reviewed journals.

For instance, taking the first one on the list ("Membrane Potential Generated by Ion Adsorption" by Hirohisa Tamagawa and Sachi Morita), it is published by MDPI which is on Beall's list of predatory open-access publishers - that is, they take author fees without providing any serious editorial services (remember this incident?) - which means anyone can get pretty much anything published in those low-quaity papers, even if they claim to be "peer-reviewed". Some are less unserious than others: there can be no review whatsoever, only internal review, or shaky peer-review; it goes a full range between greedy scammers to incompetent would-be editors - but the point is none of them is trustworthy for scientific content. (I am not going through the whole list, and I am not going to discuss Beall's criteria here. Beall's list is widely regarded as correct.)

Moreover, I would dispute the term "independant": G. H. Pollack, for instance, is apparently one of Ling's fanboys - see for instance this letter (scroll down the German text) which is a bad hybrid of pseudoscience and nigerian scam.

Tigraan (talk) 11:15, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Per CSD G12. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 13:24, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sunrise Senior Living

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

There are two reasons why this article either needs more work, or should be deleted. First, is notability. There is no substantial coverage of this company as per WP:GNG, or WP:NCORP. Second, is this article seems to be pretty blatant advertising. Onel5969 (talk) 01:56, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete. Copy-vio tagged, because lazy spammers make it easy. Pax 07:35, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:53, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:53, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 02:48, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Latha Walpola

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

This article is a WP:BLP that (a) appears to be a rewrite of a blogger.com article (https://www.blogger.com/feeds/1593024302490092476/posts/default) and (b) cites four inline sources, one of which (Asian Tribune) appears highly unreliable with respect to NPOV, and two others of which are hard to assess. Sinhalese-speaking editors might be able to opine on the availability of better sources. Fiachra10003 (talk) 18:46, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, the article was created by Dinura Pradeep Balasooriya, indefinitely blocked by Tokyogirl79 on 25 January 2015, not that that has any bearing on the article's conformity with WP:BLP Fiachra10003 (talk) 18:49, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:25, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:25, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep although relatively poorly written (in serious need of copy-editing) the subject of the article is notable & satisfies a number of the criteria under WP:MUSIC. Given the era in which she performed it is hard to track reliable online sources but there are a number that reinforce her notability. [63], [64], [65]. Dan arndt (talk) 00:34, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The sources available in Google Books confirm that the subject is a prominent singer in Sri Lanka, e.g. Profiling Sri Lankan Cinema, "...playback singers like Dharmadasa Walpola, Latha Walpola, ...gained island wide popularity.". Andrew D. (talk) 13:04, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:52, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I understand the delete rationale but when looking into it further, it does appear there is available coverage in reliable sources, despite the origins of the article and its content. To point out, WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP and, as others have stated, considering the country and time period, there is enough coverage to make a claim of notability. Certainly not a slam-dunk like a Grammy winner, but enough to have a place here on the English Wikipedia. Mkdw ^talk 20:40, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. There is consensus to keep the article, so deletion under WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE doesn't apply. (non-admin closure) Esquivalience ^t 02:41, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ruth Eisemann-Schier

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

Subject requests deletion essentially per WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE, ticket:2015031110028283. I have no opinion either way about the subject's notability. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 00:57, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete a WP:BLP1E situation as the subject is basically only known for the Mackie case. Mangoe (talk) 15:18, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:50, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:51, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:51, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:51, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - clear WP:GNG and WP:CRIME. Appearing on the FBI list is notable.--BabbaQ (talk) 00:28, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:BLP1E does not apply here for nearly every point of the policy. Firstly, three notable instances: 1) First women to appear on the FBI Ten Most Wanted Fugitives 2) wanted for the kidnapping of American heiress Barbara Jane Mackle 3) wrote a book, 83 Hours ‘Til Dawn, that was made into two films: The Longest Night and 83 Hours 'Til Dawn in 1990. Further, BLP1E only applies if "the event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented". This individual had a significant role, the event was notable enough to put them on the FBI Most Wanted list, books and films were made about it including a wide range of news coverage. As for WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE, I do not believe the rationale of "relatively unknown" applies since this individual appeared on the FBI Ten Most Wanted Fugitives. This list is widely distributed and its named individuals arguably receive some of the most intense attention in their respective categories as wanted fugitives both by law enforcement and the general public. NOTE: I reviewed the OTRS ticket and while I sympathize with the intentions of the ticket, I do not think there is a valid rationale for deletion under the one proposed. Not until Wikipedia creates a more defined policy that would support the deletion of articles about individuals that meet our notability criteria. Lastly, and perhaps most importantly, this individual authored a book that was published about the event. Therefore I believe they have relinquished their rights to privacy surrounding the event, even if it [is] a decision they regret now as well. Mkdw ^talk 20:29, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per cogent argument by Mkdw. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:16, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
keep per Mkdw A Softer Answer (talk) 13:13, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Nakon 04:52, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Chak 47 NB

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

This article is not written about its title subject, Chak 47 NB, which appears to be little more than a small neighborhood within a larger city. Instead, the article is cobbled together with bits and pieces about Sargodha (the city), Sargodha Tehsil and Sargodha District. While there does appear to be information in this article that does not appear in those other articles, it is unsourced, and it is not clear which of the other articles might be a proper merge target if the material were sourced. The article's author has chosen not to reply to a request to clarify this issue. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:51, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Rahat (Message) 17:30, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:36, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete The titular subject isn't mentioned past the first sentence. Mangoe (talk) 15:21, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Nakon 04:51, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1WAY FM

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

I couldn't establish that this meets WP:NOTABILITY. Has been tagged for notability for several years, so time for a discussion. Possibly worth a redirect to List of radio stations in Australia. Boleyn (talk) 20:51, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Notable in its local area with wide coverage of the Canberra region, broadcasting at 20 000 watts ERP. Third party coverage exists e.g. https://www.radioinfo.com.au/news/canberra-community-radio-reaches-new-heights, and probably in local print media such as the Canberra Times too.--LavaDimNylons (talk) 03:39, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

the source you provided is not third party and not in depth. Please provide actual links to Canberra Times coverage. LibStar (talk) 07:28, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:24, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete coverage in merely confirms it exists. Nothing in depth. Being "locally notable" Does not mean automatically notable on WP. I did a search for this station on CanberraTimes.com.au and found zilch. LibStar (talk) 07:31, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar ⨹ 22:50, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dylan Aste

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

I couldn't establish that he meets WP:BIO or WP:GNG. WP:SPA creator has not established it either. Boleyn (talk) 21:55, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete Does disability make a subject notable? I'm seeing evidence to support that he's both a lawyer and disabled - no more than that though. I don't believe that WP should allocate WP:N on the basis of disability, unless it's relevant in some further manner.

I'm unfamiliar with US legal hierarchies, but I don't think an Assistant United States Attorney is implicit WP:N either. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:30, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:34, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:34, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:34, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I added Dylan Aste because I believe he is a notable person. Not simply because he is disabled or because he's an attorney. Those qualities, on their own, do not make a person notable enough for a Wikipedia page. He is notable because of what he has accomplished despite of a debilitating disability. He is certainly well-known and notable within the San Diego community. He engages in numerous community events, inspirational and otherwise. An Assistant U.S. Attorney is an extremely prestigious and competitive position that is only one level below the United States Attorney. His accomplishments individually are not noteworthy enough for Wikipedia, but they are notable in totality, especially for a person that is nearly completely paralyzed. I would also guess his notable acts will warrant a few more additions to his Wikipedia page in the next few years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thewikiman2000 (talk • contribs) 21:57, 7 March 2015 (UTC) I forgot to sign my previous post. Sorry. I hope I did it correctly this time. Thewikiman2000 (talk) 23:51, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So how about WP:NOTABLE? Also see WP:BIO. He might well be "notable" according to the everyday person on the street, but we work here by the WP:NOTABLE standard. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:59, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I believe he has had significant coverage from reliable sources, but I'm not nearly as well-versed in Wikipedia's criteria as other editors. There are also other sources that covered him, but I couldn't find the electronic versions of them. Do you think this article, as written, does not meet the notability standard, Andy? Thewikiman2000 (talk) 00:30, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:22, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete The only real source showing notability is a human interest story in an alumni magazine. Mangoe (talk) 15:24, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a tough one, because of the inspirational quality of the subject and the obvious good faith of Thewikiman2000. But I just don't find the notability. It is not true that the only source is the alumni magazine; there are two full-length stories about him in the San Diego Union Tribune.[66][67] Two human interest stories from the same source does not cut it. As for the "Assistant U.S. Attorney" claim of notability: in the first place "Assistant U.S. Attorney" is simply an attorney who works in the U.S.Attorney's office; there can be hundreds of them. And in the second place, he is not an "Assistant U.S. Attorney", he is a "Special Assistant U.S. Attorney",[68], an uncompensated position;[69] sounds like a kind of internship. Sorry. --MelanieN (talk) 18:51, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The references in the article only include primary references which are not valid with regards to notability Nakon 04:49, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Goes Round

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

I've searched and I haven't been able to find enough valid, supportive references to document this as Wikipedia-notable. Lachlan Foley (talk) 06:06, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree. Influential within their movement.Greg Fasolino (talk) 20:21, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:08, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:08, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 23:16, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:19, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We should note that user Lachlan Foley has been previously cited and prohibited from excessive notability tagging. This is totally unnecessary as artist is not obscure. Greg Fasolino (talk) 02:15, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nakon 04:46, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Silhouette (band)

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

Bringing this to AfD because the speedy tag was removed and I am unable to fully evaluate the notability of this band. Page was already speedily deleted once under A7. Article lists a few references, but they are mostly in German. Looking at the refs though, none of them seem to be reliable. If someone (probably a German speaker), can establish WP:N I will withdraw my nomination. -War wizard90 (talk) 06:06, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -War wizard90 (talk) 06:07, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -War wizard90 (talk) 06:07, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. -War wizard90 (talk) 06:07, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please remove this page from AfD because this site is an actual neo-prog band from the Netherlands. If you would need the original page for Silhouette (band) translated or checked, please let us know on http://www.silhouetteband.nl/ This page is legit. 37.153.235.5 (talk) 16:13, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 23:16, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:19, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the references are in Dutch (not in German), it seems to me that two of them (Progwereld) provide sufficient coverage.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:13, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note that I removed the History section, which contained closed paraphrasing from the group's website.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:18, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Nakon 04:45, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Little Nemo (band)

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

I've searched and can't find enough valid supportive references to document this as being Wikipedia-notable. Lachlan Foley (talk) 06:04, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree. Long-lived bands, some popular releases, and quite influential within their movement. Greg Fasolino (talk) 20:23, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:07, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:07, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 23:17, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:18, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We should note that user Lachlan Foley has been previously cited and prohibited from excessive notability tagging. This is totally unnecessary as artist is not obscure. Greg Fasolino (talk) 02:15, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The article does not have any reliable sources outside of press releases. Nothing has been added since the nomination. Nakon 04:40, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

SolidFire

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

entirely sourced from press releases and routine announcements of funding. DGG ( talk ) 05:41, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:06, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:06, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:06, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 23:17, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Found a few sources in search not used Forbes, Pando... Many of the sources contain information about funding, but the articles give some background on the company as well. "Products" is overt promo and unneeded imo, but the subject appears notable. Jppcap (talk) 13:44, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:18, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Closing early as all been rewritten and all sources added, Not seeing much point to leaving this open any longer.) (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:26, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

David Boyd (New Politics)

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

Requires rewrite, otherwise should just be merged into the band's Wikipedia article. smileguy91^talk 03:20, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bah! What a mess! It doesn't look notable to me, but maybe someone will want to put some elbow grease into it and show us why it's worth keeping? Otherwise delete! Tylerdurden1200 (talk) 05:38, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 03:34, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 04:46, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:04, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I've cleaned it up. This was a bit of a rough welcome to a new user, wasn't it? Needing cleanup is not a reason to delete an article, especially one that has just been created. The issue is whether sources exist, not what the article looks like. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:37, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've now found and added numerous references; in addition to quite a lot of coverage of him personally in connection with the band, he was frequently in the news for his dancing before that. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:37, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 23:19, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:17, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Here are some more [70][71][72]. Mainly coverage of the band touring, but it all comments on his dancing, so I guess that rates a separate article. – Margin1522 (talk) 04:24, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Davewild (talk) 07:39, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Karl Geis (judo)

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

High rank is not enough to show notability and I see nothing that show he meets WP:MANOTE. His resume at his dojo consists mainly of listing who he learned from and who he taught, but notability is not inherited.Mdtemp (talk) 18:35, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — kikichugirl ^speak up! 18:42, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. — kikichugirl ^speak up! 18:42, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:40, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

keepHe not only has a high rank, he has multiple mentions in Black Belt Magazine, is the subject of independent articles and is a founding member of the United States Judo Association. He fully passes GNG. CrazyAces489 (talk) 19:06, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

pass MANOTE [73] by either being (1) Subject of numerous independent article/documentary, The high ranking rationale that you stated for deletion for a number of them applies when ... "Only achievement seems to be that they teach an art (or founded a non-notable art); perhaps also avoid even mentioning them in the article of the art unless they are one of a few high-ranked artists in an art that has thousands of students." Judo has hundred of thousand practitioners.CrazyAces489 (talk) 19:54, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

High rank has never been enough to show notability in the martial arts on Wikipedia nor is founding your own organization (which then promotes you to 10th dan as you're dying).Mdtemp (talk) 20:09, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Subject of numerous independent article/documentary, He is a high rank in Judo! He didn't award himself the rank! The USJA is a major organization for Judo in America. He is noted as being the top Psychologist in Judo, is a noted author in the field of Sport Psychology. CrazyAces489 (talk) 20:15, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Since when is being the top psychologist in a sport grounds for notability? Show me he meets the criteria as a noted academic for his psych work. Martial arts rank never has been accepted as grounds for notability on WP.Mdtemp (talk) 20:20, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please familiarize yourself with MANOTE and GNG. He passes both! Read this independent article please. [74] CrazyAces489 (talk) 20:25, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

An article by a parent of a student is not considered independent coverage.Mdtemp (talk) 20:32, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the article, the parent didn't write the article.[75] That is a quote.. Also this profile, [76]CrazyAces489 (talk) 20:41, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Black Belt Magazine Judo Competitor of the Year for 1974^[7]CrazyAces489 (talk) 04:01, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Fugakukai International Association. Karl Geis founded the Fugakukai and through that organization I think has had quite a bit of influence on Aikido in some areas of the US. I don't think he merits his own stand alone article. One of the stated reasons the USJA was founded was the slow promotion of American judoka. There was some justification for that but then I believe they went a little crazy with the self promotions. So it really does not matter whether Geis self promoted or was promoted by an organization he helped found - its the same thing really and high rank has never been an indicator of notability.Peter Rehse (talk) 15:37, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
comment He is very important in Aikido and if you want to add it to the article you sure can! I would like to say that "Black Belt Magazine Judo Competitor of the Year for 1974" which got him into black belt magazine hall of fame [77] is indicative of notability! CrazyAces489 (talk) 18:19, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep I believe Geis merits a mention in WP, though I'm not really convinced he merits his own article. His ranks and Hall of Fame membership are not considered indicators of notability (remember Black Belt in that era also believed in Frank Dux) and I can't find any references that show he meets any notability criteria for his judo competitions. However, I think you can argue that there is enough coverage for him to meet WP:GNG. You could also easily argue against it, but I'm feeling somewhat inclusionist today. Papaursa (talk) 17:48, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:34, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

keep by WP:Athlete and WP:GNG. Major founder of Aikido in the United States 24.103.234.74 (talk) 21:03, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:16, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was ~~delete~~ Userfy. Consensus and arguments demonstrate a lack of notability. However I am happy to userfy this either to the users sandbox or to draft. Contact me for the move. Also, participants are to be commended for an excellent spirit of cooperation during this discussion. I wish all went this smoothly. JodyB_talk 19:42, 19 March 2015 (UTC) After my own close I am correcting my close to userfy. That was actually my intent. Article has been moved to userspace for improvement.JodyB_talk 16:42, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Marziah Karch

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

Non-notable blogger. Unable to find reliable third party sources about the subject to build an article. Prod removed claiming there were considerable third party sources about the author, but I haven't found them. Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:49, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a print author of non-self-published works (books, magazine articles), not just a blogger. Non promotional mentions online (USA Today, the Mary Sue, "It's OK to Be Smart", TeleRead conference report), media interviews as subject expert (mainly archived now - but the number is high enough to argue notability) college degree and place of residence (newspaper), occupation (newspaper), autistic child (media interview), invited speaking appearance (KCART). I also found Google Scholar citations (low, but more than zero). It's certainly easier to write most of this from the book publisher promotional bio (and I may be guilty of doing just that), but there is enough third party material to verify the main points. Trying to clean it up now. Lizardbones (talk) 19:35, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article needs to be fixed, not deleted. Babgordon (talk) 16:35, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing editor User:Babgordon joined a ~~month~~ ago and immediately began editing Marziah Karch E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:15, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about? I joined a year ago. Babgordon (talk) 17:19, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. A year ago this editor joined, immediately began editing abut Marziah Karch, and has made a mere handful of edits since. Many about Karch.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:01, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can find no significant independent coverage about Karch that establishes notability. There are many references in the article, but this appears to be a case of reference bombing. I have reviewed all the references in the article as of this version:

a passing mention in a "stuff I saw at a science ficction convention" article
a passing mention
Alexa's ranking of about.com is irrelevantg to notability
not coverage about Karch; a quote from her amidst a pile of quotes
The URL should be [78], and is an article by Karch, not about Karch
Bialik's response doesn't mention Karch (just hints) and even if it did, would not represent coverage to establish notability
The fact that other blogs covered this is original research when listing out blogs
ditto above
ditto above
completely insubstantial
an article about massive open online courses that uses Karch as an example of somebody who takes them, it fails to establish notability
only serves to validate that karch presented at a conference
a list of graduates that only serves to validate her alma matger
a self-submitted profile - not a reliable source or independent
serves only to validate that Karch was a speaker at a conference
a mention, and is not substantial coverage
being intereviewd doesn't establish notability
ditto above
ditto above
ditto above
ditto above
ditto above
ditto above, and there is not indication on which TV station or network this was broadcast on. From the youtube info, it appears to be a community college production.

Based on that analysis, one of the sourcing is useful for establishing notability. -- Whpq (talk) 15:59, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

*Help me fix this page.* "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability" So multiple of these "passing mentions" and "quotes in a pile of quotes" should do that, no? The references were to juried panel presentations - not open to the public. I'll remove if they don't count towards notability. I'm confused about why multiple news places asking to interview someone as a SME wouldn't show that they were notable in their field, but Wikipedia rules are what they are, I guess. Also, the Merit Pages citation is not a self-submitted profile. The bio can be edited, but the badges cannot. Used to verify Phi Kappa Phi, which is invitation only. ^[1]. There are way too many references here, and it feels spammy because of it. I erred too much on the side of including, because my first submission (for someone else) got dinged for not having enough. Now he's back with only two references and no flags, so go figure. Lizardbones (talk) 18:31, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ https://meritpages.com/

Coverage needs to come from reliable source; these would be things like magazine, newspapers, etc., which exercise editorial selection in the topics they cover. This coverage needs to be significant, and be be about the person. Being interviewed as a subject matter expert means that the interview is about the subject matter, not the expert. All of the sourcing that I analyzed above fails to denote notability in one way or another. In other words, they contribute exactly zero towards establishing notability, and when one adds up a bunch of zeroes, the answer is still zero. As for merit pages in particular, there is no real selectivity in the creation of the pages as the site explains that "... if you’re already at one of the hundreds of colleges and universities in the Merit network today, you don’t have to: your institution is building a verified, public record of your accomplishments and achievements on your own Merit page." And while being in Phi Kappa Phi, although a nice feather in one's cap, it does not make for automatic inclusion in Wikipedia. -- Whpq (talk) 02:10, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so I should just ignore the idea of verifiable for now and concentrate on the subjective concept of "notability." Help me understand this. Nothing in the general notability guidelines says that an interview isn't a third-party reliable source. What you are saying is that an interview about topic x is about topic x and not the person. At the same time, the interview (when it is only with one person) has to establish why the interviewee is an expert on topic x before asking about topic x. So that part of the interview is about "the person," correct? One such interview could be seen as just be a passing reference and establish that person is a tech writer, but a bunch of them should establish some sort of notability? She's given a lot of TV/radio interviews, some of which were as a tech writer and some of which were about other biographical aspects. However, combined those would contain more than a stub's worth of writing. And then once the subject is notable, the rest of the information just needs to be verifiable. Correct?Lizardbones (talk) 23:03, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Jumping in late, but do sources written by the author establish notability at all or does there also need to be sources about the author? PointsofNoReturn (talk) 23:22, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply - the writings by the author do not establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 14:34, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete until: reliable third party sources produce articles about this writer, interviews with this writer about her work, or reviews of the books. Bloggers can be notable, if they are profiled and widely cited. Thx to User:Whpq for doing the legwork. ~~If sources can be produced, I'll reconsider.~~E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:47, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

While I am constitutionally perpetually prepared to reconsider when presented with new evidence, I am fully persuaded that Karch is not notable at present. Perhaps in a future. Not now.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:20, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Exactly how "with this writer about her work" do they have to be? I'm looking for clarification here. It wasn't given earlier. The interviews in question are typical expert interviews where the interviewer first establishes that the writer is an expert in the field by asking a few questions/making intro statements about the work. Is that portion not "about the writer?" Isn't this how expert interviews normally work? That may not be "deep" coverage of the writer's work, but "if the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability" Lizardbones (talk) 05:46, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~Being interviewed about an article you have written is not notable.~~ Although being interviewed about an article you have written is some slight indication of notability, What we're looking for are multiple articles with phrases like "Karch is a leading expert on...", "karch, a widely read blogger and important figure in the field of..." Profiles in which recognized, reliable new source discuss your life, career. Articles that discuss the significance of your contributions to a field. Very often people in creative fields (artists, authors) or fans of early career writers create Wikepedia pages prematurely. It is necessary to wait until professional journalists write such artists up, or until they win significant Awards. A fan or an author would be better advised to focus on their work than to attempt to create a Wikipedia too early in a career.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:15, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Ok - I've also found and added two third-party print book profile ~~blurbs~~.Blurb is the wrong word and not what I meant. I didn't mean a dustjacket quote. I meant a mention within a book. Sorry if this is editing above the line for relisting, but it would make no contextual sense otherwise. Lizardbones (talk) 15:56, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Blurbs are not evidence of notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:15, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 13:02, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The TV and radio interviews appear to do exactly what you claim they should do. First introducing Karch as an expert on the topic of Google as a writer for About.com and then asking her opinion about Google. They were not about a single article. But wouldn't multiple interviews about single articles also be noteworthy? The standards here seem very arbitrary. Lizardbones (talk) 01:34, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Per WP:INTERVIEWS, interviews are generally accepted as evidence toward notability. – Margin1522 (talk) 17:34, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- That is an essay, and not an officil guideline or policy. The notability portion is short and refers to interviews were the interviewee id the topic. That's not really the case here. -- Whpq (talk) 02:28, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - OK, but can you cite a policy that supports your assertion that interviews are not considered evidence of notability? Generally they are. In my view, her notability rests on two things – she is the Google expert at About and a frequently quoted expert on tech in general, and she was an influential blogger at Wired. If that's good enough she's OK, if not she fails. That's where we need sources for notability. For example, the actress chose to respond to her blog post on Wired when she could have responded to someone else. That is blogger notability, such as it is. – Margin1522 (talk) 11:16, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - Interesting, User:Margin1522. 1.) being interviewed by a publication as an expert on a topic must be meaningful at least to some degree, but if I was going to use it that way in an article I was writing I would expect to be able to quote the interviewer, something like: 'we're here at WP today interviewing Ms. Expert, one of the leading figures in whatever research...' It's being able to cite the reputable publication that makes it count. 2.) How big a deal is being a Google About expert? Honest quesiton. Is it a paying gig? Is getting to be one competitive? 3.) How can it be established that she was an "influential" blogger at Wired. And, as with Google About, is it a paid job? is getting to be one competitive. 4.) Thing is, she has a really unique name, yet most of what comes up in a quick search are social media pages one can produce for oneself. People with names like John Shea) can be hard to look up. But with a name as unique as Marziah Karch, I expected more, like maybe a profile in some online publication other than the sites of publishers she writes for. Of course she has 948 followers on twitter. What am I missing?E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:51, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      - To answer your questions, which are interesting angles 2) I looked it up, and yes, apparently About.com writers are paid and according to this very competitive. 3) Is "being quoted by peers" not establishing influence? There are several high profile blogs quoting her, but I was told none of those counted. It looks like writing for wired.com is paid and competitive, too. Lizardbones (talk) 02:19, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment/Question I completely disagree about expert interviews. I don't think news outlets call someone for an expert interview if they think they are unnoteworthy. It really seems like you're determined to delete this article, though. The last time I created an article and did not have time to clean it up before it got speedy deleted, they reverted it to a draft on my page and it was later fixed and republished. Is that a possibility here?Lizardbones (talk) 06:01, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- User:Lizardbones. Useful contribution would be to find descriptions of Karch and her work published in reliable news sources other than the ones by which she is employed (those are eligible, i.e., if the Johnson County Community College newsletter publishes an article about how "our senior education technologist, Marziah Karch, is a leading expert on..." it is reliable and can be added to the page, but it would be far more persuasive if a descriptor like that appeared in the technology section of a general newspaper, even if only in passing as part of an article in which that newspaper quotes Karch as an expert). And, btw, I very much doubt that anyone is determined to delete this article in a personal sense, rather, fact is that Wikipedia is deluged by self-promotion attempts by less-than-notable musicians, writers, small business, wanna-be movie moguls and the like. If you don't believe me, look through the deletion debates. All of us are volunteers trying to sort the notable form the self-promoting hopefuls. When you accuse editors of targeting Ms. Karch for deletion, you do not help her case.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:03, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - User:E.M.Gregory That was not in any way meant to accuse anyone of "targeting" anyone. Merely observing the same thing you're saying now. I cruised through the AFD files, and I saw that the bias is towards delete rather than include. I do understand it, even if I don't agree with it in this case. My first article (on someone else) had issues and was reverted to my sandbox. It was later reintroduce and, as far as I know, it has not been challenged. I was just offering to do the same thing with this article if need be. My first choice would obviously be to keep it and improve it. Do interviews at the college where she worked really count as reliable sources? What about the books by other authors that mention her? Lizardbones (talk) 02:19, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - There is no magic formula, there are guidelines, but most people who merit pages far exceed these minimums. An interview or profile in a house organ can be cited for facts, but it will not have much weight when judging notability. That really does take outside sources. Here, while it is good to a book mention karch, it is better if they describe her work in a specific way "the person who created the... whatever" And best to have an in depth description of her work and how it influenced a field. If her work is described in books, by all means include what is being said about it on the page.E.M.Gregory (talk) 02:33, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      - That seems like it would turn a neutral description into an advertisement, but I'll see what I can do in the next few days. Lizardbones (talk) 06:02, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        Comment – That would be good. My overall impression is that the article is not quite there yet. Part of the problem is that our notability requirements are not a very good match for Internet personalities. Basically we want reliable 3rd-party sources talking about the person, and by reliable we mean with some kind of editorial oversight. If we can answer some of E.M.Gregory's questions, that will help. Another idea is that reviews of her books may talk about her. Or if we can quote the interviews and what they say about her, instead of just mentioning that they happened. Anyway there is no rush about this. If you would like more time to work on it, Userfy (copying to your Sandbox, etc.) is always an option. – Margin1522 (talk) 07:01, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        Sounds like a plan. I agree to it if everyone else does. - The userfy thing. That's what I was talking about earlier. Lizardbones (talk) 01:36, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy – OK, since we have good-faith efforts to improve the article, I'd like to !vote userfy with a suggestion to have it reviewed at AFC. The reviewers there should have some good advice about the kind of sources we need. – Margin1522 (talk) 07:34, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:15, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy seems like a sensible option, but on the basis that this go to WP:DRV before being recreated, not WP:AFC. AFC reviewers look at things like verifiability and copyright, they don't decide complex questions of notability like some form of one-person AFD. It's not fair to expect them to do so (and when we do they regularly get it wrong). DRV is designed for exactly this purpose - to review drafts of new articles where previous articles have been deleted. They can (and can properly) review a deletion decision in a manner that allows a consensus to be established as to whether or not the original concerns (that led to deletion) have been addressed. St★lwart¹¹¹ 03:57, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't that basically saying just delete it? Look, I've added a few quotes like I was asked. I've tried to make this similar to some of the other women technology writer pages. I can try to do more work on it later, but I'd really hope other people would try to fix it before then. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lizardbones (talk • contribs) 07:07, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Basically, and I can opine that way if you don't want this moved to your user space rather than just deleted. The prevailing opinion seems to be that the article should be deleted, the subject not being sufficiently notable to warrant an article. The article's similarity to that of other "women technology writers" is irrelevant, unfortunately. But Margin1522 suggested userfication to allow you to continue to work on it. I have no objection to that. St★lwart¹¹¹ 07:15, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Right, and I don't think we need to make a big production out of it. It's almost there. One nice thing about AfC is that reviewers with an interest in the subject can choose to review it, so they might be able to give better advice than we can. – Margin1522 (talk) 12:45, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My concern is that we'd be setting this up for WP:G4 deletion which would almost certainly go to DRV anyway. Multiple editors have contributed here - to suggest that consensus can be reviewed/overturned by one non-admin AFC reviewer is asking for trouble, in my view. St★lwart¹¹¹ 22:45, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't that only apply if it showed up again without any improvements? Wouldn't the whole point of reverting it to a draft be to make edits? Lizardbones (talk) 03:33, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I very much doubt that an improved article that passes AfC would be speedily deleted. Nor would it go to DRV. DRV is for reviewing actions by admins and closers. If it passes AfC and someone still objects, we will be back at AfD for Round 2 ;-) – Margin1522 (talk) 04:10, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AFC stuff gets deleted all the time and DRV is also, don't forget, for securing permission to recreate something previously deleted at AFD, in light of new information, a better draft, etc. "Passing AFC" is misnomer - articles are simply accepted by a random reviewer, often no more experienced than the person who created the draft article. St★lwart¹¹¹ 04:22, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Stalwart111: If you read the criteria for WP:G4, it specifically says "This excludes pages that are not substantially identical to the deleted version, pages to which the reason for the deletion no longer applies, and content moved to user space or converted to a Draft for explicit improvement (but not simply to circumvent Wikipedia's deletion policy)." It might get speedied if Lizardbones tried to be sneaky and created the identical article again, but no admin is going to speedy an article that has been userfied and passed through AfC. It would have to come back here again. – Margin1522 (talk) 04:58, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it's the explicit improvement part I'd be concerned about, especially given that the assertion is that the current version is "pretty close". So it's userfied, not that much changes and then it's approved by AFC. I think an admin absolutely could delete it. But hey, I don't really care - I just think AFC is a very broken process, I wouldn't ever use it and I actively discourage others from using it. Its inherently bitey. DRV is faster, crawling with admins and is a solid "yea" consensus at the end. My aim is not to make life difficult for proponents; quite the opposite. St★lwart¹¹¹ 05:41, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's true. By almost there I mean we are close to finding all the sources that exist. Whether that will be enough remains to be seen, but let's give it the best try. – Margin1522 (talk) 06:26, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On that I think we agree 100% St★lwart¹¹¹ 09:31, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The first two rounds of this discussion happened before I made a bunch of edits everyone was suggesting I make. Can someone please list what remains to be done, or do I need to do that over at AFC after it is userfied? Assuming it gets userfied and not killed, but that seems like the direction everyone is taking. Lizardbones (talk) 06:39, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. A valid deletion rationale was not presented. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:13, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mirage Studios

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

This article has been tagged as lacking sources for over three years. Sooner or later, we have to say: source it or lose it. A redirect to the Turtles page is an appropriate result IMO. Guy (Help!) 00:08, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 00:56, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:50, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:50, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources added by Valoem, the TCJ one in particular being a good solid find. Artw (talk) 16:36, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep A disruptive nomination from Guy, articles should only be nominated when sources cannot be found, not when citations are required. So the answer is source it. This nomination was for clean up not deletion. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 12:28, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep "lacking sources" falls under WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP in that it's an argument to avoid in deletion discussions because it is a surmountable problem. As Valoem has demonstrated, there are seemingly reliable sources available. Mkdw ^talk 20:19, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep and trout the nominator, nonsense nom, blatant lack of Wikipedia:BEFORE, do not waste the community time just because you're too lazy to make the proper searches. Cavarrone 20:40, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. A7: does not indicate why its subject is important or significant Mkdw ^talk 20:13, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sylvania Church

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

No secondary sources that state that this specific church is notable. smileguy91^{Need to talk?} 00:00, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 00:04, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 00:04, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

speedy delete - non notable. Flat Out let's discuss it 00:35, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails to demonstrate notability. reddogsix (talk) 02:23, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:50, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete My search for significant coverage of this church in reliable, independent sources was unsuccessful. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:58, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Cullen. Appears on its face to be a semi-promotional creation. Carrite (talk) 15:11, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] ttp://www.teamusa.org/USA-Judo/Donations/Circle-of-100/Circle-of-100-Members

[2] ttp://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1454&dat=19850602&id=TeMyAAAAIBAJ&sjid=oxMEAAAAIBAJ&pg=6723,405764

[3] ttp://www.teamusa.org/USA-Judo/Donations/Circle-of-100/Circle-of-100-Members

[4] ttp://www.teamusa.org/USA-Judo/Features/2008/January/29/JUDO-USA-Judo-Announces-U-S-Armed-Forces-Initiative

[5] "Star-News - Google News Archive Search". google.com.

[6] ttp://neardb.com/place/235328836517922/Y-M-C-A

[7] ttp://www.takingbadschotz.com/?p=2871

[8] ttp://granvilleonline.com/enewspaper/Screen%20BC%20News%2010_31_13.pdf

[9] ttp://bushidokarateshotokan.com/judo/chester-evans-sensei

[10] ttp://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1454&dat=19850602&id=TeMyAAAAIBAJ&sjid=oxMEAAAAIBAJ&pg=6723,405764

[11] Ling, Gilbert. "Amazon Author". www.amazon.com.

[ChaplinWebsite-12] Chaplin, Martin. "Water Structure and Science". http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/water_structure_science.html. {{cite web}}: External link in |website= (help)

[13] ttps://books.google.com/books?id=RtwDAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA78&lpg=PA78&dq=karl+geis+judo+black+belt+magazine&source=bl&ots=UhaE5Eg4m0&sig=uxSObpGHIVrrL07Q5GxTtMsIduY&hl=en&sa=X&ei=YkjtVLazAce-ggSxnIPoAg&ved=0CCwQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=karl%20geis%20judo%20black%20belt%20magazine&f=false

[14] ttps://meritpages.com/

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[1]

[2]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[1]