Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 July 16

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 15 July	17 July >

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 keep. (non-admin closure) — Music1201 ^talk 16:10, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Susuwatari

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

Fictional creatures that don't meet the general notability guideline which requires significant coverage in reliable sources. Even for book sources I only found mention of them while the plot was being discussed. Note that these are very minor creatures that do not play any major roles in the plot of either of these films. Opencooper (talk) 23:49, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Opencooper (talk) 23:50, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Opencooper (talk) 23:50, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep here are two non-trivial independent RS mentions: [1], [2]. For good measure, there are a bunch of other interesting mentions in both RS books and websites: [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]. Thus, the GNG is met, and as characters that appear in multiple fictional films, neither would be an obvious redirect or merge target. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 00:18, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't call these non-trivial. These are a few paragraphs in top-ten listicles. Notability requires in-depth coverage. The Google books links you shared are the ones I mentioned where they are being discussed as part of the plot. Lastly the weblinks just barely mention them in passing, that's all. Let me quote from WP:GNG: "'Significant coverage' addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content." Opencooper (talk) 01:23, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Then you would be incorrect. Note that sources 1 and 2 are what I'm terming clearly non-trivial, and to quote WP:GNG "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." If you're reading GNG and thinking a couple of paragraphs about a fictional character is a trivial mention, then you need to reconsider what you consider trivial. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 04:32, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Furthermore, and I'm embarrassed I didn't catch this before, is that in-depth coverage is not required by the GNG. Seriously--the only time "in depth" appears in WP:N is in a footnote on WP:Notability (people), isn't it? Jclemens (talk) 04:36, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - If you want to be a wikilawyer, at least try to be better at it; WP:GNG literally says in bold significant coverage and then expands on what that entails. Regarding your first point, look at what those couple of paragraphs actually say that is usable. most of the prose is spent putting them in context in the plot. Significant coverage for me is a book, a journal article, or multiple paragraphs that examine the subject in detail past reiterating what they are. Listicles from some no-name websites are not the paragons of reliable sources to be hinging an article's notability on and you should actually look at what they're saying that's usable to write an encyclopedic article. Opencooper (talk) 15:08, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Searching with "Makkuro kurosuke" instead yields more results Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL The Steve 12:45, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions: "Although using a search engine like Google can be useful in determining how common or well-known a particular topic is, a large number of hits on a search engine is no guarantee that the subject is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia [...] Overall, the quality of the search engine results matters more than the raw number." I do not see how any of the results of the alternate search term constitute significant coverage. The web results just show dessert recipes, and the book results just mention them as part of the plot again. Opencooper (talk) 15:18, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Added the searches to the AFD. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:08, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment just because they are characters in two films by the same creator doesn't mean they're suddenly notable and need their own independent article. However, if the secondary reliable sources discuss this particular character in detail, this could be considered. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:08, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:08, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've added an entry over in Dust bunny. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:11, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Just as before, there are sources for these. But this is Wikipedia and if it isn't Batman or Superman, it's up for deletion. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:50, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please form a better debate than attacking the AFD process with such a ridiculous remark.SephyTheThird (talk) 17:32, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are enough sources in independent media to establish notability, and warrant an article. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:20, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I urge User:Andy Dingley, User:Knowledgekid87, and every everyone else saying there are sources to actually look at those sources and what kind of coverage they provide. The mere existence of a search term does not equal notability. Anyway I'll stop commenting after this since its clear people want these creatures to have an independent article regardless of what could actually be written about them. Opencooper (talk) 19:27, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge to My Neighbor Totoro. If they are not important enough to merit their own article, put them in Totoro. I just thought that since they show up in two different cartoons it would be easier to have one article, rather than to describe them twice and redundantly. --Uncle Ed (talk) 00:58, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why merge to Totoro, when they have a much larger role in Spirited Away? This is why they should stay in an independent article.

Our sofas have four loose cushions on them: two totoros, a catbus, two suswatari. I'm leaning on a susuwatari as I type this. These are every bit a character, and an externally marketable character, as others within the Ghibli canon. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:11, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As arguments go, the details of your home furnishings are not helpful to the debate.SephyTheThird (talk) 17:32, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Plenty of hits in Google Books, see this search. Enough reliable sources to build an article around, and clearly meets WP:GNG. Omni Flames (talk) 07:56, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As usual, care should be used within that list of results. Some of them can immediately dismissed and the remaining ones depends very much on context as noted by OpenCooper above. SephyTheThird (talk) 17:30, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 06:31, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2015 University Gardens Seahawks season

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

Is this article notable? Fbdave (talk) 23:07, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:29, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:29, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, and it's got weird placeholders in it, too, with them playing five "week ones" against the Dallas Cowboys. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:30, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I find no significant coverage in reliable sources to pass WP:GNG or WP:ORG. Is this even for real or possible a hoax? Cbl62 (talk) 13:37, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Semi-professional teams rarely garner enough press to pass WP:GNG, and season articles are even less likely. I see no reason to keep this article.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:57, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I created the page just didn't have enough time to edit and make changes. You can delete. @YeahImaBoss

Delete - per creator comment above. Carrite (talk) 15:42, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:OR is a no-go. Sandstein 15:41, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Derivation of the Cartesian form for an ellipse

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

This appears to be original research with no sources that actually state this derivation. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 20:54, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:17, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete It does not look like OR, in that it looks like a result that can probably be found in a textbook. But it is not a good topic for a standalone article. A derivation or proof rarely is, unless especially notable such as Wiles's proof of Fermat's Last Theorem. Not does it need including in ellipse, as too long and not especially interesting. If it had sources they could perhaps be used in ellipse to expand it but unsourced there is not reason to keep it or any of its content.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 00:28, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's not OR (I believe it dates back to Descartes), but it's not of encyclopedic interest. WP:NOTTEXTBOOK. Ozob (talk) 13:13, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Any reader who is really interested in math would want to know how the equation $x^{2}/a^{2}+y^{2}/b^{2}=1$ $x^{2}/a^{2}+y^{2}/b^{2}=1$ is derived from the definition. While the proof is easy, it is not completely trivial either. The derivation of such an important mathematical equation (this is not just a proof, it is a constructive proof) is definitely notable. Jrheller1 (talk) 18:41, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- there are a number of ways of defining an ellipse, a number of ways of describing it mathematically, and so many different ways of deriving one mathematical description of it from another. This is just one of those many methods, and unless evidence can be found it is notable in its own right then it does not need an article.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 09:55, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- The proof article is not very well-written so I don't have any great interest in keeping that article. My only concern was that readers be able to quickly access the derivation of the equation from the definition if necessary. Now that there is a link to an external derivation, there is no reason to keep the article. Jrheller1 (talk) 22:43, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A mention on the relevant page together with an accessible source should be sufficient for this. I think that it would be nice to have a web source for this, cited directly at the place where cartesian equations are given and I am sure there are tons of lecture notes with proofs--I know some but they are in French. jraimbau (talk) 09:19, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I notice that this seems to be part of an ongoing edit war at Ellipse (see [9]). I added this external link at the relevant place in Ellipse#Equations, so I do not think there is anything else to do. (The source looks shaky, but it's totally non-WP:EXTRAORDINARY standard math.) Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 11:46, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Can it help a user looking up information on the Cartesian form of an ellipse? Yes. Can it harm those who run into it? No, they can ignore it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.88.254.250 (talk) 04:38, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Look at WP:NOHARM, a redirect to a subsection of "arguments to avoid in deletion discussions". Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 08:38, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment wondering if moving to wikibooks might be an option? --Salix alba (talk): 06:52, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. hoax Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:44, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Van Di Careomelli Family

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

Badly written and unreferenced article about a strangely ("Van Di"?) named family of "socialites" who show up nowhere else on the web, despite the claims about their prominence. This isn't even a good hoax. Hegvald (talk) 19:25, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete. Only mentions are on Wikipedia. Looks very much like a hoax. If they exist, they haven't done any of the things claimed in the article and certainly aren't notable. Chickadee46 (talk|contribs) (WP:MCW) 22:01, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete: WP:G3 as a hoax. KGirlTrucker81^{talk what I'm been doing} 22:46, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Pichu Sambamoorthi. (non-admin closure) Anarchyte (work | talk) 11:09, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Professor P Sambamurthy

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

Another article, more elaborate, is available as Pichu Sambamoorthi. I have incorporated the missing bibliography section there. jojo@nthony (talk) 19:10, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect- Google search, with Professor P Sambamurthy in double quotes, yields a good number of results. So I guess it is better to redirect it to Pichu Sambamoorthi than deleting. Hitro talk 20:09, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is also a good option as Sambamoorthy is known more as Professor Sambamoorthy than Pichu Sambamoorthy.--jojo@nthony (talk) 05:53, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm ok with redirecting this page to Pichu Sambamoorthi provided that the page title Pichu Sambamoorthi is more appropriate according to wikipedia policies. Few things to consider though:

His name appears as Prof. P. Sambamurthy in his published works. Note the spelling murthy' rather than moorthi. Here's a snapshot of his book covers - Books written by P Sambamurthy

Except for the Padma Awards list, the name Pichu Samba... never occurs anywhere.

Pichu Sambamoorthi cites Open library in Biography section. Open library bio sources from his South Indian Music - Vol II, 13th edition. In that book also his name is given as Prof. P. Sambamurthy. His father's name is mentioned as Pitchu Iyer. It's customary for Tamils to have the first letter of the father's name as initial.

Composerananth (talk) 12:32, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In all likelihood, the name is Pichu Sambamoorthi as Government of India listing shows so in the Padma Awards listing; Pichu taken after his father. Redirect appears to be the best option.--jojo@nthony (talk) 13:03, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 18:45, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect in any case. Bearian (talk) 17:37, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Lists of killings by law enforcement officers. Discuss retargeting on a talk page as necessary, but consensus is to redirect unless some better targets are created. czar 20:15, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Police shooting

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

inappropriate disambig page, as these are not formal names, and none are called simply "police shooting". this could be a list if anyone wants to listify it. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 22:18, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:34, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect This is an interesting one. Police shootings could probably make an encyclopedia article, because it's an inherently important topic, and a globally-focused page on the issue would not be a bad idea. For now, however, I would redirect to one or two places: Lists of killings by law enforcement officers, which is the existing disambiguation list for this sort of thing, or Police#Weapons as a more general target for police using firearms. KaisaL (talk) 01:09, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Use of force. Unnecessary disambiguation page. Could also redirect to list of killings by law enforcement officers, which is the most similar to this disambig, but I prefer pointing to a subject article when it makes sense to do so. Though not necessarily relevant to this AfD, since AfD is about the subject rather than the title, it is interesting to think about whether there's a possible article with this title. I'm inclined to think it would be better to develop use of force, but not sure... — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:38, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We need an article on Use of deadly force to serve as the redirect target for this, which is a special case of Use of force. Use of force can mean a headlock or a taser, or just grabbing someone's arm. Deadly force (or force typically intended to be deadly) has its own set of rules. bd2412 T 21:03, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We have quite a bunch of articles and redirects having "police shooting" in the title, only naturally disambiguated by year and location. The suggested redirs are not even close to needing the lemma "police shooting", except perhaps Lists of killings by law enforcement officers - but as "police shooting" both means "shooting of police" and "shooting by police" it would again need to be disambiguated from Lists of killings of law enforcement officers. Thus we really need a disambiguation here. --S I 07:25, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep or redirect? — Music1201 ^talk 19:10, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 19:10, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

redirect to Lists of killings by law enforcement officers, as most people looking for "police shooting" are looking for incidents, not the concept of deadly force or use of force. I proposed deletion, agree a redirect is better.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 19:47, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Lists of killings by law enforcement officers and merge/remove content that already exists here there - this page serves a similar purpose to the article link above, so we don't need duplicate dab pages. Hx7 19:49, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Lists of killngs by law enforcement officers. KGirlTrucker81^{talk what I'm been doing} 15:35, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 06:35, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Emam Hasan (Mosque)

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

Fails WP:GNG, no indication of notability and no coverage in reliable third-party sources. -- Irn (talk) 18:04, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:48, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:48, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:48, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: What's the name in Farsi, and what did your searches on that reveal? Sam Sailor ^Talk! 02:22, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I would even consider WP:A1 speedy delete, because there are so many mosques named after Hasan ibn Ali (probably the 3rd most sacred figure in Shia Islam), that it is unclear which one is meant. The external links additionally lead to various Imam Hasan Mosques. The first one, for example, is a neighbourhood mosque in the northwest of Shahremam (32°13′57″N 48°25′18″E / 32.2326°N 48.4217°E / 32.2326; 48.4217; west Iran), which conflicts with the description of being in Masshad (northeast Iran). - HyperGaruda (talk) 07:42, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You might be interested to know that similar pages were speedy deleted twice on fa-wiki (page log; same page but slightly different title) these past few days. The first one was recreated just moments ago and is now at AfD. - HyperGaruda (talk) 07:52, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also of interest is its sister page on Wikidata and in particular the page history, which gives an overview of all the added and deleted other-wiki pages. - HyperGaruda (talk) 08:23, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete.Not prominent درخشـان/^◄ 07:56, 17 July 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Derakhshan52 (talk • contribs)
Delete because it does not pass a single factor for my standards of notable houses of worship. Merely being named for a saint is not a factor, as notabiliuty is not inherited. Bearian (talk) 17:40, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 06:38, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Young Pakistan Flag Movement

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

No sources to establish notability for this Pakistan organization. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 17:01, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No RS coverage on subject, thus lacing notability. Meatsgains (talk) 17:37, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't want to receive anymore notifications about this article. I've received so many nomination notifications going back more than five years that it's now enough of my time wasted. I can't find enough coverage for so it'll have to be created later in the future maybe.--Taeyebar

Delete As fails WP:GNG. pakistan&oq=young pakistan&aqs=chrome..69i57.2016j0j4&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8 A quick Google search only brought up non-independent sources, such as the organizations Faebook page and official website. No real reliable coverage. Omni Flames (talk) 07:58, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:49, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Axel Tuanzebe

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

Contested PROD. Original PROD was removed without any explanation via an edit summary, but the user (User:Anishchand99) did claim on my talk page "You know he is certain to make his preseason debut and he will 100% get his senior debut in the league and if not then at least in the europa or the league cup." Obviously this is a violation of WP:CRYSTAL, and this article should be deleted ASAP. – Pee Jay 15:56, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions (done by User:PeeJay2K3). Qed237 (talk) 16:09, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The played made his debut today Vs Wigan. Page should remain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Martynww (talk • contribs) 16:25, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Playing in friendly matches does not confer notability. – Pee Jay 16:26, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Subject definitely fails WP:NFOOTBALL, having played in no competitive fixtures in his career. Although there is some coverage in some newspapers, it does not seem to be beyond the normal attention of a talented youngster playing for a big side such as United so would fail WP:GNG in my opinion. Simply being at the club does not make a player notable. Will probably make his debut soon enough but that would be against WP:CRYSTAL, so delete for now. Kosack (talk) 17:11, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - clearly not notable. Maybe WP:TOOSOON but who knows? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Velella (talk • contribs) 17:31, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I'm seeing a lot of media coverage in the last week alone on this player in major dailies, such as [10] and [11] among others. I'm also seeing some older in-depth coverage of this player such as [12] and [13]. Player meets WP:GNG. Nfitz (talk) 17:59, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Clear case of WP:TOOSOON, fails WP:NFOOTBALL JMHamo (talk) 18:31, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - He has not played in a fully professional league and has not received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:00, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NFOOTY failure. Can be restored if he ever plays professionally. Number 5 7 23:40, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the time being; player does not yet meet the notability guidelines. — foxj 03:53, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I am agreeing with Nfitz, I too am seeing media coverage of Axel Tuanzebe and this article is for me complying with WP:GNG. I am looking him up here after seeing news report. If I am understanding notability rules correctly, then (quoting WP:ATHLETE) "Subjects that do not meet the sport-specific criteria (SSC, including WP:FOOTY) outlined in this guideline may still be notable if they meet the General Notability Guideline (GNG)" and so I am thinking that GNG is outweighing SSC. Regards, Naz | talk | contribs 10:33, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- And what if he breaks his leg tomorrow and never plays again? Is he still notable then? A career of just one friendly is NOT notable, regardless of the media coverage of his youth exploits. – PeeJay 16:28, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - As in any case where WP:GNG is met, if they die tomorrow, they still met WP:GNG yesterday. This is as true of a minister of the crown, as it is a football player. Nfitz (talk) 17:05, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 14:23, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per above. Just played in a friendly, no need to make an article about such a player. Kante4 (talk) 15:02, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Just played in a friendly? 2 of the 4 articles I noted, and the best 2 in fact, as they are all about him, rather than both being about him and the friendly, came out months before the friendly. If he met WP:GNG before the friendly, why would he not meet it after the friendly? Since I commented yesterday, I see about hundreds of new media articles referencing him - with the coverage being international now, rather than just local; presumably this is because of the friendly - but you need to look deeper than that. Nfitz (talk) 15:51, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. I note the following about the sources put forward to allegedly satisfy GNG

Daily Star - Firstly these are comments relating a pre-season game and long standing consensus is that pre-season appearances in friendly matches are insufficient for notability. Secondly, this is about as far from in depth coverage as is possible - 90 words on an 8 minute substitute appearance.
Mirror - I would question whether NFitz or Naz actually read any of the links they found as this is exactly the same quote from Mourinho as used in the previous link, with nothing additional added. There is nothing here to support GNG at all and the article actually devotes the majority of its very short length to a totally different player.
Mirror 2 - This goes a little way to establishing GNG, but essentially regurgitates an MUTV interview. This is hardly independent coverage, but could be useful if additional sources were provided.
IBT - Again, calls into question whether NFitz or Naz read the sources. Quotes such as Criticism is as good as praise really as it allows you to work on something you're not as good at. There's nothing wrong with criticism, you just take everything in your stride in this and the previous source clearly indicate that both sources are merely regurgitating the same primary source interview from Manchester United's own in-house television channel.

Basically, this is a player who has just made a very short substitute appearance for a notable team. He will probably become notable in the future, but a handful of sources duplicating a single brief quote from his manager plus a couple of older "interviews" which merely repeat primary sources. Fenix down (talk) 07:16, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This person fails WP:NFOOTBALL. As far as I can tell, he hasn't played in any fully-professional league, and I couldn't find a lot of coverage overall. Probably WP:TOOSOON for an article here, perhaps he'll be notable enough in a couple of years. Omni Flames (talk) 08:00, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I provided above two references from in-depth articles last year that meet WP:GNG (I never said the two recent ones met WP:GNG). These were [14] and [15]. If I understand the concern with them, is that while one does demonstrate WP:GNG the second is derivative of the firet. Okay then, here are two more articles that are unrelated to the original two. [16] and [17]; two different writers, two different countries. These are examples of significant coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the subject. WP:GNG is met. The failure to meet WP:NFOOTBALL is not relevant. Nfitz (talk) 03:11, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, but think about it - in 50 years, if this guy has never played a professional game in his life, do you think those sources you provided will still assert notability? Sources that indicate someone might have a promising future aren't exactly strong in my book. They'd be fine as sources for a section on his early career once his notability has actually been established, but not for establishing notability in the first place. – Pee Jay 07:37, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to PeeJay's comments, I am still seeing problems with the sources that you are bringing here, as they are essentially still to a greater or lesser extent mirrors not only of other sources you have already provided, but also derivative of primary source interviews and so not suitable for GNG, specifically:

Mirror - large parts of this, specifically quotes from his old P.E. teacher, then quotes from the current school sports coordinator, are repeated verbatim from the earlier Mirror article you cited. Bar a few additional quotes, the June 2016 Mirror article is basically a slight expansion of the same thing they wrote in November 2015, which you already cited above.
Sportskeeda - firstly, I would call into question the reliability of this website. Not that it should not be used, but given that pages like this suggest that anyone can submit work, this seems very much like a user-generated news site. Secondly, the major quotes in this article are again regurgitated. The Mourinho quote is exactly the same as the one noted in the very brief Mirror article you linked to earlier, with the Paul McGuinness quote being essentially the same as the second Mirror article.

As far as I can see, there are some quotes from people at Manchester United who naturally would have a good opinion of him and these have been rehashed several times over the last six months to produce several articles. What I am not seeing is significant in depth coverage that does not rely on Primary sources for its content. The reason I am not seeing this is that this individual has made an 8 minute appearance in a pre-season friendly, he has done nothing yet in his field to be considered notable. Fenix down (talk) 07:56, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It is seeming to me that there is a hare and a tortoise situation here. The hare is for "delete", to be making a WP:POINT perhaps? But the tortoise is not so much being for "keep" as for wait. Seeing the comments being made publicly by Jose Mourinho, it must be possible and even that likely that Tuanzebe will be playing in the FA Community Shield on 7 August, only three weeks time. Surely in case like this one, it is better using some WP:COMMONSENSE and waiting until, let us be saying, the end of August? The player then being indeed part of Mourinho's plans, we will surely be seeing him in first team in August. Can the deletion request not be deferred until then, otherwise it being recreated only three or four weeks after being deleted? Regards, Naz | talk | contribs 13:16, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- There is absolutely nothing POINTy about this nomination. I ask you, how long should we wait before Tuanzebe becomes notable? Just until the Community Shield? What if he doesn't play in that; should we continue waiting? The fact is, he's not notable right now and shouldn't have an article until he is. After all, there's nothing to stop us restoring this article once he makes a noteworthy appearance, he just shouldn't have one right now... – Pee Jay 13:57, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, this is not pointy, we simply don't make articles about any subject in anticipation of notability. Once he actually plays senior football he will be notable. If the result of this AfD is to delete, I am happy for you or any other editor to notify me when they believe he is notable and I will restore the article to mainspace immediately. Fenix down (talk) 14:13, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Fenix down. That is fair enough. Thank you. Regards, Naz | talk | contribs 14:49, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Not that playing in tomorrow's friendly would confer notability, but Jose Mourinho just announced that Eric Bailly and Phil Jones will be United's starting centre-backs against Dortmund, so it seems like Tuanzebe is still further away from the starting XI than we thought. Plus, even if he does start any of the friendlies this summer, Mourinho seems to want to try all sorts of defensive combinations, so I wouldn't read anything into who plays on the tour and who doesn't. – Pee Jay 14:31, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. A lot of the above arguments are very WP:CRYSTAL. - Yellow Dingo (talk) 02:00, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:50, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Houseology.com

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

Maxkelp prodded this article with the rationale "self-promotion". I challenged it since it had already had two speedy deletion requests declined as not being irretrievably promotional. Maxkelp then put an AfD tag on, but did not complete the process, so I am doing so for him. This should not be construed as an endorsement for deletion on my part. LadyofShalott 14:52, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

When I first saw this article, I couldn't believe how Wikipedia was carrying a full-page advert for an unknown minor retail website. Almost all the information was written without citation, so it must have been written by someone who knows the business but doesn't have objective evidence of any of the claims. It contained quotes from the business owner without reference to where or when it was said. It contained several links to the business's website and promotional materials. It claimed that the website contained 'comprehensive educational courses' or suchlike, but when I looked at the website, it just contained a few marketing materials along the lines of an amateur's introduction to interior design. It clearly violated the main four guidelines and policies that inform deletion discussions: notability (WP:N), verifiability (WP:V), reliable sources (WP:RS), and what Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT). In my opinion it was without doubt prime for speedy deletion, but oddly this was immediately refuted, perhaps because I had already edited the article to make it less of a marketing piece. Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion. If this article is allowed, then an article on every web retailer should also be allowed. Allowing the article to remain leaves it open to be altered by editors with a vested interest in the business and add all the promotional marketing information and links to the website back again. Delete Maxkelp (talk) 15:00, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can see, this article was created earlier this year and speedily deleted for reason A7: https://tools.wmflabs.org/xtools/pages/index.php?user=Fashionista888&lang=en&wiki=wikipedia&namespace=0&redirects=noredirects Delete Maxkelp (talk) 19:29, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The previously deleted article was much briefer. This is not a just a recreation of that. LadyofShalott 20:14, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not suggesting that this article is identical, but that the reason for the deletion given at https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=&page=Houseology.com was deletion with speedy deletion-advertising tag, and (A7: No credible indication of importance (individuals, animals, organizations, web content, events)). These points still stand for the current article, and the article packed with marketing and promotional links before editing, and of any possible future edit of this page. It's not a well-known company, it's not notable, it's not important, it's a marketing ploy for a small company to promote itself online alongside major well-known businesses, and I'm at a loss to understand how anyone can think differently unless they have a vested interest in promoting this online retailer. Delete Maxkelp (talk) 22:26, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:30, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:30, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 15:11, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete* Fails WP:SELFPUB & WP:PROMO. A torrent of quasi-industry, self-inspired, spam-publicity that doesn't add relevance to the argument, and rams unabashedly at times straight into WP:NOT. Nikto wha? 17:24, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:PROMO and lacks reliable third party sources.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 03:25, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:50, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strika

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

This article currently fails to establish notability, TTN (talk) 14:40, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 14:40, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Redirect to Transformers. Meatsgains (talk) 17:44, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; no evidence of any real-world significance. I'm not sure I see the value of a redirect to Transformers, but I wouldn't necessarily be opposed to a redirect or even selective merge if an appropriate target could be found. Josh Milburn (talk) 14:59, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Mystara. (non-admin closure) — Music1201 ^talk 16:11, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alphatia

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

This article fails to establish notability. TTN (talk) 14:32, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 14:32, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to Mystara. BOZ (talk) 17:02, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Per BOZ. ~~Had that been tried already and reverted? If not, why do we keep seeing AfD's of fictional elements with a clear redirect target?~~ Nevermind, I see that it has, by an IP address. Sigh. Jclemens (talk) 20:45, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, but it could do with a trim. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:09, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. WP:G5 NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:23, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

CK Morgan (singer)

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

Not enough coverage in independent, reliable sources to verify or sustian article. Fails Wikipedia's General Notability Guidelines and WP:MUSICBIO. The sources are passing mentions or release announcements. The chart, 1wxrld, is not a national chart it is essentially a blog. ("Recently I started a music chart, a very very personal listing of songs I called 1wxrld charts of a Top 200 weekly listing of songs updated every Sunday. Of course this has no bearing on actual success, as it is a very personal, say biased chart of mine"^{From About 1wxrld}).

This article was deleted at AfD last year and should properly be looked at a CSD#G4 however the creator has removed the tag two or three times [18] [19] [20] and I am not going to war over it. Jbh ^Talk 14:22, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Links to previous AfDs:

If this closes as delete please consider WP:SALTing the various permutations of the article name. Requiring WP:AFC so many recreations does not seem unreasonable. Jbh ^Talk 13:09, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/C.k Morgan (Daflyboy). duffbeerforme (talk) 00:47, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 14:27, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 14:27, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note Pinging @Joe Decker: the closing admin of the last AfD who can check if this article and the older one are substantially different. Jbh ^Talk 15:03, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In my view, there are sufficient differences to keep this from being eligible for speedy deletion under G4. (Not expressing a view on redeletion here, just that there are differences in sourcing and text relative to the version in the discussion I closed. --joe decker ^talk 06:55, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Jbh ^Talk 12:26, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Exactly like Joe said this version is better then the previous one that was deleted This article should not be deleted it could be maybe be improved better that's why there's a stub over there for it to be more improved This article is way better then the old one so next time Do a lil bit of homework before speedy deletion Debbyloves234 (talk) 07:28, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please know, as I explained to you previously, only admins can view deleted pages. Normal users can only see that previous deletions occurred and 3 delete AfDs is quite excessive. Also please note that Wikipedia's deletion policy recommends "doing homework" AKA WP:BEFORE which I did. The only thing I found were trivial mentions, album announcements and a note he was doing a collaboration but no further information - which is also all you have in the article. I do not think that coverage meets Wikipedia's notability requirements. If better sources, that meet those requirements, come up in the course of this AfD I have no problem withdrawing my nomination or changing my !vote.

Finally, you may want to change the "Comment" above to "Keep" to make it clear to the closer you want the article kept. Jbh ^Talk 12:26, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Debbyloves234: Do you have any source to back up the claim now in the article that Shack it down made it to #20 on Billboard? If it is true then he will pass WP:NALBUM but I can not find any source for that claim nor does anything show up when searching the Billboard web site. Jbh ^Talk 12:43, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, I see it was the 1wxwrld claim just linked to Billboard Hot 100 in the chart. Jbh ^Talk 12:47, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly didn't know you were that stupid , where does it say billboard charts ? This article is definitely notable in Ghana and it does meet criteria this topic is closed because to me this article is better then the previous one I can update and add more to this article I'm not even done yet , that's where clearly it says you can help to make this article better so please get your facts right and stop being a pain in the ass , I don't understand why the hate tho u could actually help to improve the article better but your fighting for something which ain't worth it it's not like your making or getting any money out of this Debbyloves234 (talk) 12:55, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The link, in the chart you created here (US) goes links to Billboard Hot 100. If he has actually had a song on that chart and you had a reference for it he would have passed notability criteria and I would have withdrawn my nomination.

"it it's not like your making or getting any money out of this". Are you? Please see WP:PAID for Wikipedia's policies on paid editing. Also, being rude and insulting, as above, really gains you nothing and costs you respect and goodwill. Jbh ^Talk 13:24, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not trying to be rude here but at least give people the chance to improve it better I'm still working on it , maybe my mistake putting the US chart should have done it proba but I don't see this getting nominated for deletion At least give people a chance a few days to improve it better that's why I put the stub over there so people can help and I'm still working towards it to add more reference And stuff it's rather better helping then going against each other ain't cute Debbyloves234 (talk) 13:52, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, when I see an article which has been deleted 9 times through 4 prior deletion discussions I am disinclined to give it the benefit of the doubt when it shows no signs of passing the notability criteria. Please read the General notability guidelines and Notability criteria for mucians for what is needed - in particular significant coverage (At least a couple of paragraphs and not press releases or album anouncements etc) in multiple independent, reliable sources.

~~If you would like it can be moved to draft space - DRAFT:CK Morgan - where you will be able to work on it. Once an article is in Main space it needs to meet Wikipedia's content guidelines though.~~

Also, please indent your replies. It makes it easier to for others to follow the discussion. I have fixed the formatting of this thread. Please take a look at A brief introduction to editing talk pages. Thank you. Jbh ^Talk 14:10, 17 July 2016 (UTC) Last edited: 00:50, 18 July 2016 (UTC) [reply]

then you might aswell move it to a user space because i dont see whats the arguement is asll about i need some few days to improve it i mean to improve this article more better87.145.150.145 (talk) 18:42, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Debbyloves234: This AfD will run for at least 7 days before it is closed so you do have a bit of time, but you want me to move it into DRAFT space for you please sign into your account and confirm the request you(?) made as an IP above and, so long as no one else has !voted, it can be Userfied per request and the AfD closed. Jbh ^Talk 19:03, 17 July 2016 (UTC) Last edited: 00:50, 18 July 2016 (UTC) [reply]

Even if I were inclined to withdraw my nomination, which I no longer am with a history of abusive recreation attempts like noted below, another editor !voting delete makes it impossible. Jbh ^Talk 00:50, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Salt, Scorch, Ban. It's been more than 9 times.

CK Morgan 5 times, C.K M.O.R.G.A.N (FlyBoy), C.K M.O.R.G.A.N (DaFlyBoy), CK Morgan- Singer, CK Morgan (Flyboy), C.k Morgan, CK- Morgan, C.K-Morgan, C.K Morgan (singer), C.k Morgan (flyboy), C.k .Morgan, C.K .Morgan, C.K . Morgan, C.k Morgan (Daflyboy), C.K. Morgan, CK MORGAN, Ck Morgan (Rnb Singer), CK Morgan (Singer)

Draft:C.K. Morgan, Draft:CK Morgan, Draft:CK Morgan (Singer), Draft:C.k Morgan twice.

Missing any? duffbeerforme (talk) 00:38, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Damn! How did you dig up the other deletes which were not associated with the previous AfDs? I have the script which shows the previous AfDs and previous deletes but... damn, someone really wants a Wikipedia article. Jbh ^Talk 00:50, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Satellizer el Bridget ^(Talk) 13:41, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Turf (the game)

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

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

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

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

App with no evidence of any notability. Only one independent ref which demonstrates that it is used but little else. Remaining refs are own web-site or selling pitches. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 12:43, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article fits well on Wikipedia, and is present on the Swedish Wikipedia pages. "What's Turf" is the "What is ..." search that increased second-most on Google in 2012 in Sweden, so it´s need for people to find it in a encyclopedia lika Wikipedia. 22:34, 16 July 2016 (GMT)

Delete: Google search results show no coverage in reilible sources. KGirlTrucker81^{talk what I'm been doing} 13:51, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please take a look now at the sources that have been added to the article. Kildor (talk) 10:40, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And now you can look again... Optimus Turf (talk) 01:48, 20 July 2016 (GMT +2)

Keep. I have added a language link to the Swedish Wikipedia article now. In that article, you can find references to numerous of newspaper articles and references from radio and TV news in Sweden. The article needs improvements though, i.e. proper disambiguation in the article name, notability references, categorization, etc. Created in 2011, it is an early augmented reality massively multiplayer online location-based game, preceeding now popular games like Ingress and Pokémon Go. As such, the game has been mentioned several times in media and articles, both from a technical and social point of view. Kildor (talk) 14:23, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This game is free unless you want to be a supporter. Its pretty big in Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Finlad and some more European countries. Strange someone say no coverage in relilible sources as there are lots of articles from swedish magazzines, tv-news and more. If this article is deleted, why keep articles from other games such PokemonGo and Ingress? Fotojoc (talk) 00:08, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete. What is notable for the Swedish Wikipedia isn't necessarily notable for the English language Wikipedia. WP:VG/RS does include non-English sources. But when I look up "turf andrimon", on the custom Google search engine, I get zero results. Also, Fotojoc (talk · contribs) only two edits have been on this talk page, which are WP:OTHERSTUFF. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 08:59, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell from WP:VG/RS, there are zero (0) Swedish language sources in the list of sources used for the custom search enginge. So I don't think your search proves anything. Why don't you check the references in the article instead, and tell if you think these are, or are not, sufficient to establish the notability of this game? Kildor (talk) 10:30, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Again, what is notable for the Swedish Wikipedia doesn't necessarily mean it is notable for the English language Wikipedia. If it is notable, how come not a single source mentions it there? IGN and Eurogamer for instance feature different languages. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 13:07, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am not talking about the Swedish Wikipedia now. I am talking about the references given in the article you want to be deleted here. Have you actually looked at them at all? Kildor (talk) 19:03, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I thought you were referring to the Swedish Wikipedia link. Look, I'm not a bad guy, hell-bent on deleting this article. Hell, I improved the article, despite I think it should go. I looked over the references too, to see if they establish notability. Out of the nine it currently has, two are by developer Andrimon. Those two can't be used to establish notability, as they are primary sources. The last one is about the zones, also not notable. The Umeå University bit is certainly interesting, but it scientific research, not general media. The source that a Tuf even was held at DreamHack proves it did, but again, a primary source. The newspapers and radio sources however are most definitely notable. That makes four reliable sources. But per WP:GNG, we need "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". I checked if maybe I made an error on the WP:VG/RS custom Google search engine. Looking up other words and phrases, like "turf sweden", "turf gps", "turf game", I found the similarly titled Turf: Geography Club and Geo, another location-based game. I also double-checked to see if IGN Sweden and Eurogamer Sweden did mention the game, but they do not. So no, I do not think Turf meets Wikipedia's guidelines on notability. Maybe it is just WP:TOOSOON at this point and it will get huge someday, who knows. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 08:04, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No hard feelings here. I fully respect your opinion that Turf does not meet the Wikipedia criteria of notability. And thank you for the improvements! But let us turn to discuss what is needed to fullfil those criteria. Yes, three different newspaper articles and one radio feature are currently referenced in the enwiki article. Note that all of them has 'Turf' as the main topic. In the Swedish wiki article, there are references to at least 10 articles from different independent newspapers in Sweden, articles that also have Turf as the main topic. And two radio features, and two TV features. (Yes, those references are found on the Swedish Wikipedia article, but can easily be transferred here if necessary). And there are also some articles from a Swedish computer/gaming magazine: [21] [22] [23]. Let me know what you think. I personally think this is more than enough, but I am quite certain I can find more links if really needed. Kildor (talk) 21:29, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Put some more links in today. I can put in maybee 20 more from different papers but they often have the same "message" and I don´t know if there sould be more than 3 different links to the same text phrase on Wiki ? My problem is that I only know articles in Swedish and many of them takes the article away from the net after some months... [24] Optimus Turf (talk) 01:48, 20 July 2016 (GMT +2)

Keep. The game is used by many people in (at least) 9 countries and isn´t "only a Swedish game". The article is now more compleete, although further updates will be made (probably by multiple users). Optimus Turf (talk) 11:23, 17 July 2016 (GMT +2)

Optimus Turf (talk · contribs) is another possible WP:COI account. WP:ITSPOPULAR is not a reason to keep an article. Nobody discounted it as a "Swedish game" either. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 09:44, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What makes you think Optimus Turf is a WP:COI account? As far as I can tell, this user is one of several thousands Turf players, and I hope that does not disqualify him/her to write about the game here. I cannot find anything that indicates this user is affiliated with the publishing company or similar. Kildor (talk) 10:35, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, their user name is Optimus Turf and a vast majority of their edits concern this article. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 13:07, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, unfortunately many other usernames I tested before was occupied. But my name is exactly the same to my game-account on my iPhone so it still was not foreign to me... Do you want a photo proof of my iPhone ? Optimus Turf (talk) 09:50, 27 July 2016 (GMT +2)

I didn't mean to offend you, @Optimus Turf:. A WP:COI account is a user that edits for themselves, a friend or the company they work for, usually trying to portray the subject in a more positive light. Having an article shows the subject is notable, so some companies actually try to take advantage of Wikipedia. The reason why I thought you could be a WP:COI account was because you are relatively new (your first edit was on July 16) and you haven't edited anything that isn't related to Turf. I was suspicious, because Fotojoc (talk · contribs) has only two edits, which are in vote of keeping this article. But don't worry, I don't think you have any ties to Turf or the company, I think you're just a fan of Turf. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 08:24, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Soetermans (talk · contribs) What do you mean about "Optimus Turf is another possible WP:COI account" ??? I do not think we know each other so I mated me for defamation!

And now back to the topic. Well, then we have a couple of more articles on Wikipedia to delete, that are "almost the same" as Turf and have the same type of popularity and "Conflict of interest". Munzee, Pokémon Go (well, that's a big article), Can You See Me Now?, Ingress (video game) (also a big article), Wherigo and a lot of others... Now you will probably say that the fact that other sides are "bad" will not affect this site, but then I hope you fight to the other is removed as well? I note that we do not think alike, but if some articles in the same vein is OK I really think that everyone should be it! You can not "change the rules" and only approve old stuff (and no new ones) on such a widely used page like this.

Again, we're not discussing other articles, we're discussing the article on Turf. That is WP:OTHERSTUFF. It is not "widely discussed" and I'm not changing any rules (nor am I able to). Please look up the relevant guidelines on deletion discussions. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 13:07, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If keeping, please rename to Turf (game). I may later look at notability but see above that the direction is keeping and am not a deletionist anyway. gidonb (talk) 11:33, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's better without the but someone says that this change should be done after the discussion is ended. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Optimus Turf (talk • contribs) 22:42, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is exactly why I did not move the article but put a comment here. gidonb (talk) 01:33, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If it's kept, it should be disambiguated to "video game", not just "game", that's typically how it's done. -- Anarchyte (work | talk) 12:26, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the listed sources are still not satisfying and I'm not seeing anything else particularly convincing, best deleted and restarted if at all. SwisterTwister talk 19:03, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing as Swedish is my native language, I decided to take a look at the sources used: (numbering based on this revision)

#1 and 8 are from the developer's website - OK to use, I suppose, but does nothing to indicate notability
#2 is an interview with one of the top players about the game. Also includes a "quick facts" type of box with information about the game. Published by Vestmanlands Läns Tidning, a Västmanland province newspaper founded in 1831. Might indicate notability.
#3 is an interview with three players about the game. Published by Norran, a Västerbotten province newspaper founded in 1910. Might indicate notability.
#4 links to a scan of a newspaper clipping from the Åland Islands newspaper Ålandstidningen, which was founded in 1891. Without issue number etc it would be difficult to verify it, so I can't see this being used to indicate notability.
#5 is a blog post by ethnologists at Umeå University. I do not think this is better than any random person's blog in terms of indicating notability for a video game.
#6 and 7 are features about the game on Sveriges Radio, the national publicly funded radio broadcaster in Sweden. Might indicate notability.
#9 is an article in the web edition of PC för Alla, the largest computer magazine in Sweden. Might indicate notability.

Now number 14

#10 is a guide to apps used outdoors. I am unfamiliar with the website, M3, but it is published by the same company as PC för Alla

Now number 15

#11 is an article/interview on Jnytt. I have never heard of it, but it claims to be the largest news site in Småland. Unsure if it indicates notability.

Now number 16

#12 and 13 are articles by Barometern, the largest newspaper in Småland. Might indicate notability.

Now number 17+18

#14 is just Dreamhack's page on some Turf event held there in 2011. Does not indicate notability.

Now number 19

#15 is a table of some sort of gameplay data. There's no information on who publishes it or where they get the information on, so unless proven otherwise, I'm gonna say it does not indicate notability.

Now number 20

#16 is an article in a local weekly newspaper, published in Lerum Municipality since 1967. Unsure if this is enough to indicate notability.

Now number 21

Not all of these sources are usable, but I believe the ones that are might be enough to satisfy the general notability guideline.--IDV^talk 12:34, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

New links on number 9-13. Number 9 from Turf´s own Wiki, 10 from Sjællands Nyheder i Danish, 11 from Ålandstidningen (same as above, Finnish paper in Swedish), 12 from Österbottens Tidning (Finnish paper in Swedish), 13 from Hufvudstadsbladet (Finnish paper in Swedish). Optimus Turf (talk) 10:30, 27 July 2016 (GMT +2)

Keep per User:Kildor's rationale. --Fixuture (talk) 14:15, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Changing vote to keep, thanks to @IDV:'s breakdown of the references. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 18:28, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy deleted as A7 by Dragons flight. (non-admin closure) Chickadee46 (talk|contribs) (WP:MCW) 15:36, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alisha Adhikari

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

Non notable also contains fake information about the person. Nepali keto62_{Questions?!?!?} 11:46, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete afd not required. Theroadislong (talk) 12:18, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Theresa May. Black Kite (talk) 14:34, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hubert Brasier

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

Contested prod. We do not have articles on the fathers of the majority of recent British Prime Ministers, where we do have them they have some additional claim to notability, e.g. Alfred Roberts was an important local politician. Spouses of Prime Ministers are different as they do tend to attract some significant media attention. Also, why have an article on Theresay May's father but not her mother? PatGallacher (talk) 11:07, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. For a standalone article, there should be some sources attesting independent notability, i.e. I should look down at the list of sources and not see only articles about Theresa May. Otherwise there is a strong case to be made for merging the entirety back to her article; a section of this length about her father should be reasonable to keep completely there. Wnt (talk) 11:32, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. for (;;) (talk) 14:17, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. for (;;) (talk) 14:18, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

pinging contributors at discussion of the PROD on the article's talk page... Davidships,Bashereyre,Arxiloxos,Blythwood for (;;) (talk) 14:22, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Wnt. There's enough here for a nice section on her background, but probably not for a standalone article, unless he did other stuff that we don't know about yet. This is Paul (talk) 16:41, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have just checked, prior to May there have been 13 British Prime Ministers since WW2, only 5 of their fathers have an article, even fewer of their mothers. Randolph Churchill was a leading national politician, the Earl of Home was of course an earl, Alfred Roberts was an important local politician, Tom Major-Ball had a significant stage career, and Leo Blair had a significant career as an academic and activist. PatGallacher (talk) 20:47, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The originator admits on the talk page that its creation was speculative. There is nothing noteworthy here that is not already in the Theresa May article. The unremarkable career details of this regular Anglican ecclesiatic are nowhere near notable and should not be in the TM article.Davidships (talk) 15:49, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Theresa May. Notability cannot be inherited from his daughter. This article may provide slightly more detail on his career than there would be room for in her article, but I doubt we need that. NN. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:03, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note that notability can, in fact, be inherited, on Wikipedia as in real life: WP:INHERIT explicitly states: "Individuals in close, personal relationships with famous people (including politicians) can have an independent article even if they are known solely for such a relationship, but only if they pass WP:GNG." This is how we come to have articles on a grocer named Alfred Roberts, and an attorney named Leo Blaire who would not have merited Wikipedia articles if they had been childless. Lord Randolph would have had an article even if he had never had a son, but parents of Prime Ministers, often attract sufficient press coverage to support an article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:07, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Times may be changing, the British media may be nosier than they used to be [25], or maybe it's that nosey American media are digging up info on the Prime Minister's Dad that British media didn't bother with [26], but there is coverage of her Dad. Reporters are out there digging this stuff up [27], [28], [29]. If we colonists are responsible for spreading our obsession with the President's family to an unwilling mother country, then, as an American, I apologize. But I do think that the level of media interest means that the article stays.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:14, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Theresa May, per Peterkingiron. Even allowing for E.M.Gregory's argument that there is media interest the fact is, after TM's 6 years in one of the Great Offices of State, a couple of weeks as a Prime-ministerial candidate, and a week in the job, the media have yet to find anything interesting about him. for (;;) (talk) 10:38, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Where is it written that the subject of an article has to be "interesting"?E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:59, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just so you know, We have kept relatives of contemporary American politician with no sources at all other than stores generated by their relationship to a candidate. We have had a lot of very similar U.S. discussions recently, there were are sources at all dating to the period before the spouse (Karen Pence, Todd Palin, or Michael Haley (South Carolina)) Governor, or Senator Jeanette Dousdebes Rubio, Ditto for several others in this category who now have pages. But if Trump wins, we will will inevitably have a page on a gas station owner named Edward J. Pence, Jr.. Maybe sooner. This is not to say that Britain needs to follow suit; it's just that since I worked on those AFDs and remember those pages (some of which I created), I want to let editors considering this quesiton know what's out there.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:40, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just want to add that I created pages on both sides - Jane O'Meara Sanders - to level the playing field, in a situation where some of the candidates spouses had pages, and others didn't. But even for the spouse who had had a career as a cheerleader for the Miami Dolphins, neither I nor anyone else could find so much as a press mention of her cheer-leading career until her husband became prominent. Adding this so that other editors will know how what standards have recently been applied to close kin of U.S. politicians, Britons may with to apply different standards.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:40, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A Rachel Sylvester essay in The Times is echoed in today's The Australian "Just as Margaret Thatcher’s world view was informed by living above her father’s grocer’s shop in Grantham, Mrs May’s character and politics were forged in a rural Oxfordshire rectory. An only child, the prime minister learnt early in life that she was always “on show”. The parishioners of her father, the Rev Hubert Brasier, would arrive unannounced at any time of the day or night. Whether baking scones for the village fete with her mother or listening to the cricket with her father, the young Theresa felt a heavy burden of expectations, once explaining that as a clergyman’s daughter, “you’re supposed to behave in a particular way. Living next to the church, she acquired the discipline and determination that have led her all the way to Downing Street — but she also learnt..." [30].E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:29, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as best known for being the father, nothing to suggest his own convincing article. SwisterTwister talk 19:24, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
sources Details about his life are being researched, published [31] Here's The Times on how Dad's unique college influenced him and his daughter's career [32]. There does seem to be enough to pass WP:GNG.E.M.Gregory (talk) 09:34, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete per CSD:G3 - this is a blatant hoax. Nick-D (talk) 09:56, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

French genocide

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

This is, to put it mildly, unhistorical nonsense. There was no "Nazi and Italian" plan for France to be "levelled" and its population "fully exterminated". A search for the term finds references to the War in the Vendée in the 1790s, and to events in Algeria, Rwanda, Cameroon and North America, but nothing to support this. I am nominating the article at once, although it is marked with the {{new page}} template, because it is not a case of "More editing may be needed to meet standards" - no amount of editing will save this, because it is fantasy. JohnCD (talk) 09:48, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. JohnCD (talk) 09:51, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. JohnCD (talk) 09:51, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 10:47, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sohail Khatri

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

contested PROD; concern was: fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. Yellow Dingo (talk) 08:37, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Yellow Dingo (talk) 08:41, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Yellow Dingo (talk) 08:41, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Yellow Dingo (talk) 08:41, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Kosack (talk) 08:44, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Subject does not seem to pass WP:NFOOTY as the player has not played yet in a fully professional league. Hitro talk 10:22, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nom. Nepali keto62_{Questions?!?!?} 11:49, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 14:23, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 07:26, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The player seems to never have played in any fully-professional league, so he doesn't pass WP:NFOOTY. I can't seem to find any reliable coverage either, and no evidence of the subject passing WP:GNG. Omni Flames (talk) 08:02, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 13:57, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Tone 10:47, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Turkish Peace Council

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

After the coup d'état quickly turned out a failure, this interim body never really came into existence. Therefore it seems preferable to cover the few information we have, within the main article 2016 Turkish coup d'état attempt. PanchoS (talk) 07:40, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect it to the main article. Nothing there to merge, as the current content is highly problematic in terms of WP:BLP, giving prominent coverage to the alleged role of Fethulla Gülen (an assertion that, as fas as I know, has only ever be raised by Mr Erdogan, who is decidedly not a reliable source on such matters, so I'd count it as a BLP violation). Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:22, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. -- Lyuflamb (talk) 09:42, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. -- prat (talk) 10:39, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirecting to the 2016 Turkish coup d'état attempt article seems sensible here, both considering the BLP issues and the lack of sourced substance regarding the Council. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 11:02, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

*Redirect as creator of article, don't see any reason to have separate article anymore since the coup has failed and the composition of this so called 'council' is completely unknown. Nub Cake (talk) 12:02, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~: I've changed my mind. The formation of this council is likely to become apparent in the coming days, even though it has failed to take power. Nub Cake (talk) 02:11, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 2016 Turkish coup d'état attempt. The content on the Turkish Peace Council could have been expanded at the redirect target page, and the redirect is not implausible. Also remove BLP vios when moving the content over. Hx7 12:31, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect mainly because the coup failed. Ceosad (talk) 12:40, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2016 Turkish coup d'état attempt. For closing, I suggest that WP:SNOW might apply without waiting for the standard deadline. Boud (talk) 14:17, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep since the content has now expanded and presents a meaning that is more clearly "a group of people that briefly claimed to constitute an institution for controlling Turkey and for several hours persuaded the world's media that they had a chance of succeeding". That group of people are likely to increase in notability, even if their nature as a group and their membership are likely to remain controversial and will need NPOVing and care with WP:BLP. A rename should probably wait until some time has passed, to find out what name for the would-be group becomes accepted in the English-language community. Boud (talk) 16:11, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – The article's content needs a total overhaul, but Wikipedia deserves an article on the subject. --Checco (talk) 14:22, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

*Redirect to 2016 Turkish coup d'état attempt. --Panam2014 (talk) 14:29, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly keep now that article has been expanded. --Panam2014 (talk) 08:35, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect under the circumstances this falls under the primary topic (only one event). -- Callinus (talk) 15:48, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Obviously notable.15200 Google news results for "yurtta Sulh Konseyi". Yogesh Khandke (talk) 16:12, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect --Opdire657 (talk) 17:22, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notable enough to have its own article. Beejsterb (talk) 19:08, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect WP:NOTNEWS --Idh0854 (talk) 19:46, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: Too soon, not enough information as separate from the coup. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 21:29, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I have added significant [33] information to the article, that unlikely would be included in a redirect. Burst of unj (talk) 01:18, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: The entirety of this organization's existence is based around the coup, so I would be inclined to say that it is not notable or worthy of inclusion. I mean, if there are further incidents by this organization, we could look at it again. But for now, I'd say not. DARTHBOTTO_talk•cont 03:30, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The article need desperately more content and reliable sources, but the subject is very much notable.--Boris Baran - ✉ 04:05, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect without prejudice as WP:TOOSOON. There might be room for an article if this body has any future, but for now it is solely a part of failed coup and its only notability comes from that. --Muhandes (talk) 08:32, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Details yet to be revealed.-- H^akan·IST 12:55, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
On the article's discussion page, the following "votes" were cast: "The article says it has been nominated for deletion. IMO this shouldn't go ahead. This coup will likely change the entirety of the Turkish government and geopolitics in the region. While it could use expanding, it shouldn't be deleted. PromethiumElemental (talk) 12:57, 16 July 2016 (UTC)PromethiumElemental[reply]

-yeah why should it be deleted its? The article would lack an other side it makes absolutely no sense--Crossswords (talk) 22:15, 16 July 2016 (UTC)" Burst of unj (talk) 14:03, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect: It's not, in my opinion, that it's not notable enough, just that it wasn't around for long enough for sources to be written about it to prove its notability. I also agree with Muhandes' comment above. If in the future, more information comes out about the Peace Council (maybe pre-made plans for its members, formation, etc.) then a new article could easily be made. The analysis by the BBC journalist can be merged into the main article as a subsection. Seagull123 Φ 17:57, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep now that article has been expanded: The article has now been expanded with further details regarding the statement of its establishment. It would be counterproductive now to delete this article, seeing as it is the only solid establishment we can link the failed coup plot to. Nub Cake (talk) 00:29, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep– seems like a very useful article, best kept separate from the main coup article. The brief period of existence of this council doesn't mean it's not notable. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 03:24, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Article looks like it's a rose by any other name. The lead is all about the coup, the body is a massive translation of what was read out (i'm sure that has to be breaching some guideline). There really is nothing in this that isn't covered in the main article so it's a bit redundant. If people feel this translation is necessary an external link on the main page would be more appropriate. Hollth (talk) 08:39, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure that a statement made by a reporter at gunpoint, as a part of her forced participation in a criminal act and a criminal conspiracy, is covered by intellectual property rights. Do you have a link to (other) English versions of the statement? 46.15.226.195 (talk) 10:39, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The lead is all about the council - not the coup. 46.15.226.195 (talk) 10:49, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't mean copyright. The Odyssey isn't under copyright, it isn't printed in full on Wikipedia. Similarly, the translation is not warranted in full, instead an external link would suffice. When that is removed from the page, there is nothing that could not be covered under the main page. The only other bit that is not covered thus far in the main page is the composition, which by the way, looks like it is not from an RS for this matter. I"d also note that in this discussion so far there appears to be mainly arguments using 'it's useful' or 'it will be more important later' (crystal). Neither are particularly convincing in my eyes. Hollth (talk) 03:44, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per everyone else. EkoGraf (talk) 12:54, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Not very helpful. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 15:45, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - You really want me to say why I think everyone else who said keep is right and I agree? Fine, keep because even if it was short-lived it was a notable organisation/group because they attempted to overthrow the Turkish government and history remembers such things. There. EkoGraf (talk) 16:29, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Nub Cake. --Sirenje (talk) 14:47, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as this name was as far as I know never proven to be an official name for them. The article now relies far too much on WP:SYNTHESIS. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 15:45, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It definately was the proven official name for them. Nub Cake (talk) 16:18, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect ~~as per my favorite policy, WP:NOTATHING.~~ while this might have "been a thing" for a very brief duration, the article is overwhelmingly composed of the official statement and speculation on membership/conspiracies/Gulenist influence. I see nothing here that couldn't simply be incorporated into the "Peace at Home Council (Yurtta Sulh Konseyi)" section of the main article, since that section could really do with some work. GAB^gab 15:42, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Shwetha (talk) 15:45, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep —Legoless (talk) 16:50, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — It has now good information. Shadow4dark (talk) 19:15, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, since this is related to a current event and more information will likely be added. Mooseandbruce1 (talk) 00:43, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep since this is an ongoing current event. Abstrakt (talk) 01:34, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is a big difference between the articles. One focuses on the coup, the act and how it progressed. The other focuses on the politics behind it. Well worth keeping both.歳 (talk) 06:58, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly keep The article primarily focuses on the political background of the coup.--176.104.110.11 (talk) 20:19, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Useful spin off article of important political entity; events are ongoing. Paraphrasing The Gambler: there will be time enough for sorting and merging when the dealing's done... Carrite (talk) 15:39, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the attempted coup may have failed quickly, but this still seems like a group of arguable historical significance. The main article is very long already; merging this back in would make it longer. If anything, more content should be split into sub-articles. Robofish (talk) 00:33, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per above. MB298 (talk) 01:44, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep This entity is different than the coup itself. It seems best to keep them separate. In response to statements above, it seems negligent to redirect an article just because of the politics behind it. Hair^Talk 20:37, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Changes to the article do not adequately address the concerns of the delete !votes.---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 00:50, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Monumental Pictures

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

Explicit advertising but the author does not agree with that The Banner talk 07:24, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Article's references comprise of 1st-party sources that do not give any evidence of notability. Aust331 (talk) 08:51, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Ref bombed to look like something, but it's a shameless promotional article. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 17:59, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Cavarrone 07:55, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Cavarrone 07:57, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete None of the references cited here are independent, they all seem to come from the organization itself. This is almost G11-worthy; it's fairly promotional and WP:TNT is applicable. Omni Flames (talk) 08:04, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This citation does not come from the organization itself: http://www.imdb.com/company/co0010987 The nominator's argument is WP:IDONTLIKEIT as shown by user SwisterTwister's attack on the founder's wiki immediatly after attacking this wiki. Contentcreatordata (talk) 08:20, 18 July 2016 (UTC) (talk • contribs) 08:13, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

IMDb is not considered to be a reliable, notability-giving source on Wikipedia, so that cannot establish notability. As far as ST's argument goes, promotional content can be a reason for deletion on Wikipedia if it is bad enough, although it would have been good if they'd put in something about the notability as well. I can't really see where ST's argument comes from him disliking the page nor where his AfD is an attack. However what made me post on here is more that you referred to the page as the "founder's wiki". There is no WP:OWNERSHIP on Wikipedia and it's well within ST's rights to nominate the page if the page has issues. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:35, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I must also warn you that any conflict of interest must be disclosed. Offhand your edits are promotional enough to where it gives off the strong impression that you are affiliated with this company. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:40, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This might be speedyable as unambiguous spam. In any case, it looks like there is a film company by the same name run by Debra Hayward that is unaffiliated with this company. Offhand I'm finding absolutely nothing to show that this article is notable. I'm tempted to clean the article up since it's been citation spammed by WP:PRIMARY and unusable sources and if I find any sources I will, but offhand I'm not really finding anything out there that isn't primary, a self-published source, or in a place that Wikipedia would otherwise see as unreliable and/or non-notability giving. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:51, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's just nothing out there to show that this organization is notable. It exists as a company, however existing does not give notability as it's expected that an organization will exist and put out work. If the director's article is kept this can redirect there, however this article is far too promotionally written to be kept. The article has sources, however none of them are usable to show notability and this is actually a pretty good example of how inserting a ton of sourcing can backfire pretty heavily. Not only does the sourcing not show notability, but the insertion of 20+ unusable sources actually makes the organization seem less notable. That the article is also written in a fairly non-neutral manner (ie, to make the company look as good as possible) and contains content that could be argued as original research since it's written in a manner that comes across as personal opinion doesn't help much either. My point in saying all of this is to emphasize to the closing admin that this article history should not be kept - if the organization does ever pass notability guidelines then it would be better to just start an article completely from scratch. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:16, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Being a fan makes me "affiliated with the company?" That's unfounded speculation. I have no affiliation with this organization in any way other than being a fan of theirs for a very long time. Notability is also subjective. And again, it's an organization, not a company, and Blake Fitzpatrick did found the organization. Referring to him as the founder is not in any way promotional in my opinion. It's a fact. A user immediately adding an article that was already approved after being selected for deletion before to be deleted yet again is an attack to remove all information about any of this in my opinion. In any case, they have a new movie coming out soon that I'm sure will gain more than adequate publicity coverage to make this article of note by the looks of it. It opens it's first theatrical screening in September from what I can find. They are also in production on other projects that are of notable interest. They have also been involved in notable political activism. Their film "Insignificant Celluloid" was featured on a televised NBC program about Satara Stratton (screen-name Satara Silver) who was in the film. That's notable, is it not? As for Debra Heyward, her company (which hasn't officially made anything yet) is based in the UK (http://www.imdb.com/company/co0103483/), and is not an organization, but a for-profit corporation, so that would not be a U.S. based organization or company and a separate wikipedia article entirely. There was also a production company with the same name in Russia that started in 2006, but again, this would be a different article. I also think they went under financially, as their website is no longer around: http://www.monumental-pictures.com/ and they haven't announced or made anything since. Please tell me how to improve said article to be more neutral and I will happily do so, including starting from scratch.Contentcreatordata (talk) 10:54, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I made some minor changes. Do not know if this is what's desired, but Y'all do what you want, as it looks like I'm pretty much completely in the minority here. I'm just trying to help add relevant information to wikipedia to help improve what the website was invented for. I'm just trying to help. It won't matter to blake Fitzpatrick one way or another. he's about as reclusive as they come. He probably would prefer all of this to be deleted. It's also probably why you can't find anything on him or his organization. But I think he and his work are significant enough to denote mention and know plenty of others that do as well.Contentcreatordata (talk) 12:33, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- What you need is at least a bunch of independent (not in any way related to the subject), reliable (no social media or blogs), prior published sources. The own website, facebook, youtube and imdb are complete nono's... The Banner talk 12:38, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - As I mentioned, those types of things probably wont be available for a few months. :/ and I can't find other articles because they have dissapeared or links are now broken. There were articles in a few california newspapers that I can remember that I cannot find anywhere now. Contentcreatordata (talk) 13:05, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - So you admit that there are no sources conform Wikipedia:Reliable Sources to prove notability of your "article"? The Banner talk 13:43, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - There are now :) Contentcreatordata (talk) 14:13, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete' - per nom. There is nothing here in the references or the text except self promotional hype. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 12:46, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just looks like information to me. If I look up other artist pages they look the same to me. I do not understand how mentioning things is immediatly "self promotional hype."Contentcreatordata (talk) 13:08, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Primary sourced and promotional. 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 14:05, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Article has been completely rewritten following wikipedia's rules. Contentcreatordata (talk) 14:04, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 10:48, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Group

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

Non-notable detox fad promoter. None of the quality sources discuss him in depth, rather just brief mentions among other detox gurus. Delta13C (talk) 06:59, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Was previously deleted. A single purpose account recreated the article a month ago. Delta13C (talk) 07:01, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Query – Would it be possible to restore the deleted version to the history so that we can tell whether it qualifies as a speedy deletion under CSD G4? StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 17:24, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I have no idea. That would require an admin, no? Delta13C (talk) 07:30, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- The old text is now in the history. This is the version that was previously nominated for deletion. It's different text, so not really a G4 - David Gerard (talk) 19:03, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Almost all refs are the article subject being quoted on some claimed health benefit. No evidence of any notability or even any medical sense of his recommendations. Blatantly self promotional Velella ^{Velella Talk} 17:28, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As requested I've restored the deleted history. The 2015 items are the prior article. I personally won't speedy delete, but another admin may wish to do so, especially if the discussion seems one-sided. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done}
Delete. Despite good faith attempts at improvement I don't feel notability is established. There are more sources now, but not reliable, independent ones. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 11:59, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, preferably speedy under G4. The question in the original AfD was whether notability was established by the claims made in the article, whether those sources which meet WP:RS gave the subject non-trivial coverage, and whether the article was promotional in nature.
Whether this meets the "sufficiently identical" test under WP:G4 falls into the realm of admin discretion – some sources and phraseology differs, possibly enough that some would be uncomfortable to delete without discussion, but not to an extent that could possibly change the arguments at this AfD relative to the previous one. Which is surely the point of G4. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 13:35, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – I'll try to pour through the revisions to get a better idea, but the article I just read is yet another example of prose existing to back sources rather than the other way around. Group is a regular guest on The Alex Jones Show, which suggests that his name is a plausible search term. However, that particular article was merge/redir'ed just the other day to Jones's article, a move which completely reeks of "backdoor deletion" (of the 200+ talk shows contained in Category:American talk radio programs and subcats, I would be hard pressed to come up with a half dozen programs which are that terribly notable independent of the host's notability). RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 23:41, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I did my own poking around and came to the same conclusion. WP:BIO still applies, and his appearances on the Alex Jones show barely add to any status of notability, if any. Delta13C (talk) 17:52, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Just not notable and still reads "promotional". Kierzek (talk) 18:53, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Looking at the previous version's reference collection, it looks like this guy really doesn't pass Wikipedia note as yet - David Gerard (talk) 19:03, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- non notable subject. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:00, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Anarchyte (work | talk) 11:04, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Guy Ullens

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

Still nothing actually confidently convincing for his won notability, the FrenchWiki is basically symmetrical with no other convincing signs, my searches so far have found nothing noticeably better; having "one" of the largest collections art is still not convincing....in fact, nothing here is. Notifying DGG who has a long history with such articles including one recently of which was a major AfD. SwisterTwister talk 05:18, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I created this page as I really believe the community might be inspired by Guy Ullens. I know Wikipedia's rules regarding living persons and I don't want to play against them for sure. This person have done a lot of notable things for this world to be a better place. Guy Ullens created the first non-profit art center in China in November 2007 (and it's really something to notice as per the given context of the economic and political environment at that time). For the past six years, UCCA had worked with more than 100 artists and designers to present 87 art exhibitions and 1,826 public programs to over 1.8 million visitors, including many important leaders from all over the world.

He also created 2 orphanages in Nepal, helping hundreds of kids not to stay and die in the streets. He then created a school to help Nepalese kids (more than 1000) to have a future and even an international diploma. It might be a personal sentiment, but Guy Ullens is not a "common" person or the world would be a better place for sure :)

Don't want to compare of course but why this person will be less relevant than those once? (this question is not an attack, it's also a "learning curve" question for contributors like me) : Kristian Aadnevik, Aadhi Pinisetty, Gerard Aafjes, Sean Aaberg. --Ichabry User talk:Ichabry 14:30, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Other stuff exists. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 03:07, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I'm willing to accept some degree of notability here. He's head of a major business, and has engaged not just in spending money on miscellaneous contributions but to the founding of a very major one indeed--a major national arts center. (Of course the arguments for including this based on its inspirational value or his personal merit are not relevant to an encyclopedia , which is no judge of either. I'm not however willing to delete merely because of these bad arguments of the author of the article.) But it will need rewriting. DGG ( talk ) 02:24, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- This one can, I believe, be better referenced to more sources, and I presume those sources I have so far seen, will make him pass GNG/BAISC. Does DGG want to join the rewrite? Sam Sailor ^Talk! 09:32, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A heteroclite amount of sources are available, clearly making him pass GNG/BASIC in astronomical height, below are a few:

References

Berkenbaum, Philippe (29 October 2007). "L'acteur : Guy Ullens de Schooten". Le Soir (in French). - RS? Yes - bylined? Yes - sig cov? Yes, featured - intitle? Yes
Aspden, Peter (26 May 2007). "'That is the life of a collector'". Financial Times. - RS? Yes - bylined? Yes - sig cov? Yes, featured
Lane, Mary M. (19 October 2013). "Guy Ullens de Schooten Speaks on Asian Art". Wall Street Journal. - RS? Yes - bylined? Yes - sig cov? Yes, featured - intitle? Yes
Boucher, Brian (30 June 2016). "Guy and Myriam Ullens Seek New Owner for UCCA". Artnet News. - RS? Yes - bylined? Yes - sig cov? Yes, featured - intitle? Yes
Arnold, Frances (1 July 2016). "What Will Guy Ullens's Sale of the UCCA Mean for the Museum's Future?". Artsy. - RS? Yes - bylined? Yes - sig cov? Yes, featured - intitle? Yes
Duplat, Guy (16 August 2007). "Le beau rêve chinois de Guy Ullens". La Libre (in French). - RS? Yes - bylined? Yes - sig cov? Yes, featured - intitle? Yes
Youssi, Yasmine (17 October 2009). "Passionnés d'art contemporain chinois, Guy et Myriam Ullens ..." La Tribune (in French). - RS? Yes - bylined? Yes - sig cov? Yes, featured - intitle? Yes
Gignoux, Sabine (10 June 2008). "La passion chinoise de Guy et Myriam Ullens". La Croix (in French). - RS? Yes - bylined? Yes - sig cov? Yes, featured - intitle? Yes
Thibaut, Matthias (18 February 2011). "Hongkong: Guy Ullens lässt chinesische Kunst versteigern". Handelsblatt (in German). - RS? Yes - bylined? Yes - sig cov? Yes, featured - intitle? Yes

And you could continue piling on the whole evening. The amount of available, reliable sources, with significant coverage is so staggering here that such nominations are what make AfD a farce. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 19:55, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 20:31, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 20:31, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 20:31, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 20:31, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Ullens Center for Contemporary Art is unquestionably notable, and a separate article about its founder seems like a good idea. Given that he is no longer directly involved with the UCCA, adding biographical details about him to the UCCA article would be inappropriate. Mduvekot (talk) 01:56, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 10:48, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

VKernel

AfDs for this article:

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

I was actually PRODing this when I happened to then notice the 2006 AfD which is not at all relevant or helpful to this current situation; this article is certainly not suggestive of the now needed notability and the improvements with my searches finding nothing better at all as you can see from my PROD. I should also note it seems this was in fact deleted in June 2008 but quickly restarted from which there have been no noticeably better changes of course. SwisterTwister talk 05:45, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:48, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:48, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:48, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Just a corporate AD. Sources are insignificant. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:00, 21 June 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GSS (talk) 13:50, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:01, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:09, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 04:36, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seriously this fails WP:CORPDEPTH. This was started in 2007 and was later acquired by Dell. I am unable to find indepth sources about the company, so I guess this is a delete. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 11:50, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 10:50, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Norfolk Bird Race

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

I still have found no substantially convincing sources and instead only their own websites. SwisterTwister talk 23:08, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 03:51, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 03:51, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:55, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Several source searches are not providing significant coverage in reliable sources; fails WP:N. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:56, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 04:30, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, sources on this fairly new (2015) event adequate for meeting WP:GNG or the SNG WP:NEVENT have not been found. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 02:55, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NEVENT; no real reliable coverage that proves this race is notable. Omni Flames (talk) 08:05, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. NeilN ^{talk to me} 11:50, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GOB3L.Y3R.201.2

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

Clearly a non-notable article subject per WP:GNG. Doesn't fit within a CSD tag criterion, and the creator deleted my PROD tag. So... yeah. It's here now. Sorry in advance. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:34, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:GNG. Ilyushka88 | ^Talk! _Contribs 02:46, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This has no coherency to be found whatsoever. An in-joke in a show only recognized by a few. Nate • (chatter) 03:59, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Utterly fails WP:GNG Ajf773 (talk) 10:38, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Clearly does not pass WP:GNG. Hx7 12:46, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:34, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nowhere near notable enough to meet WP:GNG, no reliable coverage whatsoever. I would also be OK with a redirect to We Bare Bears. Omni Flames (talk) 08:08, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Most articles may be incoherent. Ciaerwin Tanpiengco III Leverkusen 11:24, 18 July 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daskjhon john (talk • contribs)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tone 10:51, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Khushal Asefi

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

No proof in this article that mr. Hakimi is notable. Article and sources on Google point to a man with a job The Banner talk 07:10, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 10:37, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable journalist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:17, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:01, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:15, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:15, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:15, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of notability. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:23, 16 July 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. The article does not demonstrate notability as a broadcaster (WP:GNG) nor as an instructor (WP:PROF). —David Eppstein (talk) 00:46, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As a Google search returned no reliable coverage that would indicate that the subject passes WP:GNG and the reliability of the current cited sources is questionable. Omni Flames (talk) 08:09, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of notability. Engleham (talk) 19:06, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 10:51, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Sour

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

Still nothing at all actually suggesting any convincing independent notability, sources listed are only PR and trivial with my own searches finding nothing better. SwisterTwister talk 07:22, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:23, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable artist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:14, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:00, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

delete fails WP:BIO. references are almost all unreliable. LibStar (talk) 15:20, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'll add my inclusionist voice to those of my deletionist counterparts above: I don't see GNG met, nor the music SNG, nor even the low bar spirit of our pop culture coverage. This smacks of self-promotion. Carrite (talk) 15:52, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The nomination and the delete votes are based on Wikipedia guidelines while the keep votes are not. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:25, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Joan Melnick

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

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

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

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

Sorry, but this person does not appear to be notable by our standards, showing no sign of meeting either WP:PROF or WP:ARTIST. Where is the independent in-depth coverage of her life and work? I couldn't find it; it certainly isn't a biography on the webpage of an online gallery which sells her prints. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:57, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - I apologize and should have put in more solid information and write ups, as per her exhibitions before this was posted.. Would suggest that i have done that with notability established. Masterknighted (talk) 15:08, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above, although the article needs work...Modernist (talk) 16:10, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:00, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:19, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:19, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:20, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:ARTIST there is need for multiple, reliable sources - supporting links and sourcing is at best vague, unreliable, and unremarkable in origin. Neither a Bachelor's nor a Master's degree substantiates notoriety. No national or notable exhibition participation substantiated. True peer review is unsupported. Nikto wha? 03:26, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - notability has been established through multiple reports of varied exhibtionsMasterknighted (talk) 20:48, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Already !voted above. freshacconci talk to me 11:31, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Joan Melnick has been widely exhibited in the USA and abroad. It's appropriate for info about her to be available on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BigGuy (talk • contribs) 23:11, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I understand that argument for keeping is exhibition history. I couldn't find anything that may satisfy WP:ARTIST 4b criteria: has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition. I may be mistaken and open to be corrected, but now it's a delete. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 11:14, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep notable and worth keeping...~~ Modernist (talk) 11:29, 19 July 2016 (UTC) Double vote struck through by me. Carrite (talk) 15:54, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As above - notable and worth keeping...Modernist (talk) 21:42, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- The exhibition in which the artist waa awarded and which was juried by among others Louise Nevelson and Sam Hunter is a notable exhibition and was covered in the pressMasterknighted (talk) 17:48, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete None of the sources provided rise to the level of significant critical attention. Fails WP:ARTIST. Some sources are press releases or announcements of exhibitions, not critical reviews. No museum collections, or exhibits in public galleries. I can't find anything that shows that the Second Intercollegiate exhibition of student art is a notable exhibition. when looking at the references, I find that

http://www.fitnyc.edu/interior-design/faculty.php is a primary source that shows that she is a member of the faculty. It does not, however, support the claim that she is an "internationally exhibited" artist.
http://www.rogallery.com/Melnick_Joan/melnick-bio.html is a primary source, and not indenpendent
http://www.nytimes.com/1978/04/23/archives/arts-and-leisure-guide-theater-of-special-interest-dance-week-funny.html?nytmobile=0 is an gallery listing, not a review that shows that her work was shown at the Hansen gallery, which is not a notable gallery.
https://www.amazon.com/Coral-3/dp/B00XLYKX4A shows that a lithography by her is for sale on Amazon for $300, and some other prints by her. It does not support the claim that she exhibited in the Levitan gallery, which is also not a notable gallery.
https://books.google.ca/books?id=5tICAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA32&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false is an announcemt in a gallery listing, not a review, that shows that she was in a group show with Elwood Howell at Hansen.
https://books.google.com/books?id=Ml8WAQAAMAAJ is another gallery listing. Art Now was a gallery guide.
http://www.norwalkpark.org/uploads/files/MaritimeSep12Exhibit.pdf is a press release that provides the quote for "vibrant coral structures through mixed media applications and compositions", which shows that this comment on her work is not from an independent, reliable source.
http://www.lib.uiowa.edu/scua/msc/tomsc800/msc764/msc764-seriesii-galleryannouncements.html is a listing of gallery announcements collected by the uiowa, that mentions that Melnick was in a group show at Levitan gallery. That's a press release or gallery invitation.
https://www.onekingslane.com/p/4419476-coral-2-by-joan-melnick is a blog by an affiliate (Melnick's rep, rogallery) of an interior design firm. That makes is a primary source.
http://www.mutualart.com/Artwork/Swiss-Road/3B25868C53C4CE96 is an auction site that shows that one of her 1979 serigraphs came up at an auction in 2014. It has links to other works by Melnick that have also been at auction. While this is not one of the criteria directly in WP:ARTIST, I do think that this may be the closest thing to establishing notability.
https://www.newspapers.com/image/86034217/ (non-free, but I did review it) looks like an actual review in the Kingston Daily Freeman, it shows a photo of Melnick with an intaglio print that won 3rd prize in the second Intercollegiate Exhibition of student art, but the article discusses the exhibition, the sponsoring fraternity, then catalogue, etc., but not the work of Melnick.
http://www.thehour.com/news/article/Senses-of-SoNo-A-new-exhibit-at-Maritime-Parking-8193025.php is a review in a local newspaper of a group show with other non-notable artists at the South Norwalk Parking Authority. I think it is likely that Lake did not interview the curator to get the quote, but quoted the press release instead. In other words, this is a rehash of a press release, not a critical review.

The subject of this article fails WP:ARTIST in every way possible: The artist is not regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors. Se is not is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique. Se has not created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work, and her work has not been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. Her work has not has become a significant monument, has not been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, has not won significant critical attention (it hasn't received any critical attention at all), and is not is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums. Mduvekot (talk) 17:52, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable resources and sources. Tenured professor at the Fashion Institute of Technology, renowned artist in multiple exhibits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Georgewienbarg (talk • contribs) 18:06, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I found evidence that she's been exhibiting since the late 1970s, but no actual in-depth coverage of her work in reliable independent sources. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:30, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment _ The Kingston newspaper review does talk about Melnick being awarded and the New York Times though it may be a listing it is not an advertisement and they would not have given notice to the gallery or tne artist if they did not deem them notableMasterknighted (talk) 14:58, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

masternighted, I'll reply on your talk page. Mduvekot (talk) 17:09, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sources too feeble to support notability. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:14, 22 July 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Keep Exibited at prominent galleries; seems at least as notable as a number of minor sportspersons who have WP articles.--Johnsemlak (talk) 20:15, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that notability standards for sports people are abysmal, but this does not mean that those for artists should be so as well. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:31, 23 July 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Other non-notable articles existing is considered to be an argument to avoid in deletion discussions. --Slashme (talk) 06:44, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This artist is clearly notable she has auction results and has been exhibited and written aboutBrainplanner (talk) 15:20, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How does this satisfy WP:Artist? Xxanthippe (talk) 22:50, 25 July 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Delete I am unable to find any significant coverage in reliable independent sources. This fails GNG for sure. Falling back on WP:PROF or WP:ARTIST I cannot see any reason the subject would satisfy it. I am particularly convinced by the explanation of Mduvekot above. In addition, none of the keep votes have actually provided any evidence that she is notable - and demonstrating notability requires verifiable evidence. I see none at the moment. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 02:29, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) — Music1201 ^talk 17:07, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Willing Byrd

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:GNG. Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. The article makes no mention of her doing anything notable. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:28, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:29, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It seems to me from reading about husband and wife that the wife had the greater achievements. Consider merging William Byrd III here after this AFD has closed? Thincat (talk) 21:54, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Thincat (talk) 11:23, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I believe the nominator has made a fundamental, though common, error. Wikipedia's notability guidelines are based almost entirely on coverage in reliable sources, not in accomplishments. The statement "The article makes no mention of her doing anything notable" is meaningless. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 13:04, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She passes GNG. Several books have coverage about her: Virginia Women, Flight from Monticello, Mr. Jefferson's Women, and the latter book talks about Byrd in relation to education reform. Also coverage here and a letter. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 21:54, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:58, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:21, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think Megalibrarygirl nails the argument. The article clearly has sufficient sources to meet WP:GNG. The fact that she was included in "Virginia Women in History" by the Library of Virginia (with the accompanying biography page[34]) is a clincher.--Mojo Hand (talk) 13:50, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mackensen (talk) 12:23, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

RJ Tolson

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}}.

AfDs for this article:

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

RJ Tolson is not notable according to WP:AUTHOR. Additionally, most of the content on the page was added by either KickStartWrit or MetaphysicsSoul. These users have both claimed to own the pictures they posted of the article's subject. That suggests that they are either are RJ Tolson himself, his friends, or his publicist. Flow 234 (Nina) talk 11:41, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:21, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Literally just discussed this a few days ago. I agree about the two users, but I don't think that takes away from the display of notability with multiple independent reliable sources - WP:SNOW Simplespeed4ce (talk) 19:48, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

— Simplespeed4ce (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Remove Completely non notable guy that started this article about himself. Czolgolz (talk) 02:56, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I started this with the fact it covered WP:BASIC as it's notable. Won't speak for anyone else, but I saw him speak at an intern entrepreneur speakers conference, and doing some review it currently covers that even more so than before, as it should. KickStartWrit (talk) 19:49, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:57, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:22, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions.~~ North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:22, 16 July 2016 (UTC) (listed at WP:DELSORT/COMICS instead) Opencooper (talk) 23:03, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:22, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:23, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WREG and WTNH sources are all press releases so they are primaries not independent of the subject. He is also outside the scope of WP:ANIME as his manga is OEL. It is not listed in ANN or MADB. The book awards are not notable. Neither is his discography. Author's works do not show up in Kirkus, Publishers Weekly, or School Library Journal. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 13:06, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can find no coverage of him in reliable sources, (other than press releases) thus he does not meet our general notability guideline. He also doesn't meet our notability guideline for people either. The current sources used do not comprise significant coverage and the awards are not significant. Opencooper (talk) 22:56, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Opencooper (talk) 23:00, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Author has clearly been the subject of multiple independent reliable sources as well as ones directly affiliated with sources mentioned in reliable sources with significant coverage to pass WP:BASIC. RightWing4 (talk) 4:39, 17 July2016 (UTC)

— RightWing4 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

keep I think RJ Tolson is a public figure, many people search him, the information provided in the article is well arranged and factual and have all good references attached. If people search RJ Tolson then Our Wikipedia should be the first to show the details. So, I strongly believes that this article is good enough to stay on Wikipedia. Awais Azad (talk) 19:50, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please clarify if you have been paid to put a vote here as well? A disclosure is required per our terms of use. You seem to have not replied to multiple queries at COIN. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 12:35, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Hmm I just did a source check, looks like they needed to be updated. I found quite a bit, including reliable sources, press releases, and coverage, including from the Pasadena Star. Some of the content was deleted from the sights I assume, but I would say he's notable and meets the recs. WP:SNOW . Dakotatwin (talk) 1:03, 20 July2016 (UTC)

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

Comment It seems we have a bunch of fresh new faces joining us at this AfD; welcome. First off I'd urge them to try to familiarize themselves with how to contribute to a deletion discussion, and to try to differentiate themselves from each other; a deletion vote is supposed to be an editor's own argument after looking at evidence, not piggybacking off of another user's rationale without actually understanding it.

WP:SNOW is a user essay is meant to be called upon when circumstances or previous discussion already show that a procedure isn't likely to go through. It is not a substitute for making actual arguments, especially when two editors have already voted delete, and the previous discussion did not have overwhelming consensus and was closed without prejudice to reopening due to concerns raised in a comment, that we are now addressing. (It's also curious that the previous discussion also had an account that was created that just jumped into voting in several AfDs and lay dormant after)

WP:BASIC says that "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." but the sources used are either press releases or not reliable/significant. Dakotatwin, The Pasadena Star is a local newspaper and you haven't shared these other reliable sources. @Awais Azad:, please refrain from subjective opinions and instead make arguments arguing notability with evidence instead. Everyone saying there are multiple reliable sources needs to actually show us them; having hits in a web search is not enough and each source need to be assessed individually for its independence, reliability, and coverage. Opencooper (talk) 14:55, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note I suspect there is some paid voting going on, possibly on an offline site. I have never found a bunch of new faces trying to defend an AfD. This article btw is being used purely for promotion. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 12:39, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Enlighten me, as I'm new, how do "we" know that this article is being used for purely promotion? In comparison to the other author pages I see being deleted right now this has more credibility, I'm not saying it fits perfectly, just in comparison. Opencooper I'd be happy to try and back up what I said even more specifically, thanks for the notice.--Dakotatwin (talk) 01:42, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the books appear to be self-published. The web site of the publishing house Universal Kingdom Print says: "Universal Kingdom Print, Division of RJTIO, LLC.", and RJ Tolson's own web page says "(c) 2015 R.J. Tolson and RJTIO". The books are not carried in libraries (one book is in 2 libraries in WorldCat), and I will accept the earlier respondents' findings regarding lack of reviews in the usual places. LaMona (talk) 15:24, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - obscure self-published writer; tails WP:AUTHOR and other tests of notability. --Orange Mike | Talk 23:53, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt - In addition to the arguments already stated, even the editor who started the article has all of 21 edits in three years, most having to do with this subject. I don't why people think that coatracking will work other than to satisfy the editors who only superficially review material. I have seen no solid reason to keep this, and I see every reason to salt the page so this situation doesn't recur. MSJapan (talk) 01:43, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt - The article subject is an author who is barely notable even locally. The first AfD survived because no one even looked at the sources and it never got attention. Not one good reliable source contains significant coverage about the subject. The swarms of SPA makes me doubt the notability as well. This is also a delete per WP:NOTPROMO. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 02:32, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You want to "salt" the article because he is "barely notable even locally"? I didn't even know coatracking was a thing, I just thought this met the notability guidelines so i create the article to contribute to wikipedia. The whole point of this is either to see if there are sources enough to provide even more notability, because as established there is some, and when I checked there was more each time I contributed (which is why I did to help the article I created be better), and if not, then to delete the page. How does salting the article benefit to this situation? "I see every reason to salt the page so this situation doesn't recur." Please explain the reasons as you see every reason to delete the page filled with sources more reliable than not, so that it makes sense for anyone in the future that has sources that meet the notability guidelines better (as we seem to think they don't currently) they can contribute. KickStartWrit (talk) 09:51, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Comprehensively fails WP:AUTHOR. All works are self-published. Note that his press releases and the WP article state that he was "signed" to Universal Kingdom Print, when in fact he owns the company, to the extent one can consider this a "company". There are virtually no library holdings, zero independent reviews in either the mainstream press or the specialist publishing press such as Kirkus Reviews. The "awards" are utterly non-notable. This leaves us to seeing whether he passes the General Notability Guideline. What we have are a series of appearances on local TV stations, where he promotes his book with the background parroting his press releases, i.e. minor local news stories, ditto the article in the Pasadena Star-News. Comprehensive libraries of these press release are available here, here, etc.. It thus fails the GNG as well. Voceditenore (talk) 07:16, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment The "Forever Trust Charity" which he allegedly founded, appears to be completely bogus. Despite the claims on its website, it is not registered as a 501(c) organization. Nor is it listed at charitywatch.org and despite claiming the AARP as one of their "partners", it is listed nowhere on the AARP website [35]. I am removing both the claim and the reference from the WP article. Voceditenore (talk) 07:52, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Additional Comment I couldn't find anything about Universal Kingdom Print to refute what you were saying, in relation to the author, though from looking up two of the authors they have I found a lot. If I'm not mistaken, it says Forever Trust is "a division" of the company which is not for profit on the website, not a separate entity, so it's not a 501(c) organization. KickStartWrit (talk) 01:48, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean you "found a lot" that refutes the fact that he is the founder and CEO of the company that publishes his books? It's blindingly obvious he is. As to your second point, he can describe the so-called "Forever Trust Charity" anyway he wants to on his website. That utterly misleading description as a "charity", with zero independent sourcing and zero notice taken of it beyond his own press releases, does not belong on Wikipedia. Voceditenore (talk) 10:17, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:NAUTHOR. The Subject is upcoming at best a case of WP:TOOSOON.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 02:04, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The two 'awards' he cites, the Beverly Hills Book Award and the Indie Excellence Book Award are both run by the same organization, and you have to pay them to be nominated. So flagrantly bogus, I deleted the mention in the article. Czolgolz (talk) 03:48, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 10:51, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hussain Bhatti

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

Non-notable athlete GreenCricket (talk) 11:58, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:05, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:05, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:05, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet WP:NCRIC. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 11:41, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:56, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - He appeared in these two matches [36] and [37]. After doing some basic research, I conclude that these matches do not satisfy any of the 3 criteria at WP:NCRIC. Hitro talk 19:08, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Failing WP:NCRIC and WP:CRIN. Regards, Naz | talk | contribs 21:54, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:51, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lima Publishing

AfDs for this article:

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

I am re-nominating this article for AfD, due to the subject's non-notability, as pointed out by a previous AfD nominator. 76.235.248.47 (talk) 01:33, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I completed the AfD for the IP. ansh 666 17:58, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note the prior AfD had precisely zero other "votes" than by the previous nominator. [38] would be a primary source that this small corporation is "dissolved." Its online publication, not dissolved as a corporation, ICT for Education magazine appears extant, thus possibly providing a likely redirect/rename if others agree. Collect (talk) 14:36, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG. Philafrenzy (talk) 09:20, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:50, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:25, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:25, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:26, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:26, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails GNG. Carrite (talk) 15:56, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 10:52, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Finley

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

I would've PRODed but that may be removed so here we are: my searches and examinations have found nothing actually convincing for his own notability and precautionary searches at WorldCat found nothing, my searches only found trivial local mentions. SwisterTwister talk 19:49, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 19:49, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Some have deprecated our rules against "local" coverage. However, I think it works, but needs to be well read. It is not "local" coverage if the New York Times covers something or someone, or if even the Detroit News or Salt Lake Tribune does so. But when it is the Sterling Heights Century it is most definately local coverage. Even that might allow actual articles fully about the person to still pass in some cases, however here what we have is extremely local coverage of works by the subject, where he is named only because it is unavoidable in naming him. The other stuff seems to be more publications of the theatre he was the in house playwright for. Finley's work has not received the attention required to pass notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:25, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:48, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:26, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:27, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:27, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A worthy contributor to the culture of his locality but does not reach WP:GNG. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:32, 16 July 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. Doesn't look like there are enough sources to be notable. RightWing4 (talk) 04:32, 17 July 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. JPL sums this up well as WP:LOCALINT, plus most of the references are web pages. Agricola44 (talk) 20:43, 19 July 2016 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. In view of the comments from editors I greatly respect, I'm withdrawing the AfD DGG ( talk ) 20:04, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sandra Cauffman

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

"a positive example" is not notability. DGG ( talk ) 05:18, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer This AfD was not properly listed. The time of this comment is when it first appeared in a daily AfD page. Please consider that when closing. Monty ₈₄₅ 22:16, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:35, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:35, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:35, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:35, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article is poorly translated from Spanish (and has several content issues), but subject is an assistant division director at NASA mentioned in multiple news articles and some books on engineering management. I think that gets her over the notability line. -- 120.19.214.134 (talk) 10:37, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

assistant division director? A good case could be made that the Diurector of the Division of Earth Sciences there is notable, but the assistant ? She's have to be notable on the basis of her own scientific work, not just the administrative position. Based on the enWP article, the esWP article, and the sources in English and as best I can read them in Spanish, she never had charge of any one major project. She's written about in he own country becauseof the affiliation with NASA, but scientific notability is judged by international standards. DGG ( talk ) 04:37, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think she's "scientifically notable," as you put it, but the media coverage makes her a notable Costa Rican person, I think. That is, WP:PROF may not be met, but WP:BASIC probably is. -- 120.19.193.37 (talk) 05:08, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:47, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Cauffman passes GNG with non-trivial coverage in La Nación (San José) [39], [40] , [41], The UN [42], Revista Perfil [43], [44], Costa Rican TV station Teletica [45], [46], the Tico Times [47]. In addition, she is also profiled in a George Mason U publication [48], [49]. I'll be adding the references and such to the article. I may find more. The article needs work, and I don't mind working on it a bit. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:23, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While I see the same several "article issues" that DGG probably sees (promotional tone, some sources are not independent), there's nothing I see that can't be fixed by normal editing processes. Bearian (talk) 17:34, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Anarchyte (work | talk) 11:03, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kilo Class (novel)

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

Non-notable novel tagged since September 2008. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 01:00, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:49, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Better source search? Jclemens (talk) 19:31, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This and the Publisher's Weekly review are two independent RS'es focusing on this particular book. Plenty of other bookseller links show it's a mainstream novel. No objection to redirecting to author's page until improvements are made and it's spun out appropriately, but this appears to be a legitimate, notable fictional work. Jclemens (talk) 19:37, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, its also been reviewed by BookList - "Robinson's latest meticulously researched novel .." and "Again, too, readers can probably guess the outcome right from the start, but for fans of the genre, Robinson delivers a wild ride all the way"[50] and AudioFile - "George Guidall gives his formidable all to this straight-ahead, damn-the-torpedoes techno-thriller by an established master. The only reservation one might express about this production is regret that such a prodigious talent has been lavished on such undemanding material."[51], and its held in over 800 libraries[52] and been published in various languages[53]. Coolabahapple (talk) 17:39, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:45, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Several non-trivial reviews in reliable sources plus the long article in 'The Day' satisfy notability. Gab4gab (talk) 19:35, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:51, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pegasus Sustainability Solutions

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

Seems to be a run-of-the-mill waste management company. 32 employees and less than 10 million in capital investement. Surely fails WP:CORP. Slashme (talk) 00:45, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Slashme (talk) 21:29, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Company has developed unique intellectual property that is potentially highly disruptive to a $30 billion industry. Company is associated with very important regional venture capital firms. Company is an innovator and disruptor. I will add to the content to ensure that the company's page is more robust.--MarketVoice12 (talk) 20:34, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Commenting since I was asked, Delete as I have tagged it, nothing at all actually convincing. SwisterTwister talk 07:57, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:44, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:31, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A single independent link from a reliable regional source is why I contested the speedy deletion of this article. The article reads like a promotion piece for the company and it would need to be rewritten from scratch to be an encyclopedic topic. Fails WP:CORP. Royal broil 13:20, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 10:52, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alice Pruett

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

Unsourced; non-notable or nonexistent person. Usually, somebody who made 34 recordings can be confirmed easily using Google and print sources, but this name appears nowhere I've checked. Ewulp (talk) 01:36, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Delete – Fails WP:N and WP:V. Finding no coverage in any type of sources. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:48, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to lack of sources. I have found some possible proof this is a real person at Find-a-grave and ancestry.com, but nothing on being a blues singer. Absent the article creator providing some source material, I can't justify this one. Montanabw ^(talk) 05:06, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I mean seriously, am I supposed to believe this? Quoting the entire article, Alice Pruett (July 2, 1881–1956) was an American blues musician. Very little is known about her, except that she recorded 34 songs between 1919 and 1926. A clear hoax and fails WP:V. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 15:45, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, can someone look at the article creator Ichukaman's user page? It reinforces my belief that this article is a hoax. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 15:49, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 10:53, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2015–16 Kidderminster Harriers F.C. season

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

This season is about a team not playing in a WP:FPL. We have long-standing consensus at AFD that only teams in fully professional leagues get season articles per WP:NSEASONS. All those refs look good; but they are all WP:ROUTINE coverage with many transfer announcements and the like. Yellow Dingo (talk) 01:17, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Yellow Dingo (talk) 01:47, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Yellow Dingo (talk) 01:47, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NSEASONS failure. Number 5 7 11:41, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. --Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 09:00, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 10:53, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2015–16 Aldershot Town F.C. season

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

This season is about a team not playing in a WP:FPL. We have long-standing consensus at AFD that only teams in fully professional leagues get season articles per WP:NSEASONS. All those refs look good; but they are all WP:ROUTINE coverage with many transfer announcements and the like. Yellow Dingo (talk) 01:15, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Yellow Dingo (talk) 01:47, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Yellow Dingo (talk) 01:47, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NSEASONS failure. Number 5 7 11:41, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. --Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 09:00, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. BLP policy DGG ( talk ) 21:26, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Freddy Fusion

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

Does not meet WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO, or WP:ENT. The coverage that exists for this person consist mostly of routine coverage of local events (such as fairs and community gatherings), and a few articles regarding his arrest. Significant coverage by secondary reliable sources that are independent of the subject doesn't exist; there aren't enough references where an article can be created without the use of original research, which is a required criterion in order for WP:GNG to be met. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:57, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Outside of the allegation of sexual assault (just a news event) there is a lack of coverage about this individual. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:21, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does not pass GNG. --Tagishsimon (talk) 12:22, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:GNG. KGirlTrucker81^{talk what I'm been doing} 13:55, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. / Withdrawn - As explained below I'd only searched Google News and nothing showed up .... Anyway sources have been found which I'll add to the article, Cheers, (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 12:12, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redline Coaches

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

Non notable bus company Fails GNG –Davey2010^Talk 00:45, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:34, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:34, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:35, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Yellow Dingo (talk) 02:47, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, leaning keep Davey, can you please outline the results of the searches you made for sources? Searching for this company in the National Library of Australia's Trove newspaper database returns about 40 potentially-useful news stories (though some may be about bus companies with a similar name). Nick-D (talk) 02:59, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are also a few not-particularly-useful recent stories on the website of the Mercury newspaper, of which [54] is the best. The ABC published this story on the firm in 2012 and this in 2007. Nick-D (talk) 05:13, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nick-D, I did search Google News however there's only irrelevant results & so I obviously assumed the obvious but thanks for managing to find sources, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 12:10, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) ansh 666 01:27, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Art Rascon

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

Article lacks any third-party sources; fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Aoidh (talk) 08:01, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete local TV news anchors are generally not notable, and we lack the sources to establish Rascon as an exception.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:12, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Looks like he has won Emmy awards, and even if for local news, that alone is pretty significant. Montanabw ^(talk) 07:15, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A regional Emmy award isn't the same as winning a national-level Emmy, and would be more significant if there were someone other than primary or non-third party sources making any mention of the Emmy. An Emmy is a well known award and per WP:ANYBIO it does mean they are likely to be notable, but it doesn't mean they are. The only sources that make note of this are ones that gain by promoting the individual, so there's no real evidence of notability here. - Aoidh (talk) 09:23, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, the presumption is in favor of notability unless rebutted, and here there appears to be no dispute that the grammys were awarded. Sourcing could be improved and so could tone, but the awards themselves establish notability, IMHO. Montanabw ^(talk) 05:11, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

An emmy shows indication of notability, but per community consensus on the matter such an award does not establish notability. A local emmy even less so. The presumption of notability is entirely rebutted here as there is no actual sourcing of any kind to show that this emmy shows notability in this case; the only sources that mention this are sources that promote this individual like his places of employment. - Aoidh (talk) 08:05, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Uanfala (talk) 23:11, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Uanfala (talk) 23:11, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Almost the entire article looks to be a copyvio. The majority of the current text was added November 18, 2011 and is a copy of his bio for the 2011 San Antonio YSA conference. This year's event appears to be held in early November, and although I can't find a date for the 2011 conference, it's reasonable to think that it was also held in early November (ie before November 18, 2011). If he's notable (and I haven't looked for sources yet, so I can't speak to that), then I suggest nuking this version and starting over. Ca2james (talk) 15:56, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply if that's the case, then the proper procedure is to put up the copyvio tag so that it isn't causing problems that way and then we figure out if we have to Nuke it or if we can rewrite it. No sense wasting bandwidth on an AfD if a copyvio is in the way. What's your result with the Earwig tool? Montanabw ^(talk) 07:02, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yellow Dingo (talk) 00:14, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Montanabw, I'm not familiar with the earwig tool. I just copied and pasted into google and could see that the entire lede is almost identical to their about us page. I know the usual procedure is to tag it with a copyvio notice but I'm not sure what the procedure is when the article is at afd. Ca2james (talk) 13:18, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's the same procedure. You can also try to rewrite it which may take even less time than talking about what to do with it. In fact, PAGs recommends trying to fix issues before anything else. ^{Atsme📞📧} 23:48, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but it isn't clear that he's notable (I know you say he is but I have disagreed with your judgement everywhere else). I wasn't going to spend time fixing it unless I was convinced he was notable. Ca2james (talk) 00:13, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, in that case, if you say that the lede is copied and pasted, the article may also qualify as a speedy delete per CSD G12. Hx7 13:24, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So should I nominate it for G12, then? Or tag it as copyvio? Ca2james (talk) 00:13, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Snow-Keep - passes the test as an Emmy winning news anchor. ^{Atsme📞📧} 23:44, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That would be true if he'd won an actual Emmy. He won a regional Emmy, which is not the same thing and which does not automatically confer notability. Ca2james (talk) 00:13, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is true, and he has also won multiple local and national awards. [55] Rascon isn't some peanut gallery reporter. He's notable but his article is written poorly. It doesn't need to be deleted - it needs to be improved and there are plenty of sources out there that can be used. His son is also an anchor. I wish editors wouldn't rush to judgment on these BLPs before they've even taken the time to Google the name and see who the person is and why whoever created the stub thought that person was notable. It will spare us all a great deal of wasted time at AfDs. In fact, he's not just notable, Art Rascon is a famous new correspondent. He also shot an Emmy Award winning documentary, "The Children of the Dump" [56] Looks like we've got another snow-keep.^{Atsme📞📧} 00:50, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find any record of him winning an n Emmy. Did he win an Emmy, or did he win a Lone star Emmy (a regional emmy) which are quite different things? Ca2james (talk) 01:34, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You know, I really wish that people would just !vote with their reasoning and not attack one another's positions. The closing admin is supposed to weigh the arguments, all this cruft of attacking each other distracts from the actual reasoning. Frankly, just being the lead anchor of a major metropolitian News station is, absent the awards, easily meeting WP:GNG, which is significant coverage in reliable third-party sources independent of the subject. That is met. Montanabw ^(talk) 02:39, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing in the notability guidelines that says a news anchor is automatically notable. I would love to see some significant coverage of him from independent reliable sources; what sources have you found? It's on you and other keep !voters to show that he's notable, so you can expect to be questioned if you say he's notable but don't provide support for your statement. Also, he didn't win an actual Emmy (like the ones that are internationally known and on par with the Grammy's, Oscars, and Tony's), did he? He won a regional Emmy, right? Saying that he won an Emmy without qualifying that it was of the regional variety is misleading. Winning an actual Emmy in some categories might automatically establish notability but notability is not automatic for a regional Emmy. Ca2james (talk) 04:40, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pointing out why a rationale may or may not be in keeping with guidelines or policies is a far cry from an "attack". For example, it is not "attacking" to point out that no, being an anchor of any news station does not meet WP:GNG by any stretch of the imagination. Notability is not inherited from where you work, which seems to be the crux of your rationale for keeping the article. - Aoidh (talk) 19:06, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per User:Montanabw and User:Atsme. In this diff, I converted a 2008 source that was in External links into inline citation format which supports 17 of the Emmy awards (and I insert "[regional]" as a qualifier in the quote I include in the footnote), all 3 of the National Association of Hispanic Journalists' awards, and 15 of the asserted 18 Associated Press reporting awards. I assume 3 of the AP awards were after 2008. It is fine to clarify in the article that the Emmy's (Emmies?) are regional (and say what region), and to otherwise qualify other awards, too. But no matter how you qualify them, they add up and are convincing to me. If it were so easy to get awards then all of us would have a lot more barnstars on our userpages, I suppose. :) --do ncr am 17:37, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I removed the "[regional]" qualification as I do not know if all 17 of the Emmies were regional. His series "The Children of the Dump" about dump-scavenging children in Nicaragua's second city, is one that won a regional Emmy. ([57]).

I also added sourced mention of his being 1 of just 5 Latino correspondents making it onto U.S. national TV evening news in 1997 (which goes to notability), and his stake presidency role in the Church of Latter Day Saints (not so much about notability, but interesting). He's been quoted about low numbers of Latinos in news organizations, particularly "behind-the-scenes" roles leading to management, as opposed to showing a Hispanic newsreader. He was speaking in role of VP, Broadcasting, in the national Hispanic journalists group, a role which could be added to the article.

I for one recognize him as a national-level news reporter and I personally think we readers should be able to find out about any such person, including about their possible biases. Knowing now that he is a Mormon and has a large family and was involved with the Rotarians in helping the dump children in Nicaragua, I will listen to him / hear him a bit differently now. --do ncr am 03:23, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The issue with those are that the notability guidelines do not support keeping the article, winning an award of that type does not show notability, it suggests the presence of it. The lack of any third-party sources supporting the content or the emmy as notable does not muster the notability required per WP:GNG or WP:BIO. Non-notability does not "add up" to create notability that would not otherwise exist. - Aoidh (talk) 19:02, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rascon is notable - he has been a high-profile news correspondent for years, not just a local guy. He was a correspondent for CBS Evening News with Dan Rather - a major network - which substantiates his notability. I was able to find one Emmy nomination for his coverage of Hurricane Fran for 48 Hours on CBS but haven't had time to follow through on it or any of the other Emmy Awards. I'm sure there are some regional Emmy's but they shouldn't be discounted when you consider how many news stations and states are included in a region. He has won multiple awards for excellence in journalism including two national Edward R. Murray Awards, three National Association of Hispanic Journalists' awards, 18 Associated Press Reporting awards. He's clearly notable. ^{Atsme📞📧} 20:38, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is established by reliable sources, not by who he worked with. Those awards also do not establish notability. "Clearly notable" would be shown through third-party sources showing notability, or by meeting one of the notability criteria. The keep rationales all seem to boil down to "he's interesting / won some local awards that only his employers seem to note / worked with important people therefore he is notable". However, that has never been how notability works. - Aoidh (talk) 18:48, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

More than enough sources have already been provided to establish his notability. Once this AfD closes, I imagine more editors will be inspired to clean-up the mess. Poor writing does NOT warrant an AfD under the fallacious premise that it fails WP:N. ^{Atsme📞📧} 18:55, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I never suggested poor writing was an issue, it's the sourcing and notability. There are plenty of non-third party sources in the article, but nothing showing notability; sourcing is not solved by quantity. - Aoidh (talk) 19:04, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GNG states: If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list. We've done that. There is also WP:BIO which states: The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for one several times. We've done that. The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field. We've done that -what more do you want? ^{Atsme📞📧} 20:00, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Question I did find some sources about Rascon. However, I'm not sure whether these sources actually qualify as independent reliable sources and can be used to establish notability (clarified Ca2james (talk) 05:14, 22 July 2016 (UTC)), so I was wondering if others could weigh in on them. I'll make a !vote once the suitability of these sources is determined. The sources are:[reply]

.A feature he received in a BYU magazine. Is this independent, given that BYU is his alma mater?

.The transcript of the introduction to a speech he made at BYU. Is this independent (as above) and is it a RS, given that it's the transcript of the introduction to a speech?

.An article about Rascon in Deseret News. Is this independent, given that it's Deseret News and he's Mormon and it contains many quotes from him?

Thanks! Ca2james (talk) 04:00, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:IS is a good essay about independent sources. It states: Material available from sources that are self-published, or primary sources, or biased because of a conflict of interest can play a role in writing an article, but it must be possible to source the majority of information to independent, third-party sources. We have cited RS to establish his notability per WP:Notability_(people) which comply with WP:ANYBIO, and WP:JOURNALIST. I have properly added a section for the two books he has authored, and tweaked the lead and various sections to help the prose flow, and I also added a few more RS. ^{Atsme📞📧} 15:26, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused. I asked whether these sources met reliability and independence criteria to establish notability, but I don't see that question addressed? I know they would be perfectly acceptable as RS in the article, but what I don't know is whether they meet RS criteria to establish notability. Ca2james (talk) 16:18, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Read your original question again. It doesn't say anything about the sources you provided establishing notability. You said "I'm not sure whether these sources actually qualify as independent reliable sources" and I provided an answer. You said nothing about them being used to establish notability. However, as I already explained, we've already provided sources that establish notability - Doncram and I both have expanded this BLP and established notability - so I don't quite understand why you're confused. ^{Atsme📞📧} 02:41, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am not convinced by the argument that you've provided. I am trying to figure out if these are independent reliable sources that could be used to establish notability, although I clearly missed that clause above (I've clarified it now); if they are, I'd say he's notable, but if they aren't, I'd say he's not. And you didn't examine the sources at all. Could you do that? Ca2james (talk) 05:14, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have examined the sources. RS/N or BLP/N would be the proper forums if you want more input. We've already tried to explain to you the sources cited in the article already establish his notability, but you don't WP:LISTEN as proven by your comment that you're not convinced by the argument I've provided.^{Atsme📞📧} 06:26, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think User:Atsme is not being fair. User:Ca2james invested effort into coming up with those 3 interesting sources, and their question is fair. About the 3 sources, what I think is:

The third one, the article in Deseret News, is a reliable source and goes towards notability. The Deseret News is a respected newspaper that is associated with the Mormon church. Rascon being a Mormon does not diminish the fact that the Deseret News is independent from him. It seems to me that the quotes from Rascon, like the quotes from others, are in fact quotes taken from Rascon's writings (in his case, from his 1998 book). The article is well-written IMHO in how it weaves together quotes of what various persons said at different times on the same general topic, in an engaging way, and I believe without distorting anything. Rascon is quoted as an important authority.
The second one, which consists of an introduction then Rascon's speech, is primary. It is very interesting, what he describes about being at a fork in the road and then at a roadblock in Iraq during wartime, etc., but it is Rascon's words about Rascon's life.
The first one, the feature article about him in the BYU magazine, is inbetween, because it is an interview but in a publication independent of Rascon. It is mostly an interview of Rascon, and I think we can believe that the interviewer got it right in what Rascon said, but the interviewer is not responsible for the accuracy of what Rascon says. The BYU magazine might be expected to be biased along the lines of accepting noncritically what Rascon, an alumnus(?), says, but it counts somewhat towards notability in that the magazine independently chose to feature him. I think most generally reliable newspapers and magazines report interviews that way, and if anyone was the subject of feature articles in Rolling Stone and People and the Houston newspaper (not saying Rascon was) then those feature articles add up to say this is an important person. I am not sure but perhaps some higher level reliable sources such as the New York Times might have higher standards about interviews, i.e. that they would perform fact-checking and question/criticize the interview subject if the subject's assertions were not supported.

I already !voted Keep on basis of other material, and seeing these three sources makes me feel even more confident that Rascon is wikipedia-notable. And, all three provide material which can be used to develop an interesting article, including perhaps quoting or summarizing from Rascon's wartime anecdotes. --do ncr am 18:47, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, doncram; that was kind of what I thought. Atsme, there is no consensus here so accusing me of disruptive editing by failing to listen to consensus is inappropriate. The fact that I am unconvinced by your arguments shows that I have read, understood, and considered them, and that I disagree with them. Stating that I disagree with your arguments is not disruptive. As for taking my question to a noticeboard, I thought the participants here might be interested and able to provide some guidance. There's no rule that says I have to go to a noticeboard first, after all. Ca2james (talk) 21:17, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Doncram, now I'm confused. While I appreciate all efforts by editors who are trying to find reliable sources to expand this BLP, I don't think it's fair that Ca2james has completely dismissed all of the sources others have already gone to the trouble of citing to establish notability for a clearly notable BLP. If an editor is unable to determine whether or not a source meets the criteria for notability how is it they are able to tell another editor that their argument is not convincing regarding that very subject? If Ca2james is unwilling to make an effort to get fresh eyes on the questioned sources at specialized noticeboards, how does that make me "unfair"? I'm also not sure if it was or will be noticed that Ca2james changed their original question regarding their newly found sources after I responded to it. I actually did AGF as I always do, and made a sincere effort to properly answer the original question which turned out to be a time sink. And then, despite my good faith efforts to continue helping, Ca2james has the audacity to accuse me of not examining the sources at all, which in retrospect is not unusual behavior for this editor based on my past history with them at prior AfDs. I've been more than fair and patient. Furthermore, the part of the guideline I considered relative to Ca2james in this AfD was actually the part of the guideline that states: Sometimes, even when editors act in good faith, their contributions may continue to be disruptive and time wasting, for example, by continuing to say they don't understand what the problem is. It certainly fits this scenario. ^{Atsme📞📧} 22:47, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't "dismissed all the sources" - not that there have been many provided - I have examined the arguments and found them unconvincing because all of his emmy's and other awards are local to Texas or Houston and they have not received significant coverage from independent sources. How is my saying that disruptive? Until this is closed, there is no consensus one way or another for me to disrupt, and disagreeing is allowed here. I changed my original question after you made it clear that I hadn't asked the question thought I had, which is much less devious than you paint it to be. And if you looked at the sources, you didn't say anything about them. Ca2james (talk) 00:30, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Excuses are like...well, nevermind. I really don't have time to argue with you or subject myself to further unwarranted allegations. I'm in the middle of reviewing a GA, I've got articles stacking up that need to be expanded, and it's just not like me to waste time on lost causes. I've done all I can do here. Ba-bye! ^{Atsme📞📧} 00:54, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete Rascon has won a number of regional Emmy awards, first from the Suncoast chapter, and then from the Lonestar chapter after it was formed in 2002 (its first awards for 2002 were given out in 2003). He won in 2003 2004 2006 2008. However, the only coverage that I can find for any of these awards given out to anyone is from whichever news station was nominated or won, and even then only the awards associated with that station are listed. In other words, there are no independent sources commenting on any of the Lone star Emmy wins. So even if I could find any sources that covered his wins (and I can't, but I assume that's because they were some time ago and only print sources are available), those sources aren't independent of him.

The regional Emmy he won for "the children of the dump" was reported in Rotary magazines, but as he went with them both times he went and they were involved in getting him to the dump, that coverage isn't independent, either. None of the other emmy's (and all of them are regional, as he's not listed as a national award winner in search) have received independent coverage.

He says he's won two Edward R. Murrow awards and separate RTDNA awards; RTDNA (formerly RTNDA) is one type of Murrow award, and there are also regional RTDNA awards. Winning an individual Murrow award would establish notabikity but those are lifetime achievement awards and he hasn't won one of those. The other awards name the station(s) or programs(s) as winners; specific personnel associated with the production are not named. See this page for the most recent national winners, and our own article for more information. Since he's not specifically named as a recipient of these awards they don't establish his notability.

He says he's won associated press awards, but most of their awards go to sports people, and they have at least one named award (the Oliver S. Gramling awards) - if he'd won a named award I'd expect him to list the name because those awards are a big deal,and reported on by third-party media. It appears that most of the associated press awards are given out at the state level, such as from the Texas Associated Press Managing Editors. He probably won the awards with the Texas Associated Press Broadcasters Association but they don't appear to keep archives.

He did win a lifetime achievement award from the Houston Association of Hispanic Media Professionals, but it was only reported by his station, which is not independent and does not establish notability.

I would like to add that these awards are all being listed in sources written by or quoting Rascon as if they were national awards but they're mostly regional, which is misleading. It's also misleading for the article or any of his bios to say he won some of these awards when it is clear that he, himself, did not win those awards.

Obviously having worked with someone notable does not mean he is notable, as notability is not INHERITED. The article says that he was "recognized in 1997 as being one of only five Latino correspondents appearing on national television networks in the US reporting major events for the evening news." which misstates the source a bit; it says "only five Latino correspondents made it into the evening news in 1997 (Jim Avila of NBC, Art Rascon and Vince Gonzalez of CBS, Antonio Mora and John Quinones of ABC)." This passing mention doesn't establish notability, either.

To sum up: it's clear that while he is known locally, he isn't known nationally (let alone internationally), and so isn't more than, at best, locally notable. It's also clear that while he's and/or his station and/or programs he worked on won a bunch of (mostly) regional awards, none have received independent news coverage and so he's not notable on the front either. Since of the sources I found above, only one looks independent and significant, he doesn't meet GNG with those either. Essentially, there's a whole lot of either non-independent sources or passing mentions. I call it a weak delete because he's thisclose to being notable, and because he has won awards and contributed to many others. Ca2james (talk) 00:54, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

comment - Ca2james appears to be confused over GNG, and the fact that major news networks - ABC & CBS - each of whom are RS and both of whom have verified the awards Rascon has won which complies with both WP:N and WP:V. Now Ca2james is reverting reliably sourced information from the article and has become disruptive. Will an admin please weigh in here? I've asked for input at BLPN. ^{Atsme📞📧} 04:34, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have admitted that my edit summaries were unjustified. I've also discussed the removals there and on the Talk page. Two of the removals did remove OR (and I've offered to undo and redo the removals with appropriate edit summaries) and I've said that if Atsme wants to restore the other one to go ahead. I'm getting the sense that Atsme thinks that if I disagree with her or make an edit with which she disagrees, I'm automatically being disruptive, and this is starting to have a chilling effect on my participation. It's very uncomfortable. Ca2james (talk) 16:26, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have never used WP:OR, and ask that you please read the policy so you'll understand why your allegation is unsupported. I find it rather disconcerting (chilling) that you would (1) accuse me of such a policy violation - one of our 3 core content policies - and (2) are now trying to make me look like a bully when you've been the one making unsupported allegations. ~~and making fallacious arguments~~^{Strike redundancy 20:46, 25 July 2016 (UTC)} I've tried to explain to you on more than one occasion about citing sources for GNG vs citing sources for including material, and certainly hope you understand it now that I've sought other opinions at BLPN. You may not realize it, but as I explained to you above, what you're doing is disruptive per WP:IDHT. Also, please read WP:STATUSQUO, and WP:RS which will help you understand why your arguments are not supported. I'm pleased to see that you admitted to making unjustified edit summaries but it was the reverts that were unjustified. You also need to reconsider your position regarding OR or seek a third opinion if you don't have faith in what I've explained or have trouble understanding the policy. You should actually seek guidance at WP:RSN for any sources you find questionable which I suggested above and was accused of being unfair. ^{Atsme📞📧} 18:26, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As I already said on the article Talk page, I'm not accusing anyone of anything or making allegations against anyone. Stating that something isn't supported by any sources isn't a false or unsupported allegation or a reliable source problem, and it's most definitely not a statement against an editor. I've been saying and doing things that I think are reasonable and I'm getting a metric ton of grief over it from you. If you think I'm behaving badly, take me to ani. Ca2james (talk) 22:43, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you're responsible enough that I don't have to take such action. Just to clarify regarding your insistence that the sources didn't support the material - I explained it to you at BLPN and at the Rascon TP - it appears we have too many discussions going on about this one BLP. As for a metric ton of grief try thinking about what your actions have caused others. I spent my valuable time researching those RS, then wrote the passages, cited them to the RS, and the next thing I know, my work was wrongfully deleted - all with a single key stroke from your keyboard. Now that you realize your mistakes, and have modified your behavior, I'm happy to leave things as they are and hope an admin will please close this AfD so others will acquire some incentive to keep expanding the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atsme (talk • contribs)

With respect, the collaborative nature of Wikipedia means that one's hard work might be deleted with a single keystroke. Indeed, each of us can expect that our contributions will be modified up to and including deletion because we do not OWN any page here. Of course anyone might disagree with their contributions being deleted and might feel that the deletion was unwarranted - whether it was warranted or not. Usually an editor in that position would AGF and contact the other editor to ask what's going on. Typically, such a situation doesn't result in replacing that AGF contact with allegations of disruptive behaviour, posting in multiple places about the situation (resulting in discussions occurring in multiple places), and calling for an admin investigation - but that's how this went down. All of that would be the metric ton of grief and the chilling effects I was referring to above. Ca2james (talk) 03:28, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Therein lies some of the problem - collaboration means just that - you discuss edits and work with fellow editors. You don't just go in and revert their edits when a discussion is underway, especially when you don't fully understand applicable PAGs. You discuss things on the TP first, unless of course you're faced with a situation that calls for a speedy removal, such as vandalism. We are here to discuss notability which doesn't stop an editor from working to improve an article, although an AfD hovering in the background is an incentive killer not to mention a time sink. Regardless, before you revert a questionable edit, you should AGF and discuss the edit collaboratively with the other editors first. Please read the following essay: Wikipedia:Revert_only_when_necessary. Also read WP:3RR. ^{Atsme📞📧} 04:02, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You know, I'm not an idiot, contrary to what you seem you think, and I quite frankly I'm tired of you telling me what I "need" to do. Please stop doing that. Now: I'm *allowed* to make changes without asking your permission. I'm *allowed* to make changes - even to the words you slaved over, and to articles you created, and even to Good Articles - without even telling you about those changes in advance. That's how BRD works: edits do not have to be discussed in advance. Those three edits I made - and to be clear, I wasn't removing award names but the national/regional/local modifiers; and from a distance this is an absolutely ridiculous amount of drama over, what, five words? - weren't, or shouldn't have been, controversial, and there's absolutely no reason to have had to discuss them with you first. Ca2james (talk) 05:00, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop with your allegations. If you don't have anything productive to say about this AfD or the article, then please don't say anything at all, particularly to me. Thank you. ^{Atsme📞📧} 05:13, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete instead as there's nothing apart from the ordinary to suggest there's convincingly better, these journalists commonly get local Emmys, but that's still not convincing for independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 19:15, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the article - he has earned ~~several~~^{01:56, 26 July 2016 (UTC)} national awards for his work as journalist/reporter/news correspondent for national television and radio: The CBS Evening News with Dan Rather, CBS Radio, and 48 Hours.^{Atsme📞📧} 19:56, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:ENT for his role in numerous television news broadcasts (see also WP:LOCALFAME). -- Notecardforfree (talk) 22:06, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. "JAKLEWED. Oklahoma City station looks at Steve LaNore Jeanne - Jakle". San Antonio Express-News. 1992-09-02. Archived from the original on 2016-08-01. Retrieved 2016-08-01.
  The article notes:
  Meanwhile, 29-year-old KMOL alumnus Art Rascon has at least one eye on Gerry Grant's co-anchor seat next to Debora Daniels.
  Rascon currently is a news reporter at KABC-TV in the No. 2 market of Los Angeles. Though he has a year and a half left on his KABC contract, Art's growing itchy for an anchor post, something the L.A. station has yet to deliver. And he's heard through channels that KMOL News Director Ron Harig is "very interested in speaking to me." He even mentioned his willingness to walk away from his KABC contract if a new opportunity were good enough.
  Rascon says he made no formal contact with KMOL management during his four-day visit to San Antonio last week, but a brief appearance at the station was enough to get tongues wagging.
  He and wife Patti mainly came to check up on their old S.A. home, which they still own but rent out. He also mentioned taking a look at some new properties . . . in case "we were to resettle" here.
2. Toone, Trent (2012-06-14). "Positive power: Despite levels of mistrust, media can be a force for good". Deseret News. Archived from the original on 2016-08-01. Retrieved 2016-08-01.
  The article notes:
  In 1996, Art Rascon had a life-changing interview with an apostle of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
  Rascon, a broadcast journalist who is LDS, was working on a piece for CBS News about the growing phenomenon of religion on the Internet and how religious organizations were using cyberspace to spread their message. After talking with various Christian groups, he was granted an interview with Elder Henry B. Eyring of the Quorum of the Twelve, now a member of the First Presidency of the LDS Church. Rascon recounted their conversation in his 1998 book, "On Assignment: The Stories Behind the Stories."
  During their visit, President Eyring repeated many things Rascon had already heard about the negative influence of the media.
3. "Baytown salutes veterans". Baytown Sun. 2014-11-12. Archived from the original on 2016-08-01. Retrieved 2016-08-01.
  The article notes:
  Art Rascon made one thing clear when he took the podium as guest speaker at the Veterans Day Ceremony: he was not a veteran.
  Still, Rascon, a news anchor from Houston’s Channel 13, captured the audience with a story of passion, personal experience and a humble thanks to veterans who serve in the armed forces.
  All sat inside of the Baytown Community Center after rainy weather moved the event from its initial site at the Veterans Memorial Plaza in Bicentennial Park. Working with the Veterans of Foreign Wars, the City of Baytown hosts the annual ceremony to show gratitude.
  The seasoned reporter has won 19 Emmy Awards for stories captured during military conflicts and unrest that required U.S. intervention. Locations included Grenada, the Balkans, Central America, the Middle East, the Persian Crisis and Gulf War.
4. Weaver, Sarah Jane (2000-06-17). "LDS reporter finds faith amid despair". Deseret News. Archived from the original on 2016-08-01. Retrieved 2016-08-01.
  The article notes:
  Standing in a tent in the middle of a Kosovar refugee camp along the Kosovo/Macedonia border, Art Rascon looked over a sea of thousands of people forced from their homeland.
  As a reporter for KTRK-TV in Houston, Brother Rascon spoke with a family who, because of the civil war raging in Kosovo, no longer owned anything "except the clothes on their backs." Their daughter, pleased that someone cared about the family's plight, got on her hands and knees and began searching for something in the make-shift shelter. She then offered Brother Rascon a bottle of water.
  ...
  Raised in Denver, Colo., Brother Rascon attended Ricks College and served a mission in the California Arcadia Mission prior to graduating from BYU in 1984 with a bachelor's degree in broadcast journalism. Before moving almost two years ago to Houston where he now works as an anchor/reporter, Brother Rascon worked as a Miami-based correspondent for the "CBS Evening News with Dan Rather." He left this job hoping to spend more time with his wife, Patti, and their six children.
  During his career he has also worked as a reporter in Los Angeles and at several stations in Texas. He has been nominated for 11 Emmy awards and won three -- two for his March 1999 coverage of the Kosovo War.
5. "JAKLETHURS. Killeen tragedy leads newscasts Jeanne Jakle". San Antonio Express-News. 1991-10-07. Archived from the original on 2016-08-01. Retrieved 2016-08-01.
  The article notes:
  Remember KMOL-TV weekend anchor Art Rascon, who left San Antonio two years ago for a six-figure reporter/anchor deal at KABC-TV in Los Angeles?
  He and his wife, Patty, have a hankering to live in San Antonio again. And when Rascon got wind of anchorman/reporter Hollis Grizzard's sudden resignation at KSAT, his antennae started flickering.
  Though he said he hasn't spoken with KSAT's news boss, Jim Boyle, Rascon says others at the station have phoned suggesting he look into it.
  Though Rascon says he now makes twice what that post paid Hollis which is estimated to be around $60,000 a year he said he's willing to take a pay cut in San Antonio because the cost of living here is much lower than Los Angeles'.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Art Rascon to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 04:30, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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