Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 July 8

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 7 July 9 July >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete.  Sandstein  07:18, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Majority Plus

[edit]
Majority Plus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Sadly, a search failed to find any significant coverage for this band. Due to the band's age, it's possible that offline coverage exists, but I have been unable to find any of that sort. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 23:43, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 23:44, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 23:44, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's difficult to determine whether older topics were never notable or if they just faded into obscurity. In the case of bands, there's usually some kind of evidence in digitized sources and retrospectives. I see a trivial mention in this book, and there are a few Merseybeat fan sites that mention the band, such as this one. It would be nice if we could keep this article, as the creator apparently made it as a tribute to his grandfather, but there doesn't seem to be significant coverage in reliable sources. If someone can locate offline coverage, such as in contemporary newspapers, the article can be recreated. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:51, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No references and it all appears to be original research. Move to userspace so that the article creator can work on referencing. Karst (talk) 12:55, 9 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 The Championships, Wimbledon. (non-admin closure) — Music1201 talk 04:28, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2017 Wimbledon Championships

[edit]
2017 Wimbledon Championships (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:TOOEARLY, with only 1 source, and the 2016 US, 2017 Australian and 2017 French haven't created yet. 333-blue 23:36, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 03:39, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 03:39, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: No benefit to the encyclopedia from deleting this stub, which will inevitably be expanded enormously by this time next year. The date, definitively sourced, is already a key piece of information which real readers are likely to seek: lives are planned around it ("We can't have the village festival that Sunday, it's Wimbledon men's final"). PamD 07:01, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:CRYSTAL - "Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place". I'm not sure on not having the other articles would stop this from being created. Using that logic, none of them could ever be created... Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 08:53, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
1 year, grand slams before that should have be created, but not. 333-blue 03:08, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Incubate, redirect to The Championships, Wimbledon, and salt the redirect until 17 July 2017  The large font text for the one existing source in the article reads, PURCHASE OFFICIAL WIMBLEDON MERCHANDISE TODAY SHOP THE WIMBLEDON GIFT RANGE".  There is a total absence of sources to be found in Google news and Google books.  Further, WP:SUSTAINED in WP:N explains that Wikipedia is a lagging indicator of notability.  So this topic doesn't come close to being wp:notable, much less does it satisfy the higher requirements of WP:NOTNEWSPAPER, and it also fails WP:NOTPROMOTION.  Wikipedia is not a newspaper to help readers plan their lives.  Had this article anything useful to say from the encyclopedic sense, it would not need to use future tense.  Salt until two weeks after the expected start of the event, 17 July 2017.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:50, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Unscintillating: Salt until after the event ends? That seems a bit extreme and not at all consistent with what has been done in the past. In fact, there will be ample information available before the event starts, things such as seedings. I also don't see the text you describe in the sources provided. There is a link to the Wimbledon shop in the header of one of the sources. Maybe you clicked through to that by mistake? That being said, it is too soon for an article now. Redirect per my vote below. Smartyllama (talk) 20:54, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • First of all thanks for the feedback that my quote cannot be verified.  The promotion I am seeing today is "2016 CHAMPIONSHIPS TOWELS PERSONALISE YOURS FOR FREE".  I looked at web.archive.org/ and found one archive dated 5 Sep 2015, [1].  The promotion then was, "2015 CHAMPIONSHIPS TOWELS PERSONALISE YOURS FOR FREE".
      • Why would readers want an article that had seedings?  Would readers in five years want to see that article?  If the article is not ready for mainspace, draftspace would be ideal to add the seedings to the draft.  If it makes a difference, I'd be ok with a soft redirect to draftspace from mainspace.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:45, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:CRYSTAL. Already verifiable information exists about the event, and if deleted, page would have to be recreated with the same content anyway. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 03:32, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to The Championships, Wimbledon – Since tournaments before not yet created. 333-blue 11:40, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to the general "The Championships, Wimbledon". For these bigger events, a few months out should be sufficient for creation. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:57, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect as it is WP:TOOSOON for an article. Suggestions to salt until after it is already over are a bit extreme, but wait until we have some concrete information other than dates. Smartyllama (talk) 20:54, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect for now until such time that will be created. I think possibily when the 2017 tennis season do start then maybe include it. Matt294069 is coming 00:52, 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) — Music1201 talk 17:48, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gateway Greening

[edit]
Gateway Greening (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Still rather advert-toned and nothing suggesting the needed substantial sources, my searches have found links to suggest it's locally known but still not enough for the levels of an acceptable Wikipedia article. SwisterTwister talk 23:11, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 03:48, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 03:48, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America1000 07:57, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

Non-local coverage in book and other sources
Local coverage
  • Keep There are forty-seven sources in this article at the moment. I don't see how anyone can claim it fails WP:GNG. It's not just local coverage either. There is perhaps a slight promotional tone but that can easily be fixed. Omni Flames (talk) 04:47, 13 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) Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 03:15, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Garik Papoyan

[edit]
Garik Papoyan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Still nothing at all suggesting any convincing independent notability and searches have found nothing noticeably better. SwisterTwister talk 22:50, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 03:52, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 03:52, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America1000 09:00, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - No references, which makes it a BLP concern. Only aspect of note is his writing contribution to the Eurovision song. Redirect to that page. Karst (talk) 12:52, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Article is poor but there seems to be enough for him to pass the basic criteria on entertainment biographies, most notably due to his role on a television show. Cultural bias could be an issue here. KaisaL (talk) 00:37, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Have changed to a strong keep after noting on the Armenian Wikipedia that he was a judge on their version of The X Factor. (This is not mentioned in the English article but is quite clear-cut for me.) KaisaL (talk) 00:39, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Make sure to add references for this - at the moment it has no sources and thus fails WP:GNG. Karst (talk) 06:55, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Karst: I don't speak Armenian, so this is very difficult. Before you say anything, I know this isn't a reliable source, but our article on Armenian X Factor lists him as a judge for all three series. Also, this Armenian news website references him in a "Most beautiful celebrity couple" poll which suggests he's very much prominent in Armenia. These aren't reliable sources at all, but they say enough for me to suggest that somebody speaking the language could easily find plenty of reliable sources that cover him. This is as clear-cut a case of systematic bias as we'll get, because the individual clearly meets our guidelines from his X Factor activities alone, but there aren't any English language sources we can easily find about it because Armenian television doesn't really get coverage outside of that country. KaisaL (talk) 13:41, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep As KaisaL pointed out, the subject was a judge on the Armenian X Factor on Shant TV. I found a source in English (the English version of the website of the TV channel) describing the show and showing Garik as a member of the jury (on the right) [13]. If you click on his name there's an impressive resume [14]. He's obviously well known in Armenia and therefore he's notable. I will try to find time to confirm some of the claims made on that resume page, but it's brutally hard given the Armenian writing system unless English versions are available. Ironically I found the source in English by searching in Armenian. Dontreader (talk) 04:13, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment In the second link that I provided, we see this claim: He (...) was a musical producer and a jury member of “Hay Superstar” (“Pop Idol”). I confirmed that he was at least a jury member of Hay Superstar in the newspaper Aravot [15]. Google Translate shows that twice Garik is referred to as a jury member. I won't waste time confirming the other claims. Painful searches in Armenian prove that this guy is a big celebrity in his country. Even his stupidest comments are in the news. Dontreader (talk) 06:58, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for adding the references. At least there is some sourcing now for a stub level entry. Karst (talk) 08:22, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to you for appreciating the effort I put into finding those sources. It was quite a challenge! I wish I had been able to confirm more claims. However, I did find a good source that confirms he was one of the main actors in a movie, and it was an actual movie in theaters, so I would guess it's notable. I also found indirect evidence that he was in that other movie, too, but I was hoping to find a better source. I wish I had posted the good source here, but I can find it again, if I remember to, and a decent source for the other movie has to be somewhere. One thing I know for sure is that I won't be taking Armenian lessons any time soon. Dontreader (talk) 16:29, 11 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.  Sandstein  07:18, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hélène Carendi

[edit]
Hélène Carendi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Still nothing actually convincing of independent notability and my searches aren't finding any better. SwisterTwister talk 22:38, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 04:14, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 04:14, 9 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 03:29, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

John Iwueke

[edit]
John Iwueke (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Still nothing to suggest his own convincing independent notability, he has only 1 film so far; searches have found nothing particularly convincing. SwisterTwister talk 22:32, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 04:15, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 04:15, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. North America1000 09:04, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this article fails WP:GNG as the subject has not been discussed on independent reliable sources to establish notability. Google news brings up nothing apart from a few mentions from basically unreliable sources. --—Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 10:49, 9 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 Withdrawn. OK, fair enough. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:32, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Beyond Beyond

[edit]
Beyond Beyond (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Sourced only to one review and a trailer. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:51, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as imdb link page to external reviews shows 18 reviews here which include reliable sources such as Cinemagazine( dutch), Hollywood Reporter (Russia),Common sense media, and a number of French, German and Swedish rs for films. Passes WP:GNG including the already cited Variety review. Atlantic306 (talk) 00:57, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 04:24, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
and we also have multiple non-English searches. Were they performed?
Swedish:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Belgium:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Brazil:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Germany:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Denmark:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Finland:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
France:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Hungary:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Netherlands:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Norway:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Serbia:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Russia:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Slovenia:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Turkey:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 17:49, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of USM Alger players

[edit]
List of USM Alger players (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable list of players in a club. It says in the lead that Generally, this means players that have played 100 or more league matches for the club. However, some players who have played fewer matches are also included; this includes players that have had considerable success either at other clubs or at international level, as well as players who are well remembered by the supporters for particular reasons., and this seems very arbitrary and POV what players are included. The article is also completely unsourced. Qed237 (talk) 20:28, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Qed237 (talk) 20:32, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:42, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:42, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:42, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:42, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - this is a list of players who have played for a professional club in a fully-professional league, in the same way as List of Manchester United F.C. players is. Why is one questioned but the other not? Needs improving, not deleting. GiantSnowman 09:03, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I think this AfD should probably have been bundled with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of All-time appearances for USM Alger, as they effectively cover the same content. All-time roster type lists are standard for clubs where sufficient sources exist to verify their content.

    It's clear that the creator's intention is to improve coverage of their club. I think what they need to do is look at the some of the existing well-covered clubs – York City is probably the best of the up-to-date ones – see what articles are included and what they contain, and stick to those. But they do need to add their sources to the pages.

    As to scope, seeing as the nomination comments on it: A long time ago, when these lists were first going through the WP:FLC process, the standard scope was 100 appearances and extras such as record-holders, international players or Hall of Famers. It was decided that such an approach wasn't acceptable, and we should aim for a complete all-time roster. For years now, standard procedure is to restrict the main List of ... F.C. players to those with more than a certain number of appearances: 100 tends to be the norm. Although some featured lists still haven't been updated from that scope: see e.g. Aston Villa or Ipswich. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:53, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - per GS and Struway, lists of players for clubs in fully professional leagues are acceptable. Agree though that the lead is not helpful, should be removed and work done to create and all-time roster. Fenix down (talk) 07:05, 11 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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Regards, Naz | talk | contribs 12:29, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2016 Bangladesh Premier League

[edit]
2016 Bangladesh Premier League (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
  • Withdrawal by nominator. Nomination was being here for deletion but it is I am agreeing a redirect instead until it is known if this competition will happen. Please to close the nomination. Thank you. Regards, Naz | talk | contribs 10:25, 10 July 2016 (UTC)Redirect. To Bangladesh Premier League. There being no confirmation at all of competition being held in 2016 and so all here is speculation. There are numerous issues about the BPL and its future is uncertain. Article is WP:TOOSOON. Regards, Naz | talk | contribs 20:14, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 04:47, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 04:47, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 04:47, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'd support a redirect to the main article for now. The page creator seems to have a history of making unsourced articles, so maybe that's another issue that needs addressing. The burden is with them to have sources when creating such articles. Otherwise, I'd be happy for it to be deleted, as it's all guesswork at the moment. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 08:51, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Lugnuts. Yes, I would be in agreement with you that a redirect being preferable. I am changing my vote above from "delete" to redirect". Unfortunately, you are spot on in your comment about lack of sources being in citation throughout the Bangladesh cricket structure, even worse being copy violations as I found yesterday and had to take action. It is something we are needing to be addressing. Thank you, Lugnuts. Regards, Naz | talk | contribs 09:24, 9 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 withdrawn. postdlf (talk) 01:19, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of current Bangladesh Premier League team rosters

[edit]
List of current Bangladesh Premier League team rosters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The title being false because the squads named are those for the 2015 edition of the BPL played eight months ago. 2016 squads unknown presently. I am recommending merging each squad table into each relevant club article. Regards, Naz | talk | contribs 20:10, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 04:48, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 04:48, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 04:48, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Lugnuts. Of course, the simple solution is making the most sense. I should have been doing that too instead of coming here. Thank you, Lugnuts. Regards, Naz | talk | contribs 09:15, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, admin. Please to close this discussion now. Thank you. Regards, Naz | talk | contribs 09:15, 9 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) 16:09, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alli Forsythe

[edit]
Alli Forsythe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Only local trivial coverage, there's no inherited notability from simply competing at the Amazing Race, my searches have found only a few links for exactly this. SwisterTwister talk 19:24, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 04:57, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 04:57, 9 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 - retracting my own submission after overwhelming support. (non-admin closure) Slashme (talk) 21:34, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Mandibles

[edit]
The Mandibles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested PROD - reason was "This article makes no claim of notability to explain why this is not just a run-of-the-mill book." The article creator has added some reviews, but just the fact that a book has been reviewed in newspapers doesn't make it notable. Slashme (talk) 19:21, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 04:59, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Reviews do indeed count towards notability per WP:NBOOK and are even specifically mentioned in criteria one. From what I can see the book was reviewed by NPR, the Washington Post, the Sydney Morning Herald, and the Evening Standard, just to name a few. The thing about reviews is tέhat they're not routine. While yes, a notable author will be far more likely to gain reviews, it's still not a guarantee. Nor is it guaranteed that a book from a new or lesser known author from a major or minor publisher will gain a review. Media outlets (even trades) will routinely decline to review work, to the point where I can safely say that they decline far more books than they review. (This does not count outlets that charge for reviews - that's a different thing entirely and those reviews don't count towards notability on Wikipedia.) Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:39, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment as nominator: since my nomination, more content has been added and references to multiple independent reviews have surfaced. At the time, it was true that the article made no claim of notability, and that has now changed, so I would be satisfied with a result of keep. --Slashme (talk) 13:39, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Widely reviewed, but more importantly, reviewed in top global publications, which is a measure of notability. The author herself is well known (see her article) and a frequent interview subject (in major sources like The Guardian and the BBC) on topics including those that appear in this book. MCB (talk) 18:51, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment and Keep, "At the time, it was true that the article made no claim of notability", afd created 19:21, 8 July, by 18:58, 8 July there were 3 reviews[18](appearing in The Guardian[19], The Irish Times[20], and The Financial Times[21]) listed in the references section of the article [22], so it already met WP:NBOOK, there is now a 4th review that furthers its notableness. Coolabahapple (talk) 18:37, 11 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 no consensus. After 3 relists, a consensus has not been established. (non-admin closure) — Music1201 talk 04:31, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gold (2015 film)

[edit]
Gold (2015 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable. Awards are not major. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:19, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Previous afd Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gold.. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:23, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170etalk 16:11, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GSS (talk) 13:56, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:00, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:00, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Since the discussion only attracted attention after the 2nd relist, one more relist may help to establish consensus. ansh666 19:17, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ansh666 19:17, 8 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 no consensus. Opinions differ about whether coverage is sufficient for inclusion. The article is therefore kept by default, in absence of a consensus to delete.  Sandstein  08:26, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Mark Taylor (music producer)

[edit]
Mark Taylor (music producer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Total lack of reliable secondary sources mentioning this music producer. Searches for his name coupled with "producer" or "songwriter" turn up only an allmusic page (user-submitted content) and copies of this wikipedia article. The one reference on the page is a dead link and no archived version of that article appears to exist anywhere. He is mentioned tangentially in a couple of articles about the Cher song "Believe" but that's it. Doesn't rise to the level required by WP:NMUSIC and certainly not WP:GNG. Rockypedia (talk) 14:50, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:54, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hang on a second - criteria 1, 3, 4, for composers and lyricists? Which songs did he write lyrics or music for? Because on "Believe", he is listed as a producer. I don't see evidence of him meeting (1) - writing or co-writing either lyrics or music for a notable composition, or (3) Has had a work used as the basis for a later composition by a notable songwriter, composer or lyricist or (4) Has written a composition that has won a major music competition. Remember that you're citing rules for composers and lyricists and the only mentions of Mark Taylor in reliable sources are as a producer or mixer. With regards to the Grammy, he wasn't nominated for the Grammy as an individual - the song he produced won a Grammy. I don't believe that that alone establishes notability. Rockypedia (talk) 16:04, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oxford Music Online and Encyclopedia of Popular Music appear to be the same thing. Additionally, much like imdb is for movies, it appears anyone can contribute an entry for music on those sites, so I wouldn't call those reliable secondary sources. Rockypedia (talk) 16:11, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The allmusic link to credits list hm as a producer and composer on numerous songs. — Maile (talk) 16:13, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
#1, Allmusic is not a reliable source, as it relies on user-submitted content. #2 Even if it was, which of those songs that he composed qualify under WP:NMUSIC? Rockypedia (talk) 16:21, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. North America1000 18:46, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America1000 18:46, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I ask the question I posed in point #2 above: which of those songs that he composed qualify under WP:NMUSIC? Rockypedia (talk) 00:24, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's been a week since I asked that question, and I know the reason it hasn't been answered: Because there are none. He hasn't composed any notable songs. He does not qualify under WP:NMUSIC. Rockypedia (talk) 22:53, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vipinhari || talk 16:32, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:19, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vipinhari || talk 17:49, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Subject lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. He is mentioned only in passing in the sources that are out there. It will be tough to improve the page without verification. Meatsgains (talk) 23:48, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: DRV consensus to relist AfD for more comments ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 18:58, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 18:58, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Help:Reliable sources wizard/Step 3 lists allmusic as a reliable source "for Music artist biographies and album reviews." The Grammy as composer for "Believe" is listed in the allmusic credits, not in the bio, and I don't know if that's significant or not. Anyway, I see that Taylor was mis-linked and therefore redlinked multiple times at Believe (Cher song). I have fixed that. if nothing else. Kinda surprised that we could have all this attention at the Afd and no thought to check if he was even properly linked from the song that is his greatest claim to notability, imo. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:13, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep The Grammy and his large body of works support notability. The Oxford Music Online's article appears to be written by Barry Kernfeld and in any case doesn't appear to be something just anyone can edit, though they do solicit authors. (I can see both articles listed as subscription only, perhaps because I'm editing from within a peer institution's domain). I'd like another decent source to go with it though, thus the "weak" part. Hobit (talk) 20:41, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Counterpoint He didn't win a Grammy. He didn't write the song that won a Grammy. The song won, and that Grammy - "Best Dance Recording" - is given to "recording artists for works containing quality vocal performances in the dance music genre." Cher accepted that Grammy onstage. The subject of this article supposedly has a "co-producer" credit on the song, which does not meet any part of WP:NMUSIC, as pointed out above. If that's his only claim to notability (and it appears that it is), it's not enough. Rockypedia (talk) 21:03, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • See my comment in the DRV and below. The large body of work listed on All Music is not what it seems. He wasn't doing sound engineer work as 3 years old, it isn't the guy who is the keyboard player for The Alarm or Simple Minds, both things those credits claim. Some of those may indeed be this Mark Taylor but certainly not all - in fact the guy from The Alarm has a rather extensive list of collaborations etc a rather extensive list of collaborations etc many of which match the other items on that All Music list. Fr reference this is about Mark Taylor from The Alarm and he was born in 1956 in Leicester. --82.14.37.32 (talk) 21:40, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless someone can explain to me how the all music credits are a reasonable validated source. As stated at the DRV the credits do seem impressive, but some of them are from when he'd just be 3 years old according to the corresponding bio. Some of them are for the Mark Taylor from the band the Alarm, who was born in 1956 and is a completely different person. The bio part of the all music listing says nothing about this career as a music producer, but instead talks about a jazz musician. In short the whole thing being predicated on all these credits he has when it's quite clear the all music bio is a mix of various people called Mark Taylor. Additionally the http://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/acref/9780195313734.001.0001/acref-9780195313734-e-27714?rskey=26a6iM&result=1 Oxford Encyclopedia of music bio] starts with the exact same wording as the all music bio, so is similarly questionable as to if it's talking about the same Mark Taylor. --82.14.37.32 (talk) 21:31, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Now that I'm home, I can't see the bio any longer. I suspect you are right and it is about a different person. In which case I'd drop my weak keep. I likely won't have time to verify either way, so the closer should feel free to ignore my !vote if there is consensus it's the wrong person--I'm leaving town on vacation for a week with (hopefully) limited Internet access. I've grave doubts that the Oxford one is _wrong_ given who wrote it, but I also suspect it may be about the Jazz musician instead, again given who wrote it, assuming they are different people. Hobit (talk) 01:03, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There's no doubt this guy is notable - Extensive article in The New York Times about Cher's song "Believe", outlining how it was produced/written, Taylor is mentioned and quoted several times. Mentioned in The Huffington Post - While working with Cher on the song “Believe” in 1998, producers Mark Taylor and Brian Rawling discovered that if they set Auto-Tune on its most aggressive setting, so that it corrected the pitch at the exact moment it received the signal, the result was an unsettlingly robotic tone. And this book as well - Perfecting Sound Forever. Mentioned in The New Yorker - The first popular example of Auto-Tune’s distorting effect was Cher’s 1998 hit “Believe,” produced by Mark Taylor and Brian Rawling. Results from HighBeam include many many mentions:
The Mail on Sunday - This was a hit single in 1999. The song, produced by Brian Rawling and Mark Taylor - the team behind Cher's 1998 hit Believe - came from the album Twenty Four Seven.
Sacramento Observer - The new album is Richie's ninth solo project and brings him together with some of the most successful contemporary producers of today, including Brian Rawling, Mark Taylor...
The New York Beacon - The album dropped last October with the release of "When The Heartache Is Over," co-written by John Reid of the Nightcrawlers and Graham Stack, and produced by Brian Rawling and Mark Taylor, the dynamic team behind Cher's multi-million hit "Believe."
The Washington Post - And while "Believe" won't disappoint anyone who enjoys a good laugh at an aging pop icon's expense, it's hard to knock the way the album's producers (Mark Taylor, Brian Rawling and Junior Vasquez) have groomed her as a high- tech, electronica-age cousin of Gloria Gaynor and Donna Summer.
The Mirror - They will record with producers Paul Barry and Mark Taylor, who are responsible for Enrique's major hit Hero.
Knight Ridder/Tribune News Service - Producers and songwriters Paul Barry and Mark Taylor, the Believe architects pour it on thick here.
The Buffalo News - A couple of years ago Cher turned her flagging recording career around with the help of a couple of hip, young producers. Brian Rawling and Mark Taylor, the guys behind Cher's smash hit, "Believe," are back behind the controls to produce Tina Turner's new single, "When The Heartache Is Over."
Chicago Defender - The album's producers are Brian Rawling, and Mark Taylor.
Chicago Sun-Times - ...Stewart has wisely turned over the producing reigns to Rob Dickins, who brought together a stellar stable of contemporary pop/R&B wizards including Brian Rawling, Mark Taylor and Christopher Neil.
The Irish Times - Brian Rawlings, Mark Taylor and Jeff Taylor, collectively known as Metrophonic, who took an interest in these teen tunesmiths and took on the task of producing their debut album.
Music Business Worldwide - It also includes songs by Grammy Award winner Mark Taylor, co-writer and producer of Heartbeat for Enrique Iglesias feat.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 23:50, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Every single one of these is an insignificant mention of the subject's name in articles that are not about him, and every single one is about him producing one song for Cher. That doesn't equal notability, even if 11 different newspapers made the same mention. He still has to pass WP:NMUSIC, and not one of the articles is even close to indicating that he does. Rockypedia (talk) 07:05, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Re:Comment - Just to provide clarification on - every single one is about him producing one song for Cher - The Mail on Sunday, New York Beacon, Buffalo News and Chicago Defender are all articles about Tina Turner's song When the Heartache Is Over, The Sacramento Observer is about Lionel Richie's album Renaissance, The Mirror is about a duet from Ronan Keating and Enrique Iglesias and Iglesias' song Hero, The Chicao Sun-Times is about Rod Stewart's album Human, The Irish Times is about The Faders and Taylor's association with Metrophonic, and Music Business Worldwide is about Iglesias' song Heartbeat and Taylor's association with Metrophonic. In addition, we have two categories on WP specifically for Taylor - Song recordings produced by Mark Taylor (record producer), 36 articles and Songs written by Mark Taylor (record producer), 30 articles. He's produced/written for Belinda Carlisle, Britney Spears, James Morrison, Enrique Iglesias, Ronan Keating, Brian McFadden, Cher, Celine Dion, Tina Turner, many more and is frequently, if not always, listed in the lead of articles where he has produced/written.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 18:52, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What song did he write that is considered a "notable composition"? (the requirement laid out by WP:NMUSIC) Rockypedia (talk) 19:01, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
#1. Has credit for writing or co-writing either lyrics or music for a notable composition. - Be with You - nominated for Grammy, Taylor credited as producer/writer - he won a grammy for producer/mixer for Best Dance Recording for Believe, and there is 30 Wikipedia articles that pass WP:GNG where Taylor is credited as writer and/or co-writer, so there is a whole category of his "notable compositions" where he is listed as writer and/or co-writer.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 23:52, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
For the 4th time - He didn't win a Grammy. The song Believe won a Grammy, and the Grammy was presented to the artist who performed the vocal (in this case Cher). He didn't write that song either; he was a co-producer on it, which basically means he was in the control room hitting record, which is why a producer isn't considered notable just for being listed as a producer on a single Grammy-winning song. There's still no substantial coverage in reliable sources. Rockypedia (talk) 00:17, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The song won a Grammy for Best Dance Recording. If it was a Grammy for best written song, then I would agree that this would not be his Grammy. But the producer is responsible for the song's recording, and he is indeed listed as one of the winners for the song on the Grammy website link in the article - but the writers are not listed because they are not responsible for recording the song. Rlendog (talk) 20:07, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Lots of mentions, no substantial coverage in reliable sources that we can actually build an article around. A redirect to the song would be a possibility though. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:27, 11 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 03:29, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mauro Pipani

[edit]
Mauro Pipani (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No permanent museum collections and my examinations and searches have found nothing better. SwisterTwister talk 18:57, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 05:04, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 05:04, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. North America1000 10:57, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That is an in-depth review of his exhibition, hosted on a relatively respectable-looking art blog, so it does point towards notability, but I'm not convinced that it passes WP:NARTIST yet. It's worth noting that it:Mauro Pipani was speedily deleted last month as a promotional page and a copyvio from his website, but I guess that doesn't really speak to the notability of the artist as such. --Slashme (talk) 20:50, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I made the page on Mauro Pipani because he is considered in Italy a great living artist. Among the other he is doing an exhibition in Rome (until 10 July) with Italian and foreign artists such as Warhol , Carlo Carrà , Pistoletto , Mimmo Palladino etc .. http://www.exibart.com/profilo/eventiV2.asp?idelemento=161119

Yesterday I have found this article in English about his art (on page 80). It is an important art magazine. https://www.joomag.com/magazine/startup-1/0063593001463331380?short

His page on Wikipedia Italy was removed because for Wikipedia Italy if an artist doesn’t take part in at least two biennials of Venice is not an artist, regardless of what it is in real life. Thanks anyway for your attention L'uomodisabbia (talk) 10:02, 15 July 2016 (UTC)L'uomodisabbia (talk)[reply]

  • Delete I looked at the sources that User:L'uomodisabbia provided, but they do not add up to notability. He has shows in some galleries, but mostly in small communities. I can't find anything that shows that "Startup" is an important art magazine, but I'm willing to be persuaded. Nor can I find anything that would indicate that he is considered a great "living artist" in Italy, but there's a good chance I don't know where to look. The Exibart link doesn't show me anything about him. LaMona (talk) 01:28, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Startup is extremely badly proofread (to the point that parts of it look like machine-translated text), so it probably falls short of the kind of editorial oversight that makes something a reliable source. --Slashme (talk) 18:23, 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. MBisanz talk 03:30, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deveo

[edit]
Deveo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

PROD removed with the basis of adding a few other links but there's still nothing to suggest the needed substance for convincing independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 18:22, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 18:23, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 18:23, 8 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. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 00:17, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Austin Wang

[edit]
Austin Wang (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Nothing at all suggesting the convincing substance for his own notability as they are only local fairs and my searches have found nothing better. SwisterTwister talk 17:45, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 17:45, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Science fair contestant, with no other claim to notability. Apart from the fair's own pages, there is one news report which mentions him as a prizewinner at the fair that year. That doesn't equal "independent notability" IMHO. --Slashme (talk) 17:49, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — I think this article was written by Wang's teenage friends as a tribute and/or tease. I removed some vandalism, and tried to do some cleanup and copyediting a few weeks ago on this, but didn't see enough coverage for a bio, and I still don't. There is some routine coverage in Canadian media: [30][31][32], but I would call it a classic example of WP:BLP1E, where you have short pieces focusing on a person in the news, and then coverage ceases, and the winner remains low-profile. Previous years winners, Raymond Wang (2015), Nathan Han (2014), Ionut Budisteanu (2013) arguably got wider international coverage, but faded from public view.

    A worthwhile addition to the encyclopedia would be to go to Canada-Wide Science Fair and Intel International Science and Engineering Fair and add lists of winners with brief summaries of their achievements. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:48, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Wang is an 18-year-old who won the top prize in an internation competition in science for 18 year olds. He may well make significant contributions to science, but he should be judged on the notability requirements for academics, and he is not even close to passing any at this time. In 10 years if he continues on his course he may be, in 20 years even more likely, but not now.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:15, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Significant coverage in reliable sources: [33], [34]. No, this is not a local fair, it is a notable and prestigious contest of international scope. This is not about WP:NACADEMIC, it is about WP:GNG. There is a potential WP:BLP1E issue here but I don't think Dennis Bratland has made a convincing argument for that. The oldest previous winners is apparently notable enough to have an article and there have been articles created for the more recent winners though there has been no substantial discussion about notability. WP:BLP1E has three conditions and all must be satisfied. Arguably condition 1 is currently met but the case for conditions 2 and 3 are not convincing. ~Kvng (talk) 17:27, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wang was low profile before this: he had zero coverage. Afterwards, zero coverage. That's what a low-profile individual is. Wang has not done any of the things listed at Wikipedia:Who is a low-profile individual. The winners of this competition seem to go on to successful careers, but the award does not confer lasting fame. That's condition 2.

      The particular winner of this science fair is quite insignificant in the sense that somebody wins every year, and no matter who wins, the rest of the world is utterly unaffected. Without Wang, the ISEF would have had a grand prize winner. Without John Hinkley, there wouldn't have been a Reagan assassination attempt; Hinckley was indispensable. The lack of media coverage or public interest is also evidence that it's not a significant prize; there's a couple news stories after they award it every year, and then nothing until the next year. There is no pre-event coverage, for example, as you would have with a significant contest like the Booker or Nobel Prize, or the World Cup. No comment on what that says about our society. Condition 3 of BLP1E is satisfied.

      I don't know who asserted that Ionuț Budișteanu is notable enough for an article. Not me, and it hasn't been tested in an AfD nomination. It looks a lot like it was written by an SPA to attract interest in funding Budișteanu start-up. I would bet that Ionuț Budișteanu would be deleted on BLP1E grounds if nominated, because all of the coverage of him occurred in the wake of his science fair prize. The minor planet naming appears to be of little importance; it's simply the arbitrary choice of the discoverer, and there was no media coverage of it [35]. I would nominate Ionuț Budișteanu for deletion myself, but that might be WP:POINTy.

      Regardless, Wang is even less notable than Budișteanu. And anyway, see WP:OSE and Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#What about article x? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:12, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There's still nothing at all for his own convincing notability and these are simply non-convincing attempts at making the article seem notable, even generally.... SwisterTwister talk 20:07, 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 Inappropriate while DRV is underway. It is inappropriate to start an AfD discussion while the DRV is still underway. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:30, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Karrigan

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Karrigan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Requesting AfD in place of a WP:A7 speedy deletion, there is also a WP:DRV going on at the moment but no concensus there Prisencolin (talk) 17:31, 8 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) 11:34, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Waseem Tarar

[edit]
Waseem Tarar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

None of the sources are the actual needed substantial coverage and my examinations and searches have found nothing better, the article basically only consists of profiles, interviews and news for apparent threats; nothing at all to suggest this is convincingly notable. SwisterTwister talk 17:29, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 17:29, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Uanfala (talk) 23:15, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's still not enough. SwisterTwister talk 06:24, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I have checked the references provided for this article. Most of the references are not valid. for example the reference provided for like the death threats is a general one. Tarar name is not mentioned in that news. Only few articles of this journalist are published but in local Urdu newspapers. His profile is present on Journalism Pakistan website. Any one can place his details on Journalism Pakistan that is not a trustworthy site. Tarar Media corporation has no website. The website provided is a type of blog having no opinion and editorial section. we never heard of this media group in Pakistan. Its Facebook and twitter accounts are not reachable. Sneha Hurrain (talk) 06:14, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think the Journalist is notable. Here are stories about him in leading Pakistani newspaper Daily Dunya here is news about special participation as chief guest in conference of Journalists. I hope participation in a conference of Journalists as a chief guest mean the guy is prominent in his country. we should keep short article about this guy and should delete unnecessarily and unrelated content. User:Jerena.llantos talk 02:19, 15 July 2016 (UTC) — Jerena.llantos (talk • contribs)[reply]
  • Comment Britain Times is not a trust worthy source. It is someone's personal blog having blank ABOUT US page. Sneha Hurrain (talk) 16:20, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Waseem Tarar is an ordinary district reporter for District Gojrawala. I checked his Facebook profile. He has done his B.A. (Two years) in 2015. Tarar Media Corporation is a fake corporation. Its Facebook Page has only 3 likes. The picture used on Tarar Media Corporation on Facebook page is taken from British Times - a personal blog. In the picture instead of Pakistani people Foreigners can easily be seen[1]. He has displayed a pictorial news on his website that he is selected as NNI News Agency Bureau Chief for Gojrawala Division but there is no such clarification on NNI Website[2]. I have not seen his name in any of leading newspapers of Pakistan. I will suggest that the page Tarar Media Corporation must also be nominated for deletion because its references are irrelevant and do not show notability. Sneha Hurrain (talk) 17:07, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Waseem Tarar is a well know person in Pakistan. When i search about (Waseem Tarar) with his name in Urdu "( وسیم تارڑ )" i found lot of evidences and references about this person on Google and enternet. There are dozens of web pages about (وسیم تارڑ) with his journalistic stories, photos, news, reports, writings, columns, articles and introductions, but there is no evidence to prove any relation of Tarar Media Corporation with Waseem Tarar so Tarar Media Corporation link must be removed from Waseem Tarar's page. User:Edward4223 talk 12:14, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails general notability. Engleham (talk) 19:17, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment When I search for information about Waseem Tarar in Urdu I found that he has not written more than 7 Urdu articles for a single Urdu newspaper. The titles of the same articles are copied to other blogs and it seems that he has written many articles in Urdu. Sneha Hurrain (talk) 09:07, 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 delete. Mackensen (talk) 11:34, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Waseem Tarar

[edit]
Waseem Tarar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

None of the sources are the actual needed substantial coverage and my examinations and searches have found nothing better, the article basically only consists of profiles, interviews and news for apparent threats; nothing at all to suggest this is convincingly notable. SwisterTwister talk 17:29, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 17:29, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Uanfala (talk) 23:15, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's still not enough. SwisterTwister talk 06:24, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I have checked the references provided for this article. Most of the references are not valid. for example the reference provided for like the death threats is a general one. Tarar name is not mentioned in that news. Only few articles of this journalist are published but in local Urdu newspapers. His profile is present on Journalism Pakistan website. Any one can place his details on Journalism Pakistan that is not a trustworthy site. Tarar Media corporation has no website. The website provided is a type of blog having no opinion and editorial section. we never heard of this media group in Pakistan. Its Facebook and twitter accounts are not reachable. Sneha Hurrain (talk) 06:14, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think the Journalist is notable. Here are stories about him in leading Pakistani newspaper Daily Dunya here is news about special participation as chief guest in conference of Journalists. I hope participation in a conference of Journalists as a chief guest mean the guy is prominent in his country. we should keep short article about this guy and should delete unnecessarily and unrelated content. User:Jerena.llantos talk 02:19, 15 July 2016 (UTC) — Jerena.llantos (talk • contribs)[reply]
  • Comment Britain Times is not a trust worthy source. It is someone's personal blog having blank ABOUT US page. Sneha Hurrain (talk) 16:20, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Waseem Tarar is an ordinary district reporter for District Gojrawala. I checked his Facebook profile. He has done his B.A. (Two years) in 2015. Tarar Media Corporation is a fake corporation. Its Facebook Page has only 3 likes. The picture used on Tarar Media Corporation on Facebook page is taken from British Times - a personal blog. In the picture instead of Pakistani people Foreigners can easily be seen[3]. He has displayed a pictorial news on his website that he is selected as NNI News Agency Bureau Chief for Gojrawala Division but there is no such clarification on NNI Website[4]. I have not seen his name in any of leading newspapers of Pakistan. I will suggest that the page Tarar Media Corporation must also be nominated for deletion because its references are irrelevant and do not show notability. Sneha Hurrain (talk) 17:07, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Waseem Tarar is a well know person in Pakistan. When i search about (Waseem Tarar) with his name in Urdu "( وسیم تارڑ )" i found lot of evidences and references about this person on Google and enternet. There are dozens of web pages about (وسیم تارڑ) with his journalistic stories, photos, news, reports, writings, columns, articles and introductions, but there is no evidence to prove any relation of Tarar Media Corporation with Waseem Tarar so Tarar Media Corporation link must be removed from Waseem Tarar's page. User:Edward4223 talk 12:14, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails general notability. Engleham (talk) 19:17, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment When I search for information about Waseem Tarar in Urdu I found that he has not written more than 7 Urdu articles for a single Urdu newspaper. The titles of the same articles are copied to other blogs and it seems that he has written many articles in Urdu. Sneha Hurrain (talk) 09:07, 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 delete. KaisaL (talk) 22:12, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Sapir

[edit]
Alex Sapir (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

As far as I can tell from this article, he's mostly notable for inheriting wealth and acting on the board of the organisations that manage this wealth (family organisation and investment organisation). There really isn't a solid claim of notability in this article. Slashme (talk) 16:46, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 19:01, 8 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 No consensus; there is no point keeping this open any longer, since it's well past the "more heat than light" stage. I do have a degree of sympathy with the delete arguments, but I consider the primary argument around the definition of "independent source" to be a fundamental misunderstanding of what we mean by "independent of the article subject". The sources aren't directly connected to the article subject but to an organisation of which he's a part, and that degree of connection isn't sufficient to discount the sources, any more than we would discount the Journal of the American Statistical Association or The Spectator as sources for biographies because most of the people mentioned will be connected to the ASA or the Conservative Party. On discounting those delete arguments made on this basis, it's clear that there's no consensus for deletion here. Also, Wikipedia's practice has always been that regardless of the neutrality of sources, if a major religion considers a topic notable there's a prima facie presumption of notability (most articles on Christian saints are sourced entirely to Christian sources; good luck getting Saint Mirin and the like deleted). Thus, while the numbers may tilt towards deletion, in terms of (definitely) Wikipedia custom and practice and (arguably) Wikipedia policy, those supporting keep have the stronger arguments, and the only reasonable closures for this are either "keep" or "no consensus"; I'm going with the latter as although the result is the same, it probably more accurately reflects the balance of the discussion. I'd also add that the conduct of some parties in this discussion, particularly the nominator, has been absolutely atrocious, and when this goes to the almost inevitable DRV I strongly recommend the semicoherent ranting and superfluous bolding be toned down considerably. ‑ Iridescent 10:21, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(adding) I do have some sympathy with User:Herostratus's request for a relist, but the best way to do this is via either DRV or a fresh AFD listing. This AFD debate is a toxic brew of people on both sides shouting at each other, and keeping it open is serving no useful purpose. ‑ Iridescent 10:26, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Octaviano Tenorio

[edit]
Octaviano Tenorio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No independent sources. All "sources" of this article are either passive mentions (the Salt Lake Tribune article has a mention of Tenorio that is only one sentence long) or are connected with the LDS church, from which he draws his notability. pbp 16:43, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep To being with there is an attempt to cast drawing notability too widely. The LDS sources are indepth coverage because he is a major person to a religion with over 15 million members. Yet we have a source from the Salt Lake Tribune, which is absolutely not an LDS source. So why is it not accepted, because it is supposedly a "passive mention". However it is a mention that inherently shows that Tenorio is a widely respected and known person, it inherently shows that Tenorio is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:02, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Did you even read that article, @Johnpacklambert:? It's a passing mention about Octaviano in an article about [redacted]. There is one sentence about him in the article. Please familiarize yourself with notability guidelines before continuing to create articles or vote in AfDs. Also, there is no policy that states that high-ranking LDS officials are inherently notable. The size of the LDS church has no bearing on this discussion. If you believe that high-ranking LDS officials are inherently notable, create a discussion at one of the policy-changing forums on the topic. Until then, GNG reigns supreme, and this article fails GNG. pbp 17:15, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You are the one who does not even try to understand the nature and meaning of the reference. Size of religious organizations does have a bearing on the importance and notability of their leadership.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:30, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's one sentence! ONE SENTENCE. That's the only independent reference in the article! Also, please provide me with the policy or guideline that being a mid-level official of a religion of a certain size means automatically notable. Oh, right, there is one. pbp 17:42, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Tenorio is not a "mid-level" official. He is one of the top international leaders of the Church.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:12, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh. It doesn't matter if he is the biggest chief of all time. What matters is whether he passes WP:GNG. Please, JPL go read and study GNG. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:53, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails WP:GNG. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:14, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Clearly fails WP:GNG. The article's creator Johnpacklambert (JPL) confuses the concept of notability with the concept of importance. The policy at GNG is that there should multiple independent and reliable references to sustain an article about this individual. In this case there is only:
  1. A mention in a book published by Brigham Young University, which the head article notes in its lede "is owned and operated by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints". Regardless of the size of the coverage there, it fails the independence part of the GNG requirement for significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.
  2. A passing mention in an article about his brother. That fails the "significant" part of the GNG test.
So there is precisely nothing to count towards WP:GNG. The article's creator, JPL, seems to be aware of this, because he has just proposed amending the notability guidelines to create an exception for "Leaders in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and other religious organizations", specifically to rescue this article. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:17, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notice. I removed a sentence from the article and redacted part of two sentences from this discussion. Please read WP:BLP. I would strongly recommended not discussing that topic any further. Herostratus (talk) 20:26, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete "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." Article doesn't have this. --NeilN talk to me 21:06, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Squeaks in under WP:GNG, arguably. I added two refs to the Deseret News, which the Deseret News is owned by a church, but so is the Christian Science Monitor and they are both reliable and notable sources of general news -- although granted the Deseret News does also include Mormon church news (but then, that's important to life in Salt Lake City no matter what your persuasion). One of the sources has a couple sentences about him, but also quotes him, and the entire article is, while not about him, about the Missionary Training Center of which he is the head. The other source is a full mini-biography talking about his posts and his familiy and what have you.
So there's your multiple (two) coverages which are (arguably) "significant coverage" in a major general-audience newspaper.
In addition to that there're full bios of him elsewhere. Sure they're internal church organs, but it's a big and important church and people read this stuff. Liahona is notable enough to have an article here; it's not nothing. It counts some.
In addition, for your tie-breakers, he's A Grand Poobah or whatever of pretty big church, and there are only 100 Grand Poobahs, and that matters, and he's head of the church's second biggest Missionary Training Center, and Training Missionaries is central to this church's whole shebang. So he's an important guy.
And there's probably more stuff out there. I found those two sources in two minutes of looking. Keep. Herostratus (talk) 21:18, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Herostratus: I don't think your keep vote is particularly rooted in policy. For one, I don't consider Deseret News to be an independent source. You mention the Christian Science Monitor: I can understand using the CSM to cite a random bio, but I would give pause at using it as the primary means of determining notability for a poobah in the Christian Science Church. The same logic applies to the Deseret News: acceptable for ascertaining notability of a non-Mormon, not as much for a Mormon (Note that that doesn't mean it can never be used as a source. It just means that Mormon officials need to have citations from other works in addition to it to pass the reliable, independent sources threshold). Also, the poobah argument has been discounted above as not being rooted in policy. pbp 21:39, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Which source is intellectually independent and has significant coverage of the subject? --NeilN talk to me 21:52, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
My vote is rooted in policy, specifically WP:GNG and I explained why and how. My take on the Deseret News is that it's not a religious paper but rather a large, long-established, distinguished, notable, neutral, professionally written and edited and fact-checked general-audience general-news entity with a large circulation.
And as I explained, in addition to maybe passing WP:GNG (depending on how you cock your head), what's the hurry to get rid of this article? There's plenty of church sources for info on the person. And it appears the guy is a major behind-the-scenes player in the world. Presidency of the Mexico City Missionary Training Center alone makes him a (minor) player on the world stage, notwithstanding that this is behind the scenes and less likely to garner press attention than if he played shortstop for the Dodgers. How does it help the project to say to readers "Well, you came here looking for info on this important person, but guess what? You're on your own". We're not rule-bound here, we're here to serve the reader. Herostratus (talk) 22:51, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The same can be said for every YouTube "personality". Just wait and sources will turn up somewhere... some time... --NeilN talk to me 23:03, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Herostratus: The distinction behind important behind-the-scenes figures and important on-stage figures does matter, because our rules say that there must be reliable, independent sources. If you don't like it, change them...but they are there for reasons. pbp 00:18, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There are sufficent refs in the Deseret News to support a stub article, IMO. It's MO and you don't have to agree. It's borderline and there's no way to be certain who is "right". I think I am but who knows?
The other refs are not good for establishing whether the article should exist, but if it is allowed to (by the Deseret News refs), they are considered reliable and useable to fill the article out to its present useful size and make it be another ornament to the project. Herostratus (talk) 00:29, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying remove those sources if the article is kept. What I'm saying is for the article to be kept, there needs to be sources from somewhere else in addition to them. pbp 15:36, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This isn't really that hard. Is he generally notable? If so, he will have significant press coverage in neutral sources. Nothing significant in neutral sources? Conversation can end. If he is generally notable, and he becomes so widely known that a significant number of people will come to wikipedia looking for information on him, then significant press coverage from neutral sources will happen. The NYT, WSJ, and WashPo aren't ignoring him despite his importance because of his religious affiliation; if they're ignoring him, it's because he's not newsworthy. He's still an important human being; people can still love him, respect him, and admire him -- he just doesn't meet a notability standard on a website he doubtlessly isn't losing any sleep over. Deltopia (talk) 00:50, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The officials of the LDS Church are not apt to get a lot of widespread coverage outside of publications interested in the denomination, but looks like there are about 100 people holding this particular office. That is, given the total membership of the church, significant. His minority status is also rather unique -- the LDS church has had (at least in the past) something of a reputation for being a white male bastion, so this individual holding a position of responsibility is also significant. As for sourcing, a Google search brought up some possible Spanish-language sources on him, and there may be more third-party sources there --JPL, you may want to check on that. As for the Deseret News, it may be a "Mormon paper," but it has significant circulation. While it has a slant, it's not a tabloid and it would be a RS for what it contains. (and IMHO, the CSM has a reputation for journalistic integrity and I'd be OK if they covered one of their own too.) In other denominations, we would cover, for example, a Catholic Archbishop and certainly a Cardinal. I also am concerned that there is a bit of systemic bias against Mormonism here, which we need to be very careful to avoid. Montanabw(talk) 07:22, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"The officials of the LDS Church are not apt to get a lot of widespread coverage outside of publications interested in the denomination." Lemme stop you right there. That's essentially an admission that this and similar articles are unlikely to pass GNG. As for systemic bias, I'd say it's in the other direction at present: any mid- or high-level Mormon official who could possibly have an article (even an article that doesn't really pass GNG) has one. I'm not sure if this is analogous to an Archbishop either, maybe Bishop. pbp 14:29, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. It is disappointing to see some editors (e.g. Montanabw and Herostratus) confusing the policy's inclusion criterion of notability with the separate concept of importance. Arguments at AFD are supposed to be based on policy, and the policy is clearly based on the extent of coverage in independent reliable sources, rather than on editors' subjective judgements either way about "importance". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:24, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I respectfully disagree with your analysis. Here notability dovetails with importance within the field of governance of the LDS church. There exists a LOT of prejudice against Mormons in the United States, and there is seldom any coverage by the mainstream press of anything happening in that church unless it is a scandal of some sort. So here, if the sources are reliable for what they are reporting, and independent of the subject of the article, we are good to go. Do not confuse notability with notoriety! He is notable (arguably there are unimportant people who are notable in a tabloid-y way, such as, any of the Kardashians) and WP:N is straightforward: "...reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article." Sources such as the Deseret News are independent of the subject, which is Tenorio -- he does not own these papers, nor does he "own" the Mormon church. He was selected for a high position within the church organization, and this was reported in the press. WP:N goes on to discuss reliability, "...sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline." Again, the sources here have a reputation for fact-checking and reliability. Sure, the Deseret News may be owned by the Mormon church, but it isn't a tabloid that makes up stories about who assorted church officials are without fact-checking!!! (No claims of this guy performing miracles, no woo-woo conspiracy theories, it's a simple newspaper that has no more or less bias than any publication owned by News Corporation.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Montanabw (talk • contribs)
      • I don't think "it's a media conspiracy!" is going to work here. We don't get to decide he's notable because he's "worthy" of being notable. And Deseret News is in no way a regular newspaper. Prime example: "The newspaper does not accept advertising that violates church standards." Say what you will about News Corporation. I don't think they'll be refusing money from liberal causes if they want to run ads on its networks. --NeilN talk to me 23:31, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • And I don't care if there is a media conspiracy or not. If there aren't independent secondary sources, it fails GNG regardless of the reasons why there aren't independent sources. Conversely, notorious people still pass GNG (though they sometimes fail other guidelines like 1EVENT). pbp 00:24, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply @Montanabw: I don't know anything about whether there is media bias against mormons. It's not one of my areas of interest, nor is likely to become one. However, for the purpose of this discussion let's assume that you are justified in asserting such a media bias, and that it is demonstrably severe, long-standing and persistent. Even if that it is the case, it is still irrelevant, because Wikipedia is not here to right great wrongs.
      Policy is very clear that articles must be based on reliable, secondary sources which are independent of the subjects. If those sources do not exist, then we do not have the basis for an article which complies with our fundamental criteria for content.
      A lack of independent sources may even be due to crimes of the most heinous wickedness, but again Wikipedia is not here to right great wrongs. No matter how it came to be that there are insufficient reliable, secondary sources which are independent of the subjects, the policy is the same: without them, we should not have an article.
      As to the independence of Deseret News, you are trying to wriggle off that hook by creating a straw man. The policy is not that "the source must not be controlled by the subject"; it is the broader test that the source must be "independent of the subject". Desert News is owned by the organisation in which Tenorio is an officer; they are both part of the Mormon Church (Tenorio by office, the paper by ownership), and as NeilN notes above, the church control over the paper extends even to declining advertising revenue which conflicts with the church. A paper which restricts its most important source of income by deferring to the values of the church which owns it is not independent of that church. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:29, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • @BrownHairedGirl: Independence is part of Journalism ethics and standards.  Did you have any sourced evidence for your extraordinary claim that Deseret News does not practice standard journalism ethics?  Unscintillating (talk) 21:22, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
          • @Unscintillating: before you link to a Wikipedia article in support of your assertion, it would be wise a) note that Wikipedia is not a reliable source; b) to check that the article you cite is properly-sourced and cited; c) to check that it says what you would like it to say. You fail on all 3 points.
            Large swathes of that article are unsourced, and the crucial section §Common elements is wholly unsourced, and does not support your assertion.
            I suggest instead that you provide evidence (from the assessment of uninvolved experts) of your apparent belief in the "independence" of a newspaper wholly-owned by the Mormon Church and which does not itself claim any independence from its owners. In fact, the paper's own statement on its Editorial voice is explicitly biased towards religion. It proclaims a "focus on faith and family oriented audiences" and that "Active faith cultivates the habits of self-governance required for a successful democracy". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:54, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
            • If you have sources, why have you responded with a fake guideline, an appeal to your omniscience, an inappropriate link to WP:RS, a misdirection based on the word "unsourced", and an attempt to shift the burden of evidence?  No professional reporter is "independent" of a paycheck and living on the planet Earth.  Do you have any evidence that the journalism ethics standards of Deseret News are substandard?  Unscintillating (talk) 03:09, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
              • You are really scraping the barrel here, Unscintillating. You cite an unsourced en.wp article which doesn't support your claim, and now you try to accuse me of shifting the burden of proof? Boggle.
                Despite your series of smokescreens, this is all fairly simple. The test in WP:GNG is whether the source is independent of the subject. You offer no evidence for your bizarre claim that Deseret News is independent of the Mormon Church which owns it, and whose values it explicitly upholds in its own editorial guidelines. If you want to advance the fanciful claim that the journalists working in those conditions are "independent", go find the evidence for that claim.
                There is now a whole series of posts by you in which you try to create straw men. In this case, you are trying to evade the fairly simple test of of independence, by asking for evidence of actual misconduct. In your first reply to me you asserted that the Deseret News may be owned by the Mormon church, but it isn't a tabloid that makes up stories about who assorted church officials are without fact-checking.
                Stop and unpick that, because it's a textbook exercise in smokescreening. In the first 9 words you concede the crucial point about lack of independence ... but you promptly try to draw attention away from that by asserting that it isn't a tabloid that makes up stories. That second part is a straw man, because nobody except you has in any way suggested that it makes up stories.
                You have persistently tried to divert this discussion into testing the reliability of the sources, but none of the !votes of delete are based on the reliability (or unreliability) of the sources. In every case, the !votes to delete are based on the lack of independence: it has been repeatedly demonstrated that a) every source currently used in the article is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Mormon Church in which Tenorio is a reportedly senior office-holder, and b) those sources have active policies of support for the values of their owners. In simple terms, nobody except his own team writes about him ... and regardless of how accurately they write about him, he fails notability because nobody except his own team writes about him. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:36, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Independent sources are a must to confer notability. If the subject were notable I'd have no problem retaining the LDS media sources as citations but they can't pass GNG. Chris Troutman (talk) 14:54, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • See above Chris, for my response to your comments and those of BHG. Montanabw(talk) 23:16, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • I did. Independent sources are needed establish notability; reliability isn't the issue. That he's a Mexican in a mostly Caucasian church doesn't make him notable, either. As I've said at WT:N, efforts like yours to address "systemic bias against Mormonism" are arguments against consensus and policy. We don't make carve-outs for minorities of any kind because subjects fall short of notability and verifiability. I don't understand why an editor of your experience would push these arguments. Chris Troutman (talk) 23:50, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • You've cited WP:42, but WP:42 is a essay that is for beginners.  Notability is not conferred.  Verifiability is a core content policy, and no one has suggested that anyone is carving out exceptions to WP:V, in fact there is wide agreement here that reliable sources exist that satisfy WP:V.  The nature of your argument also agrees that reliable sources exist suitable for a merge target.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:35, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Satisfying WP:V doesn't mean it satisfies WP:N (and BTW, the nutshell part of WP:N is essentially the same as WP:42). pbp 03:41, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've participated in the writing of each, and I know that WP:42 is currently controlled by GNG-centrists, which is not a policy-based position.  It is easy to falsify your claim, so it puzzles me why you would make it.
Comparison of assertion that nutshell part of WP:N is essentially the same as WP:42
Articles generally require significant coverage

in reliable sources

that are independent of the topic.
Posted by Unscintillating (talk) 01:52, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Unscintillating: I guess you're not seeing what I'm seeing. Compare the sentence "We consider evidence from reliable independent sources to gauge this attention." with "Articles generally require significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the topic" pbp 13:27, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The nutshell is talking about evidence; while WP:GNG talks about significant coverage, which generally means prose.  Evidence includes more than prosesignificant coverage.  Unscintillating (talk) 18:14, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Unscintillating: I hadn't noticed you were commenting at me until now, so here's my late response. Arguing that WP:42 is just an essay and not one you agree with is fine. I would avoid saying that the essay is "is for beginners" as if there's one rule for n00bz and another for you or I. You haven't "falsif[ied] [my] claim" but your rank desperation is getting me excited. My argument is that the publications of an organization don't confer general notability on one of their own. As Cullen328 points out, we couldn't use L'Osservatore Romano and the National Catholic Reporter to confer general notability on a Catholic official. Catholics have an SNG to qualify. Mormons do not. I don't accept outlets like Deseret News as independent because they're not. Do I think they're lying about Elder Tenorio? No. They might have a good editorial board, too. Regardless they're an organ of their church and as such don't confer notability. Every argument counter to that argues for an exception to that rule. Those carve-outs don't exist and those editors who disagree need to to get WP:N changed before they visit WP:REFUND. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:50, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • If we are going to go ALLCAPS about guidelines, then let's look at WP:IGNORINGATD, then. It states, in short: "The fact that a topic is not notable is not, alone and in of itself, a valid grounds for deleting a page, its content, or its page history. It is at most an argument for merger and/or redirection. To validly argue for deletion, editors need to additionally advance separate arguments against both merger and redirection, on relevant grounds... Since any verifiable topic/content can in principle be redirected/merged to an article on a broader topic, this should be exceptionally difficult." Perhaps Johnpacklambert could start a List of people with this status, spinning out the better-known ones into separate articles. That said, given that we keep articles on every contestant in Miss Universe, seems to me we have some screamingly inconsistent standards here. Also note WP:BASIC: "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability." Montanabw(talk) 07:27, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep barely passes WP:GNG--TM 13:53, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Namiba: why do you say it passes GNG, even barely? There is not a single independent source. The article is sourced entirely to emanations of the Mormon Church: its private university, its newspaper, and its in-house magazines. -BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:14, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think the combination of his position within the church and coverage in the BYU studies book is just barely enough to keep. I also suspect that, given his position there are offline sources that give more coverage that we do not yet have access to.--TM 13:24, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Namiba: As noted elsewhere, the book is not independent. It was published a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Mormon church and as pbp notes below, it was "co-authored by a former assistant historian of the Church of Latter Day Saints. The project was started by the Mormons as a fulfillment of the biblical prophecy of Malachi that the hearts of the children would be turned to the fathers and the prophet Elijah would return".
          Obviously, offline sources can be evaluated if and when they are found. But until then, we have none, and should bear in mind the warning by the pro-keep User:Montanabw that The officials of the LDS Church are not apt to get a lot of widespread coverage outside of publications interested in the denomination. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:22, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
          • Would books about Massachusetts government not be considered independent if published by the University of Massachusetts Press? Afterall, that's a state-sponsored print house. I think what you're implicating is in fact heavily tinted by anti-Mormon bias. I am not ready to say that sources published by a certain press are automatically biased towards a certain subject.--TM 17:31, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment To call "Hearts Turned to the Fathers: A History of the Genealogical Society of Utah, 1894-1994" a "Publication of the LDS' Church's private university" is just plain misrepresentative of it. It was published by BYU Studies Press, which is more or less a mid-history ancestor/descendant of BYU Press. This is run as an academic press, adhering to established standards of academic presses. The ownership issues should not be allowed to obscure these facts. The mention of Tenorio is significant enough to be included in the index, and shows that Tenorio in addition to later being a General Authority (one of the top leaders of the Church worldwide, who give talks to the Church worldwide, listened to worldwide and seen as normative to doctrine), was also the initial pioneer in the international expansion of some key components of LDS family history work and local control of such components, so much so that he is deemed worthy of mentioning in such a role. The people who wrote this book, James B. Allen, Jessie L. Embry and Kahlile B. Mehr are well recognized scholars, and to ignore their work as a reliable source just because of who published it is to unfairly block off many sources on Latter-day Saints because of the nature of publications on the subject.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:57, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • I can't find the actual reference to Tenorio online (except that he's indexed for only a single page, which does question the depth of his coverage in the book), but let me read you the epigraph: "co-authored by a former assistant historian of the Church of Latter Day Saints. The project was started by the Mormons as a fulfillment of the biblical prophecy of Malachi that the hearts of the children would be turned to the fathers and the prophet Elijah would return". The epigraph screams, "connected with the LDS Church"; I don't really know how it could scream it any louder. If Tenorio was as dang significant as you seem to make him out to be, @Johnpacklambert:, why can't you find anything about him that isn't connected to the LDS Church in some way? pbp 22:17, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have been, in anclear roundabout way, told I should have made my role in the creation of this article more clear. I created this article, and am probably responsible for close to 75% of the article text, the history of editing is hard to assess, but much of what I didn't do was adding categories and info boxes.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:19, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The applicability of WP:N is simple: either there is enough third-party coverage or there is not. Here we have no "self-published" sources, so that's a plus, the sources we have are not paid-PR sources either, so that's a plus. He didn't pay someone to write the article as a puff piece, so that's a plus. The sources are independent of the subject and reliable. Just because they are affiliated with his faith does not mean they fail WP:N -- there are Catholic publications about notable Catholics, Jewish publications about notable Jews, and so on. This has nothing to do with the tenets of the Mormon church and nothing to do with whether we agree with these tenets or not (and, FWIW, I don't. I'm not LDS, nor am I a conservative fundamentalist sort. I've mentioned elsewhere that I'm a not-very-active Methodist with fairly liberal theological beliefs, ). The question is if a leader within the Mormon church, at this level is either a) inherently notable because he holds an inherently notable position, or b) the position might not be inherently notable, but this guy is more notable than most of the other folks who are similarly-situated. The fact that he is primarily covered in the "specialty press" does not defeat notability, otherwise we couldn't have an article on Bodacious (bull) because the primary coverage he got was in the rodeo press. Montanabw(talk) 20:49, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • There's quite a large gap between specialty press and a publication owned by the subject's employer. If the bull's owner also owned a newspaper and that newspaper published an article on Bodacious, I would similarly advocate deletion in the absence of better sources. ~ Rob13Talk 21:03, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • @BU Rob13: Thanks for noting that distinction. For whatever reason, Montanabw has engaged in a lot of attempted obfuscation in the course of this discussion. The latest round is this attempt to blur the focus by:
  1. cheering the fact that "the sources we have are not paid-PR sources". Yet another straw man, 'cos nobody else raised any suggestion that they are paid-PR.
  2. labelling these sources as "speciality press", whereas Montanabw knows perfectly well that the objection is to the fact that this is the wholly-owned press, which explicitly pledges its allegiance to Mormon values.
Mbw also asks if Tenorio is a) inherently notable because he holds an inherently notable position, or b) the position might not be inherently notable, but this guy is more notable than most of the other folks who are similarly-situated, but neither question has any basis in policy. WP:N does not label any position as "inherently notable". and it does not apply some sort of comparative test. It's a huge timewaster to have a discussion such as this bombarded by an editor who has either not read the policy, or is just making stuff up.
This smokescreening by straw man and red herring is very mischievous, and surprisingly persistent. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:40, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • A much fairer comparison would by of BYU to the Catholic University of America. I doubt that comparison will change anyone's mind about the BYU Studies published source, but it might.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:43, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment  I have attempted to engage BHG in a discussion of independence in journalism ethics and been unable to do so.  The last reply to me was a 2500 character response with words such as "bizarre".  The response also contained a lengthy analysis of words attributed to me that I never said (search for "tabloid").  The bottom line is that there is no evidence that Deseret News and LDS Church News practice substandard journalism ethics.  Unscintillating (talk) 04:49, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Unscintillating: (and @Johnpacklambert: and @Montanabw:): Being independent and being ethical are two different things. I think that was the whole point of BHG's comments above. Also, in one of his (now-removed) comments, JPL claimed that BHG and I were calling for removal of all Mormon sources. What we are calling for is for articles on Mormon topics to contain both Mormon and non-Mormon sources. pbp 05:04, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thank you, pbp. You are of course correct that the whole point of my comments above was that these wholly-owned subsiduaries of the Mormon Church are not independent of a senior officer of that church.
        I have spelled that out in simple, direct terms to Unscintillating, Johnpacklambert and Montanabw so many times that it should be very clear by now.
        The point is simply that notability requires independent sources. It is not enough for the sources to be reliable; that too is a requirement for notability, but for notability to be established it is q requirement that the topic gets substantial coverage in a reliable source which is not part of their own team.
        The writing concerned may be honest and truthful, but the GNG test of notability is not met if it is not independent. What part of that is hard for Unscintillating, Johnpacklambert and Montanabw to understand? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:35, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • In reply to my comment, two editors with a combined edit count of 37 on this one page have added 1,897 characters; but I don't yet see a discussion about independence in journalism ethics.  Unscintillating (talk) 23:53, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • You must've missed what I've said above at least once: independence and ethics are two different things. Nobody here's saying that Deseret News is unethical. All we're saying is that it's not independent. And BHG has provided ample evidence of why Deseret News isn't independent. pbp 00:13, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break

[edit]
  • Delete, bottom line of the extensive discussion above is that publications owned by an organization cold not be considered independent, third-part sources when they cover members of the same organization, and do not count towards GNG. In case of LSD, I personally take their reliability too with a grain of salt. Sentences such as "Elder Octaviano Tenorio Domínguez knows that receiving the ordinances of the temple changes lives. It’s changed his, and he’s been in positions to see it change others’. “Stay close to the temple,” he urges." or "Doing well in his job in the publishing industry, he was not sure about taking the new position. But following a series of inspired events, he realized it was a job he was supposed to take." (excerpts from the Liahona profile, the main referencence of the article [37]) are hardly examples of independent journalism. Also, in this case even such coverage appears scarce, and routinely. If Tenorio's figure and position were really important, it would not be difficult to find genuine third-part sources about him. I would support a redirect if there was an appropriate target. Cavarrone 08:26, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The "specialty publication" argument is a particularly weak one, that would be like saying that Variety is not an RS for information about movie stars or we can't use an article from Dog Fancy about the winner of the Westminster Dog Show. The definition of "independent" is "independent of the subject." Here, Mr. Tenorio clearly does not own the Mormon Church or the Deseret News. The Salt Lake Tribune is completely independent, and is support for the other sources. Keep in mind that WP:N, the policy here, is very simple and here is met. There is a presumption of notability and the burden is upon AfD to prove that the subject is not notable. That burden has not been met. The material is reliable and independent of the subject. Montanabw(talk) 17:22, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • You just fail to take the point, I never used a "specialty publication" argument, I am absolutely fine with specialty publications. Variety is NOT owned by a Hollywood studio, it is owned by Penske Media Corporation, hence it is independent from the film producers/distributors/etc. of the films they review. If Variety was owned by Warner Bros., it would be certainly considered not independent, particularly when reviewing films produced by Warner Bros. Deseret News, Liahona and other BYU publications are OWNED by the Church, and their articles about LDS personalities most of the times read like press releases. My argument is about their lack of independence, lack of neutrality, lack of criticism, no neutral point of view, obvious conflicts of interests, and bottom line, questionable reliability. They are not "independent of the subject", the actual subject being LDS Church. Notability could not be established on "articles" such as this one. And about the Salt Lake Tribune article, it is a trivial mention in an article about a scandal involving Tenorio's brother, as said above multiple times it is not significant coverage by a country mile. Cavarrone 19:28, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • Note that Montanabw raised the "specialty publication" red herring before in this discussion, and was refuted by BU Rob13 and by me, in much the same terms as Cavarrone. Monatanabw replied to neither me nor User:BU Rob13.
          It is disappointing to see Montanabw continue to trot out the same red herring again. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:02, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
          • PS OoopS! I missed another red herring: Montanabw's claim that There is a presumption of notability and the burden is upon AfD to prove that the subject is not notable. This is just one of many blatant misrepresentations that Montanabw has introduced into the discussion. WP:N actually says A topic is presumed to merit an article if: 1) It meets either the general notability guideline below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right; and 2) It is not excluded under the What Wikipedia is not policy.
            In other words, notability requires that both those conditions are met ... and the word "presumed" is used there because in some instances, even those two conditions are insufficient. It does not mean, as Montanabw falsely claims, that an AFD discussion must somehow "disprove" notability. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:27, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Please remember WP:AGF. My arguments are cogent and have not been refuted by IDONTLIKEIT misunderstanding of GNG. Fox News is "biased," The Nation is "biased," yet routinely used as a RS, and so on. Any of these arguments go to the weight, not the admissibility of the evidence of notability. An LDS publication is no more "biased" than a right-wing or left-wing political publication, or a publication by any faith-based group. (all that said, I also find it fascinating that I am defending an AfD by someone who is typically a very strong (over 90% !vote) deletionist, and so I do think that Johnpacklambert needs to stop by and put at least as much energy into this as I am). Montanabw(talk) 23:38, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You've drawn a poor analogy. Here's a better one: The problems Deseret News has from being the primary basis for this article are the problems we would have if The Nation was the sole source for E. L. Godkin or Carey McWilliams's Wikipedia articles. pbp 03:41, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That only would make sense if Tenorio had been an editor, or part of the editorial board of the Deseret News. Most if not all of Elder Tenorio's assignments as a general authority were in the Mexico (and maybe also Central America) Areas. There is no evidence he ever served on the board of Deseret Management Corporastion the closest present general authorities get to being overseers directly connected with the Deseret News. If he had been on that board, I guess the analogy might work, although DMC is a holding company that owns the Deseret News, but the Deseret News has more specific boards and editors, presidents etc. who actually run it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:40, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Posted by Unscintillating (talk) 00:49, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply @Unscintillating and Montanabw: please read WP:AGF before

    [Insert begins here.] 
    * Notice: Text that was here was deleted 2016-07-15T23:50:18, diff
    * Notice: Text was restored using blockquote 2016-07-16T01:52:07, diff
    * Notice: Text was refactored below 2016-07-16T08:26:44, diff
    * Notice: Text was restored 2016-07-16T15:07:33, diff
    * Notice: Text was refactored below 2016-07-16T15:13:11, diff
    Insert posted 07:36, 17 July 2016 (UTC)]
    [Insert ends here.]

    making a vague wave at it. In particular note the 5th sentence of para 1: the guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of obvious evidence to the contrary.
In this case, the evidence to the contrary includes repeated misrepresentation of other editors, and repeated misrepresentations of policy. (I'll diff-farm if we get to a drama-board, but it's all visible above).
In a message on my talk page[38], Montanabw has explained that their motives for supporting this article are a) concern that Mormons are discriminated against in the real world; b) that Wikipedia is systemically biased in favour of some topics such as sport and porn, and that Mormons deserve the same generosity.
Whatever the philosophical merits of those assertions, neither of those arguments is based in policy which Montanabw has cited: WP:N. Instead of making an open and honest argument for either a policy change, or for a relaxation in the case of this article, Montanabw has thrown up a smokescreen of misrepresentations. As I noted in a length reply on my talk page[39], Montanabw's approach to this discussion has been fundamentally dishonest, and a clear breach of WP:DGF. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:10, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

* Notice: Text was refactored here from above 2016-07-16T08:26:44, diff
* Notice: Text that was here was un-refactored and a comment left here 2016-07-16T15:07:33, diff
* Notice: (1) A comment that was here was deleted, and (2) text was refactored from above 2016-07-16T15:13:11, diff  Posted 07:36, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Notice  The following edit is attributed to me but was made by another editor.  Note how the font size of the phrase "Insert begins here" is not the same as the font size of "Insert ends here".  And what is the meaning of "insert begins here"?  And what premise is being discussed?  Also note that the small font size now extends through the next edits by Montanabw and BHG.  Unscintillating (talk) 07:36, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[insert begins here] Sorry, but your premise is incorrect.  Unscintillating (talk) 23:10, 15 July 2016 (UTC) [insert ends here][reply]
WOW. I don't know why you have only responded here after my last set of comments at your talk page, but I am going to insist upon an apology once again. I am expressing my sincerely held opinion here and you need to knock it off with these accusations of bad faith and nefarious motives. Montanabw(talk) 10:29, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Montanabw:, I made a brief reply while taking time between other activities to write a long reply on my talk, which is not yet finished. You can insist all you like on whatever you like, but my summary reply will remain: WP:DGF. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:28, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@BrownHairedGirl:, please do so yourself, and start by striking your "shame on you" comment, and follow that by striking your comments here and there about "smokescreen of misrepresentations" and " fundamentally dishonest." Those comments are completely inappropriate. Montanabw(talk) 17:12, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Montanabw: I repeat. Your conduct in this discussion has been fundamentally dishonest, because you have engaged in a smokescreen of misrepresentations, in pursuit of a policy change which you should have pursued at a centralised venue. You should clean up your act, and WP:DGF.
For a fuller explanation, see my lengthy reply to you[40] on my talk page. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:29, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And I repeat, you are out of line to say my conduct is "fundamentally dishonest, because you have engaged in a smokescreen of misrepresentations" I did actually start an RfC for clarification (not "change") on the topic, but I am not going to roll over and not participate at AfD while that goes on. I strongly suggest you drop that particular stick now and strike all comments to me of that nature. Your conduct is beginning to be unbecoming of an administrator. Montanabw(talk) 18:06, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Where's the RfC? Also, @Montanabw:, while I wouldn't say you've been dishonest, I would say you have misinterpreted what I and others have said in this thread and/or gone off on some bad tangents. I also get the feeling you are displeased that something like this can't be included while porn stars and minor cricketers can. That is a side effect of WP:N/WP:42: dependence on what is covered in secondary sources. This displeasure, however, is not entirely germane, and has lead you to venture into the realm of OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. pbp 19:18, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to List of general authorities of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints; that list article could and should contain more information on all the General Authorities. It is almost a WP:BIO1E. Similarly for most of the others. Thorough in-house coverage of the people in the church belongs somewhere such as http://tech.lds.org , but not here. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:45, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • A redirect would at least preserve the article history should the position of people change. Redlinks just beg for being recreated. Montanabw(talk) 10:29, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • @SmokeyJoe: I have no objection in principle to a merge to suitable target, and on first glance that does appear to be a suitable target. However, on that page I have found only sources which are emanations of the Mormon Church: either in-house publications, or the work of wholly-owned subsiduaries, such as Deseret News. If I have missed something, then I will be be happy to be corrected ... but so far, it appears that the list does not meet WP:GNG. So I have tagged[41] the list with {{notability}} and {{third-party}} in the hope of encouraging editors to add independent sources. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:58, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, Wow!, as a young WP:wikicat, it has been fascinating to follow this epic battle ahem, discussion(over 7thousand words!:)) between such experienced wikieditors. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:36, 15 July 2016 (UTC) ps. apologies if my previous comment is taken as a criticism, it is not, rather i genuinely admire the effort taken and arguments used by both sides of this afd. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:24, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails WP:GNG in the end; so he served in "various positions", not notable and even if he has since been promoted up-the-ladder, so to speak, not inherently notable. Kierzek (talk) 20:02, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment  The behavioral guideline WP:TPG states, "Never edit or move someone's comment to change its meaning,..."  An editor has quietly removed one of my posts.  Removing a post without leaving a comment unambiguously changes meaning.  I am restoring the post, and the comment here provides notice to editors of the restoration.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:52, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Just to point out that a thread re the independence of the Deseret News is here: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Deseret News. There's not a lot a certainty in the replies, or many replies at all, because ultimately it's a hard question to answer with confidence. But I guess the general vibe is that the news side is independent enough of the Church. I'm certainly not getting the feeling there "No sane person could consider the Deseret News to be independent of the Church", which I kind of feel like I'm getting from some editors here.
Just to remind, the Church News section of the Deseret News is the source of this full mini-bio (which is certainly in-depth coverage), and the general paper is the source of this article where the article subject is described and quoted and the center of which he is chief is described extensively. Assumeing the Deseret News is independent, that's probably enough to satisfy WP:GNG, although its arguable.
I guess one way to think of it it like, if the Sports section of the Boston Globe has a short bio of a Red Sox minor leaguer... would that count toward his notability? The Globe is a big paper but it is is really beholden to its readership which has an outsize interest in Red Sox trivia, and the Kansas City papers etc. would not print this info. It's a similar situation here with the Deseret News and LDS personnel maybe.
(The Red Sox don't own the Globe and the LDS Church does own the News... and that could be defining difference, but if and only if officers of the Church relate to the paper's editors on the level of "Print these press releases and that's a direct order" or at least "...if you want your career to thrive". My best guess is that it's more like a lot of the News readership is Mormons, and the editors figure that they're interested in this stuff. It's hard to know for sure.)
Anyway, at this point I would suggest that WP:PRESERVE be invoked and lets keep the article and look at it in year when everyone has calmed down. Herostratus (talk) 02:07, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No need to do that, Herostratus. Consensus has already formed as to whether or not this passes GNG; there is also a consensus that Deseret News isn't independent. Also, most minor league baseball players that make the 40-man roster have sources other than their local papers; minor leaguers who don't make 40-man rosters don't often have articles created unless there is a great deal of sourcing. pbp 02:31, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Time to close this as delete, says nom: This has been open the requisite week now. 10 people say this doesn't meet GNG and only 4 say it does. That's pretty clearly consensus to delete. pbp 02:31, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a vote. There are number of reasons for relisting this or closing it as a no consensus and looking at it again down the line. One is that, objectively, he's borderline. Another is, to be honest, the bad behavior exhibited by you and the rest of the gang over this whole issue -- I've now been egregiously insulted on three different pages over this matter, and it's all just uncalled for and brings up the question "do we really want to reward this kind of behavior?". And finally, the pressure, the frantic need you guys feel that you must see this article deleted... what's all that about? It doesn't give me a good feeling about this whole process. As I said, let's let new set of fresh eyes look at it in six months or a year. Is that so bad? Will that kill the Wikipedia? Herostratus (talk) 03:17, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest that people who care about this individual article need to userfy the article in their own sandbox and work on it some more. (I will not be the one who does in this case) I remain concerned about the attitude about the LDS church in general , of BYU and the Deseret News: Yes, it has a slant, but I do agree that it is a legitimate journalism outlet and comparisons noted above are apt. I will reiterate what I have said earlier: there appears to be a systemic bias issue in the evaluation of this article's notability. Upon reflection, I think if so, it stems from ignorance, not malice, but I am concerned. Montanabw(talk) 02:42, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Montanabw:, you defended your position by appealing to WP:AGF, then you are just making an egregious exercise of assuming bad faith accusing the ones who voted for deletion (the large majority of commentators, consisting of experienced editors including several administrators) of having bias towards the LDS church (and of being ignorant, too). It would be comical (especially considering WP has an impressive coverage of LDS topics, from obscure LDS films to almost every Latter Day Saint NN publication to each and every temple, not bad for a systemic biased anti-LDS encyclopedia) if it not was so insulting. Cavarrone 05:11, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I am going against the grain here because I too would normally base my decision on coverage or lack thereof in other mainstream sources with national coverage. However, it is apparent from the presented sources this person holds a position of authority to which the whole of the LDS church membership gives credence (at least 7 million?), and this makes him sufficiently notable. The sources appear reliable to me. Additonally, as Unscillintating pointed out above "Articles generally require significant coverage.... The phrase "generally require" seems to indicate there are (occasional or even rare) exceptions that are not covered by the mainstream press. I trust the sources presented. One thing that may have been missed in the Desert News editorial policy is that ethics are paramount in their reporting. I mean, that is essentially what those six or seven paragraphs are saying. Steve Quinn (talk) 05:15, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep We strive to be a comprehensive worldwide encyclopedia and there is established consensus that every Roman Catholic bishop is notable. I think the same presumption of notability should be extended to the 103 top Mormon leaders. If an article about a Catholic bishop was cited to L'Osservatore Romano and the National Catholic Reporter and books published by the academic presses of Catholic universities, I do not think that editors would be clamoring for deletion. Disclosure: I am a Jew who is a graduate of a Catholic university which has an outstanding Jewish Studies program. There seems to be undue hostility toward and distrust of Mormon newspapers and university presses among some editors, which I do not believe to be justified. This person is not on the staff or editorial board of the Deseret Times and does not control the book publishing program at BYU. Some advocates on both sides in this debate have fallen into the trap of repeating the same arguments over and over again, while escalating aspersions against their opponents. This is a worrying trend. People should make their best case once, and then step back, except to offer newly discovered information, or to respond to direct questions. AfD debates should not devolve into the Battle of Gettysburg. Cool it, people. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:11, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply Poor comparators. All the sources in this article are wholly-owned by the Mormon Church itself. Of your two comparators, the National Catholic Reporter is not owned nor controlled by the Catholic Church, whereas the sources say that L'Osservatore Romano is a "semi-official" publication. So NCR is independent, but LOR is not.
      It's unfortunate that you choose to characterise evidenced criticism of a lack of independence as "hostility". That's not AGF, and its not the way to "cool it". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:38, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Cullen328: The reason why BHG, Neil and I are critical of keep votes, including yours, is that they either misinterpret policy or ignore it. Can you back your keep vote up with policy? pbp 13:54, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Purplebackpack89, when making a recommendation to keep an article, my decision is informed by the purposes of Wikipedia, by foundational principles, and by policies, guidelines and respected essays. My goal is always to improve the encyclopedia with every edit I make. According to WP:PURPOSE, "Wikipedia is intended to be the largest, most comprehensive, and most widely-available encyclopedia ever written," and Jimmy Wales has famously said, "Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That's what we're doing." Notability is a guideline, not a policy, and the idea we must cite sources that are independent of the topic is also a guideline, not a policy. Source independence is sometimes not black and white, and requires interpretation and good judgement. Verifiability is a core content policy, but there is nothing in that policy that requires that the sources we cite be independent of the topic. WP:Independent sources, which makes a stringent argument for absolute source independence is an essay, not a policy nor a guideline. Ignore all rules is a policy, which says, "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." I am a strong supporter of Editorial discretion, which values intelligent human judgement over rote, mechanical application of rules and regulations.
Regarding the case at hand, I believe that an encyclopedia which strives to be "the largest, most comprehensive, and most widely-available encyclopedia ever written" ought to include verifiable biographies of members of the Mormon General authority, just as we include biographies of bishops of major religious denominations. Such biographies, in my view, are part of the "sum of all human knowledge" which should be freely accessible to all people
In conclusion, please do not insist that other editors base their arguments on policies, when your own argument is based only on guidelines. I am confident that my own argument is legitimate and worthy of consideration, though I am aware that some other editors may come to a different conclusion. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:53, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Cullen, a great deal of what you said could be used to justify keeping anything and everything ever created. When taken individually, they make sense. When put together, they make IDONTLIKEIT. pbp 02:05, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I find it interesting, Purplebackpack89, that when you asked me to cite policies in support of my argument to keep this article, I took a lot of time to explain that there is no policy whatsoever that mandates 100% independent sources, and to explain my thinking in detail. And yet, you do not respond to the substance of my remarks in any way. As for "IDONTLIKEIT", you are accidentally correct that I do not like the teachings or theology of the Mormon church. I profoundly disagree with them. But I set aside my personal feelings, because I believe that this grand encyclopedia ought to furnish biographical details about that church's clearly defined top leadership, just as we ought to have verifiable articles about all state and provincial legislators. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:28, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Cullen's key argument is "ought to include verifiable biographies of members of the Mormon General authority, just as we include biographies of bishops of major religious denominations." You and I might disagree, but it's not justifying "keeping anything and everything ever created." --NeilN talk to me 04:35, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
...a line of thinking that is not supported by SNGs OR GNG, and is failing in a proposal right now. Saying that "all BLAHs are notable", particularly without independent sources or SNGs to say they are, is inherently an ILIKEIT argument. And the rest of Cullen's argument is inherently bad and could be theoretically used to keep any article. Cullen would have done better to not bury the lead in pages like PURPOSE or IAR that allow you to do essentially whatever the hell you want. pbp 04:43, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You are the one who asked me to cite policies, Purplebackpack89, and in my lengthy reply I discussed several policies, including Verifiability (which does not require independent sources), and Ignore All Rules, which is both long established policy and one of the five pillars of Wikipedia. In response, you do not cite policiesbut rather guidelines, which all include caveats saying that occasional exceptions are permitted. It seems that you feel free to dismiss policies that you do not like, and insist on ironclad adherence to guidelines that you do like instead. Can't you see the contradiction there? Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:54, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't, Cullen. You're trying to say this whole nomination is an IDONTLIKEIT fest on my part, when in fact 'tis your argument which is most rooted in personal belief rather than policy/guidelines. The more you say your argument is rooted in policy, the less I actually believe it. The crux of your argument is your personal belief (a belief not backed by any sort of policy or guideline) that all high-ranking church officials are notable. You've clad this ILIKEIT argument with the veneer of the policies of IAR and PURPOSE. Two policies whose invocation is highly, highly subjective. Two policies that don't really address this specific issue. Two policies so amorphously written that they can't/shouldn't be used to justify most actions. Two policies which, if used with any kind of regularity, would plunge this project into chaos. Even though you claim policy, Cullen, you're still advancing a rather poor argument that should be discounted by the closing admin. pbp 15:28, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I never mentioned or alluded to IDONTLIKETHAT regarding your argument, and as a matter of fact, have not analyzed or critiqued your argument. All I have done is express another opinion. You asked for policies and I responded with policies, both of which are enshrined in Wikipedia culture. In other words, you want us to base our decision on the policies you approve of, and you think that we should reject policies that you think are "amorphously written". You seem heavily invested in this debate, as evidenced by your bolder imperatives, insisting that the article be deleted post haste. I, on the other hand, am completely happy with whatever consensus turns out to be. Because it is consensus, after all, that prevents me or any other editor from keeping or deleting anything we wish. If consensus is to delete in this case, and more broadly, consensus is that we should have far fewer biographies of the senior leaders of the Mormon church, then I can live with that. I am not going to insist in bold faced comments that anyone do anything, but will accept consensus instead. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 00:51, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Also, why are you bringing up verifiability? While verifiability doesn't mandate independent sources, notability does. This nomination is one concerned about notability, not verifiability. pbp 15:28, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Because verifiability is a core content policy, and you asked for policies. Notability is not a policy, it is a guideline. The strict definition of an independent source is neither a policy nor a guideline, but is rather an essay. That's why. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 00:51, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you have to explicitly invoke IAR when discussing content then your argument is really, really weak. --NeilN talk to me 15:53, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
NeilN, my friend, I mentioned IAR (which remains policy after all) only because PBP asked me to mention policies. This may well be the first time I have invoked IAR in my 42,000 edits here, so it is not a habit on my part. I sincerely believe that the ongoing effort to delete biographies of the senior worldwide leaders of the Mormon church is a very bad thing for the encyclopedia, but at the same time, I know others disagree. I respect consensus and will accept the outcome of this debate without complaint. I certainly will not go about insisting that people do various things in boldfaced comments written in an imperative tone. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 00:51, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Cullen328: If it really was a bad thing to delete senior leaders of the Mormon Church, either a) we'd have a specific notability guideline saying they have to be kept (said guideline is currently failing at WT:N), or b) independent sources would exist for each of them. pbp 13:52, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment  An editor has refactored one of my edits and IMO the refactoring has changed the meaning.  The edit was done without providing notice to other editors of the change, i.e., it was a quiet change.  With this edit I am restoring the meaning of the original edit, and with this comment I am notifying editors that there are changes in the record only visible in the edit history.  Unscintillating (talk) 15:07, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Citing policies, guidelines, and fundamental principles is what carries weight.  There is now a second incident in which you have deleted one of my comments.  Added to that is a new problem in that you have repeated a refactoring of one of my comments after I have objected to the refactoring.  Regarding the later, WP:TPG states, "...normally you should stop if there is any objection."  WP:OWN states, "Some contributors feel possessive about material they have contributed to Wikipedia."  When you posted to this talk page, you agreed that with clicking the "Save page" button "you irrevocably agree to release your contribution".  Unscintillating (talk) 16:40, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • So it won't be fine under certain circumstances?  That sounds like a threat.  And it is combined with another attempt to assert control using imperative mood.  Your escalations continue, just as with the charged word "underhand" in the previous post.  Yet the only explanation you've been able to find for your WP:TPG behavior is the word "flow"?  Unscintillating (talk) 18:00, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Unscintillating: as I wrote before, there is nothing complicated or underhand here. Add your comment after the comments of others, rather than inserting text into the middle of my comment.
    The substance of your complaint here is that it was fine for you to edit my comment, but not fine for me to restore my comment to the way I wrote it. You are trying to have it both ways. Stop being so silly. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)
  • I'm looking at your post, and it has no links to policy or quotes from policy.  I see two more cases of imperative mood, and two more cases of charged language.  You "irrevocably agree[d] to release your contribution" when you clicked on "Save page".  You are no longer the owner of the copyright.  Your latest defense for your multiple WP:TPG incidents is that you like your text the way you first posted it.  That is WP:OWN behavior, and is not supported by our WP:OWN policy, nor the fundamental principle that we are here to make an encyclopedia.  Unscintillating (talk) 07:36, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - First off, Deseret News is a newspaper of presumed reliability and counts towards notability even if it is not owned by Rupert Murdoch or Silvio Berlusconi. This is arguably a GNG pass based on that. THIS indicates at one point he was #3 in Mexico, which might not ring the bell for automatic notability but does indicate general magnitude of importance. I think the true mark of notability is the sourced claim that he heads the church's second largest missionary training program. Carrite (talk) 14:58, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You completely misconstrue "independent" here... It must be independent of the subject — who is Octaviano Tenorio, not the Mormon Church. Deseret News is a major American daily newspaper, no more or less reliable than the Christian Science Monitor (which would similarly be perfectly fine as a source for an individual who happens to be a Christian Scientist, even though the paper is owned by the church). You simply have the wrong conception of what "independent" means in this case... Best, —Tim /// Carrite (talk) 15:35, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, no. Your concept of independent would have us use the press releases of companies touting their latest hire as proof of notability. --NeilN talk to me 15:43, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As for policy, I hold that this subject meets GNG. Rank in the Mormon Church in Mexico is simply a factoid that might help non-Mormons grasp the subject's place in the hierarchy. Running the training school is definitely a valid assertion of significance, which all of our articles are supposed to make. Carrite (talk) 15:42, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Carrite: This doesn't add up. On one hand you assert that Tenorio's significance is based on his seniority in the Mormon Church ... but on the other hand, you claim that a newspaper wholly-owned by the organisation in which he is so senior is actually independent of him. Sure, there's no evidence that he in any any ways controls Deseret News ... but both Tenorio and Deseret News are subject to whatever degree of discipline the said church chooses to apply to them.
You are effectively saying that the paper would feel no sense of loyalty or deference to one of its owners. That's a strange proposition.
What is the difference between this linkage and, e.g. a wholly-owned publication of a political party being used as evidence for the notability of one of its senior members? It seems to me that allowing this sort linkage amounts to throwing the concept of independence out the window, and I very much doubt that this redefinition of "independence" would ever gain a broad community consensus. I do appreciate that some editors want to see this article kept, but their approach to independence is, to put it mildly, very odd. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:05, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
He is notable because he has been more or less substantially covered multiple times in publications of presumed reliability. GNG pass. He is significant because he heads the second largest LDS missionary training school. The fact that the Mormon church owns the Deseret News is absolutely irrelevant to either of these propositions. If Mr. Tenorio were an editor for the Deseret News, for example, then the paper would not be independent of the subject. Carrite (talk) 16:12, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Umm, Carrite, your first two sentences are incomplete. GNG requires that sources must be both reliable and independent, but you award a GNG pass without assessing the independence test.
As to defining independence, are you really saying that a newspaper is wholly independent of a person unless that person is the sole proprietor of it? Really? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:25, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have explained multiple times that your interpretation of "independent" is flat out wrong. I've stated my opinion on this topic. Please stop hectoring me. Carrite (talk) 23:24, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Carrite: this is a consensus-forming discussion, where policy is that "editors try to persuade others, using reasons based in policy, sources, and common sense". That's what I am trying to do here: to persuade you by discussion, to re-examine the apparent contradictions in your explanations.
"Flat out wrong" is simply an assertion, not a reason based in policy, and it is a rather hostile assertion. I'll overlook the hostility, but press you again to clarify: are you really saying that a newspaper is wholly independent of a person unless that person is the sole proprietor of it? Really? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:01, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've participated in something in the ballpark of 3,000 deletion debates. This is about the second or third hardest far and away the worst I've been badgered over my opinion in all of that time. You're not going to convince me; I'm not going to convince you. I will leave it up to the community and to the closing administrator as to who is interpreting the notion of "independence" of sources correctly and who is off base. The fact that you seem so obsessed with a deletion on this point makes one wonder why you feel so strongly about this nomination. Carrite (talk) 00:48, 18 July 2016 (UTC) Upgraded estimate of badgering... Carrite (talk) 04:38, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The subject has achieved more than President of the Missionary Training Center in Mexico. He achieved a global or international leadership position beginning in 2007. [42], which I think I essentially said before. This seems to translate into having significant impact and appears to pass WP:ANYBIO #2: " The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field.". Steve Quinn (talk) 16:51, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This of course depends on one's interpretation of the arguments and sources presented. Steve Quinn (talk) 16:57, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Did you see the footnote? 'Generally, a person who is "part of the enduring historical record" will have been written about, in depth, independently in multiple history books on that field, by historians.' What sources meet this criteria? --NeilN talk to me 17:03, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – after reading the article and the above discussion I share Carrite's view, namely that the sources are sufficiently independent of the subject to be acceptable. Oculi (talk) 23:45, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Why do people insist on bringing up WP:V in this discussion? Yes, WP:V doesn't care about independence. No, WP:V is NOT GERMANE to this discussion. This discussion is based on notability, not verifiability. Notability does care about independence. Any argument based primarily on WP:V rather than WP:N should be summarily discounted by the closing admin. pbp 15:28, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:BEFORE C1 states, "If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a candidate for AfD."  There is broad agreement here that reliable sources exist.  There is less agreement about notability, but the significance of this topic within the encyclopedia as a part of LDS is not really disputed.  WP:BEFORE B4 states, "Check "What links here" in the article's sidebar, to see how the page is used and referenced within Wikipedia."  WP:BEFORE B4 shows that this topic is included elsewhere within Wikipedia.  So a redirect as a minimum is established, and since the edit history contains WP:RS material, delete and redirect would not be policy based.  The remaining issues of whether various topics are suitable for merge, are all within the remit of "normal editing".  Even your argument of "independence", which I think is based on casting aspersions, you identify as part of "notability", so in the current context of a significant topic it is not an argument for deletion.  In short, you've got no policy-based argument for deletion.  If you want to rehabilitate your argument, I suggest you need to focus on why this topic should not be mentioned on Wikipedia, and why the world at large has no reason to learn about this topic.  I suggest you may also need to combat the tone of religious intolerance in this discussion.  Unscintillating (talk) 19:12, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reliable schmeliable, what matters is independent: As I and User:BrownHairedGirl have said numerous times, the sources in the article are INDEPENDENT of the topic. In order to pass WP:N, there must be sources independent of the topic. Therefore, the article must be deleted. Also, Unscintillating, to claim that there is religious intolerance is just trying to score cheap empathy points for an inherently flawed argument. pbp 20:42, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
When did "the sources of this article are not independent of the subject" not become a substantive argument? Your keep vote (and most of your comments above) ignore WP:N, which is the crux of the issue of this AfD. And what the hell does "content contributors" have to do with this? Any editor, whether or not he has edited Octaviano Tenorio, is entitled to participate in this deletion discussion or any subsequent discussions. Not that there need to be any additional discussions, because policy dictates that this article MUST be deleted. pbp 20:42, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding this edit summary, I suggest the editor review this information page.  Thanks, Unscintillating (talk) 23:26, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Reply @Unscintillating: please clarify the policy basis for your assertion that Notability is a minor issue to be determined by the content contributors. So far as I can see, if that were so, then 95% of AFDs would be procedurally closed as groundless ... but since you apparently believe that notability is not grounds for deletion, please explain what policy overrides WP:DEL8. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:10, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Since you don't show that you've read my post, that would be the place to start, diff.  Making a nonsense statement about what I "apparently believe" is typical for your standard practice in this AfD of escalation on every post.  I had a high level of respect for your work when I first posted to you in this AfD.  Regards, Unscintillating (talk) 21:50, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You called notability a "minor issue" above, so it seems reasonable to say it's not high on your list of things you care about in this AfD. Regarding your diff, we seem to be back to the issue of caring about reliability of sources rather than independence of them. Policy/guidelines says you've got to care about the latter. FWIW, above you also seem to be arguing that a upper-level religious leader is the same thing as a politician. Religion isn't politics. Furthermore, consider why NPOL exists in the first place: politicians are almost always covered in reliable, independent news media. The same can't be said for religious officials, especially not this one. pbp 21:59, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Almost always" is not "always", but the politician or judge is still wp:notable.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:15, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Unscintillating before accusing anyone of a "nonsense statement", re-read what you wrote. The context is that after discussion, you posted a !vote in which you wrote No substantive argument for deletion here.  Notability here is a minor issue to be determined by the content contributors.
That flatly contradicts the policy at WP:DEL8, which is that an article may be deleted for lack of notability, whereas you say that notability is not grounds for deletion.
You also say that notability here is not unlike that for WP:NPOL ... whereas the policy is that there is no NPOL equivalent for church people, so in fact it is totally unlike NPOL. So on both points, your !vote is quite clearly not just unfounded in policy, but diametrically opposed to it. The closer is therefore obliged to disregard it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:54, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I see that your response doesn't get past the third word without yet another escalation.  The response continues to take my statements out of their context and adds to that the taking of a policy statement out of context; while ignoring the policy foundation in my post.  I suggest that your next response show that you have read that post, diff.  Thanks, Unscintillating (talk) 00:15, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Unscintillating, enough of the bluster. The context of your words were a !vote in which you advocated a "keep" on the apparent basis that AFD had no role in deciding notability. Your later wall of quotes is from the deletion procedural page, not from a policy document. However, taking them all on face value, they sum up the procedural options of how to act on a finding of non-notability.
However, your !vote doesn't say "merge+redirect" or "delete+redirect"; it says "keep", which means do neither. What you are trying to do here is to sidestep the need for AFD to first make a decision on notability, and then decide what to do about that. If the topic is notable, then normal editing can decide whether a standalone article is appropriate; but if it is non-notable, then the standalone option is off the table. So this AFD needs to decide whether the topic is notable. At that brings us back to the fact that all the remaining sources fail the independence part of the test, because they are all wholly-owned subsidiaries of the organisation in which Tenorio is a senior officer.
The comment also alleges a "tone of religious intolerance"; but the only such tone I have seem is from you and others who openly make unfounded allegations of religious bigotry against editors who point out that wholly-owned sources are not independent. That's really scurrilous behaviour; shame on you.
I note too that you tell pbp to focus on why this topic should not be mentioned on Wikipedia, and why the world at large has no reason to learn about this topic. As you should know from all the policy quotes, that is total misrepresentation of the effect of deletion. First, Wikipedia is not the only place where people can learn about things; it is just one publication. And secondly, your claim that deleting the article would remove all mention of Tenorio from Wikipedia is a blatant straw man; he would still be mentioned in the list article.
You also wrote I'm not opposed to a spinout of List of general authorities of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints for biographies, especially for Emeritus (retired) members, but this is an issue for the content contributors to consider. No, actually, it's not. Per WP:SPLIT, the splitout articles must themselves be notable; you can't use a split as a bypass around GNG. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:52, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
With your statement, "he would still be mentioned in the list article", you support retention of this topic as significant after the AfD.  This means that you no longer have a case to delete the topic as a redirect.  If you have no case to delete the topic as a redirect, you also have no case to delete the reliable material in the edit history, so you have no case for delete and redirect.  At that point, you have no more case for the use of admin tools.  At that point, AfD has no more role to play.  That which is left are content issues.  WP:Deletion policy specifies that AfDs that are content issues may be moved to the talk page of the article by any editor.  Do you want me to change my !vote to wrong forum?  Thanks, Unscintillating (talk) 05:22, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Unscintillating, you've essentially now said that just be the article is mentioned in another article, it must be kept. That doesn't compute, sorry. pbp 13:52, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, "must" is an exaggeration, so it doesn't compute because it is a straw man, but the WP:Alternatives to Deletion is a policy.  Unscintillating (talk) 07:02, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with BHG. Unscintillating, you're misrepresenting what we've said to try and get an emotional appeal to your side. You've come very close to accusing BHG and I of bigotry and censorship, which is wholly inaccurate. pbp 04:22, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further comment. WP:NPOL#1 says, "judges who have held international...office".  I dug into the polity enough to know that at least some of the seventy are explicitly judges.  All of the general authorities have world-wide jurisdiction and are members of the priesthood, where, as per Priesthood (LDS Church) "the priesthood is the power and authority to act in the name of God for the salvation of humankind".  That sounds like a judge to me.  There may well be better doctrinal references, as Melchizidek was from the Old Testament, but like I said, this is an issue for the content contributors.  I've also reviewed JPLs analysis, and concur that WP:GNG is met.  The nominator tries to dismiss the articles in the Salt Lake Tribune as having "one sentence", but this one sentence is key to the entire article, and helps verify the idea that WP:NPOL#1 is relevant.  Unscintillating (talk) 04:20, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • That which they mentioned was "judges".  Your edit comment is "religious leaders aren't judges!"  Once again, AfD regulars don't have the content knowledge to make the notability decisions that content contributors can make.  Book of Judges says, "Its title describes its contents: it contains the history of Biblical judges, divinely inspired leaders whose direct knowledge of Yahweh allows them to act as champions for the Israelites..."  The preceding matches nicely with the description of LDS priesthood in my previous post above.  Biblical judges says, "While judge is the closest literal translation of the Hebrew term used in the Masoretic text, the position is more one of unelected non-hereditary leadership than that of legal pronouncement."  Suffice it to say that religious leaders can be judges, and the seventy can be understood to be judges.  Unscintillating (talk) 07:02, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seriously, it's time to delete this (nom comment): We've been going on for nine days now, and it's blatantly clear to me the only policy-supported action is deletion, as no independent sources are in this article, and therefore criteria #8 for deletion is met. Some of the arguments advanced here are highly specious, ranging from saying that WP:N doesn't matter to confusing reliability with independence to referencing specific notability guidelines that don't exist to falsely complaining of bias and persecution to just ignoring all rules. Not the kind of arguments to justify keeping this. Please close ASAP, as delete pbp 20:42, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop using the word "delete" in bold type, it smacks of double voting — or in your case, triple voting. Switching you up to italics, thanks. Carrite (talk) 00:50, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Don't refactor my comments, @Carrite: pbp 04:22, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Label your comments in bold as comments and nobody will feel compelled to fix anything for you. Carrite (talk) 13:58, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Especially disturbing since the actual discussion to establish one is failing to generate such. pbp 04:22, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
NeilN - That statement is patently absurd. Deseret News is the largest daily newspaper in the largest city in the state of Utah. Carrite (talk) 13:50, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And that matters why? Just because a lot of people read Deseret News doesn't make it independent of the LDS church. pbp 14:06, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Carrite: Not absurd at all. Look at all the keep arguments that include something like, "this person is notable because this group of people should be notable". --NeilN talk to me 15:28, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Since the nominator was all too eager to count votes very early in this debate to create the illusion of some sort of consensus to delete, I thought I would do a little counting of my own. Number of posts in this thread: Purple Back Pack (Pro-delete, nominator) 34; BrownHairedGirl (Pro-delete) 33; Unscintillating (Pro-Keep) 23, many in response to pings; Carrite (Pro-keep) 10, several in response to pings; MontanaBW (Pro-Keep) 17, several in response to pings; NeilN (Pro-delete) 9; John Pack Lambert (pro-Keep, creator) 7... Carrite (talk) 14:18, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Carrite, us deletionists have got you both ways: there are more of us, and we have better arguments. GNG is on our side as this article lacks significant independent coverage. pbp 15:00, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Abitrary break 2 (summarize the issue, request relist)

[edit]

Sheesh, can we get a moritorium on further comments from people who have commented, like, thirty or so times? I think we have got the gist of your arguments. Maybe we want to relist this and get some fresh voices here.

For the benefit of he newcomers: there's little question that Octaviano Tenorio is a borderline case, the question being what side of the line he falls on, and the specific questions being:

  1. Is the Deseret News (which is owned by the Mormon church), and the Church News insert thereof, sufficiently independent of the subject for the purpose of WP:GNG: "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
  2. If it is, do these two refs constitute "significant coverage": New MTC Presidents with a mini-bio and article with a mention and quote about the MTC of which Tenorio is president.
  3. If the answers to #1 and #2 are "well, borderline", to what extent do the other (non-independent refs) and the subject's undisputed importance (not the same as notability!) militate to swing the decision toward keeping the article, per WP:IAR or whatever?

And again, there are editors who think that these aren't even questions, that to ask if the Deseret News is independent is to answer it: it's not, period. Other editors are not so sure, and a noticeboard thread shows differing opinions. At any rate, if you've made your point one way or the other exhaustively, please leave some room for new voices, thanks.

And I request a relist from an uninvolved persons to this end. Herostratus (talk) 16:01, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It would have been nice for a summary like this to make a greater effort at neutrality than to dismiss concerns about independence as being the product of people who don't brook discussion :(
One of the persistent difficulties so far has been that some editors have confused or conflated the GNG test of "intellectual independence" with the separate (though related) questions of neutrality, bias and journalistic ethics. That conflation has generated much of the heat and dispute, as some editors have tried to cast an assessment of non-independence as an allegation of unethical journalism, or demanded evidence of bias.
There has also been a persistent meme of smearing concerns about the conflict of interest here as being motivated by religious bigotry. I hope that there will be no more of that. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:33, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Piggybacking on what BHG, keepist editors seem to a) be registering seemingly every complaint possible about deletionist editors in an attempt to discredit them, and b) there seems to be a dispute as to whether or not to ignore GNG. How can we decide to keep or delete an article if we can't even agree on whether or not the basic rules for deletion apply or not? (If they do, it's pretty clear this violates them and should be deleted). pbp 23:58, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The WP:GNG, WP:N, does not mandate deletion if there is a viable merge target. The GNG has no bearing on whether the merge target is viable, for that refer to WP:DUE. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:40, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Herostratus' #1. No, Deseret News is the mouthpiece of the LDS Church, although it does well covering non-church matters. I agree that the topic fails the WP:GNG. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:42, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Independent" of the subject. As I stated earlier. The point I made earlier is that it is independent of Tenorio, he doesn't own it... A Fox News story on Rupert Murdoch would not be independent, but a Fox News story on (insert GOP candidate name here) would be adequately so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Montanabw (talk • contribs)
Hi Montanabw. Unless I misunderstand, the subject's BIO1E claim is that he holds a senior rank within the church. He is a senior member and senior representative of the church that owns the newspaper, and I definitely consider that non-independent with respect to the notability test. Neither would I agree that anyone whose coverage is from Fox News stories alone has sufficient coverage, noting that Fox has political affiliations and pervading biases. Additional coverage from another source independent of Fox would make a difference. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:06, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Roger Ailes and Sean Hannity don't "own" Fox News, so can their articles be sourced entirely from Fox News-related sites? Because Ailes and Hannity are more analogous to Tenorio's relationship to the LDS Church than McCain and Trump are. pbp 04:09, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm disappointed but not surprised that the editors who appear have a... ah, remarkably vigorous... desire to see this article deleted at all cost and any cost continue to scorch the earth to that end.

Whatever. Your words speak for themselves and there's nothing I need add that could make you look any more unhinged on this subject. I asked you to quiet down after 30+ post and leave some space for new voices, but you won't and probably can't, so OK. My take though is that we simply can't reward this kind of behavior if we're to thrive as a project, so I think that on that principle alone we need to close this as a keep or no consensus to delete. But let the person closing decide what's best for the project, I guess. Herostratus (talk) 03:50, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I get it. We're just supposed to shut up and take your misinterpretation of policy and continual aspersions of us lying down. I see. pbp 04:09, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The nominator, User:Purplebackpack89, has taken his hectoring and argumentative badgering and moved on to full on harassment on my talk page, from which he is banned — and from which he has been banned for approximately two years. Administrators please take notice, he is not to post on my talk page again. Block him for harassment if he does. Carrite (talk) 04:32, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This is the wrong forum to discuss your talk page, there is no ban, and I was there to request that Carrite refrain from refactoring my comments, as he did here . Carrite's response was exceeding childish: to swear at me and to continue refactoring comments here, here, and here. This is clearly an attempt by Carrite to wrongfully besmirch my name. pbp 04:40, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You've already done an excellent job making a mockery of yourself at your own talk page, on which you have openly colluded with Brown Haired Girl and NeilN to set up and take action against the creator of this article LINK. Your plotting and trollery will come out in the ArbCom wash. Looking forward to seeing you there. Carrite (talk) 06:04, 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 delete. MBisanz talk 03:31, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hamidreza Rahanjam

[edit]
Hamidreza Rahanjam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested on the grounds that His association with an Iranian football club satisfies WP notability guidelines, an assertion not supported by WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:30, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:30, 8 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. Consensus is that the sources are insufficient at this time.  Sandstein  08:23, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sweat Cosmetics

[edit]
Sweat Cosmetics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

promotional and non-notable. The references are all of them part of the promotion, (even though about half of them just list it among a group of "cosmetics for this summer") and they apparently want to add Wikipedia to the list of media they've persuaded to run their advertisements. . Both for their ads and for their WP articles they rely on celebrity endorsements, which might make good advertisements, but areno evidence of notability. DGG ( talk ) 17:59, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 21:20, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America1000 21:20, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 21:20, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Upon consideration, I have struck my !vote and am remaining neutral. Upon further consideration, the company falls short of meeting WP:CORPDEPTH. This is per many of the reliable sources being interviews, which are primary in nature. North America1000 04:24, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisted following a previous "keep" closure and discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2016 June 30.  Sandstein  12:29, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  12:29, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Lemongirl942, you said here that the nomination was closed prematurely and you were "....about to vote delete" performed a close. Then you took it to DRV where almost everyone endorsed it but looking at the suggestions, it was relisted two days back. I am surprised to notice that you have still not voted despite making so much noise about and how "premature" the closure was. If you can share what research are you conducting on this which is taking so much time - perhaps I can help you in finding out? I think you dont have a WP:COI with this article; else I am confident you would have made everyone aware about it. Stop beating a dead horse. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 19:45, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article sources pass notability. Even thinking this article should be deleted shows that issues related to women get marginalized by some editors on Wikipedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:34, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH by a mile. Paid advertorials and interviews do not show that the company is notable. Let's have a look at the sources
  1. Instyle Trivial coverage. Brief advertorial reposting company's instagram. 2 sentences about company itself
  2. KCTV Local source, almost primary as essentially an interview of founder.
  3. Equalizer Soccer Self published source, coverage is brief as well
  4. Our game mag Not independent. (Sweat cosmetics founder Leslie Osborne is affiliated with the magazine team. See [43], [44]) Self published magazine, although coverage is OK
  5. Happi mag Not independent (advertorial), also fails WP:AUD
  6. Hercampus User submitted content / campus publication
  7. The Zoe Report Trivial coverage, 2 sentence coverage in a list of 5 products. Nothing about company itself
  8. Total beauty Trivial coverage, 1 product is featured in a list of 8 products titled "8 New Beauty Products to Order This August". Nothing in depth about the company
  9. Allure Trivial coverage, 3 sentence coverage in a list of "8 Crowdfunded Beauty Innovations You Need to Know".
  10. Shape Trivial coverage, 2 sentence description of a product
  11. ABC News interview Reliable source but almost primary, interview of founders
  12. Bustle Trivial coverage, rehashing a tweet from one of the founders, notability is not inherited.
The company seems to have tried to use celebrities and connections to endorse its products. However, this doesn't add up to notability. WP:CORPDEPTH requires a depth of coverage; specifically quotations from an organization's personnel as story sources and inclusion in lists of similar organizations do not count towards significant coverage. In addition, some of the coverage seems to be paid advertorials which means it isn't really independent. Considering that the company is 1 year old, I would say this is WP:TOOSOON. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 22:27, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nice work, Lemongirl. However, I disagree with your assessment of Her Campus: it may be an amateur magazine, but it's not merely user-submitted content. It appears that writers are vetted, often through local campus chapters; the by-line for this piece identifies the author as a "features writer" for Her Campus Santa Clara. Rebbing 23:22, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is still a student publication though (and we tend not to use them for corporations). Hercampus has 7000 students as content writers. They do have a few permanent writers as well, but the author here is not one of them - she is a year one student at Santa Clara. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 02:30, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Observation: It is interesting that a user account w/ only 7 months experience editing Wikipedia articles (or participating in deletion discussions) is so stubbornly adamant in their interpretation of Wikipedia policies. The descriptions of references above are also interesting - glad the closing admin takes their own look at the references. Hmlarson (talk) 00:26, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lemongirl942, another observation: source #4 looks goos to me-- could you explain why it's SPS? HappyValleyEditor (talk) 06:15, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @HappyValleyEditor:, it seemed self published due to the history of hosting the magazine on WordPress. See [45] which was later moved to [46] before moving to the present address. I see now that they have editorial control although I still feel it is one of those web only magazines which moved to print. However, it seems it is not an independent source as one of the founders of Sweat Cosmetics is affiliated to it. (See above). --Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:43, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Hmlarson: a new editor showing others how to do things properly is awesome! You're correct to highlight this, well done Lemongirl942. Widefox; talk 19:37, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep But -- I'm also new to this type of decision process, not really sure. Perhaps the rule against "quotations from an organization's personnel" is meant to exclude articles about other topics, not articles about the company itself which include interviews of personnel? The rules about reliability of small publications aren't perfectly clear either, but ourgamemag and happi look like they might have a "reliable editorial process." At any rate, they say they have a staff of editors, and the articles are not obviously written by the company. JerryRussell (talk) 00:31, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep very thin sources establish very weak basic notability... just barely. Needs to have some of the nauseating promotional-speak "Sweated out".HappyValleyEditor (talk) 06:09, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment passing GNG is a presumption of an article not a guarantee. We can delete WP:NOT promo/advert if we want. I don't have an answer, but a question..do all the editors here want to be having to scrupulously double check these promo sources at AfDs for this and other promos? (plug for my longer analysis at WP:BOGOF). Widefox; talk 08:54, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - At this point, we kind of have to - it's far too easy to say "Notable because of X", and nobody is going to dispute that unless it's shown to them, because nobody polices the "per X" keep responses that we're not supposed to have in the first place. I mean, look at all the keep votes until LG broke everything down, and all of a sudden, popular opinion has shifted, hasn't it? MSJapan (talk) 17:10, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
MSJapan I'm suggesting pushing cases like this back to AfC (maybe together with a requirement of the creator disclosing COI or explaining why on balance of probabilities their edit pattern isn't COI) so the BURDEN is back on the creator, rather than getting a buy a team for free offer. A COI speedy would likely be unenforceable. The only problem with User:Lemongirl942's good work, is that it's Buy one (editor) get one free (in this case working to get rid of the article TNT). It just saps precious resources. Widefox; talk 19:28, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per DGG, right about this as about several others of its kind. Appears to be yet more undisclosed paid advocacy, should be deleted on sight per WP:NOTSOAP (speedy criterion G11). Overtly promotional tone, promotional intent – it's an advertisement, and we don't allow advertisement. If the company is notable (and I'm far from convinced that it is), then the page can be re-created by a non-connected editor – but there's no WP:DEADLINE for that. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 15:22, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Promotional article with thin sourcing, primarily brief broadcast segments and corporate handouts. Wait until reliable sources have written about it. Meanwhile fails GNG. Note Lemongirl's very detailed analysis of the sources. Coretheapple (talk) 16:24, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply - If only the descriptions were accurate. For example, Equalizer is one of the top sources for information about women's soccer in the U.S. and abroad in addition to your traditional newspaper websites. Our Game Magazine .... same... but you wouldn't know that if your sole intention is to delete the article and you have little or no history of women's soccer or interest in improving the article per WP:ATD. Sweat Cosmetics was founded by... wait for it... women's soccer players! Hmlarson (talk) 19:19, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Our Game Magazine is not an independent sources as one of the founders is associated with it. Equalizer seems to be a self published source - I am unable to see if there is even an editorial process involved. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:21, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • False. Our Game Magazine is about women's soccer with numerous contributors from the same field. This article is about a business started by women's soccer players. Equalizer was started by NBC sports producer and writer Jeff Kassouf 1 who has also done work for Sports Illustrated, The Guardian, ESPN, and Fox Soccer. There's a great book on the history of women's soccer in America and around the globe if you'd like to get familiar 1Hmlarson (talk) 15:57, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here [49],[50] is the evidence that Leslie Osborne (one of the founders of Sweat Cosmetics) is involved with the magazine. Just because others are also present doesn't make it independent. She is clearly able to influence the magazine to cover her company. As for equaliser, I still do not see any evidence of an editorial process. It may have been started by a journalist, but for all purposes it is still a self published site. More importantly, it also fails WP:AUD (a mere 12k followers on Twitter and 3k followers on Facebook). --Lemongirl942 (talk) 02:30, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - There's no way, if WP:CORPDEPTH was met, that 13 sources should effectively get us "they make cosmetics," but that's really what we have. There's obvious COATRACKing - Her Campus, with a profile on a founder, and all that comes out of it is that the products are hypoallergenic? Clearly the source wasn't about the product, then, was it? Several of the other references are "X number of X"-type articles, and those are never any good as sources. The fact that it's sold at Sephora? So is a lot of other stuff. Some famous people started it? WP:NOTINHERITED. I'm not seeing anything that tells me this is anything other than ordinary. The coverage is pretty typical product launch coverage because a famous person is involved, and said coverage is over a span of only two months, and at best it's WP:TOOSOON, and I'm not so sure it's got coverage outside of the news cycle. This is an SPA-created article on a company that simply doesn't meet notability guidelines. MSJapan (talk) 17:10, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment.Lemongirl942, good job in your analysis. Once when you are done with this AfD, can you please give CSM Technologies a look? I have asked for an admin opinion on the article TalkPage. This looks like a SPAM to me with CTIEKILL. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 17:19, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, sounds like we should be conscious of the WP:SYSTEMATICBIAS that might exist in this afd, keeping in mind that WP community is mostly men--Prisencolin (talk) 03:31, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe, there's possibly a bigger WP:SYSTEMATICBIAS (of COI) to be conscious of, which may sap resources from countering that and other biases. Widefox; talk 20:20, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment JerryRussell, "articles about the company itself which include interviews of personnel " is something what we always should want to keep out of articles about the organization, whether commercial or not-profit. They are always and invariable intended for the purposes of public relations, and I am not sure it would be possible to find any exceptions. I think we might do well not only to not accept them for purposes of notability , but that we should as a matter or routine remove them from every article, and that we should regard any article containing them as likely to be promotional unless re-edited.
  • HappyValleyEditor, if the promotional content were removed, we'd be left with "Sweat Cosmetics is an American cosmetics brand founded in 2015" That's the problem with promotional articles: remove the advertising and you're left with directory content only. DGG ( talk ) 05:56, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per DGG and fails WP:CORPDEPTH.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:19, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question Why was a COI tag added to the article ~3 weeks into this discussion when the article has already been improved and cleaned-up before and during this AFD + then the re-opened AFD? Why is the most frequently commenting editor here pinging other users and not mentioning it? See also Talk:Sweat_Cosmetics COI is becoming ironic here. Hmlarson (talk) 19:19, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Reply There's discussion on the talk about this, repeating the comment in the article. The answer is I added it. Is the comment in multiple places not clear? Best to take up there, unless you ironically wish to repeat COI discussion again. Widefox; talk 19:43, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Reply In the name of transparency, it's best that these multiple discussions are at a bare minimum referenced here rather than splitting them up and obscuring a full picture of what's transpired. What are we at now 5 different pages? AFD, Deletion Review, Article Talk, COI - most spearheaded by the same "newbie" editor. Hmlarson (talk) 21:49, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
COI is all about disclosure i.e. transparency. I often mention COI at AfD, and most editors seemingly (and correctly) ignore it and concentrate on the sources. As can be seen above, we should concentrate more on the sources, like the good work of the "newbie" (I take it you agree it's good work and others should be inspired by relatively new editors doing better work than the rest of us?). Widefox; talk 08:33, 14 July 2016 (UTC) p.s. There's an whiff of BITE and ad hominem in your tone that seems to not be countered subtlely with my replies. Please drop. Widefox; talk 08:40, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Links: Forgot the links in my previous post: AFD #1 (initiated 6/22; re-opened 6/30), Deletion Review, Article Talk, COI. Hmlarson (talk) 15:52, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails CORPDEPTH. May become a notable topic in future but is a promo delete right now. Note to closer would've been good to get fresh opinions from the early !voters. Widefox; talk 08:50, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as failing CORPDEPTH per Lemongirl942. My own searching didn't come up with anything better. The first page of ghits includes (in order):
  1. their own website
  2. Indegogo
  3. A cosmetics store
  4. Facebook
  5. Twitter
  6. Instagram
  7. A warmed-over press release on a cosmetics site
  8. The ABC News puff-piece video

This is not the sort of search results you want to see for a notable company. This is the sort of search results you see for a company with a well-executed social networking marketing campaign, and this wikipedia article appears to just be part of that campaign. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:03, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment
    • the ABC News interview certainly counts as a reliable source (not primary and not sure how it's a puff-piece--what else are you expecting on a cosmetics company?)
    • The Instyle article gives us a fair bit of information and is also a reliable source.
    • Equalizer Soccer is a reliable source (though one I don't know much about) focused on soccer. It claims to be written by "staff" which may or may not mean it's a press release.
I'll stand by my keep !vote. Hobit (talk) 00:33, 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 delete both. Some of the !votes appear to possibly be only about the subject article, while two !votes following the nomination (from Rayman60 and Edwardx) appear to pertain to both the subject and the book. As such, both articles qualify for deletion per the consensus in this discussion. North America1000 01:20, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Suraj Patel

[edit]
Suraj Patel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Young author not yet notable per WP:AUTHOR or WP:BIO. After several days of proposed deletion on notability, all the article creator could find was some local press clippings, which is better than I could manage. He's written a book, but neither he nor the book appear to have had the kind of substantial coverage required for WP:GNG. WP:TOOSOON at best. OnionRing (talk) 12:00, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related article on the book itself, which it turns out was only published three days before the author article was started:

Rakshak Ram (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. OnionRing (talk) 12:00, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. OnionRing (talk) 12:00, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. OnionRing (talk) 12:00, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Numerous issues. Vanity/promotional page by COI new editor to promote newly published book. Not notable. Relies on primary sources and what feels like not very notable non-English sources. Nothing substantial from a respected publication/source. Rayman60 (talk) 13:21, 8 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. Per WP:SK#1, nomination withdrawn and no outstanding delete !votes. (non-admin closure) Sam Sailor Talk! 19:55, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I Wish He Didn't Trust Me So Much

[edit]
I Wish He Didn't Trust Me So Much (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

fails WP:MUSIC -- the song didn't win any awards. CerealKillerYum (talk) 11:43, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't see that. I withdrawal the deletion. CerealKillerYum (talk) 17:08, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, added the link to the page. Cheers. Karst (talk) 17:52, 8 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 03:31, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dice Ailes

[edit]
Dice Ailes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This subject fails WP:MUSICBIO as the subject hasn't been discussed extensively by independent reliable sources. He has not released an album, neither has the subject been nominated in any notable music award. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 10:42, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 10:42, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 10:42, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 10:42, 8 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.  Sandstein  07:12, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of trains run from Ludhiana railway station

[edit]
List of trains run from Ludhiana railway station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

per WP:NOTTIMETABLE βα£α(ᶀᶅᶖᵵᵶ) 10:26, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:06, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:06, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:06, 9 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 04:33, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Catacomb (video game)

[edit]
Catacomb (video game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Largely unsourced and all potential sources are about Carmack's own history rather than this game as its own entity. (Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?)) I'd support a redirect to John Carmack, as was reverted. Catacomb 3-D is another option, but I haven't looked into its sourcing/longevity. czar 09:22, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. czar 09:24, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
keep. There are reliable secondary sources online, for instance the open source'ing of them (finding the magazine sources from that time is harder, but they should exist). Also, id software and Carmack are highly influential parts of the gaming history and their early works are part of it. Shaddim (talk) 09:45, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I never heard of this game before, but I would expect even the more obscure games made by Carmack to satisfy the GNG. It's a bit sparse, but there's still coverage: this interview at NowGamer describes some of the design and leadup; this story at IGN describes how it fit into their legacy and later games; this announcement at bit-tech shows that the game has a lasting legacy in terms of sustained interest in its source code; and this chapter in Masters of Doom is a good supplement to the other sources about Catacomb's design and historical significance. I tried checking through archive.org and Google Books, but I couldn't find any archived reviews, which was very disappointing. However, given that these sources have described it in terms of id's history, I think there's still a pretty decent argument to be made that it still satisfies the GNG. I suppose we could maybe merge it to an article on the game series, but I don't think it should be deleted. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:36, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@NinjaRobotPirate, I mentioned in the nom that Catacomb 3-D would be a satisfactory target as the early history of that release. Seeing as the sources do not go into great enough depth on the original to warrant a full article (there's much more on 3-D) and that we do not have any reviews for the original on file, would 3-D not be a better fit for the content? czar 13:25, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think this could survive as an independent article, but if we did merge this somewhere, I guess it's not all that important where it goes. My thinking was that the design and legacy of this game is probably off-topic for the article on Catacomb 3-D. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:20, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Based on the sourcing, we could alternatively wrap into an article on the series. Do you have anything on Catacomb II, @NinjaRobotPirate? czar 20:06, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the above sources describe Catacomb II, but it's difficult to find in-depth coverage. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:00, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - While NonjaRobotPirate's sourcing is a bit light, his sources provide the type of insight to lead me to believe that, if these sources aren't enough, there are enough off-line to warrant keeping. Considering this came out pre-mid-1990's, where virtually all sources are locked away in hard copy magazines, I find this scenario likely. Sergecross73 msg me 16:58, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The sources provided by NinjaRobotPirate make a good case against straight deletion. Merge should be used if anything. I also agree with Sergecross73 that there is likely to be offline info available on this game (either contemporary or in a Retro Gamer kind of magazine). I'll see if I can find anything tonight before I finalize my !vote. -Thibbs (talk) 17:08, 14 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. KaisaL (talk) 22:13, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fine Fair Shopping Centre

[edit]
Fine Fair Shopping Centre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unreferenced article on a non-notable cluster of shops in a village (copyrighted image now removed by Linkerbot). I can find nothing about it online in WP:Reliable sources, just a nearly-empty Facebook page. Oddly, in the same edit that the article creator contested the proposed deletion, he changed its location from Hanswar to Katokhar: [51]. Possible hoax, and the article creator has quite a chequered history on article creation. OnionRing (talk) 08:03, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. OnionRing (talk) 08:06, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. OnionRing (talk) 08:06, 8 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 03:30, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hong Kong–Qatar relations

[edit]
Hong Kong–Qatar relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

fails WP:GNG. there is no evidence of actual significant interaction or relations. those wanting keep must show this evidence. having joint membership of various global organisations is not necessarily an indicator. those wanting keep must show this evidence. LibStar (talk) 06:35, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: Direct actual significant interaction or relations added. Hong Kong and Qatar's relations are obvious, actual, direct, and significant. Consular established in Hong Kong, mutual visa agreement, and economic tax free treaty signed, all evidence point to the fact that Hong Kong and Qatar's relations are obvious, actual and direct. The policies between the two highly related to the residence of the two areas, which adds up to be at least 9.5 million of population, and not to mention those population indirectly economically counting on these two important Asia economies. This article is definitely significant and should be kept. Xxjkingdom (talk) 09:41, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There is absolutely zero evidence of significant interaction. Adding up the 2 populations as a measure of a notability is one of the most ludicrous things I've ever heard in my several years on Wikipedia. Your arguments are vague and do not address WP:GNG and further emphasise this article should be deleted not kept. Obvious and actual relations is not the same as notable relations LibStar (talk) 09:58, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Of course foreign policy would affect, and thus notable to their citizens. And I have listed a lot of concrete evidence to prove my point. Meanwhile, I see only comments and ideas but no a single proof from you to back up your point. Your point cannot be convincing if you have no evidence.Xxjkingdom (talk) 10:10, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

all the sources to date are primary sources which just proved this lacks third party coverage to meet WP:GNG. Please read WP:N for Wikipedia definition of notability. LibStar (talk) 18:18, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

you're basically arguing any relations equals a Wikipedia article. That is not the case. Quite a few bilaterals have been deleted. Things like common membership with zero proof of interaction in these multilateral forums rather than joint membership , visa free arrangements do not provide evidence of a notable relations. LibStar (talk) 10:44, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Let's extend your adding up population equals more notability reasoning. Nigeria and Palau population adds to over 180 million therefore there is some notability there. LibStar (talk) 13:52, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are suggesting a straw man. By the way, I think the article contains both primary and secondary coverage at the moment.Xxjkingdom (talk) 06:26, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're the one that added 2 cities populations and somehow concluded erroneously this demonstrates a notable relationship. LibStar (talk) 09:50, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

First, Qatar and Hong Kong are more than cities. Second, Qatar and Hong Kong have encountered in significant trade. Third, they are in alliance with treaties signed.Xxjkingdom (talk) 09:46, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

First , adding up populations is frankly a ludicrous way other proving notability. Secondly trade is not significant, imports from Hong Kong represent a tiny tiny 0.08% of all imports to Qatar. In other words if Hong Kong stopped trading with Qatar, no one would notice in Qatar. LibStar (talk) 10:13, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is only one treaty signed. The double taxation treaty is very standard in world relations between any 2 states that trade. I will emphasise again, having some relations is not the same as notable relations for a Wikipedia article. LibStar (talk) 10:16, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Importance of trade should not be counted only by adding up percentage, but how the type of the product affect the economies, economically, socially, and culturally, usually more than the direct GDP generated. Nearly all power plants in Hong Kong (except one experimental Wind Power plant on Lamma Island) are ran by petroleum, and also not to mention almost all the vehicles on the road use petroleum. An absence of Qatar import would be critical and quickly noticeable in Hong Kong.Xxjkingdom (talk) 00:56, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

are they actually run by petroleum sourced from Qatar? if not, you're just making things up to invent bilateral relations. LibStar (talk) 01:58, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not true. It is because you were making things up to invent an absolute relation between % and importance of trade, I am suggesting that you have neglected other possibilities. I have no burden of proof here.Xxjkingdom (talk) 07:56, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide an actual source which clearly states petroleum in Qatar is used in Hong Kong power plants. If you don't, your statements are a concoction. LibStar (talk) 09:25, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Even if "there is no evidence of actual significant interaction or relations" it is entirely appropriate for an article to report on the absence provided there are appropriate sources reporting the fact. In this case there are sources quoted to explain the history of the relationship and the current rather limited relations. Thincat (talk) 10:04, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
you're arguing bilateral relations is inherently and a lack of interaction therefore qualifies for an article. LibStar (talk) 10:44, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You didn't read what I said about sources. A lack of relations would likely be highly unusual and sources might well comment on that. However, in this case there is not an absence of relations. Thincat (talk) 11:16, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A lack of relations between 2 places located so far away apart and Hong Kong which isn't even a country is not remarkable and hardly noteworthy. What next Eritrea-Hong Kong relations? Palau-Andorra relations? LibStar (talk) 11:42, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be arguing for inherent non-notability. What if there were plentiful good sources? Thincat (talk) 12:13, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
hardly. there are in fact plenty of notable bilateral relations that have articles. A lack of coverage of interactions is what is with this Qatar and Hong Kong relations. They are not in a hostile relationship like USA and North Korea (which easily passes WP:GNG). to somehow characterise a whole 'lot of primary sources' that confirms very little relations between a non country and a country equates to a notable Wikipedia article sets a new bar for notability. LibStar (talk) 13:48, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: If you know the case of Hong Kong, it is an independent economy, with its own right to develop foreign relations in economic, cultural, and many other appropriate fields. As economy-economy relations, it is definitely worth noting, not to mention a lot have treated Hong Kong as a nation on its own. If you think this is a point to delete the page, maybe you should also delete all those foreign relation pages relevant to Taiwan, Palestine, Kosovo, and many others. But this is not how Wikipedia works. Meanwhile, Hong Kong and Qatar are the 44th and the 50th largest economy on earth. How could these two economic powers' relations irrelevant and unimportant? Simply amiable relations could ensure the prosperity of the two economies. Amiable relations did not mean there is nothing happening, but there is a lot in it to keep a peaceful relation. Let's put it to the case, what if the relation turn worse? Wouldn't it lead to catastrophic events worse than 911? It is not only catastrophic that should be remarked, but that keeping prosperous is also equivalently, if not more, important in human history. The relations between the two is doing such a great thing. In addition, the page is informative with concrete facts and reliable sources. Moreover, I believe there could be a coverage bias, just because Hong Kong and Qatar are not English dominant societies, coverage is probably wider in local languages other than English, thus people living in the English speaking world could have a disguised perspective from what is happening there. Therefore, I see no reason not to support to keep this page.Tart (talk) 14:17, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

You have given zero evidence as to how WP:GNG is met. Hong Kong and Qatar are the 44th and the 50th largest economy on earth. is completely irrelevant to the actual bilateral relations. LibStar (talk) 16:40, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's also interesting that this is your 2nd ever edit on Wikipedia and first edit in 9 months. To suddenly appear here and try to present a case in an AfD with no prior experience and provide a strikingly similar long winded post . LibStar (talk) 16:47, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You've also tried to argue WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. LibStar (talk) 18:24, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I normally edit in other languages and I do not use auto login. But that is irrelevant to the argument, you are the one who are really trying to argue WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Please keep the discussion to an academic level but I see you attacking me personally instead. My last two points are about WP:GNG and you said no evidence without a reason or response. You give no reason. A college 101 lesson on International Relations might help to understand that every relations between two governmental entities are highly relevant to their citizens. Common sense perhaps even to layman. Tart (talk) 01:10, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You said you are the one who are really trying to argue WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS that is completely illogical, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is an argument for keep whilst I am arguing for delete' . The non sensical response to my claim just is preposterous and illogical. The fact you try to paraphrase my arguments back to me is strikingly similar to another editor. LibStar (talk) 15:28, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The article is solely based on primary sources and thus fails WP:GNG. That is 101 Wikipedia. Please provide your user name for a foreign language WP. LibStar (talk) 07:01, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There are both primary and secondary sources there. This is my user name. I hope it is what in the conversation but not who made the conversation that counts. Tart (talk) 13:04, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There's definitely clutching at straws with some of the sources you've added . This one doesn't even mention Qatar and an incident at a football match hardly demonstrates bilateral relations. LibStar (talk) 01:40, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are monographs on the issue. Please read before judge. Hong Kong-Qatar relations also mentioned in the source you quoted.Tart (talk) 09:43, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This one doesn't even mention Qatar . Also what foreign language articles did you edit in your 9 month absence from English Wikipedia? LibStar (talk) 12:39, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article does not also refer to Qatar. LibStar (talk) 00:50, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Both articles are about scholarship for Hong Kong students studying in Qatar and Qatari students studying in Hong Kong.Tart (talk) 13:11, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Read WP:SIGCOV "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail. a reference that does not use even the word Qatar can hardly be used to establish notability of relations . In fact the sources do not even verify that qatari students are eligible and even if they were eligible they cover such a small number the media can't even refer to Qatar. article refer to an agreement with many many countries and do not cover Hong Kong Qatar relations directly. LibStar (talk) 13:23, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep - Overall, I do think the bilateral economic relations between Hong Kong and Qatar are notable enough for their own article, assuming this—"Qatar [has been] Hong Kong's [most] important trade partner in the Middle East since [the] 20th Century"—is actually the case. It's also contingent upon whether or not the reference provided actually affirms this claim. Kurtis (talk) 11:38, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment The article contains a lot of padding that says nothing about actual bilateral relations especially this article http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-34451286 how this relates to Qatar's relations with Hong Kong beats me , it could have been Hong Kong playing Liberia and the fans still would have booed at the anthem. The statement that Hong Kong does not have a trade office in Qatar despite having offices elsewhere contributes completely zilch to actual relations. Membership of sporting international organizations does not establish bilateral relations and citing membership lists as a reference proves zero about actual bilateral interaction. In any case, bilateral relations articles in wikipedia do not discuss sporting relations . LibStar (talk) 12:09, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment Almost all, if not all, information provided in the page are highly relevant to the issue. Sports and International relations are highly relevant and a hot topic in modern days' international studies.Xxjkingdom (talk) 08:01, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
hot topic? Fancy word that doesn't mean notable. Please explain how Hong Kong fans booing at the Chinese National anthem advances the notability of Hong Kong Qatar relations. Your style of responding to me is strikingly similar to another editor. LibStar (talk) 15:31, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Uanfala (talk) 23:12, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Uanfala (talk) 23:12, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. Uanfala (talk) 23:12, 12 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. North America1000 01:25, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

CRASS Infotech

[edit]
CRASS Infotech (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The subject of this article does not appear to meet WP:CORP. I performed a fairly thorough search for sources, and couldn't find anything that wasn't lifted from the company's website. A PROD tag was removed by the creator, who has a self-confessed COI. This could almost be deleted under CSD#A7, except for a couple of claims in the article that would grant notability if sourced. Nonetheless, the sources don't seem to exist; so delete. Vanamonde93 (talk) 06:15, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Vanamonde93 (talk) 06:22, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Vanamonde93 (talk) 06:22, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Vanamonde93 (talk) 06:22, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Software article of unclear notability, lacking independent RS references. Refs and ELs are all associated with the company or non-RS, user editable sites. A search turned up no significant WP:RS coverage. Article was created by an SPA as possibly promotional. Dialectric (talk) 07:07, 8 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 17:51, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Slips (oil drilling)

[edit]
Slips (oil drilling) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

NN, unverifiable, no sources Jjjjjjdddddd (talk) 05:20, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Link to example product is added. Is that correct? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jwolla (talk • contribs) 09:51, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America1000 14:26, 9 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. Player passes WP:NFOOTY Fenix down (talk) 05:39, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Karam Barnawi

[edit]
Karam Barnawi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. Unable to find any sources that expand the information already in the article. Amccann421 (talk) 05:11, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Struway2 (talk) 09:34, 8 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 03:29, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jacob Sartorius

[edit]
Jacob Sartorius (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

nonnotable singer. Only promotional babble in references. - üser:Altenmann >t 04:47, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rose Sartorius stop claiming false WP:OWNERSHIP of Jacob Sartorius. I added a majority of the (sourced) information and citations [54] [55] and submitted the article for review [56]. Here are some of your edits, not a single citation used. [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] [62] [63] [64] [65] And the first edit was actually by "Ivyarrow"[66], so neither of us actually "created" or started the page, but one did make much more significant contributions. I LOVE YOU JACOB SARTORIUS XOXOXO (talk) 04:07, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This person is sufficiently notable. --Dcirovic (talk) 06:49, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hello, significant contributor here. I added a majority of the information and references to the article and submitted it at Articles for creation. SwisterTwister declined it and I agree with his decision. Someone better not claim I'm breaking one or more of your precious policies by exercising my right to ¡vote!
  • Keep as this individual is notable - in fact, his single recently entered the Billboard Hot 100. --Zerotalk 14:09, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Uanfala (talk) 23:13, 12 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 03:28, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Netsci Conference

[edit]
Netsci Conference (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable, and highly promotional. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Network Science Society for a related article by the same editor. DGG ( talk ) 04:36, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:12, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: plenty of notable participants. Leutha (talk) 15:00, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I'm not certain if this is the place for inserting these comments; however, I would argue that this is not G11 (blantantly advertising) or not notable. While it is not necessarily well written (WP:UGLY), it does not provide sufficient grounds for deletion, especially given the significance of the conference in unifying a field of research. The National Research Council of the National Academies
  • ^ https://www.facebook.com/TararMediaCorporation/photos/a.1734509436766471.1073741827.1705542022996546/1734508600099888/?type=3&theater
  • ^ http://www.nni-news.com.pk/urdu/our-team.php
  • ^ https://www.facebook.com/TararMediaCorporation/photos/a.1734509436766471.1073741827.1705542022996546/1734508600099888/?type=3&theater
  • ^ http://www.nni-news.com.pk/urdu/our-team.php

    • organized a committee to explore the new discipline of network science and assess its value for basic and applied research investment opportunities (among other things). Their findings, which were published in 2005, came down strongly in favor of increasing investment in network science research opportunities. While one of the major challenges facing the new field was its disparate sources of funding, the other major challenge noted in the study was the fragmentation of the field. Because funding came from disparate locations, no dedicated conference, and no dedicated journals, research was fragmented, lost in jargon, and often duplicated in unproductive ways. The first conference, held in 2006 in Bloomington, IN, was formed in part to address these issues. In 2006 the same body commissioned and published another book, Strategy for an Army Center for Network Science, Technology, and Experimentation, which again underscored the importance of knowledge-centralizing conferences for establishing improving army (here representing a diverse group of governmental bodies) network-centric operations (NCOs). Both of these texts have been key in setting grant funding agency priorities over the past 10 years, many of which fund scholar participation in the Netsci Conference. Simply arguing something isn't notable isn't sufficient evidence to get it deleted (WP:JNN). This article has potential (WP:Potential) to develop into a more robust article. This year the Office of Secretary of Defense from the Department of Defense has created a Future Directions in Network Science (in September of 2016) to create a similar document, reviewing the accomplishments of the field and predicting challenges going forward. This document will also be circulated to set granting agency priorities. Unlike most popular culture events and individuals, reliable and independent coverage of academic institutions and events can take a long time to be printed. It is a part of the nature of the unique enclave that academia exists within. Given the context of the conference, its origins, and the timelines for governmental and academic publications, this is an article with potential (WP:Potential), and it should not be deleted. Instead, it should be revised to more properly demonstrate its significance.

    References

    [edit]

    [1] [2]

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

    The result was SNOW/procedural close.The nomination was in good faith, but being autobiographically written is not valid reason for deletion, especially in this case where the subject is clearly notable under both our subject specific notability guidelines (WP:AUTHOR) and the general notability guideline and the article is well-sourced. Mr. Hardcastle should be commended for his adherence to high ethical standards and this AfD has no reason to stay open for a full week. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 01:53, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Kevin Hardcastle

    [edit]
    Kevin Hardcastle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Needs to be written by third party, not by the person in the article. With apologies.. KHardcase (talk) 04:02, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    • Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 July 8. —cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online 04:15, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Snow Keep There is no problem at all KHardcase. There is no need for apology. I assume you are maybe new to posting here at wikipedia. Welcome to the pkace! This is a great article already. I explained on your talk page that although it is discouraged for you to edit the article, you make leave suggestions, sources, or ideas on the talk page, and I or others will evaluate what you post, and use what we can to expand the article and make it and wikipedia better. Congratulations on your award. Your stories sound interesting. If you understand all of this or if you have any question you may put them on my talk page or the article talk page. If you agree not to edit the article about you, I can take the autobiography notice down. As far as this deletion discussion, I have voted to snow keep the article, because I think this has just been misunderstanding. You may discuss or vote as well. All are welcomed to participate. Again, thank you for understanding, Let me know if you have any questions. an congratulations on your award. Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant 04:28, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • A conflict of interest is not the end of the world around here, if the article is fixable. While we certainly discourage people from starting an article about themselves, doing that does not always automatically force deletion of the article — rather, if the base notability claim and its sourceability pass our tests, then we keep the article anyway and just clean it up for neutrality and formatting issues. (In fact, Kevin, you were already on my radar as a potential future article topic as it is, because I'm the guy who updated our Danuta Gleed and Trillium Book Award articles with this year's shortlists and winners — which means that in both of the articles that already had your name in them redlinked and waiting for an article, I'm who put it there.) The awards in question are notable ones, they are sourceable, and Debris has been reviewed in both of Canada's major national newspapers — and that adds up to enough to pass WP:AUTHOR. Keep and I'll take a pass at fixing it up right now — I also agree with Fouetté that we should just WP:SNOW close this as an honest misunderstanding. Bearcat (talk) 23:58, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy Keep agree with above comments, the editors can help the article rather than deleting, passes WP:BASIC Atlantic306 (talk) 01:45, 9 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 keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) RA0808 talkcontribs 22:41, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Mickey Briglia

    [edit]
    Mickey Briglia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Does not appear to meet WP:NCOLLATH or WP:GNG. Only one source appears to discuss Briglia in any detail, otherwise author cited Find A Grave (which I believe is WP:UGC) and a team lineup that mentions Briglia as coach. Previously cited sources were an unverifiable newspaper article and a Rowan University internal wiki. Author's username indicates a potential connection to Briglia, possibly a relative. Author also created duplicate page at Michael Briglia. RA0808 talkcontribs 03:39, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. RA0808 talkcontribs 03:39, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. RA0808 talkcontribs 03:39, 8 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. North America1000 01:28, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Repusurance

    [edit]
    Repusurance (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Still nothing actually convincing of the needed independent notability, searches easily found nothing and the current sources are not at all substantial; my PROD was removed with the summary "Remove a few claims". SwisterTwister talk 02:10, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 02:10, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 04:23, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America1000 04:23, 8 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 no consensus. (WP:NPASR). North America1000 11:31, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Harness, Dickey & Pierce

    [edit]
    Harness, Dickey & Pierce (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    I nearly PRODed too as my searches have simply found a few local news mentions (including of what were simply local funding business articles) but no actual substantial coverage, and although the claim of "Michigan's largest intellectual property law firm" could insinuate notability perhaps, that's only a field area and I simply have not actually found anything else better. This has exited since November 2009 but has never actually substantially improved despite the apparent various new users. SwisterTwister talk 23:11, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:11, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:11, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:33, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:05, 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 00:58, 8 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 no consensus. WP:NPASR per low participation herein. North America1000 11:32, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Moxie Media scandal

    [edit]
    Moxie Media scandal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    This article feels gratuitous, at best. The company wasn't even large enough to have its own page on Wikipedia. I find it odd, that on the political scandals page it is a duck out of water and do not feel as if it adds any value to Wikipedia as a whole. After spending several months as an editor for a few categories, I understand that everyone wants to be fair, but at what point do we allow Wikipedia to be a tattle tale platform for vengeance instead of a source for relevant information that matters. Seeger7 (talk) 22:34, 23 June 2016 (UTC) Creating deletion discussion for Moxie Media scandal[reply]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:38, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:38, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:39, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:06, 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 00:57, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. I don't think the nomination gives any reason for deletion consistent with our guidelines for deletions. It looks like a solid article, it has multiple sources, it meets wp:GNG. It doesn't bother me at all that the company "Moxie Media" did not have a Wikipedia page; it could be a tiny operation whose name was given to the scandal which is far more noteworthy than the company.
    Perhaps the deletion nominator's concern about the article could be addressed by putting it in context of other political scandals? How big is this relative to other scandals? How is it similar/different vs. other scandals? The deletion nomination mentions "the political scandals page", what is that? In the page's incoming links, I don't see a political scandals list-article. Was it just removed from such a list-article? I see there exists a List of political scandals with subpages for many countries, but for the U.S. it only lists List of federal political scandals in the United States. --doncram 02:17, 8 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 no consensus. (WP:NPASR). North America1000 11:34, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Monster Moto

    [edit]
    Monster Moto (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    trivial notices, trivial awards DGG ( talk ) 20:54, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:42, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:42, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:42, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:07, 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 00:48, 8 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. Uncontested.  Sandstein  07:17, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Wine Portfolio

    [edit]
    Wine Portfolio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    I still confirm my PROD, I found some news sources, such as for the show visiting some towns, but I still haven't found anything particularly outstanding (for example using "Wine Portfolio CBNC World Jody Ness only found news links at News (once) and then at browsers), but still nothing convincing for solid independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 20:03, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 20:04, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:22, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:22, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:40, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:40, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete I also found reliable, secondary sources lacking. The essay Wikipedia:Notability_(media)#Programming which elaborates on the general notability policy is helpful in highlighting that "the presence or absence of reliable sources is more definitive than the geographic range of the program's audience alone." The essay is further helpful in pointing out that "the media does not often report on itself. It is not often that one media outlet will give neutral attention to another, as this could be seen as 'advertising for the competition.'" Thus, despite the fact that the program reportedly airs in 40 countries, it still needs reliable sources to support notability and its continued existence within the encyclopedia. Those are not evident. Geoff | Who, me? 16:31, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:19, 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 00:48, 8 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 no consensus. WP:NPASR per low participation herein. North America1000 11:35, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Maximillian Laumeister

    [edit]
    Maximillian Laumeister (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    I find only one source, one of the ones cited in this article, with any substantial coverage of this person. The product might be notable, but it doesn't appear that he is, with most mentions of him doing no more than identifying him as the creator. Largoplazo (talk) 19:12, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment: Just found and added a quote along with another secondary source (Co.Exist) to the article/references. K.Koopa (talk) 01:36, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • The source, in discussing "Listen to Bitcoin", mentions him only to say that he's the creator and to quote a comment from him about the source's main topic. The only thing the source says about him is that he's "an undergrad studying game design at UC Santa Cruz". This isn't substantial coverage of him, as called for by WP:GNG. Largoplazo (talk) 03:16, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:19, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:39, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:47, 8 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 FCKH8. And merge whatever editorial consensus may deem appropriate from the history.  Sandstein  07:14, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    FCKH8: Drop F-Bombs for Feminism

    [edit]
    FCKH8: Drop F-Bombs for Feminism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    This article was liking made by someone who watched the video and thought, I should make an article on it. It has no need to exist and has no no special-ness that puts it ahead of other videos controversial like this that do not have articles. Please don't reject on the basis I'm blocking equality or a "anti-feminist", if you want an article just for FCKH8, make one. I mean, even on responses, theres only 1 main response, most of the others are from the person from the company themselves. DJBay123 (talk) 18:59, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:20, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:38, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:38, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:38, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I think that it might actually be better to write an article about the website itself, FCKH8, than the video necessarily since the coverage mostly seems to be criticism of the company via their campaign as much as (if not more so) than the video itself. It also looks like they received some coverage over a similar video for the Ferguson shootings, so those two together would likely be enough to show notability for the company. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:00, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Something else to add to this is that these are the same criticisms that were lobbed against them for prior campaigns, so this could probably be better served in one article that contained a criticism section for the company and an overall section that listed their campaigns with a little detail about each one and the accompanying video. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:22, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Here's what I have so far. I still have to write up the criticism section, which will be a generalized summary of the overall criticisms, which are largely the same regardless of the campaign. (This will also include comments from parents of children featured in the article, both good and bad.) This section will include a response section from the company itself, which I figure should be a bit on its own. Hopefully I should finish it soon, but I wanted to post it here so you can see what I mean - this could really be summed up overall in one article considering that the criticisms are really more directed at the company as opposed to the campaign itself. We could probably justify an article for both, but I think that this might be better suited in one overall article. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:23, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK - the article is now at FCKH8. I summed up everything fairly well. Technically this article could stand on its own, but I think that this could also redirect to the company's page. I'll leave it up to this AfD. I've cleaned out the worst of the promotional prose, so what's really left at this point is the synopsis and the criticism section. This is the main reason the page would pass on its own since the criticism of FCKH8 was fairly widespread. I tried to sum this up in the main article for the most part and if this does close as a redirect then some of it could be merged a little more. My main concern - that the criticism is more for the company than the video itself specifically still remain, however. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:27, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • If this is kept, it should probably be renamed as "Potty-Mouthed Princesses" since that's the most common name for the video campaign and the video is posted to social media as "Potty-Mouthed Princesses Drop F-Bombs for Feminism". "F-Bombs for Feminism: Potty Mouthed Princesses Use Bad Words for a Good Cause" is a title used during the video, but it's far less commonly used. At the very least the FCKH8 at the beginning of the article is unnecessary. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:33, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:47, 8 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 no consensus. WP:NPASR per low participation herein. North America1000 11:37, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Elias Henry Robinson

    [edit]
    Elias Henry Robinson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Non-notable person. The Google Books reference says nothing about this person. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 18:29, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:33, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:33, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:33, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment -- As the founder of a town, he might be sufficiently noteworthy for the content of this article to me merged in to that for the Dayton Township which he founded in Minnesota, but I cannot work out what place he did found. It has the feel of his being NN. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:33, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:20, 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 00:47, 8 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 Sparx Animation Studios.  Sandstein  15:10, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Youri, the Spaceman

    [edit]
    Youri, the Spaceman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Beyond a few mentions in print and online sources the program hasn't received any other coverage in reliable secondary sources. The article's creator points to an article by lostmedia.wikia.com; while the article is interesting, we can't use Wikia pages as sources because they are self-published. A redirect to Sparx Animation Studios could probably work. 23W 23:29, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 07:49, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - I cannot find any significant coverage about this animation series. There's episodes posted on video sites but that doesn't represent significant coverage. -- Whpq (talk) 10:50, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MelanieN (talk) 00:24, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:36, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:36, 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 00:46, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:11, 11 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. North America1000 01:31, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Tech noire

    [edit]
    Tech noire (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Appears to be a self-coined term by Beatkamp Inc., used only to promote their music. The only references I could find are from beatkamp.com which appears only to exist to promote and sell their little music label. Toddst1 (talk) 00:45, 8 July 2016 (UTC) Toddst1 (talk) 00:45, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:41, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:41, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:41, 8 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. Pretty much a WP:SNOWCLOSE. No prejudice against recreation of the article if reliable sources about Ms Exotika are cited. Shirt58 (talk) 10:26, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Nikki Exotika

    [edit]
    Nikki Exotika (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    There is no evidence of this person's work - no impact and no notoriety. There are no notable recordings or videos, appearances, articles or artistic works. The article starts by describing her as "attempting to create a girls group" - this is hardly an achievements that merits an encyclopedia entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.234.79.223 (talk) 04:08, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:43, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:44, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - None of the sources could be considered to be reliable. Forming a musical group seems more of a whim. Fails WP:GNG.
    • That's not so, this is clearly a reliable source. This Queerty article, too. The Queety piece links to both the Daily Mail story and this HuffPo piece about her wanting to form that band. And a second story about that in the Daily Mail, from 2014. And of course the Wikipedia article does have the NY Daily News story about her being tossed from the "pro-plastic surgery TV show after botched breast augmentation." My own person rule of thumb for "multiple" RS is three, and she'd squeak by. Weak keep. The nomination seems to be suggesting that she fails WP:NMUSIC -- no argument there. But WP:GNG is a different matter. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:37, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment - the Daily Mail is not considered to be a reliable source. It is an English tabloid newspaper, like The Sun. The fact that the New York Daily News report appears in its "gossip/confidential" pages must be a red flag. My concern here is that at the moment this WP:BLP page presents a rather sensationalist view of the individual. Karst (talk) 10:46, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    They're both definitely tabloids and WP:NEWSORG does caution us against reporting rumours/gossip but this would rise above that? Is the Daily Mail on a blacklist or could you link to a relative policy page? Certainly open to changing my mind on this one. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:59, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The Daily Mail is not blacklisted, but according to this is "should not be used". Karst (talk) 07:00, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Striking through weak keep per Karst, above. Neutral. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:18, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete This person has not even managed to create a planned group, and even if the group is created and becomes notable, there is no reason to think this individual will be notable as a result.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:14, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete What we learn here is the following: (1) a girl group was planned in 2015 but has not been formed yet (and may never be formed); (2) an appearance on an E! program was planned, but did not happen; and (3) a lot of money was spent on plastic surgeries. None of this is indicative of notoriety, influence, or other value for an archival entry Moshe Kam (talk) 13:51, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete and I frankly see this as A7 material, nothing minimally convincing and Daily Mail articles are both not the supporting significant claims and substance. SwisterTwister talk 20:18, 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 no consensus. Mackensen (talk) 10:46, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Vishen Lakhiani

    [edit]
    Vishen Lakhiani (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Article is promotional and no notability could be established (author does not fulfill requirements for authors). His book isn't notable either (even if it was on a list of best-sellers for a week, since it does not fulfill main criteria for been considered a notable book ). Article was created by a single-purpose account Taniasafuan talk. Llaanngg (talk) 15:21, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:53, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:53, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:53, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Keep Llaanngg Thanks for your input. However I didn't create my account just to publish this page, although indeed it was a poor attempt for a first-timer. I haven't put time into creating a second page (still trying to figure the platform out). I wanted to put more Malaysian personalities on the website and I started with Lakhiani given his contribution. I've revised the article to not sound promotional and removed some sources deemed unestablished by Wikipedia standards. Let me know if there's more that I missed or if the subject still doesn't meet the guidelines. – Taniasafuan (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:14, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment I am afraid that even the new sources won't establish notability. Equally irrelevant is whether his services are bought by famous people, unless these people endorse or at least mention it. Here are needed sources analyzing him and his services, not just establishing that he's associated with notable people.Llaanngg (talk) 17:55, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KaisaL (talk) 00:50, 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 00:42, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Keep I suggest to keep this article :) Princesstowarrior (talk) 05:49, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    • I'm cleaning up the sources and it looks like he might pass notability guidelines. I'm slightly leery about the Forbes Contributor article, since they aren't considered to be staff and there have been several discussions where people have expressed concern that there is very little editing done on the FC articles, making them essentially blog posts of a certain type. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:56, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Articles like this one give off the impression that these writers are kind of on their own. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:00, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • At the very least this article needs a thorough scrubbing because it's extremely promotional in tone. I'll do that after I finish going through the sources. Offhand this relies an awful lot on sources that are sort of questionable in tone. Some of the links are blogs (like the HuffPo blogs, which aren't seen as RS on Wikipedia) and others are in websites or outlets that offer marketing packages that include articles written about your business/product/etc. In the case of the awards, few of them seem notable so far (I'm still going through this section). Most business awards or honors are non-notable on Wikipedia because there are just so many of them. One of the awards claimed that it was given out by Inc., however a look at the article shows that it's a reader pick and not an award or anything that would really be of note on Wikipedia. The philosophy section I'm sort of editing as I go because out of all of the promotional sections, this one is the worst. This looks like there was some undisclosed paid editing going on here at one point in time and this is a fairly good example as to why you don't want to pay someone to edit a page about yourself - the article is so promotional that I'm mildly tempted to endorse a WP:TNT here. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:17, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • This one is iffy. Hitting the NYT bestseller list does give notability, although the guideline for that was originally meant to cover the main fiction and non-fiction categories. There are also some good sources on here. However there are also ones that are kind of questionable, such as the Forbes link and the Digital News Asia stories. Speaker magazine is also mildly questionable since it's associated with a national organization, meaning that it's within their best interests to write about their members. Stuff like this also kind of make me lean towards it not being usable. This leaves the NYT list, the two BBC articles, and the Edge piece. That's kind of a little lean for NBIO, but it might be enough to squeak by. If it becomes promotional again or gets reverted back to its earlier promotional state, I'd endorse a TNT to discourage further promotional editing. Again, this is why trying to cram a bunch of promotional prose into an article usually backfires - not only does it make someone seem less notable, but it can end with the article getting deleted regardless of notability or the lack thereof. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:34, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    * Comment: Princesstowarrior recently created account (with only this one contribution) confirms the extremely promotional intent of this article. Llaanngg (talk) 13:20, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak keep. There isn't a ton of stuff out there other than a slew of PR pieces and stuff in places that are iffy at best on Wikipedia. However there is just enough currently on the article to where Lakhiani would just barely squeak by notability guidelines, albeit by the skin of his teeth. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:39, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    * Comment: I agree that there are some hints of notability. However, I believe he falls somehow below the line separating notable from non-notable authors. Llaanngg (talk) 13:20, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    *Comment: after Tokyogirl79's substantial improvement, I believe the article could be kept. So I retract my delete and vote for keep. Llaanngg (talk) 01:45, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Sorry for this, but this is a good case of WP:TOOSOON. The person is an upcoming entrepreneur, but nowhere near notable even by local (Singapore/Malaysia) standards. (Or I would have found more hits in local media) This BBC interview (and reprinted by Asiaone) seems OK at first glance, but it offers little as to the subject's work. I'm not convinced by the book either as I do not see any secondary coverage of it. As for the company, it is a publishing company which the subject launched himself. From what I can see, they are trying to market themself. My guess is that the company may become notable in a few years, but the subject doesn't pass at this time. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:18, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Lemongirl942, couldn't the approach here be just to leave it as a stub? Llaanngg (talk) 01:26, 11 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 no consensus. (WP:NPASR). North America1000 11:39, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Anuradhapura Divisional Secretariat

    [edit]
    Anuradhapura Divisional Secretariat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    There is no such division as per government information or statistic report. Refer http://www.anuradhapura.dist.gov.lk or http://www.statistics.gov.lk/misc/AdminDivCodes/north_cen_prov.pdf It should be deleted or redirect to relevant page if any. AntanO 13:30, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KaisaL (talk) 00:50, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:41, 8 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. On the basis of being in over 1,000 libraries, the author has been deemed notable by the participants in this discussion. (non-admin closure) — Music1201 talk 03:27, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Lawrence Davidson

    [edit]
    Lawrence Davidson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Doesn't meet notability guidelines at WP:ACADEMIC, and no significant secondary coverage online from WP:Reliable sources. He is a co-author on the later editions of Goldschmidt's A Concise History of the Middle East, but I can't see substantial coverage online of Davidson's contributions to that notable book, though there is much praise online for Goldschmidt's work. OnionRing (talk) 17:12, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. OnionRing (talk) 17:12, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. OnionRing (talk) 17:12, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • What's a "GS citation"?
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America1000 07:52, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak delete I can't get him to meet WP:ACADEMICS nor WP:AUTHOR. However, his latest book is in >1,000 libraries, so he is having an impact. I don't find reviews in the obvious places (Kirkus, LJ, PW). As for G-Scholar, he has one book with just over 100 cites, but the latest book is cited only 13 times, which clues me that he's not accepted by academia. LaMona (talk) 00:37, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • delete. This is a new article, and I assume that the author gave sourcing his best shot. However, the most reliable source on the page seems to be a Huffington Post blog, almost all the rest of the notes are to primary sources. There is not nything like a profile cited, and none that a quick google found. He appears to be a non-notable academic.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:45, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - having a book in so many libraries is evidence of notability. What do you think, DGG? Bearian (talk) 18:15, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:41, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Very weak keep. Not a single one of his books is published by a major scholarly press, though some are by relatively minor university presses. His most significant book by far is Foreign policy, inc. : privatizing America's national interest, which is in 1157 libraries, though it is not really a scholarly work. He would not have qualified for a senior faculty position at a research university. He technically is notable as WP:AUTHOR, but not WP:PROF. DGG ( talk ) 01:17, 8 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 no consensus. After 3 relists, a consensus has not been established. (non-admin closure) — Music1201 talk 04:35, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Keller Regional Gifted Center

    [edit]
    Keller Regional Gifted Center (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Possible failing of WP:GNG and WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Delete as proposer. KGirlTrucker81 talk what I'm been doing 21:41, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:30, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:00, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor Talk! 17:43, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:41, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not sure if you saw the above sources I posted, since your !vote implies that there are no secondary sources whatsoever.
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was no consensus. North America1000 11:41, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Deborah Marquit

    [edit]
    Deborah Marquit (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    NOTE: My vote is neutral, I am not voting "keep" or "delete." I just feel we need to discuss this article for possible violations. I genuinely didn't want to flag this up, but I do have concerns about the article. It is primarily an autobiography/self promotion, and the sourcing - with the exception of the first New York Times link (unfortunately a little weak as a standalone source) - is either unacceptable as sourcing (magazine covers, links to YouTube videos, or dead links that no longer appear to go anywhere helpful) My main concern is that the sole editor appears to be the subject of the article. I believe that the subject MAY be able to pass notability, and do see a few possible RS (although not an awful lot) on a search that would support her having an article (just not writing her own) but as it currently stands, the article is wall-to-wall self-promotion and stuff that is reliant on the subject's personal knowledge/unsourced, so my question is - is it so bad that we need to junk the existing article and start over again? Please note that I already advised the creator of the autobiography issues on her talk page and have allowed it to stand for almost a year to see whether there would be any interest. I'm happy to edit the article if the consensus is to keep and improve, and happy to recreate it more appropriately if the consensus is to delete - but sometimes I feel like the only fashion-related editor who isn't focused on models, sexy clothing, or pageants and it gets a bit overwhelming... Mabalu (talk) 10:29, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:57, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I would want to see more than one NYT source, and what's actually in the coverage is quite slight - I did do a search for other NYT coverage and this seemed to be the only non-advertorial coverage. Agree about the honour, but there need to be more sources and these don't seen very easy to come by.... Mabalu (talk) 14:19, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KaisaL (talk) 00:53, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:40, 8 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) Yellow Dingo (talk) 00:16, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Greg Miller (photographer)

    [edit]
    Greg Miller (photographer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    A7 was declined but there is no claim of notability, one ref is own website and other ref is a series of photos from The Daily Mail which in itself confers no notability? Fails WP:BIO. Paste Let’s have a chat. 07:24, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KaisaL (talk) 00:53, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:40, 8 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 no consensus. (WP:NPASR). North America1000 11:41, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    ETEBAC5

    [edit]
    ETEBAC5 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    User:Kephir prodded it a while back with the following rationale: "No references at all, no evidence of notability." It was deprodded by User:James500 with the following rationale "GBooks: 5 pages for this, 25 for ETEBAC. Suggest this page be moved to ETEBAC and broadened to include all versions." I looked at the GBooks mentions, and they seem to be primarily in passing; I am not seeing enough to warrant this being a stand alone topic. I am not seeing much more on ETEBAC in general, through some sources are in French, and my French is too rudimentary to judge them (I'll note that linked fr:Échange télématique banque-clients is about ETEBAC not ETEBAC5, through it offers no help as far as good refs). I looked for a possible merge target, but I don't see anything (Electronic Banking Internet Communication Standard seems related but not a parent article, just another protocol). I am not an expert in this field, so I don't know if there is such thing as security communication protocol (Communications protocol does not mention the word security), but I think we are missing a number of parent articles, to which numerous protocols that lack independent notability could be merged. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:29, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:01, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America1000 09:20, 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 00:39, 8 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 no consensus. WP:NPASR, because the keep !vote following the nomination does not provide a guideline or policy based rationale relative to the rationale of the nomination, nor does the delete !vote following the first relisting. North America1000 11:46, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Media Worldwide Limited

    [edit]
    Media Worldwide Limited (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Not a channel, but a business, and NN at that. First GHit is LinkedIn, and it gets worse from there. MSJapan (talk) 08:46, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    • Keep - Although this topic may not be independently notable and notability is not inherited, deletion would create unnecessary redlinks from notable entities owned by this company. There is nothing untoward in this article and deleting it does not improve the encyclopedia. WP:NORULES. ~Kvng (talk) 15:02, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. but merge the channels into this. There is no point in creating an article which just links to them; we normally cover the various parts of an organization together unless it becomes too large for this to be practical. DGG ( talk ) 15:06, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KaisaL (talk) 01:22, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nepali keto62: articles on webistes and businesses are allowed. Do you want to cite a valid WP:DEL-REASON? ~Kvng (talk) 22:50, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:58, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:58, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:38, 8 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 Oneiromancy. And merge whatever editors deem appropriate from the history. I think we have consensus that this is not suited to have a dedicated article, and Oneiromancy seems to be the most consensual target.  Sandstein  07:17, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Veridical dream

    [edit]
    Veridical dream (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    WP:OR sourced only to a PhD thesis, very likely that of the article creator. The term is used, but the definition does not appear to be what is claimed here, and seems to vary depending on the source. There also seems to be very little that we would consider RS readily available on the subject. MSJapan (talk) 00:55, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:52, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:52, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:54, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I'm finding similar results - the term is in use and some of the term's use is fairly similar to what's listed here (like this source) but it's not exactly the same per se. For example, Llewllyn has this in part of its definition and what it does say is fairly vague. Basically the term seems to be used to describe a dream that could come to pass, could be something happening right now, or could be something from the past. It's generally seen as a vision. If this is kept then the article would need to be re-written to encompass this since the current version treats this term like it's something fairly concrete and specific. (I'm aware that Llewellyn isn't a RS on Wikipedia, I'm using it more as an example of what I'm finding.) Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:18, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirect to Prediction#Supernatural_prediction, or alternatively Dream_interpretation. The latter may seem more natural but considering the current text in both articles the first option is preferable.
    The article is not really worth keeping as it exclusively consists of examples of (purported) veridical dreams in the literature, and moreover I do not see a practical way to merge to any of the targets I suggested. But the term itself is in use and WP:CHEAP.
    The creator might suffer from WP:CIR rather than COI, considering the long history of contributions (and the multiple talkpage notices, and the blocklog). TigraanClick here to contact me 11:31, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I see these sources were already brought forward by Kvng during deprodding. Did nominator not see these when deciding to bring to AfD under WP:OR which is clearly countered by the existence of these sources? DeVerm (talk) 01:23, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    First of all, reposting the same material from the deprod and claiming that that meets notability isn't really adding anything of value to the discussion. If it met notability, we wouldn't be here. As for the question posed, the WP:OR is the article as it stands, because it's sourced to a PhD thesis that was not published as a book. It is also OR because the definition given from that thesis does not match that given in any of the three sources in the deprod, and those three sources don't even agree with one another. MSJapan (talk) 01:47, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I am sorry, I do not understand that. [WP:BEFORE] indicates that before nominating: "take reasonable steps to search for reliable sources." This clearly means that potential sources may not be in the article yet and implies they should be added instead of the article nominated for deletion. Do I understand you correctly, that you considered these sources, then decided they were not reliable and thus send the article to AfD? Chapeau in that case! Or, is it that you do accept these sources as RS but that they are not in agreement with article content? In that case, correcting the article seems the correct option. I am not sure yet, but these sources all seem to be about what the article states I think. Can you elaborate on the conflicts you see? DeVerm (talk) 02:05, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Not one of the sources used defines the term (and most of the other sources I looked at assumed the reader knew what they were talking about already). As Tokyogirl noted, it's one of three very different things. "Veridical" itself is related to veritas, or "truth". So a "veridical dream" would appear to be a "truthful dream." That would mean that it would be a dream reflective of reality. However, most of the sources use it in connection with prophecy, and prophecy is not necessarily true, and the heavily philosophical sources don't even agree on how many types there are. Therefore, to have a basis to write an article on the term, a source we use needs to explain its basis for use of the term, and they don't (and don't agree across sources). Moreover, being on Google Books isn't an indicator of reliability. So out of all the sources, we can't get a standard definition, and we don't know whose definition is "correct." We cannot therefore assume a position, because it's WP:SYNTH or WP:OR (depending). So I fail to see how a meaningful article that is compliant with policy results. MSJapan (talk) 03:01, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirect to Oneiromancy - MSJapan has made a good case for deleting this article: it has had a "citation-needed" tag on it's definition for well over a year and no sources have been found that could provide it. There are sources discussing it, so that suggests WP:SYNTH to get to the definition used in the article, like MSJapan has mentioned. I tried but could not find a source for that citation either and thus my !vote to remove the content. This leaves the redirect because it is a term in use. I considered Dream_interpretation like suggested by Tigraan but think Oneiromancy is more specific. DeVerm (talk) 13:27, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    You've identified some problems with the article and sourcing. I don't see a strong case for delete from you. Why do you you think we need to blank the content with a redirect? ~Kvng (talk) 14:52, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    You are right that I was at first a bit critical with the nomination by MSJapan. That said, they have answered my questions and addressed my objections effectively enough for me to !vote for redirect instead of a keep or merge. My arguments are listed above with my !vote but the WP:SYNTH is the main one for blanking the content. We must have at least have a reliable secondary source that supports the definition as used for the article, plus support the rest of it, instead of synthesizing content from sources that are not even aligned everywhere. DeVerm (talk) 15:30, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    It doesn't seem like a redirect to an article that doesn't use the term veridical dream will fulfill the principle of least astonishment. I think it better to land on a potentially flawed article about the subject than to be redirected to a related article that doesn't directly mention the subject the reader was looking for. The flaws here do not rise to WP:TNT levels. We don't delete flawed articles, we improve them and AfD is not for cleanup. If the sources don't agree on a definition we simply give and cite multiple definitions. ~Kvng (talk) 05:35, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The Oneiromancy article has it's definition as "system of dream interpretation that uses dreams to predict the future". It seems to me that we can rewrite that as "system of dream interpretation based on veridical dreams". I see it that it is part of the Oneiromancy article. The veridical dream article is only an unsourced definition plus three examples. There isn't much to TNT in my opinion when considering that a redirect to establish the term and link it to oneiromancy to establish it's links will have to do until a good source for the term definition can be found. You write that the sources don't agree on a definition but I state that none of the sources has any definition. DeVerm (talk) 12:45, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KaisaL (talk) 01:28, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - I doubt anyone is arguing that the article, as it currently stands, is a GOOD article. But it does seem to have notability established, and as far as I understand it, the term is actually distinct from simple dream interpretation (which has seen use in psychologic study) and from prophecy (which is exclusively about the future, while this can apparently be about the present or past). The article is not very good right now, but it can be expanded and cleaned up, so we should keep it. AfD is not cleanup. Fieari (talk) 05:41, 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 00:37, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirectto Oneiromancy. Many sources have discussed dreams which subsequently actually come true. (Certainly not all dreams subsequently come true, or thdre would have been more, and more varied, sexual gratification in the lives of many.) Edison (talk) 02:09, 9 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 03:31, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Rajan Narayan

    [edit]
    Rajan Narayan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    I can't find any article clarifying the existence of this person. Fails WP:N. JudeccaXIII (talk) 23:29, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment - I can find some references to his name when searching google for "Goan Observer", including what appears to be an article about Rajan, but said article is on a website riddled with malware (according to google) and I won't click the link to check it... which suggests lack of notability. That said, the subject is about an Indian newspaper, and regardless of the fact that it is an English language newspaper, it may be possible that there are sources establishing notability that are harder for us to find using our typical language methods. I won't place a !vote at this time, as although I would currently lean towards deletion, I believe that fighting systemic bias on Wikipedia is an important and noble goal. If someone could determine the notability status of the Goan Observer, and determine the importance of O Heraldo, then criteria 3 of WP:JOURNALIST may allow this article's inclusion. Withholding my !vote to give other wikipedians the chance to determine this, keeping systemic bias in mind. Fieari (talk) 23:52, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 14:11, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 14:11, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 14:11, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ansh666 02:12, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:35, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Regardless this as all shown that there's still no actual convincing signs of his own article, regardless of any apparent systematic bias; there's no inherited notability from any of his occupations. SwisterTwister talk 20:33, 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 Kelantanese dinar. Mackensen (talk) 16:17, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Umar Vadillo

    [edit]
    AfDs for this article:
    Umar Vadillo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Seems to be written like an advert... TJH2018talk 16:40, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ansh666 02:12, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America1000 09:11, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. North America1000 09:11, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. North America1000 09:11, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America1000 09:11, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge/Redirect to Kelantanese dinar. Surprised not to see this suggested yet. Any claim to notability he has is connected to promotion and adoption of the gold dinar in Malaysia. And we have an article about that already in Kelantanese dinar -- and it already mentions him. He's covered in the Wall Street Journal, BBC, and several other sources in connection with the Kelantanese dinar, so a merge/redirect seems pretty straightforward. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:03, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:34, 8 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. Nobody is for "Keep", so...  Sandstein  15:10, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Super Dog Rilienthal

    [edit]
    Super Dog Rilienthal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Manga series that ran for approx 8 months. It ran in Weekly Shōnen Jump but I can't see anything that suggests it's notable by itself. It's author created World Trigger which is notable, but this doesn't seem to be anywhere near as notable. I would redirect to the author page in a case like this but the author doesn't have a page.

    The article was created the week the series debuted and was tagged for notability right after. That was in 2009 and google searches have only discovered user blogs, wiki mirrors/other databases and illegal hosting sites. SephyTheThird (talk) 15:56, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. --SephyTheThird (talk) 15:58, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ansh666 02:16, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    As is usually the case, the Ja.wiki article has no sources of consequence.This is true of better known works, thats just how ja.wiki is.SephyTheThird (talk) 10:45, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Sadly that's true. Therefore I posted at ja:Wikipedia:Help_for_Non-Japanese_Speakers#Reliable_sources_for_the_manga_.22Super_Dog_Rilienthal.22. I checked CiNii with the Japanese title but nothing turns up. Also posted at ja:プロジェクト‐ノート:漫画#Reliable_sources_for_the_manga_.E8.B3.A2.E3.81.84.E7.8A.AC.E3.83.AA.E3.83.AA.E3.82.A8.E3.83.B3.E3.82.BF.E3.83.BC.E3.83.AB WhisperToMe (talk) 10:50, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Some Japanese web pages mentioned this manga, "Super Dog Rilienthal", in Japanese "賢い犬リリエンタール", although I'm not sure if these pages are regarded as reliable source in enwp/jawp[71][72][73], since I usually just translate scientific en articles to ja. Cinii is a search engine for formal articles like "Google Scholar" or "Web of Science", and not good for searching reviews on manga, I think.--Karasunoko (talk) 11:25, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @Karasunoko: If you don't mind, please find who publishes otakuma.net and natalie.mu. Do these websites have professional publications with editorial staff and processes? (for example Anime News Network has editor-vetted articles written by staff members) WhisperToMe (talk) 15:58, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I did try to write a reply earlier but the site was playing up. Natalie is a reliable source, I've seen it cited by Yahoo Japan, and ANN often use it. However the links provided are literally announces about the start and end of the series - nothing we can't source elsewhere. The other site might be usable but it's going to need to be translated the old fashioned if it is usable as RS. The keywords that stick out need context.SephyTheThird (talk) 00:06, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Natalie is published by natasha, which is size of 77 employees and has own writers. Otakuma is published by C.S.T.Entertainment,Inc., which seems to be a very small company and doesn't have own writers. I couldn't find whether these companies have editorial staff or processes.--Karasunoko (talk) 12:17, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Otakuma seems to be an anime/manga/fandom website run by a kabushiki kaisha (C.S.T.Entertainment) which has been in operation since 2009. Just spending a little time looking around on the site, if it's just a fan site it is one of the absolute best ones I've ever seen. It seems to be a cross between ANN and Crunchyroll, since they do news, social media, and streaming. I would say it's acceptable as a reliable source. Natalie is definitely acceptable, too. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 05:13, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:32, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: The criteria at Wikipedia:GNG state "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." - All we need is the significant coverage and if that exists, even if it may not necessarily be used in the article, it's notable. WhisperToMe (talk) 22:39, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Are these just passing mentions or announcements though? To establish notability you have to show notability not just say "refer to the sources". - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:34, 13 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 Cogeneration. Up to editors whether they want to mention it there.  Sandstein  15:13, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Combined Heat and Power Quality Assurance

    [edit]
    Combined Heat and Power Quality Assurance (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Doesn't meet WP:RS. This is a UK government programme, and as such, will have no authoritative sources independent of it. MSJapan (talk) 09:28, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    • Merge: to Cogeneration, as suggested by User:Kvng. However, I'd note that just because something is a government program doesn't mean that independent sources about it don't exist. There are plenty of well-sourced articles on government programs. pbp 12:39, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:24, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:24, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see an WP:UNDUE problem dropping a sentence or two into Cogeneration § Cogeneration in Europe. It would serve to bolster the discussion of incentives and regulation there. ~Kvng (talk) 04:37, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I do. This isn't a European guideline, it's a UK-only regulation, and thus has nothing whatsoever to do with Europe. MSJapan (talk) 17:47, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, how about creating Cogeneration § Cogeneration in Britain? ~Kvng (talk) 23:27, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ansh666 02:17, 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 00:31, 8 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 03:32, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    DXJR

    [edit]
    DXJR (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Filipino college radio station. No assertion of notability, regional at best. MSJapan (talk) 08:25, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 12:12, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 12:12, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:SILENCE? ~Kvng (talk) 04:33, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ansh666 02:17, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Not to burst your bubble, but in every single instance in which you've made that argument, it has failed. That's because what is being talked about there is major market radio, not "I run a station out of my garage online" or "I made this up and posted it on Wikipedia." Let me post the entirety of that statement you are quoting: "Licensed radio and TV stations are generally kept as notable if they broadcast over the air and originate at least a portion of their programming schedule in their own studios. Lower power radio stations limited to a small neighborhood, such as Part 15 operations in the United States or stations with a VF# callsign in Canada, are not inherently notable, although they may be kept if some real notability can be demonstrated." Do not cherry-pick things out of context, apply policy in a vacuum, and expect to have the high ground. Nevertheless, let me see if I get this straight: because it exists as "broadcast media" it's notable, you say? Well, WP:ENN says no. WP:GNG says no. [[[WP:NMEDIA]] says no, and so does your precious WP:BCASTOUTCOMES. In no case is existence or a license enough to merit inclusion. Good enough of an explanation? WP:V does not equal W:GNG or any other notability policy. MSJapan (talk) 06:25, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    So do you have evidence that this station was unlicensed or operating out of a garage or whathaveyou?
    Where it is doesn't matter. Whether it's licensed or not doesn't matter. A local college radio station is by definition "lower power" and it hasn't demonstrated notability as required by WP:BCASTOUTCOMES. You're getting hung up on details in the policies that by themselves don't establish the requirements of the policies. MSJapan (talk) 01:41, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you're tangling the technical definition of low power (as in below the threshold required for a license) and a subjective definition (as in not having enough power to reach some arbitrary number of listeners and meet your personal definition of notability). WP:BCASTOUTCOMES is trying to keep things simple by equating the two and I think that's a reasonable approach. You obviously don't and that's fine, we disagree. Also be aware that college radio does not necessarily mean low power; WREK and WRAS (FM) are 100,000 watt stations, for instance. ~Kvng (talk) 14:04, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:30, 8 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. North America1000 01:35, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    N2theA

    [edit]
    N2theA (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Fails WP:BASIC with no in-depth secondary sources, just an event listing, some WP:PRIMARY website credits and passing mention on a Vice blog article about J Hus. McGeddon (talk) 17:44, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Delete as per nom. I could find nothing of any substance in searches. Appears to be purely promotional especially with all the tracks linked to external sites.  Velella  Velella Talk   18:40, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 23:52, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 23:52, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KaisaL (talk) 02:22, 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 00:29, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - This is WP:TOOSOON - granted some of the music he has produced appeared to have gotten some airplay but there is no mention of any charts. All we have is digital streaming results. No interview or other reliable third party sources. Judging by his LinkdIn page he has only been working at this since 2015. Karst (talk) 16:29, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. A producer who hasn't had any chart success and no other claim to notability. I note that some of his clients have had charting singles in Britain, but none of them were produced by the subject. NewYorkActuary (talk) 01:57, 9 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 no consensus. WP:NPASR per low participation herein. North America1000 11:55, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Tom Lonsdale

    [edit]
    Tom Lonsdale (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    not notable veterinarian. Worldcat shows his 2 books have only 107 & 55 holdings, which is trivial for books about dogs. DGG ( talk ) 05:08, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello everyone. I know that it is important to be cautious about whether articles meet the notability threshold - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(people) - but I think this article does meet the threshold. Granted, his books may not have a wide library holdings. However, there are other considerations. For instance, if you look at the media paragraph, and in particular the references, you will see that he is widely cited, over an extended period of time, in reputable media, including Australia's national broadcaster. Regards, Research17 (talk) 07:00, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Just as a postscript, herewith is a clip from an interview with Ray Martin (television presenter), interviewing Tom Lonsdale: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JgCJmHzZjT4. There are numerous references to where Lonsdale is cited in media over recent decades, such as the BBC. Regards, Research17 (talk) 07:17, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Just a further note regarding discussion on deletion for this article. I note that the Notability Guideline WP:N stipulates that to be considered notable, a subject must have "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". If you look under the list of television, radio and news interviews with Dr Lonsdale, over an extended period of time, I think there is evidence that there has been significant coverage in reliable sources. My referencing might not have been initially as clear as it ought to have been, and my apologies for this. However this has now been rectified. I note that the Notability Guideline also stipulates that not everything in an article needs to satisfy the notability test. Thus, even if Dr Lonsdale's books are not widely held in public libraries, my understanding is that this does not necessarily mean that the article does not meet the notability test. In view of the above, I would request that the AfD tag be withdrawn. Research17 (talk) 01:56, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 14:59, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 15:00, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ansh666 02:29, 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 00:29, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Media coverage

    [edit]

    In order to further discussion, see here references to media coverage of Tom Lonsdale. .[3] As previously indicated, my apologies that I did not make these references clearer earlier. However I believe these are reliable sources, and thus this is why I'd suggest the Lonsdale article does meet the Wikipedia notability threshold. Research17 (talk) 06:09, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    References

    1. ^ National Research Council. (2005). Network Science. Washington, D.C: National Academies Press.
    2. ^ National Research Council. (2006). Strategy for an Army Center for Network Science, Technology, and Experimentation. Washington, D.C: National Academies Press.
    3. ^ Lonsdale, Tom. TV interview, The Midday Show. Interviewer Ray Martin. Broadcast 31 March, 1993. Retrieved 21 June, 2016. Lonsdale, Tom. TV documentary report,, in The Investigators, Australian Broadcasting Commission, broadcast April 1993. Retrieved 21 June 2016. Lonsdale, Tom. TV report and interview, in A Current Affair, reporter Jane Hansen. Broadcast October 2001. Retrieved 21 June, 2016. Lonsdale, Tom. TV current affairs interview,, with Kim Hill on Face to Face current affairs TV programme. Broadcast April 2003. Retrieved 21 June 2016; Lonsdale, Tom. Radio Interview. BBC Radio 4. Interviewer: Clive Anderson. Broadcast 19 March, 2005. Lonsdale, Tom. Radio interview, Passion for the Planet Radio. Broadcast November, 2010. Retrieved 21 June 2016. Scott, Lana. The disturbing cause of dental disease in dogs. Dogs Naturally Magazine. Online publication. Published USA. 25 February, 2015. Lonsdale, Tom. TV interview, in Australian Broadcasting Commission Lateline programme. Reporter James Thomas. Broadcast 21 March, 2016. Retrieved 21 June 2016. Lonsdale, Tom. Radio interview, Australian Broadcasting Commission The World Today. Reporter James Thomas. Broadcast 24 March, 2016 Retrieved 21 June, 2016. Thomas, James and McClymont, Anne. Cat food study leads to ethics overhaul at University of Sydney Veterinary Faculty, Australian Broadcasting Corporation news online. Published 24 March, 2016. Retrieved 21 June, 2016. Thomas, James and McClymont, Anne. Some supermarket cat foods may cause serious illness - study, Australian Broadcasting Corporation online news. Published 21 March, 2016. Retrieved 21 June, 2016.
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Yellow Dingo (talk) 22:35, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Poornima Vijayashanker

    [edit]
    Poornima Vijayashanker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Delete No grounds asserted for notability meeting WP:BIO. Looks like an advertisement of the person with lots of PR done online, no physical presence and not even done any notable work or received any significant awards/recognition - WP:Notability. Seems only a speaker who has done lots of PR. Vinay089 (talk) 06:08, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:53, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:53, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:09, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. PR job or no, she has significant coverage in the New York Times as well as what looks like other reliable sources. That's enough for WP:GNG, I think. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:38, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep I started that article. Vijayashanker is notable for her advocacy for women in engineering. She has been a successful woman in a male-dominated profession and wrote much of the code for Mint. She has several non-trivial articles written about her in RS. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 00:40, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    BTW, there are couple other sources about her that I didn't add to the article yet (which is totally not a PR job... I just thought she seemed like a cool person to write about). Here is a Huffington Post piece and and a Silicon Republic article. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 00:45, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:24, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep I'm rather puzzled by the nomination because there are plenty of sources (too many?) and some seem to me to be significant in terms of our notability criteria.[76][77] However, perhaps the nominator has something else in mind. It reads a bit like a speedy deletion rationale but a speedy would certainly fail. Thincat (talk) 12:05, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep The weight of reliable sources clearly establishes notability, and establishes that what the nominator assumes to be the case is not true. I am not able to verify the offline sources to see if they are more than a mention, but most of the online sources definitely qualify as more than a brief mention.--greenrd (talk) 15:38, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. I am not convinced that the only argument to keep, particularly coming from a contentious source, is weighty enough to shift the consensus here in any way. KaisaL (talk) 22:14, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    D Roopa IPS

    [edit]
    D Roopa IPS (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Non Notable mid level police officer. President's Police Medal does not qualify WP:Military nor WP:Soldier. Almost all officers get President's Police Medal. Article does not meet notability guidelines and is written in an autobiographical style. Uncletomwood (talk) 06:16, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:51, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:51, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:52, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi, I feel that this page must be given some more time.As per wikipedia policy of deletion, one independent source is necessary and for this article in reference number 37 and 38, an article on her in the most reputed newspaper Times of India has been mentioned. This article in Times of India has covered almost all aspects of D Roopa IPS as mentioned in Wikipedia page. Also, there is a reference in number 6, which is also about her in a short and crisp manner ,however, the reference is in Kannada language. Hence, as two independent sources are very much referenced, this article should not be deleted. Hongkonger56 (talk) 20:13, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Dear Uncletomwood, I believe that D Roopa IPS is notable because, she is the first kannadiga lady IPS officer. She won prestigious President's Police Medal. She is an inspiration to many youngsters particularly girls. Any information on her would inspire women. Most of the references about her are in vernaculars. She is a popular person on various discussion panels in Kannada TV channels. She has a whopping 6650 followers on her Facebook page called D Roopa Moudgil. Within 40 days of her on twitter, she has a Followers number of whopping 1100. She is notable. Consider it again please.nick 07:03, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

    Check Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sakthi swaroop. Creator of this article as well as the other commentators are all sock puppets. 18:25, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
    Having a fan following on Facebook isn't a criteria at all. The Presidential Police Medal is a run of the mill award which is given to 70% police officers ranging from constable to DGP. So it doesn't comply with WP:SOLDIER. The page is a puff page and the subject matter of the article is not notable Uncletomwood (talk) 12:38, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @SwisterTwister: @Davey2010:
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:24, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    If @SwisterTwister: @Davey2010: do not have comments, @DGG: can analyze and delete Uncletomwood (talk) 02:57, 11 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. KaisaL (talk) 22:13, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Steve taplin

    [edit]
    Steve taplin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    The sources within the article are not enough to qualify on GNG or other BIO criteria. I searched hard for other sources. I found other Steve Taplins (also apparently non-notable) and also found considerable PR material by the subject of the currently nominated BLP. I request a discussion to assess the notability of this BLP. Lourdes 12:52, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Uanfala (talk) 15:44, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:21, 8 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. KaisaL (talk) 22:13, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Angel More

    [edit]
    Angel More (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Advertisement created by a PR firm for non-notable local young athlete. Orange Mike | Talk 16:57, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Delete Winning a few age-group races doesn't satisfy WP:ATHLETE. No nontrivial third-party coverage to address WP:GNG either. OhNoitsJamie Talk 19:13, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:49, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:49, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:20, 8 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. KaisaL (talk) 22:13, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Lauren Scyphers

    [edit]
    Lauren Scyphers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Scyphers is a non-notable individual. She won a state beauty pageant, but that is not enough alone to make someone notable. While the number and breadth of sources makes this look like it has legs, it doesn't. The probelm is that 4 of the sources are related to her husband being in baseball, mainly during his college baseball career. No one has tried to argue her husband is a notable baseball player, because he isn't. Likewise the fact that they got an extremely local human interest story on them when they had a baby does not make her notable either. John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:52, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:30, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:30, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:30, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:20, 8 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.  Sandstein  07:18, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Marc Bertrand

    [edit]
    Marc Bertrand (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    No evidence of any notability. A local radio presenter in Boston with no substantial refs. Being on the radio is not the same as notability. Fails WP:GNG  Velella  Velella Talk   21:24, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:32, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:32, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:32, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:13, 8 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.
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2016_July_8&oldid=1142622172"