Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 August 14

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 13 August 15 August >

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 merge to Joseph Jefferson Award.  Sandstein  07:56, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Jefferson Award for an Outstanding Actor in a Cameo Role in a Play[edit]

Joseph Jefferson Award for an Outstanding Actor in a Cameo Role in a Play (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:IINFO, unsourced list of awardees for a local award, that is barely notable for its main article. GermanJoe (talk) 09:19, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge (as nom) and redirect only notable recipients into main article or 1 summary list article, as suggested below. GermanJoe (talk) 10:19, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reasons:

Joseph Jefferson Award for an Outstanding Actor in a Principal Role in a Musical (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Joseph Jefferson Award for an Outstanding Actor in a Cameo Role in a Musical (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I am not entirely sure and couldn't find the specific records (as non-admin), but those (especially the 2nd one with an initial unreferenced tag) may also be re-creations of former deleted versions. GermanJoe (talk) 09:31, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 09:21, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 09:21, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 09:21, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge.[was Keep] Calling the Joseph Jefferson Awards merely "local" is weak. Chicago 2010 city population alone of 2.69million is larger than populations of 67 countries out of the world's 200 countries listed here. Greater Chicago area is much bigger, and I am sure Chicago has more theatre activity than a higher number of distinct countries...depending on how it is measured, it may well have more than all but 10 or 15 or so. What city has more, actually, besides NYC, London, Paris? About calling it "unsourced", do you disbelieve that the awardees and musicals and theatres named are the ones that received the awards, do you believe there is anything factually wrong here? Sure, these could be tagged to call for more detailed referencing, if you believe anything is suspect. But straight-out factual stuff like who got what award does NOT absolutely have to be footnoted if it is not disputed. And though this may not have been intended, leading the AFD with the award "for an Outstanding Actor in a Cameo Role in a Play" is a bit misleading about the importance; the "Joseph Jefferson Award for an Outstanding Actor in a Principal Role in a Musical", which gets second billing, sounds more important. I expect there is plenty of coverage of these awards being given. Certainly they would be covered by television and newspapers. The fact there exists a "They Wuz Robbed" anti-award site commenting on each year's nominations, per Joseph Jefferson Awards#Criticism is an indication of GNG coverage. So these meet Wikipedia wp:GNG standards, and then we are done here, right? Note that we are NOT faced with a separate article for each year, like we are for each of a zillion different sports competition series. About the disambiguation-needed tags, those will be cleared quickly; i just cleared 14 of them, easily. About these having been deleted previously perhaps, provide links, please. But overall it seems like fairly obvious KEEP to me. --doncram 13:10, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Local" was used for a geographical area, not as a qualitative judgement on Chicago or its importance. The award is focussed on Chicago's "local" theatrical life, but I concede that the usage in that context was probably misleading - sorry for that. The award's main article is not the issue here anyway, the excessive listing of every single award in history in up to 80 articles is (if all award sub-types are similarly included in future). Such content is better covered on the award institution's main page (where it is already available). On a sidenote, I agree with your concern about other overly detailed statistic pages, but that's a different discussion for another day. GermanJoe (talk) 13:57, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Glad to see we are not so far apart, thanks. The Joseph Jefferson Award article is a good length, and it makes sense to split this out. I don't believe there are 80 different awards...hmm there may be about 62, counting for lighting, landscaping, etc. There's no indication yet that anyone is trying to create coverage of all of these; what is being discussed are relatively major ones. Also, the three articles are no longer unreferenced. --doncram 16:03, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:IINFO. Even if Joseph Jefferson Awards are notable (unestablished as currently written), every award they bestow every year may not be, i.e. Non-Equity Joseph Jefferson Award for an Outstanding Actor in a Cameo Role in a Play. A simple list of awards (not awardees) on Joseph Jefferson Award, and single external link to awards section, should be sufficient coverage on Wikipedia. --Animalparty! (talk) 19:10, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to the main Joseph Jefferson Award article. There is no reason to have a seperate article for this award.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:36, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I may be shooting myself in the foot here, relative to how I !voted. But once I understand how the lists work, I see that the three articles do not cover a huge amount of material. They cover awards given to 6, 38, and 4 award recipients, respectively, if i count correctly. There are also many nominees listed, both when an award is given to someone else and when no award is granted. And there are many redlinks among the award recipient names, even some among the cameo performers who are supposed to be celebrities already. Many of the actors, especially those who have won multiple awards, are likely to be Wikipedia-notable, so many of the redlinks can be turned blue, but bottomline there is room for improvement in coverage in this general area besides by making list-articles like these three (specifically: develop articles about most important individual actors in the region, and develop articles about the specific theatres which are no doubt all Wikipedia-notable). Perhaps the main article for the awards could be modified to list the so-far-not-too-many award recipients only, for now, and the three articles under discussion could be redirected to the main article (i.e., the three articles could be merged). But with understanding that if the main article grows to be too large, sections can be split out (per usual Wikipedia processes) without requiring return to AFD venue for permission.
Also I wish the articles' creator, who has not edited since this AFD started, would participate in discussion here, but we can't know what is going on in their lives or whether the AFD process is too overwhelming or what, so I would not want their non-participation here to be held against them. They might think they have conflict of interest issues and think they cannot. If they do in fact have close association association with the topic they are writing about, as often happens for arts and other nonprofits and even for-profit topics in Wikipedia, they are nonetheless to be welcomed (they have info and expertise). Our wp:COI policies explicitly allow them to create articles and to participate in discussions. But again maybe they don't want to for privacy reasons, or because they are too discouraged by the built-in negativity of AFD processes, or for or other reasons we cannot fathom. --doncram 13:03, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think, this is a good compromise suggestion to avoid excessive listcruft, and to preserve notable information at the same time. To allow further improvements, a separate "List of (notable) recipients" would probably be the best approach (incl. a "See also" to that list from the main article). I have expanded my nomination statement above to reflect that. GermanJoe (talk) 10:19, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | Talk 23:11, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. --MelanieN (talk) 22:48, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Supporters and Opposers of Iran Nuclear Deal[edit]

Supporters and Opposers of Iran Nuclear Deal (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 does not seem encyclopedic. Though well sourced, it is just a list of all the people who have an opinion about the Iran Nuclear Deal. WP:NOTDIR Natg 19 (talk) 22:15, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 22:16, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 22:16, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 22:16, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is already fairly well covered at Joint_Comprehensive_Plan_of_Action#Reactions and ultimately this page is just a list of names. There's really no true encyclopedic value in listing the various politicians from each area that have voiced an opinion on this deal. This is pretty much WP:INDISCRIMINATE information when you get down to it. I'd say that some of this could maybe be merged into the main article, but there's already quite a bit of detail as it is and I think that any more detail might bog things down. There might be some merit in having an article about the reactions as a whole, but a long list of names prefaced by a couple of paragraphs of text doesn't accomplish this. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:50, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - It is non-encyclopedic and agree with Tokyogirl79 and nomination. — CutestPenguinHangout 08:19, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The creator of the article has left me a comment here stating his case as to why the article should stay. I have pointed him to this discussion for him to further state his case. Natg 19 (talk) 22:35, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A lot of the names seem of no relevance to the deal struck. Support and oppose is clearly divided along party lines in the USA. Not everybody shouting something is relevant and this is far more a coat rack. The Banner talk 14:18, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Hello, I recently noticed that you nominated my article for deletion. While you are right that my article is just a list of people who support and oppose the Iran nuclear deal, it is very similar to other articles like mine's, such as the article List of supporters of same-sex marriage in the United States, List of opponents of same-sex marriage in the United States, or even Endorsements of various politicians, such as that of Hillary Clinton, or of other Endorsements for the Democratic Party presidential primaries, 2016. What my article and the other articles mentioned have in common is this:the articles are all lists of who supports a particular issue or not. In fact, they all do not have a lot of information other than listing off supporters and opposers of a particular cause. Since the Iran deal is very important, as well as controversial, to our generation and lifetime, it makes sense, in my opinion, to present to readers the makings behind the debate. Plus, my article does indeed mention the Public Opinion of the Iran Deal, has the guidelines for the deal repeated (but can still be merged), and while my introduction, like the Iran deal, is not perfect, the Introduction can and will become more developed over time;furthermore, more details unfolding about the Iran deal will be presented in my article as well in order to make it look less like, what you say, "a list of all the people who have an opinion about the Iran Nuclear Deal." Now, I understand the strong urge to delete my article, since it probably does not belong in Wikipedia anyways, but there are many articles that do not belong on Wikipedia as well. For instance, the 2015 FIFA Women's World Cup knockout stage as well as the 2015 FIFA Women's World Cup statistics probably do not belong on Wikipedia because they can be easily merged with the 2015 FIFA Women's World Cup page, so they could easily be deleted. Therefore, if you are so concerned about deleting my article, then think about why you have approved of my draft in the first place. Clearly, this article has good article standards, featured article standards, is a stand-alone list, and is developing, but incomplete, according to the Grading Scheme of Wikipedia Articles. But what I suggest as a last-minute gambit is this:transport the Reactions page from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action page over to my page so as to remove any doubts about my article's effectiveness. Ultimately, you can delete my article and risk losing valuable information on Wikipedia, or you can accept it with goodwill, knowing that the reason why it even exists in the first place is because it is "professional, outstanding, and thorough," and is "useful to nearly all readers"[1]. I hope you consider my opinion and judge my article based on its effectiveness and merit, not based on its flaws. parsaf34 (talk) 17:44, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but I would suggest dividing into separate lists of supporters and opposers. While quite long, the author's rationale is essentially correct. To respond to other comments, the controversy surrounding Schumer indicates that this dispute has (at least partially) transcended party lines. Additionally, there has been more than sufficient media coverage of individuals' support or opposition to the deal -- not of the individuals themselves, but of their reaction to the deal. As such, this subject would be notable in and of itself, and I think it meets the criteria of WP:LISTN. North of Eden (talk) 00:50, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not sure how much the author knows about this topic. I was listed as opposing the deal, but I certainly do not oppose the deal, and in fact, signed a public letter to that effect. This is not helpful to those who know the topic and not helpful to those who don't know the topic. (Sharon Squassoni) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.202.130.182 (talk) 15:23, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Sharon Squassoni, I fixed the issue at hand and made you a supporter instead. I just misinterpreted your statement about the deal and thought that you had opposed it. To those of you with concerns, I say that I do know what the deal is because my parents were born in Iran, and so therefore I an Iranian, even though I was not born in Iran. In fact, I had created this article during my recent trip to Iran, and had just came back yesterday. So not only can I research about the issue at hand, but also understand the implications of the deal as well. As I said before, and say again, this article is not perfect, just like any other article on Wikipedia, but I have consistently tried to make it better for everyone. I understand that I have committed libel in my article, and I apolgize to Miss Squassoni for that. I know that just apologizing to her is not good enough: I also apologize to any reader who has read my article in the past few days and who has witnessed this act of deception that does not characterize Wikipedia. I am an honest person, but even the honest of people make mistakes too. Furthermore, please understand that I continuously edit and improve the article every day since August 10th, so it will be understandable even to the average person, because Wikipedia is meant to condense information to appeal to the average person as well as the most intellectual people. Again, I hope you judge my article based on what it can become, not what it is now. After all, my article is sill "useful to nearly all readers" and still is "professional, outstanding, and thorough," knowing-and this might be embarrassing to myself-that it was created by a recent high school, college-bound, graduate who had just joined Wikipedia only 8 days ago. parsaf34 (talk) 11:27, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Inaccuracy is not in and of itself a criterion for deletion. Please do fix any similar errors, however; it's unseemly for an encyclopedic article to fail verifiability standards. That said, I still think the list topic is notable and worthy of inclusion based on the publicity individuals have received for their support/opposition to the deal. North of Eden (talk) 23:44, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This article is very useful for people who need to understand the people on both sides of this important issue. It can be used as a reference by many different individuals and groups. Nfamili (talk) 20:22, 17 August 2015 (UTC) — Nfamili (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Keep The article answers basic questions about the Iran's nuclear deal, which is useful for many people who are not really interested in reading long and complicated articles about this issue and it doesn't hurt to keep it just like many other online information. It's well written and organized, especially from a very young and smart person, who looked for such information online and couldn't find it, so he decided to create such an article by himself. Therfore, the article should be kept, but should become more fruitful with more information. Rvaziri (talk) 20:51, 17 August 2015 (UTC) — Rvaziri (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Delete. A list of people holding yes/no opinions on a specific current issue is fundamentally not encyclopedic. A detailed discussion of a past event, with a list of leading supporters of each position, is a very good idea, and it's quite reasonable to have lists of people by affiliations (e.g. lists of politicians by party affiliations, lists of people by religious affiliation), but simply a "Supporters and Opposers of CurrentPoliticalTopic", regardless of its title is not a good encyclopedia topic. For example, people's opinions can change, so you can't ensure that something that was correct yesterday is correct today: it could become incorrect just because of the passage of time, especially if someone on this list changes his mind and doesn't announce it until they take a vote. We need lists of "fixed" concepts, concepts that can't easily change, e.g. past events such as legislators by the way they voted on a bill, but please note that even after the US Congress votes on this matter, a complete list of supporters and opposers will be a matter of undue weight on the vote. As someone said at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of current top 40 albums (UK), Delete per WP:NOT#NEWS. An article that becomes outdated and has to be rewritten every week is essentially "List of top 40 albums (UK) for the week XX-YY Jan 2010", which would be deleted for being a current event of no lasting significance. Plus, the accuracy of articles should not depend on whether a single editor can be bothered to maintain it. Nyttend (talk) 12:46, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I have no objections to merging the significantly notable supporters/opposes to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action article (assuming consensus) but to have "Person of Title REF" repetitions only serves to make the article in question an indiscriminate collection of data and not a justifiable list. Hasteur (talk) 13:30, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I also have no objections to merging the article with the JCPOA one. Still, just ask Sulfurboy how this article got approved in the first place: it meets WP:LISTN criteria, which indicates its notability, attains featured article status, attains good article status, has no major problems, is well-written, has verifiability with no original research, meets the six B-class criteria, and attains featured list status. The people who cry Delete just do not understand that there are other yes/no articles on specific issues just like mine's, and I consistently update my article based on the changing times. For instance, I fixed the issue behind listing Sharon Squassoni as an opposer to a supporter, which was more correct, and added more sourcing to confirm that misunderstanding. Please understand that I will accept any decision made by the discussion and comply with its terms. parsaf34 (parsaf34)11:00, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. --MelanieN (talk) 22:51, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

LibJSON[edit]

LibJSON (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)

Can't find any reliable source coverage. Sam Walton (talk) 21:49, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 22:22, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 22:22, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - wasn't able to find any sources that might establish notability. Artw (talk) 22:05, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, aside from minor coverage at Books and News, I found nothing good. SwisterTwister talk 06:45, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Software article of unclear notability, lacking independent references. A search turned up no significant WP:RS coverage. Article was created by an SPA as possibly promotional.Dialectric (talk) 14:31, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. --MelanieN (talk) 22:52, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Juglarwave[edit]

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

This is plainly non-notable. I haven't been able to find a single mention of it anywhere -- much less a verifiable source. It seems like it should be speedied but it simply doesn't fit WP:G3 or WP:A11 --Non-Dropframe talk 20:48, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. --Non-Dropframe talk 21:14, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. --Non-Dropframe talk 21:14, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: On current evidence (an article referenced to a Youtube video and Facebook) and searches (nothing at all on Highbeam or Questia, a couple of social media entries on Google) this looks worthy for CSD A11. AllyD (talk) 07:32, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: per nom, agree this looks worthy for A11 (invented).Pincrete (talk) 18:56, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Merge to Cothill House. --MelanieN (talk) 22:58, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Chandlings School[edit]

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

I can't see that this meets WP:ORG or WP:GNG. Is a primary school, please see WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Possible alternatives to deletion are redirecting to List of schools in Oxfordshire or merge and redirect to Bagley Wood. Sending WP:APPNOTE to Charlesdrakew. Boleyn (talk) 20:44, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge to Cothill House - Not sure why the bloody hell I went with Bagley WD as as noted below it does make more sense to merge to Cothill. –Davey2010Talk 00:28, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 03:47, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:42, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - as a school going only up to 11, it is a primary school, not prep school, which would normally be 8-13, preparing pupils for Common Entrance to Public Schools. I note from the template that we have articles on a number of preparatory school. It would be odd to single this one out for deletion. Cothill House seems to have a number of schools scattered about the country, so that merger there is hardly appropriate. Bagley Wood is a slightly odd article on what was an extra-parochial place. If this were merged in it would unbalance that article, unless the school occupies a very substantial part of that area. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:46, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Peterkingiron, whether WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is irrelevant; it is not odd to look at the notability of one article. There may well be others which meet WP:ORG or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 21:14, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I agree with Peterkingiron that merging this article with its educational 'parent', Cothill House, makes more sense than merging with a wood. Sources do not appear to exist for it as a 'stand alone'.Pincrete (talk) 10:27, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete and salt. --MelanieN (talk) 23:09, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pratik Shinde[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Pratik Shinde (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)

Player does not pass WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY. ArsenalFan700 (talk) 20:09, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 20:35, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 03:45, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 03:45, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 03:45, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Subject does not meets the general notability guidelines as well as it does not passes the WP:NFOOTBALL. — CutestPenguinHangout 09:27, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as he does not appear to pass NFOOTBALL. Although salting may be excessive since there is a possibility of him being notable in the future. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 14:19, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. the sources provided are all either primary sources, or unreliable, "management" websites. Fenix down (talk) 15:45, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Gareth Bale.  Sandstein  08:00, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of international goals scored by Gareth Bale[edit]

List of international goals scored by Gareth Bale (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a list of goals which possibly violates WP:NOTSTATS. Since lists of international goals within player biographies have been "frowned upon" (or summarily removed) after a brief discussion here, this seems to be "cheating" the implemented "consensus". It is certainly worth checking out Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of international goals scored by Wayne Rooney before you vote. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:40, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: No different to a list of test centuries or five-wicket hauls '''tAD''' (talk) 20:17, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 03:45, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 03:45, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 07:57, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I !voted to 'keep' the Wayne Rooney article because his goalscoring exploits have received significant coverage - however the same cannot be said for Gareth Bale, nor many of the other players who seem to have their own sub-articles for some reasons. Like the nominator states, this is WP:NOTSTATS. I suggest merging back into the parent article. GiantSnowman 07:58, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - surely such a short list can simply be included in Gareth Bale. Nfitz (talk) 22:47, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - He hasn't scored enough goals for such a list to be notable, but I don't think it's worth integrating the list into the parent article. Either it's worth having a listicle or it's not worth listing at all, IMO. – PeeJay 23:14, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - Whilst I think this sort of list is appropriate for players with a larger number of goals, a list this short would be better placed in the player's article, as is the convention. Macosal (talk) 09:06, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - and collapse in the parent article. Unlike the Rooney article, this is not lengthy enough to warrant a fork. Fenix down (talk) 15:49, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to parent article, Gareth Bale. North America1000 01:06, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was procedural closure. Nomination by blocked sock. (non-admin closure) Kraxler (talk) 00:38, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Perspective (cognitive)[edit]

Perspective (cognitive) (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:NOTDIC. Merges a number of definitions together: context, reference, value system, and to a lesser extent: paradigm, point of view, reality tunnel, umwelt, world view Algircal (talk) 19:13, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. The keep !votes as a group failed to advance policy-based argument that notability exists in this case. Certainly the subject is successful in his field, but for a stand alone article to withstand challenge on notability grounds there must be multiple reliable sources independent of the subject that establish the subject's claim. Here, across two separate AFD's, suitable sourcing was not found. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 23:39, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Johnny Terris[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Johnny Terris (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)

One moderately significant role is not sufficient for notability DGG ( talk ) 19:14, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • The guy has been doing films since 1987, was a pinnacle artist in the underground scene and has an imdb full of 21 films in the last 2 decades. The page was here for YEARS before it was trashed and deleted due to vandalism and lies. I was told that once I had more than one source the page would go back. There are THREE sources there, it was approved and now you want to delete it again? What is your problem with this guy? Leave the page alone. It's not going to kill wikipedia.
Why are you trying to delete this page again? It's been approved and sources have been in place. This page has been in a constant fight for it to be back on since it was deleted via vandalism and lying attacks from people off tumblr. Leave the damn page alone. What is the problem here?? How do I go higher up to keep this page here? Who do I have to contact? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.238.169.74 (talk) 20:02, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
DGG...SPEAK. Explain this. Why are you power-tripping and purposely doing this?
I have never had more of a problem than trying to get this page back online. A page that has been here for years without a problem until someone lied and vandalized it and had it removed. I was told that once i had more than one source, the page would be back up again. There are three sources there now and more to come as the page gets edited more. I don't know why DDG is trying to have it removed yet again and having it up for deletion for the 2nd damn time. This is ridiculous and obviously an attack for whatever reason on this page. A serious question here...is there a way to go higher up than this, because i will go to it and message whoever I have to. I will not stop until this page is back up in it's rightful place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.238.169.74 (talk) 20:15, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Please calm down. Wikipedia is run by volunteers, and is built on consensus. Naturally that leads to differences of opinions. Accusing folks of "power-tripping" is wrong on several counts. First, it undermines one of the pillars of Wikipedia: assume good faith. DGG isn't power tripping, he's interpreting the rules as he sees them. Period. Second, if you make accusations (e.g. tumblr, etc.) please back them up with links to show that they are accurate. Third, as a site built on consensus, being combative is probably not a good idea. Onel5969 TT me 02:58, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
One thing you're going to have to keep in mind is that having a Wikipedia article is not an entitlement. Lots of people exist without getting to have Wikipedia articles to document their existence — and you haven't made any credible case for why your determination to get him back into Wikipedia is justified, such as supporting it with enough reliable source coverage to satisfy WP:GNG or making a credible claim that he passes WP:NACTOR (which does not grant an automatic notability freebie to every actor who exists). Bearcat (talk) 19:16, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Having said all that above, as a matter of disclosure, I'm the editor that approved this article through the AfC process. And I think this could be a key test of the integration of the AfC and AfD processes (both of which I'm involved in, although only recently in the AfD). After this article was deleted through AfD, it was resubmitted through the AfC process in July of this year. It was declined twice by two different editors, both times with comments on the direction any editor should make in order to get it moved to the mainspace. This ip editor followed those instructions (and any of you who are involved in AfC knows how difficult that can be to make happen). After the second time it was declined, (having added an in-depth article about the subject), the ip editor was asked to provide at least one other in-depth reference from an independent RS. The ip editor added this reference, which is in-depth and definitely RS. I would actually like to see this AfD withdrawn, since the ip editor did exactly what was asked of him at AfC. Currently, the article has two in-depth pieces of the subject. add to that the other citations and I think they meet WP:BASIC (albeit by the skin of their teeth). Anyway, those are my thougts. My vote, obviously would be to Keep. Onel5969 TT me 02:58, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 03:41, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 03:41, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for not knowing wikipedia well, as i"m new here. And also for being aggressive. Like I said this has gotten extremely frustrating and getting this page back to what it was is like pulling teeth. It's one thing after another and after the last deletion due to the lies and attacks on the page by a group of kids, it seems like everyone is against putting it back in for keep. It's infuriating. Especially when it was here for so many years without an issue. More information and sources will be added in time. It would be nice to have the page here free of banners and pointless drama so that we could do that. But there is more than one source here and I was told that all i needed was more than one and everything would be cool, and according to Wikipedia rules, that is all that is needed right now. And thank you Onel5969 for coming to the defense and saying 'keep'. Hopefully it will be left alone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.218.68.240 (talk) 05:02, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete and draft/userfy if needed - I've been seeing Onel15969 around and we seem to be on the same page but with this one, we're not because although the article is sourced, there's nothing else aside from that and given that IMDb shows little and he has now stopped acting and such, there's probably not much. My searches found nothing good and convincing. SwisterTwister talk 06:37, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The imdb doesn't show 'little'. It has a message board with people discussing his work as well as lots of photos and 21 consistent titles since the 1980's, including new ones. He has not stopped acting. He has a film coming out at a film festival in 2015 and one in 2016 and just finished a television series as a prominent lead character. I don't understand where you're getting that his imdb is "little" or that he 'stopped acting'. There are tons of articles on wikipedia nobody touches that are a lot less sourced and much less credible than this one. This one, for some reason, people are specifically attacking and wanting gone and it's ridiculous. And what is with the power tripping on wikipedia? I dont understand it at all. I don't mean to be rude here but in all honesty, who are you people to judge whether or not someone is credible enough to be here? What exactly are your credentials for that other than being able to edit a board? I cannot believe this is STILL going on wit this page. It's ridiculous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.238.169.10 (talk • contribs)

IMDb is not a reliable source for Wikipedia content. It's a user-generated site which can contain uncaught errors, and grants profiles to absolutely anybody who's ever been involved in the film or television industry at all, right down to best boys and hairdressers — and as we learned in another AFD recently, a person can claim roles that are actually verifiably false, and still get to keep the IMDb page just because those false roles were claimed. We require reliable source coverage in media, not the existence of an IMDb profile. Bearcat (talk) 19:36, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am actually J Terris and I don't care if I'm on here or not. It's a silly website on the Internet not a cure for ALS. Relax, is the internet really this childish? How old are you people? Stop arguing about it. You guys sound like you are all high school kids fighting over who gets to go to the party thrown by the cool kids. None of this really matters. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.218.68.240 (talk) 14:12, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're posting from the same IP as the earlier person here who's defending the article, so, uh. I don't know what that means but in any case you're really not helping. This page is for discussing whether the article should be kept or deleted, not for "I don't care about Wikipedia" comments. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 14:53, 15 August 2015 (UTC) Considering that you're likely the same person who's defending the article then it kinda seems like you're saying "don't argue for deletion because that's silly" which is not a valid argument in AfDs. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 14:55, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have three roommates I share a computer with. One has their own laptop. Two of them share this one that I never use because I use my smartphone for literally everything. If you must know, I'm sitting here eating breakfast in BC reading this nonsense and decided to post myself. I have only commented once ever on wikipedia once in my entire life for the same thing (telling people I don't care if I'm here or not) a few years ago. A friend put up the article on me in the first place many years ago and my roommate had been updating it. I laugh at him over it because I don't care. He seems to get a kick out of it. I don't have to explain myself to editors on a ridiculous not exactly factual website. Wikipedia has been proven to be a bit of a joke (that is very apparent from this thread). I'd much rather be on more legitimate sourced sites on the World Wide Web than this one. My point here is quite simple. I don't care if I'm on here on not. I don't know what kind of world you're living in, but as the actual person who the article is about I think I have a right to my say, so take your 'not a valid argument' editorial nerd bullshit and shove it up your ass. Delete the fucking article already. I don't care. I'm really not that important. This whole thread is childish as hell and all this pointless garbage floats to the top of Internet searches when someone is seriously looking me up on the Internet for information about my work. End it. Go find another Wiki article to rag on in the attempts to make yourselves feel more important than you actually are in reality. MOVE ON. Put it up or don't put it up. Stop bickering about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.218.68.240 (talk • contribs)

The only one that's "bickering" here is your anonymous fanboy, whoever it is. Please take it up with them, it should be easy to do when you live in the same house. As for the rest of us, we're just following the usual procedures here on Wikipedia. Deletion discussions last for 7 days, typically, the result is decided after that. And the decision is based on policy (Wikipedia:Notability (people)) and reliable sources. For relatively unknown people, it's possible for the person himself to say that he'd prefer the article was deleted and we would take that into account, but given all the trolling around this topic we can't just take your word for it that you are who you claim to be. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 16:13, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not a valid argument. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 16:14, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep He has been here for years without an issue. The type of films Terris has done were never meant for mainstream audiences so naturally there wouldn't be too much on the Internet about them like they would be for more mainstream artists. That doesn't take away the fact that they were done and they exist. He done a lot of them pre-Internet, so perhaps a lot of articles and information are in actual print vs online. The television series he is on has been multi nominated by the two top prestigious awards for the arts in Canada. His character isn't just a simple guest spot, he plays one of the top three leading character on that series including being showcased in the main title credits. From what I see on the page, there are three credible sources which is more than enough; a lot more than some other Wikipedia articles that area approved without issue. There seems to be a lot of dramatic emotions surrounding this article and from reading around and viewing past history, he does seem to be attacked here on a regular basis. Wikipedia is supposed to be a website that you build up, not tear down. Keep. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.57.0.202 (talk) 12:40, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that films exist doesn't get a person into Wikipedia itself, and neither does the fact of having a page on IMDb (every person who works in film at all, right down to "third assistant best boy's hairdresser", gets an IMDb page, so inclusion on there does not automatically grant an inclusion freebie on here.) Bearcat (talk) 19:13, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • What I'm still not seeing in this version of the article is any substantive claim of notability that would satisfy Wikipedia's inclusion rules for any of his activities — as written, this just confirms that he exists, and provides no indication of why an encyclopedia should concern itself with the fact that he exists. I'm also seeing a troubling and inappropriate attitude of entitlement among many of the participants in this discussion — a belief that he has a right to be covered on here, so inalienable that any attempt to actually apply Wikipedia's content and sourcing standards is automatically "attacking" him and denying him his "rightful place" — which doesn't incline me to give him the benefit of the doubt. Wikipedia is not a public relations venue for people to promote themselves and their work — we're an encyclopedia. The article does not make any claim substantive enough to satisfy our inclusion rules for actors or film directors or models or writers, and it does not cite enough sources to satisfy WP:GNG instead of one of the subject-specific inclusion tests. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 19:32, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Are you kidding Bearcat (talk)? There is a huge difference between "third assistant best boy's hairdresser" and someone who has 21 acting credits, 18 director credits, 15 editor credits, 13 writer credits and 10 cinematographer credits within the span of 28 years, and it's very ignorant to loop them into the same categories. And I dont think anyone is promoting themselves. From the looks above, Terris himself even said to delete the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.63.146.172 (talk) 20:00, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A person can have 10 million credits on their IMDb page, and that still doesn't count for squat — it takes reliable sourcing, not "has a page on IMDb", to get a person into Wikipedia. Bearcat (talk) 20:17, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bearcat (talk) my point was that you were being disrespectful and rude comparing someone of that caliber to a "third assistant's best boys hairdresser", not whether or not imdb is a "reliable source". And for the record, getting on the imdb is not as easy as you think it is. A "third assistants best boys hairdresser" is there because he's part of a general crew. Directors, actors, editors, writer etc, need sources for anything to be added. Obviously Terris has enough of them to be included there but wikipedia has gone so far down hill in the last couple of years with overly self-aggrandizing editors who have no credibility themselves to judge what is 'realible' and what isn't, that this whole infantile discussion doesn't surprise me a bit. Wikipedia isn't even considered a scholarly source in colleges and universities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.63.146.172 (talk) 20:31, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, no, people don't need "sources" to get added to IMDb. This actually came up in an AFD discussion just over a month ago — a person had an IMDb profile, but it was verifiably lying about acting credits that the person verifiably didn't actually have. The person actually didn't work in the film industry at all, but was merely forum shopping for every website under the sun where he could finagle himself a public relations platform for self-promotional purposes — so a Wikipedia editor contacted them about the profile, and was told that it didn't matter: as long as the person claimed credits, they did not actually have to be true for the profile to be kept. IMDBPro might have higher standards than that, certainly, but the non-pro part does not. Bearcat (talk) 21:32, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. WP:SK#2 - Disruptive pointy bad faith nomination. (non-admin closure) The Masked Man of Mega Might (talk) 19:37, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Business India[edit]

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

The Page lacks notability and is a stub. The article surely lacks WP:GNG. There is no links available for reference. All the data added by the author doesn't have any verifiable content. Bhuwnesh.joshi2014 (talk) 18:43, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Keep Article being a stub is not a reason for deletion! Subject is clearly notable, as Business India is not only a widely circulated, mainstream business publication today but was one of the pioneers in the field and marked the rise of business press in India in the 1980s. Sources for all this are easy to find, eg Indian Business Culture, Rajiv Desai, Routledge, 2012. PS Trying to AGF, but the nomination smells bad. Abecedare (talk) 19:28, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Abecedare (talk) 19:28, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Had there not been a delete !vote I'd of closed this as Speedy Keep as it's damn obvious WP:BEFORE wasn't followed and MichaelQSchmidt is bang on - nominating an article 20 minutes after creation is a pretty silly thing to do by anyones standards!, 6 hours after creation is fine - 21 minutes is not!. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010Talk 00:35, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The God Must Be Crazy[edit]

The God Must Be Crazy (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)

Very poor references. Failed to find any reliable sources in google search Wikipediaismadebypeoplelikeus (talk) 17:42, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 19:43, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Fails WP:NFILM. "Straight to Youtube" was a new one on me... Vrac (talk) 00:36, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
WP:INDAFD: "The God Must Be Crazy" "V. Jayashankarr" "Prudhvi Dhaggu"
Filmmaker:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Producer:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
  • Keep as just meeting WP:NF. No matter where a film is seen, internet, theaters, or direct-to-video, the deciding factor toward film notability is coverage, and THIS appears to be a decent beginning... and in looking, I also found New Indian Express, and Times of India. I belive that for a YouTube film just released, this is enough to allow this BRAND NEW ARTICLE to remain and grow over time. Certainly there was no valid cause to send a new article to deletion 21 minutes after its author stepped away. Schmidt, Michael Q. 01:14, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
and while I appreciate the nominator's efforts, in having made only 50 lifetime edits, he might benefit from a touch more experience before sending new works to AFD. Schmidt, Michael Q. 01:17, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Redirect to Vatican City Heliport. (non-admin closure) Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 17:35, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of airports in the Vatican[edit]

List of airports in the Vatican (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 joke/prank article creation. Editor who created the article is making numerous test and vandalism like edits. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:35, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 18:02, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and per the reason I gave when I proposed the article for deletion. Everymorning (talk) 18:02, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 03:37, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per G3. They've got the Vatican City Heliport, and that's it. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:52, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep Bad faith nomination by WV, who is stalking/hounding me and reversing every edit I make. She admits having mental illness (Asperger's Syndrome) so this may be excused but her actions cannot be excused (and this nomination should end).
Also there is a long list of articles entitled "List of airports in _____" country. This article is extremely useful because some airport enthusiasts will be looking at "Lists of airport" articles to find useful information. Therefore, strong keep. No names left!! abcd (talk) 16:30, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like there is a template so removing Vatican could damage the template. Actually, these lists help those looking for small countries because everyone knows "List of airports in the United States" would be huge. Many people will click on the small countries, like the Vatican and Luxembourg. No names left!! abcd (talk) 22:18, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Get it right, No names left!! abcd: No one is hounding you, I'm not a she, Asperger Syndrome is not a "mental illness", and me being on the Autism Spectrum has nothing to do with this deletion nomination or this article's creation. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:53, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Vatican City Heliport - A one item list is pointless and the article seems to spend most of its time discussing Montserrat for some reason. Better coverage at the heliport article.Nigel Ish (talk) 16:41, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: In addition to this article, there is also List of airports in Vatican City, another one entry list of the heliport in the Vatican City, which has been in existance for rather longer.Nigel Ish (talk) 22:59, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Vatican City Heliport per Nigel Ish. This page is supposed to be a list and a list of one entry is of no real value. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:47, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, but this is a canvassed vote. No names left!! abcd (talk) 22:18, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • You only posted a link for this AfD on my user talk page. I decide how I vote. -Fnlayson (talk) 01:31, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not anymore. Wikipedia is now the only common source that shows the second airport and it has an obscure citation from 1970. This shows that Wikipedia is great. Destroy and wipe out this list article (note: list of airports in ____country is very common) and you harm mankind and knowledge just like book burning. No names left!! abcd (talk) 22:43, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A one time use of St. Peters Square to land a helicopter carrying Richard Nixon [1] does not qualify as a second airport.Nigel Ish (talk) 22:50, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • True and even if there were multiple uses that would not make it an airport. -Fnlayson (talk) 01:31, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's a list of 1. St. Peter's Square isn't an airport/heliport. - Happysailor (Talk) 08:55, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a one-item list serves no purpose. Even a two-item list serves little or no purpose, and a one-tiem use would not qualify for a place in such a list in any case. DES (talk) 17:11, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note Floquenbeam has just indef'd the article creator as a vandal-only account. Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 17:18, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closing admin comment Article creation was obvious trolling; I was going to delete, but suggestions for a redirect make sense, so I've done that instead. if I promise to look into installing some kind of AFD closure script soon, would someone close this one for me with the right formatting? Pretty please? --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:20, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And has just redirected it to the pre-existing article. Could some NAC this please. Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 17:22, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. --MelanieN (talk) 23:17, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Abnish Singh Chauhan[edit]

Abnish Singh Chauhan (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:NAUTHOR. None of the books or awards are particularly notable (no reviews; no prestigious awards; minimal library holding etc) and the subject has received no significant coverage in reliable, secondary sources (plenty of social media and generic web coverage though). And I did search Hindi sources, and found similar trivial mentions.

Article has been twice prodded, but the article creator objected both times. An AFC submission for the subject was also declined because "subject appears to be a non-notable person", a few months before this article was created. Abecedare (talk) 17:04, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Abecedare (talk) 17:05, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Abecedare (talk) 17:05, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Non Deletion of Abnish Singh Chauhan

The page Abnish Singh Chauhan should not be deleted on the basis of lack of reference. Ample references are given in the page, a few references are also given by me today . If you find even a single sentence/phrase without reference, please convey it to me (Bhasha2014 (talk) 08:17, 8 May 2015 (UTC)). User:Bhasha2014 is the creator of this article. Disclosure added per WP:AFDFORMAT.[reply]

  • Non Deletion of Abnish Singh Chauhan

Please refer to your statement: "The books don't seem to be available for finding, likely SPS." Please see the links given in the references of books. I have added the links for the books sold online. Now it should not be deleted on this basis. Moreover, this is humble request to you that the contents should not deleted without finding the facts. Bhasha (Bhasha2014 (talk) 09:24, 14 August 2015 (UTC))[reply]

  • Non Deletion of Abnish Singh Chauhan

Your arguments are self-made, not based on facts. Books are very popular and available online too. Awards given to him are prestigious. His Hindi name spells differently : अवनीश सिंह चौहान. Please search this name on google in Hindi and you would find the correct status. Bhasha (Bhasha2014 (talk) 05:03, 17 August 2015 (UTC))[reply]

About your last point: I did realize that the subject spells his name as अवनीश सिंह चौहान in Hindi and that is what I already searched for. Didn't find anything non-trivial in reliable sources (see links in nomination). Abecedare (talk) 19:32, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • When the name (अवनीश सिंह चौहान)is searched on google publication in Hindi is displayed on various literary websites and web magazines, which are reliable. If you don't want to see them, what can be done. Please also explain the non reliability of these literary websites and web magazines and the contents of Abnish Singh Chauhan on them.

Bhasha (Bhasha2014 (talk) 04:49, 18 August 2015 (UTC))[reply]

  • Delete I'm guilty of the second prod as I seem to have missed the original prod. I tried finding sources, but nothing in either English or Hindi, and nothing to find if the subject would meet the SNG either. —SpacemanSpiff 07:21, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disappointing

Links are given in the reference section for online verification. Please go through them. If you are not satisfied, it is disappointing.

Bhasha (Bhasha2014 (talk) 09:31, 17 August 2015 (UTC))[reply]

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

The result was Delete. --MelanieN (talk) 23:21, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Greg Wootton[edit]

Greg Wootton (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)

Kickboxer who fails WP:KICK and lacks the significant coverage needed to meet WP:GNG. His titles are minor (he did not win the actual WMC world title but a specially created one for an anti-drug campaign), he is not ranked by liverkick or Combat Press, and coverage is minor or routine sports reporting.Mdtemp (talk) 16:31, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 16:45, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As per nominator. None of his fights were particularly notable as per WP:KICK.Peter Rehse (talk) 16:55, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 03:32, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 03:32, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Does not meet the notability criteria for kickboxers and the coverage consists of routine sports reporting (both pre and post fight). Papaursa (talk) 20:32, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. --MelanieN (talk) 23:23, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Michelle Ould[edit]

Michelle Ould (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 MMA fighter. Fails WP:NMMA and lacks the coverage to meet WP:GNG. She's only had 2 fights in 3 years and seems unlikely to get a third top tier fight. If she does, then the article can be recreated.Mdtemp (talk) 16:23, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 16:44, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As per nominator. Her last fight was both a loss and almost a year ago. The third top tier fight seems very unlikely.Peter Rehse (talk) 16:51, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 03:32, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 03:32, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete She lacks the top tier fights necessary to meet WP:NMMA and the sources appear to be routine sports coverage. Her inactivity as a fighter makes it seem unlikely she'll get another top tier fight. Papaursa (talk) 20:25, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom and above editors. Searches revealed nothing to show notability.Onel5969 TT me 17:28, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. --MelanieN (talk) 23:25, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Silat Sunda Institute[edit]

Silat Sunda Institute (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)

Martial arts organization created in 2012. The article's "sources" predate the organization by over 30 years. There is no significant coverage for this organization. I'm not saying the underlying arts are not notable, but this organization is.Mdtemp (talk) 16:16, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 16:44, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There is no coverage of this school. The fact that the article barely mentions the school is a bit confusing. The article's focus appears to be on the arts themselves without making any real claims of notability or giving supporting evidence. I made some comments on the article's talk page, but there's nothing to show this particular school meets WP:GNG or WP:MANOTE. Papaursa (talk) 20:42, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This article confused me quite a bit but based on the above observations it seems to refer to a single recently created non-notable school. Alternatively large portions of the article are a direct copy from Gadjah Putih Jati Wisesa. It may essentially be the same thing (hard to tell for sure but a renaming?) and could be deleted as Db-same.Peter Rehse (talk) 20:50, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - searches showed nothing notable. Onel5969 TT me 17:24, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The discussion is mainly about whether the presumed notability conferred by general officer rank (per WP:SOLDIER) outweighs the argument that this is (more or less uncontestedly) otherwise a WP:BLP1E article. Opinions about this are roughly divided. WP:SOLDIER is an essay, and as such does not represent community consensus. I must therefore weigh arguments based (essentially only) on that essay much less than those based on WP:BLP, a policy. This means we have consensus to delete the article.  Sandstein  08:28, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffrey Allen Sinclair[edit]

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

There are no sources independent of the one event that this article coveres, per WP:BLP1E. It is asserted that the subject's rank confers notability per WP:SOLDIER but of course notability is not inherited and subject-specific inclusion guidelines are only an indication of who is likely to be covered by sufficient sources to allow a neutral article. As far as I can see nothing beyond directory-style sources exists outside of the one event. This would be a good candidate for a merge to an article on sexual abuse in the military, but as a biography it lacks any depth. Guy (Help!) 15:59, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. GregJackP Boomer! 03:09, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notability is established alone in the fact that person is a Flag Officer and has had a significatn command which he does have. I completely agree to reducing the coverage on the sexual assualt but not all bios have to have a lot of info. I started it as a stub and if that is all it ends up I'm ok with that. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 16:02, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So how many other articles on current one-star generals do we have, and why was there no article on this one before the event, and why does the article only include sources about the event? Guy (Help!) 19:01, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
User:JzG, that is a fallacy. Just because there isn't a lot of articles about one star generals doesn't mean there isn't a need for them, articles not created doesn't say one or another as to their notability. I have to be honest that I'm a little discouraged at the moment with this and other things. It's probably best for me to revisit at another time. I will state that if the AFD deletion passes, I plan on rewriting completely and trying again. the subject is notable, I too share the concerns about wanting to not smear the man hence why I asked for the help to begin with. I encourage you to look at the other version not restored for details. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 22:21, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So you say. And I say that the idea that articles on people are needed just because they meet some arbitrary criterion, is equally fallacious. Most have not been the primary focus of non-trivial coverage in reliable independent sources. The purpose of the guideline is partly to indicate who may be notable, by reference to sources, and partly to exclude those of even less chance of notability. We have a policy: WP:BLP. It mandates a conservative approach. This article is a self-evident WP:COATRACK. It does you no credit. Guy (Help!) 23:00, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I in NO way intentionally wrote a COATRACK article and I resent that. I carefully checked the notability factors prior to writing and I attempted to keep the details of that part of the article very small. I have every step of the way tried to respect this man [[2]], [[3]], [[4]]. I'm sorry but I would like an apology that actually really bothers me. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 23:01, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
User:JzG I was the one that recently added the novel to Sinclair's page. I'm a newbie and obviously made many mistakes. In adding more information, I began to feel like if I didn't include x than it looked biased towards y thus the reason I included as much as I did. My intention was never to attack, smear, etc. and I hope this is fully understood. This weekend, I'm going to see what I can find on Sinclair independent of the case, and forward to User:Hell in a Bucket for his thoughts and consideration. Want to tread lightly while this is under review and in light of my mistakes. Have a good weekend! LovinTheSunshine (talk) 23:22, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it was intentional, I actually think you are adding better written content then me, I will be happy to give my opinion too where I can. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 23:25, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I second the notability due to the fact that he's a Flag Officer. Regarding additional notability and his conviction or lack there of - that is just a small piece of the puzzle. Notability stems from the manner in which the entire case was conducted, investigated, influenced, open to the public ( ie discussing in open court the mental health or lack thereof of the former prosecutor), and highlighted during the government's proposed policy changes on sexual assault in the military. While I understand the removal of the sexual assault details, I'd ask that you reconsider his notability as it relates to his sentence.LovinTheSunshine (talk) 17:52, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody has brought reliable sources about him that are independent of the case. If what you are saying is that the case is notable, maybe there should be an article about the case. Jytdog (talk) 17:58, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I understand and think that your suggestion is a good one.LovinTheSunshine (talk) 22:40, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
would you be open to creating that article? you seem to know lots about this. perhaps if that happens, this AFD could pivot to a merge and redirect....Jytdog (talk) 22:44, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please see my comment a separate article on the case may be warranted but not a stub bio. I plan on rewriting in full the biography if the afd goes through I just have no energy to do so now. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 22:46, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
JytdogI'm open to helping in anyway that I can, and the direction would be beneficial as I get to know Wikipedia better. It's rather overwhelming with all of the possibilities. I'll keep in touch with Hell in a Bucketas things continue to unfold. Thank you again for your comments and suggestions. It's nice when people come together to get things done.LovinTheSunshine (talk) 15:14, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete WP:BLP1E applies here. What sources exist on Sinclair prior to the scandal? I looked and found insufficient ones. In the current article, there are only two putatively not-scandal sources. One of them is a bio at awordpress site used by Time (here) - but the only place that bio is linked-to within Time, is an article about the scandal (see this search - the bio is linked from the "Military Misbehavin" article). The other one is a currently dead link on another Wordpress blog. here - the mainpage of that blog is here. Its a blog so fails RS/SPS in any case. This article should not exist in WP. Jytdog (talk) 16:09, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete not notable except for the scandal; had there been a conviction for a major crime, there would arguably have been notability. I originally deleted this as an attack page, but decided to ask for a community decision. DGG ( talk ) 16:34, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Sinclair was convicted of major crimes. Disobeying an Order could have cost him 5 years in prison. Adultery is punishable by up to a year in prison. So is Conduct Unbecoming an Officer. I could go on and list all of the punishment possible under the UCMJ, but these were in fact major crimes. He pleaded guilty to avoid conviction for more serious offenses, true, but that doesn't change the nature of the offenses he was convicted of committing. GregJackP Boomer! 18:34, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Most people convicted of a crime of this magnitude, are not covered in Wikipedia. The article is in any case about the crime, not the person. That is the whole problem, in fact. Guy (Help!) 19:03, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
His comment was that it was not a major crime. It was, and my response was to that specific comment, not the notability of the individual which was covered in other comments. Unless you are saying that it 1) was not a major crime; or 2) that the WP:OSE argument you just made negates the inherent notability as a flag officer. GregJackP Boomer! 19:22, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. Flag officers are notable, see WP:SOLDIER, he was the Deputy Commanding General for the 82nd Airborne Division in combat in Afganistan, he had served in high level staff positions, and there are clear sources available for these. Any one of those is enough to qualify for the military notability requirement, plus Sinclair also meets WP:GNG. WP:INHERIT doesn't apply to a notability based on someone attaining flag rank, the individual earned that rank and did not "inherit" anything from it. GregJackP Boomer! 17:49, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that sources now show that in addition to being a flag officer, he commanded an infantry battalion in combat (1-18IN), and a heavy infantry brigade in combat (172d Hvy Inf Bde). And you have sources showing both of those, along with a source showing his promotion to flag rank. GregJackP Boomer! 03:18, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Deputy Commanding General for the 82nd Airborne Division in combat in Afganistan where does it say that? I can see in the article Sinclair was deputy commander of support for 82nd Airborne Division at Fort Bragg, where he was promoted to flag rank.[4] He continued to serve in this position with the division in Afghanistan Sounds like deputy commander of 82nd Sustainment Brigade (United States). Hamish59 (talk) 20:22, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, the 82nd Sustainment Brigade is a separate formation, commanded by a colonel. It is one of the six brigades subordinate to the division. Sinclair would supervise the commander of that brigade, but the brigade would not have been commanded by him. GregJackP Boomer! 01:39, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • No opinion He is not a "general officer" as used on Wikipedia, nor does he hold the "Medal of Honor" - but I suggest that he achieved sufficient rank as deputy commander of a major division, which basically means I think the "strict interpretation" of notability (essay) for military people may be wrong here. Collect (talk) 17:58, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Collect:, are you stating that a brigadier general is not a "general officer?" How so? GregJackP Boomer! 18:15, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Problem is that Wikipedians in the past apparently decided "one star" is more a "brigadier" than like a "general" which they defined to be four stars. So we are stuck with that odd rule if we follow that project's notability guidelines. I would be a "keep" were this not an ambiguous situation. Collect (talk) 18:50, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
But it's only a guideline as to people who are likely to have sufficient sources for inclusion, so it's not actually a problem. Guy (Help!) 18:59, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Collect:, do you have a link to that discussion? The ones I found on the MilHist archives were not so clear as that. Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 19:37, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Collect: Nowhere on Wikipedia has it ever been decided that brigadier generals are not general officers per WP:SOLDIER. Nowhere has it ever been decided that only "four-star" generals count. This is utter rubbish and I have no idea where you got it from. In fact, even British and Commonwealth brigadiers, who are not general officers but hold equivalent rank, have been held to be notable under WP:SOLDIER. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:32, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per BLP1E and GNG - Cwobeel (talk) 19:59, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete minor crime, low notable individual, as per User:Jytdog and User:JzG , not a biography and so verges on an attack page, as per User:DGG. Govindaharihari (talk) 21:44, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Ok, everyone needs to pay real, real close attention here because this is where the afd gets very, very scary: WP:SOLDIER covers Flag Officers as a collective whole, not a nation by nation basis. Because of this, any officer holding the rank of a One-Star General or Admiral is considered notable because the world's military forces do not necessarily make use of the all ranks that the US or the UK are familiar with. A good example of this can be found in US History: until about World War II the highest rank any flag officer could hold was Major General (a two star), which was done in difference to General George Washington's rank of Lieutenant General (a three star officer). If Sinclar's rank was held in 1930 He would be among the second highest ranking general officers in the US at the time. Moreover, from an international perspective, Brigadier General has well established notability under WP:SOLDIER. The Belgium Military caps its medical corps at Major General, making Brigadier General the second highest rank that can be obtained in that service. In the Swiss Armed Forces, Lithuanian Armed Forces, and the Singapore Armed Forces there isn't a four star rank (although in some cases it may be added in times of war), making the one star rank more important to the armed forces. In the hierarchical Vatican City Military and the Military of Monaco, the highest rank that can be obtained is Colonel, demonstrating the lack of agreement on how Flag ranks are employed internationally. Put simply, the international nature of this encyclopedia is such that disqualifying an officer from being covered under the protection of WP:SOLDIER affords to Flag Officers then we are going to have a real hard time trying to figure out who is notable under the criteria and who is not. On BLP1, I will keep my peace, as the article does appear to have issues with the ONEEVENT criteria. That having been said, it isn't every day that a Flag Officer is demoted two ranks for adulatory. That does seem to imply notability, but that isn't relevant to my above point.— Preceding unsigned comment added by TomStar81 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete - not held a combat command as a general/flag officer. He was Asst Division Commander - Support for the 82nd Abn Div, that's one of three Asst Div Commanders. If he held a brigade command as a colonel it's possible he would be notable. Buckshot06 (talk) 23:14, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
He commanded the 172d Heavy Infantry Brigade in Iraq as a colonel. GregJackP Boomer! 01:39, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
User:Buckshot06 what about Chief of the Plans and Training Division in the Joint Special Operations Command? Hell in a Bucket (talk) 23:17, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Command, not a staff post like the Plans and Training div chief. Part of the problem with this article is we don't have the officer's full service history. What battalion-level post did he command? Was he artillery, infantry? etc. This is where I disagree with Tom and the draft Milhist guideline - has to be independently notable as a Brig Gen; may be different as a Major General. But finally, GNG trumps everything... Buckshot06 (talk) 23:43, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I thought this was like schools, if you can prove the General existed they are presumed notable even absent significant coverage. I can't even begin to explain how many times I've tried to fight that one. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 00:03, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Hell in a Bucket: You are absolutely correct. The fact an individual holds or held general, flag or air officer rank or equivalent has always been held to make them notable. Anyone arguing otherwise clearly hasn't participated in many relevant AfD discussions. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:37, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to closer all of this revolves about a single issue - is a Brigadier General by normal standards considered a "General" with regard to the United States Army? If so, then the notability matter is met. If not, then not. Not a matter of debate, really, at that point. It appears each person here does feel that the "sex scandal" issue, considering the nature of its outcome in a legal sense (that is - not a lot), was given undue weight in the BLP in the past. Issues of WEIGHT, however, are not matters for decisions on deletion here if the person appears to meet the notability threshold. Collect (talk) 00:11, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The US Army considers that an O-7 Brigadier General is a "General Officer" - they classify officers as "company grade" (lieutenants and captains), "field grade" (majors and colonels), and "general officers" (brigadier general and above). Brigadier generals have all of the accouterments and privileges of general officers. GregJackP Boomer! 01:39, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support the above declaration. Clarity will help on that point and solve the question. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 00:14, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I do not support that declaration. Guidlelines don't outweigh policy, and a) no one has brought sources about this guy outside the scandal or even pre-scandal, and b) each of NOTABILITY and BLP1E is policy. Jytdog (talk) 00:17, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
so we remove the criminal case. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 00:21, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
which leaves nothing. and is weird. Jytdog (talk) 00:30, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Understandable but there will still be some left, not every article needs to have all info about a person. He was a general which is a rather important position. I quite understand what you are saying with the depth of coverage and IF we get confirmation that a Brigadier General rank is not enough for notability requirements for Flag Officers I will support the conclusion but that is the key to the arguments at least to me. On an aside how do you feel about auto school notability because I still think it shouldn't be that way? Hell in a Bucket (talk) 00:41, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
User:Collect, User:Jytdog according to Flag Officer, in the USA "In the U.S. Army, Air Force, and Marine Corps, the term "flag officer" generally is applied to all general officers authorized to fly their own command flags—i.e., brigadier general, or rank O-7, and above" This is a superior source to the one in that article [[5]] Hell in a Bucket (talk) 00:50, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Peacemaker67:. He meets WP:GNG. In the US Army, the "arms corps" are Infantry, Armor/Cavalry, Field Artillery, Air Defense Artillery, Aviation, Special Forces, and Combat Engineers. There are articles from when he commanded an infantry battalion in combat in Iraq, there are articles from when he commanded a heavy infantry brigade in combat in Iraq, there are articles where he was promoted to brigadier general and served as the deputy commanding general with the 82d Airborne Division in Afghanistan. All of those sources are independent of the court-martial and sex scandal. WP:SOLDIER is just on top of that. GregJackP Boomer! 05:58, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. Comment. He seem to pass our Military history notability guide (which is not the policy), but fail WP:GNG. The latter is a matter of judgement. I think he was not described in the sources as someone significant for specific military operations, or even as a subject of significant scandal.My very best wishes (talk) 16:36, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I saw it [6]: "Brig Gen Jeffrey Sinclair is accused of forcing a female captain to perform a sex act on him and threatening to kill her family if she reported it.". Still, this does not appear to me as something very notable - based on the press coverage currently in this page. This is my subjective judgement of course. My very best wishes (talk) 20:42, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@My very best wishes:, there are literally hundreds of WP:RS for the scandal and the fact that he is one of only a few generals to be court-martialed in the U.S. in the last 60 years. They are not in the article because of an overabundance of caution and an overzealous view of WP:BLP (which provides that negative information can be if it is widely and reliably sourced). There is absolutely no question that Sinclair meets GNG. GregJackP Boomer! 00:07, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, it works for me. Perhaps this article should be kept as a page about one of the most notable sexual offenders in US Army [7]. However, he must be described as such in the article. My very best wishes (talk) 13:48, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep -- to, me this fails any notability test by mile, but I acknowledge that he passes for the current guidelines for WP:SOLDIER. If he was demoted at the end of his career, the reasons for the demotion are very relevant. But the article should not be a smear piece. Wxidea (talk) 04:03, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Obviously, as a general officer per WP:SOLDIER. I have never seen a general officer from any country deleted at AfD and I fail to see why we should make an exception for this man because he's been involved in a scandal. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:32, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 09:32, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 09:32, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - essays (WP:SOLDIER) don't override policy (WP:GNG). At any rate the idea that a general officer is assumed to be notable under WP:SOLDIER and therefore actually is notable has always been a misinterpretation of that essay (regardless of how many times it is misapplied at AFD). I can't see significant coverage as evident by the numerous details of this bloke's life and career which are missing from the article. Anotherclown (talk) 03:53, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • And one policy doesn't override another - WP:IAR, our most important policy in my opinion, which calls for common sense over dogma. It's that policy that leads to the common consensus on the interpretation of WP:SOLDIER at AfD. It is common sense that people holding such a high rank are notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:17, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a flag officer - and actually one who has gotten a fair amount of coverage, but keep in any case. To those who claim that WP:SOLDIER doesn't override WP:GNG - yes, actually in a sense it does. So do WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES and WP:POLITICIAN and WP:MUSICBIO and WP:ACADEMIC and many other guidelines where consensus has developed that certain subjects are "presumed notable" - that is, it is assumed that significant reliable source coverage could be found on those subjects, even if it isn't in the article at the moment. These conventions are widely respected at Wikipedia. --MelanieN (talk) 23:38, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I cannot bring myself to argue this article should be deleted, but I disagree with much of what I have read here. First, I think it is a settled point that a one star officer of the U.S. Army meets WP:SOLDIER - all such officers are referred to as general officers in the army, and are entitled to fly a flag of their command, and as such qualify as either general officers or flag officers. However, while WP:SOLDIER is a useful guideline for military articles, it loses its force when the subject's primary notability is for reasons other than his/her rank. I think Guy's off-hand remark was telling - we have very few articles about one star generals, for the same reason we don't have many articles about ambassadors, or trial court judges. They are highly respected, highly accomplished, but generally don't attract enough attention from sources for us to say much about them. I actually think that the GNG is a far better measure for such individuals. However, the subject's rank is important in this regard - WP:BLP1E suggests that it should apply to low profile individuals. A general officer is not low profile in the army, and it is in this context the story emerged. This event was heavily reported, considerably more so than our current sources indicate. There was lengthy coverage herein The New York Times; the reference formerly was in the article but was eliminated when other material was revdel'ed out. The subject was the apparently only the 3rd general ever to prosecuted by the army, and the first for sexual assault. The judge found political considerations may have affected the case. And of course several news outlets noted a link to larger problems of sexual assault in the military. I'll opine keep, but would not object to an article about the prosecution instead; I think that there's enough to warrant it. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 01:18, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Sandra Fredman. (non-admin closure) Kraxler (talk) 15:08, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oxford Human Rights Hub[edit]

Oxford Human Rights Hub (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 organization exists, and apparently does some good work, but is not notable by our standards--the article writer didn't include any secondary sourcing, and I was not able to find any. A redirect to Sandra Fredman would be fine. BTW, article was created by the sock of a longterm disruptive editor, but I chose not to delete via G5 because I believe things in article space should typically be dealt with in the open. Drmies (talk) 15:26, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 03:30, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 03:30, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • redirect to Sandra Fredman -- It is no doubt a worthy organisation. This looks like personal project of hers, as is indicated by the organisation's website having an address within her department. If the article is substantially expanded to show wider notability, I am very willing to reconsider this view. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:25, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect and merge content with Sandra Fredman per Peterkingiron and proposer.Pincrete (talk) 10:32, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  Sandstein  07:52, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of New South Wales railway station codes[edit]

AfDs for this article:
List of New South Wales railway station codes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is an unsourced article that fails WP:NOTDIRECTORY. At the last AfD in 2008, there were acknowledgements of the lack of sourcing and a suggestion that it be merged with another article but, in the past 7 years, absolutely nothing has happened. Until a recent burst of edit-warring, there have only been 18 edits since the AfD ended. The article is likely well out of date, but you'd never know how out of date it is because of the lack of references. AussieLegend (✉) 15:14, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I agree – it is not referenced. In addition, it is non-notable: this is a list of internally-significant abbreviations used by the NSW railways. I cannot think of a situation in which a reader would want to see how every station in NSW, past and present, was expressed as a three-letter acronym in internal railway documents. Editors have previously argued that the abbreviations are used in public timetables. This doesn't prove notability and, in any case, only applies to a tiny minority of the stations – only terminus stations appear in the timetables in this way. Finally, the article fails in its own terms: the 'Sydney Trains' list contains regional stations, and vice versa; both lists contain long-closed stations never served by Sydney Trains or NSW TrainLink. Mqst north (talk) 15:25, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/Merge. A single citation would make all the difference here. It could be merged into List of NSW TrainLink railway stations and the equivalent Sydney article. It is convenient for a reader seeking this information to have all the codes in one (or two) list articles. But wherever the information ends up, it would be nice to have a source for it. It has been suggested that a source existed in a non-public NSW rail document. Sources don't have to be on-line accessible, but we need some editor to put their hand on the heart and say I saw the document and this information is verifiable from it. I see no problem with the inclusion of closed stations; as I write about history, I would hate to see information about closed stations lost. Kerry (talk) 22:37, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
But we aren't a directory so a list of railway station codes doesn't belong here, regardless if it referenced. - Shiftchange (talk) 22:59, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The article has been begging for citations for at least the last 7 years as I noted in my nomination but nothing has happened. If citations haven't been provided by now we're unlikely to see them ever added so what we're left with is an unreferenced directory. There is no way to know how many of the codes are wrong so the article serves no encyclopaedic purpose. As for a merge, we shouldn't be moving unreferenced content to another article. --AussieLegend (✉) 03:02, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Its not knowledge-based, just a list of trivial codes of limited use. - Shiftchange (talk) 22:59, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Kerry, if the only citation anyone can find is an internal staff document from one of Sydney Trains' predecessor organisations, that speaks volumes as to the non-notability of the information. While it's true sources needn't be published online, they should still be accessible to the public in some way. Also, the suggestion about a merger was made during the 2008 AfD discussion, and that resulted in no action at all. Mqst north (talk) 00:23, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Mqst north. You asked for other people not interested in public transport to come and give their opinion. In particular you appeared to be soliciting input from people who might have other perspectives. I assumed good faith in relation to your request and I have obliged you by giving my opinion. Why then criticise my opinion? Were you in fact only soliciting opinions that coincided with your own (i.e. canvassing)? Kerry (talk) 02:01, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 01:37, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 01:41, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Kerry, this page is for reasoned discussion about the merits of the deletion nomination. My post that you link to is not related to this deletion nomination; it predates it. Mqst north (talk) 03:14, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The page is not referenced and well and truely out of date. I may have argued against this on the page itself as just blanking out the data as the proposer did on the page is not the way to go about this. Deleting it will add a maintenance load as all trains stations in NSW including Sydney, have a link to this page in the infobox. I have looked at this page on a number of times over the past few years and even trying to bring it up to date is now impossible.Fleet Lists (talk) 03:26, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Agree with Kerrys' suggestion that be merged with List of NSW TrainLink railway stations and List of Sydney Trains railway stations articles. Cites have now been located for the current stations and will be added to these articles in due course, and this one should the consensus be to retain. Cites may exist for the closed stations, but may require an archival dig which I don't have the time nor inclination to perform.
For the benefit of the editor who resisted my reinstating of the article in its full form, for this deletion to be carried it needed to be in such form. If 99% of the article had been deleted and then a deletion motion carried, it could be argued that it was only on the basis that this deletion had occurred, and be ruled null and void on a technicality with the article reinstated. JCN217 (talk) 05:13, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No coverage in independent reliable sources. Nothing mergeable because absolutely nothing in the article is referenced. Jenks24 (talk) 07:52, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Snow Keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010Talk 23:02, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of international goals scored by Wayne Rooney[edit]

List of international goals scored by Wayne Rooney (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:NFOOTBALL and page of such type is not needed here. NextGenSam619t@lk 15:11, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep seems like a pointed nomination considering all the other lists of such types haven't been nominated. The fact that Rooney's international goals are subject to extensive scrutiny and discussion about him reaching the Charlton milestone inevitably within the next few matches has resulted in masses of articles on this very subject, it seems perfectly appropriate to have an article dedicated to the goals in question. According to prior discussion, it would also be inappropriate to cleave this with the bio article, so this seems to be the best of both worlds. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:09, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:56, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep WP:NFOOTBALL doesn't seem to say anything about this sort of list, unless I'm misreading it? It is exclusively about players and managers. If we based all football related articles on that, we need to delete List of FIFA World Cup finals and pretty much all other lists. Irrespective of that, this list previously existed in the parent article, but given the length of the parent article, and the fact that Rooney's international goals are subject to significant coverage in reliable sources, the criteria for a standalone list are met sufficiently. Harrias talk 16:09, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep WP:NFOOTBALL has no relevance to this, it describes how a bio of a player would be auto considered to pass WP:GNG. Rooney's goals would in my opinion pass GNG as there is wide independant coverage including analysis and a lot of coverage of the subject in general, including whether he will be England's all-time high scorer. Paul  Bradbury 16:13, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - these kind of articles are not inherently notable, however Rooney's goalscoring exploits on the international stage have received significant coverage, and the topic meets GNG. GiantSnowman 16:27, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - There is clear notability to the number of goals he's scored for England, such that it has received significant coverage. Furthermore, there is clear precedent for other articles of this type, e.g. lists of five-wicket hauls and centuries in cricket. – PeeJay 17:27, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There should be more articles like this anyways for top players. SOXROX (talk) 19:22, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Particularly when they're of such a high quality.... The Rambling Man (talk) 19:23, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: As with PeeJay on the leading players in other sports being afforded such articles. Rooney is joint second top scorer for one of the world's two oldest international teams, a team who have won the World Cup and regularly rank top 10 in the world. '''tAD''' (talk) 20:19, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above and passes WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:49, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. --MelanieN (talk) 23:43, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shantanu Bagchi[edit]

Shantanu Bagchi (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 would've PRODded this as it appears non-notable aside from the fact it says he won several awards in India so I'm not sure if these can be supported; all my searches found absolutely nothing and there's not much in the article as it is. SwisterTwister talk 05:52, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 07:38, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 07:38, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:18, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:55, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as per nom. Searches revealed nothing which would show this person met notability criteria. Other than brief mentions and press releases (and very few of those), there was very little. I found one article, which mentions a person of this same name, but since this fact isn't mentioned in the article, I wonder if it is the same person. Onel5969 TT me 13:11, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ☮JAaron95 Talk 15:10, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete maker of advertising films, and non notable. Nominations are not awards. I am very reluctant to judge film in India by sourcing, because I understand it's notorious that Indian newspapers require payment for film articles and reviews. Too what extent this extends to other subjects I'm unsure of, but if we are to cover that country at all, the assumptions behind WP:GNG do not work here--possible almost no sources are actually RS for notability as we use the expression. DGG ( talk ) 23:19, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. --MelanieN (talk) 23:45, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Antonio Negret[edit]

Antonio Negret (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 fails to establish notability. The only sources are from the subject's own website and a directory entry by the NY Times. A check of other sources finds him mentioned in relation to works in which he's been involved, but notability is not inherited and none of the entries seem significant with along along the lines of "directed by Antonio Negret" and nothing more. Subject therefore does not seem to meet WP:GNG AussieLegend (✉) 02:58, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 08:28, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 08:28, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I can't find any decent sources for this individual. Fails WP:GNG. Vrac (talk) 13:29, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:45, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ☮JAaron95 Talk 15:09, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Searches found nothing good aside from passing mentions at Books and News. SwisterTwister talk 07:13, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - nothing to show notability in any of the searches. Onel5969 TT me 16:56, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Relisted twice, no !votes. WP:NPASR. (non-admin closure) Kraxler (talk) 15:22, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vexor[edit]

Vexor (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)

It appears like an advertisement Ayub407 (talk) 13:12, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is a translation from Russian article from article incubator. There are many reliable sources on just every statement. I'm not affialated with company and website. Egor-belikov (talk) 13:17, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 04:42, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 03:04, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: most of the references in-article are to its own website. Of the 3 that aren't, I'm unsure as to whether they'd be considered reliable or extensive. There appears to be at least some degree of editorial diligence behind them. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 02:40, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Xakep and Siliconrus.com are the most reliable Internet-media in Russian about programming and technology startups.Egor-belikov (talk) 22:53, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ☮JAaron95 Talk 15:09, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Meles Zenawi. Anything worth keeping can be merged from history.  Sandstein  07:53, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Zenawism[edit]

Zenawism (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 widely used expression: Google gives me a paltry three hits. TheLongTone (talk) 14:20, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article is fine. I will add more info later. You won't find that much online about such concepts originating from third world countries anyway, especially ethiopia where internet penetration is the lowest in the world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jack248 (talk • contribs) 17:42, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 04:38, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there is an article on the man who gives this concept a name. I'd suggest writing this & redirecting Zenawism to this.TheLongTone (talk) 09:50, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:52, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:52, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 03:07, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Meles Zenawi for lack of independent notability. --Sammy1339 (talk) 03:30, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That seems sensible. I was under the misapprehesion that that article was yet to be written.TheLongTone (talk) 11:43, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge An article on Ethnic federalism could be worth having. In the meantime a more appropriate merge target may be Premiership of Meles Zenawi, which already contains a subsection "Ethnic federalism". (It doesn't seem that the merge proposal there is going anywhere): Noyster (talk), 09:59, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ☮JAaron95 Talk 15:09, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Kraxler (talk) 15:40, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sensibo[edit]

Sensibo (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)

Is having the "funniest pitch video of 2014" a claim of notability (god save us). Otherwise, seems to be a thoroughly unremarkable business, which has maybe attracted a bit of novelty attention, but nothing of real note. TheLongTone (talk) 14:31, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — CutestPenguinHangout 16:11, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:56, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:56, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:56, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I'd usually second your assessment, but with this case I'm not so sure. It has coverage in several languages across a period of 2 years and could probably have a case for passing WP:GNG. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 19:26, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 03:07, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Well, Amen, LongTone, may God save us from many of the things that get covered in reliable sources. However, moving along, here's my simple search for Sensibo on google news [8] That's a lot of non-trivial coverage in serious places, and coverage in RS is the WP:N metric.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:55, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ☮JAaron95 Talk 15:09, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. slakr\ talk / 19:49, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

View Nigeria[edit]

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

Subject of the article fails WP:GNG. I can't find the significant coverages in multiple independent reliable sources to establish the subject notability Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 06:53, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep.The article meets WP:GNG and two major reliable sources from Vanguard and PRlog

It has reliable source: http://www.vanguardngr.com/2015/08/achieve-fast-growing-online-platform-view-nigeria-endorses-erigga/ http://www.vanguardngr.com/2015/02/vanguard-spark-rookie-for-november-gets-0-2m-chisco-grant/ http://www.prlog.org/12482925-fast-growing-online-news-platform-view-nigeria-set-to-partner-with-foreign-investor.html

You can as well as make a google search https://www.google.com/search?as_eq=wikipedia&q=%22View+Nigeria%22&num=50

View Nigeria is a major trusted fast growing news site newspaper in Nigeria right now.


The article is cool to go.. Only more edits needed. — Preceding signed comment added by Ddluv09 (talk • contribs) 15:53, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep View Nigeria is Nigeria's fastest growing online publication that has won the trust of many Nigerians. Their news are factual, verifiable and accurate. — Jerocarson (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 19:43, 13 August 2015‎ (UTC).

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 08:18, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 08:18, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 08:18, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:10, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:10, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ☮JAaron95 Talk 15:06, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article meet WP:GNG and it shouldn't be delete. I have seen lots of articles that fails i.e has only (just) one source from Vanguard Newspaper Nigeria significant coverages but was listed on Wikipedia without be deleted. I see 5 sources on this article from different places. This article is cool to go. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Igodye (talk • contribs) 16:20, 14 August 2015 (UTC) — Igodye (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  • Delete This is another case of "too soon." The company got funding in November of last year and is ramping up. Ramping up is not the same as enduring and having an impact. The resources (some of which are duplicates) basically say that the owner won a single contest for startups and intends to partner with another firm and hire in the future. All of this is business as usual, even though it is undoubtedly very exciting for those involved. The article that says that it's the "fast growing" provides no backing for that statement. An article on this company may very well be appropriate in the future, after the company is more established. LaMona (talk) 16:55, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This seems to be WP:TOOSOON at best. Although I haven't been able to discern the extent of the relationship between Vanguard and the subject, they clearly had something to do with the grant the subject received. Therefore, it is my opinion that Vanguard is a primary source and may have a conflict of interest making it possible that the subject does not yet pass WP:GNG. --Non-Dropframe talk 19:37, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - arguments for keep are not based on guidelines. Searches bring up nothing which meets notability criteria. Onel5969 TT me 14:06, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the above; the sources which have been provided aren't sufficient to meet notability. Sam Walton (talk) 19:01, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. --MelanieN (talk) 23:48, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

MarsDrive[edit]

MarsDrive (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 organisation. After I removed all the dead or irrelevant links pretty much all that remains is puffery. Their website has recently been replaced after they appear to have lost the domain name and there's almost nothing there. Their main activity seems to be writing articles for Space Review. Despite their boasts their social media following is small and there's no evidence of industry impact etc. Even the spinoff technology company seems to exist only on Facebook. Searching for reliable sources ("MarsDrive" -wikipedia -twitter -facebook -youtube -linkedin) yields only 220 mostly irrelevant hits, nothing of importance. Fails WP:ORG, WP:GNG Andyjsmith (talk) 10:42, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 10:52, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 10:52, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article is mostly an advertisement, and I can't figure out what the organization actually does. KSFTC 14:32, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

MarsDrive website at .com was removed in 2014 but is undergoing reconstruction at .net and .org due to be finalized by November 2015. Files and supporting documentation to show that MarsDrive is temporarily using its Facebook Group for ongoing activities and projects can be found in their files section on that group. Updates will follow over the next 3 months that supports the original article links and evidence of this organizations activities that were removed by other editors here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FrankS71 (talk • contribs) 15:52, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ☮JAaron95 Talk 15:06, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have updated several 3rd party links and cleaned up the article to reflect what this 10 year old organization is currently active with. Human and robotic missions to Mars are a notable subject on WP and MarsDrive have been a well known and consistent contributor in this field, along with promoting educational aspects of this cause. Despite their website issues, if researched you can find many 3rd party citations of the important contributions they have made to the field they are in, and continue to make. We would request that the deletion notice be removed and we will endeavor to abide by WP rules for this article going forward in a neutral way. I am connected closely to this organization yes, but I do understand the rules of WP now and agree to work to ensure this article is factual and notable. Apologies to Andyjsmith also if I have been less than civil. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.181.178.171 (talk) 01:54, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • I can't see that these changes address the substantive issue, and in many ways they make it worse. It seems the the organisation is pretty much moribund and even in its pomp all it ever did was put forward a couple of ideas that were listened to politely. Most of the new references contain only passing mention of MarsDrive and in no way confer or confirm notability. Andyjsmith (talk) 08:09, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete While our notability rules for organizations are rather low, this article does not even have primary sources to support any of its claims. Dimadick (talk) 20:38, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. --MelanieN (talk) 23:52, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kingston high School, Near Manyata Tech Park) Bangalore[edit]

Kingston high School, Near Manyata Tech Park) Bangalore (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)

Despite being called a "high school", this institution only teaches to Grade 5 with plans to become a K-12 school. Therefore I believe it is not going to pass the WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES test. Drm310 (talk) 12:38, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Doesn't appear notable, and account is blocked. Tried to create an article Kingston high school bangalore previously. Looks like this is a tiny elementary school that just started up. Maybe in a few years. LionMans Account (talk) 15:24, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 19:18, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 19:18, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ☮JAaron95 Talk 14:59, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Beverly Garland#Personal life. (non-admin closure) Kraxler (talk) 01:16, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Carrington Garland[edit]

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

Delete: as non-notable actress. Cannot derive notability from her mother, noted actress Beverly Garland. Quis separabit? 21:27, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 04:18, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 04:18, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom - I can't find anything, Fails NOTINHERITED, NACTOR & GNG. –Davey2010Talk 18:06, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Beverly Garland#Personal life where she is mentioned rather than delete which also was an option as it's obvious she's not independently notable and the other target Santa Barbara only mentions her in passing so Beverley's article summarizes her nicely. SwisterTwister talk 06:30, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 Talk 13:26, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ☮JAaron95 Talk 14:59, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. --MelanieN (talk) 23:56, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Biggar[edit]

Robert Biggar (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)

Almost all of source 1's references to the Biggars is to this man's father, Hamilton. Source 3 is also about his relatives. Assuming good faith that source 2 talks about him at length, that's one RS, which is insufficient for demonstrating notability. Furthermore, the claims to notability presented here are very weak - they essentially amount to the fact that he lived, did a job, switched job, had some kids and a piano, bought some land and unsuccessfully tried to get a town named after him. Dweller (talk) 10:29, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep - Biggar probably is not the most notable person who ever lived, but you're misreading the sources; the article is about Robert; Hamilton is this man's son (and Hamilton Fisk his grandson). The second source discusses him in quite some detail (link). And he was successful enough in getting the town named after himself that he could be reached by mail sent to "Biggers Town", though the article could probably be reworded to make that more obvious. Huon (talk) 20:29, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    What I said was that the article is about Robert. There are three sources. Source 1 is almost all about someone who isn't Robert. The town wasn't named after him. --Dweller (talk) 08:37, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 04:51, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 04:52, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unfortunately delete simply because there's nothing better to add with my searches including this finding nothing particularly good. SwisterTwister talk 05:57, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 Talk 13:28, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ☮JAaron95 Talk 14:58, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no claim of notability in the article, he came and settled, so what? Sources mention him as an early settler, that's run-of-the-mill in local history books of the time. Kraxler (talk) 15:52, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not every early settler is notable simply because they were an early settler. Onel5969 TT me 16:44, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Kraxler (talk) 17:21, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Education 3.0[edit]

Education 3.0 (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)

Describes three unrelated coinages of "Education 3.0", a non-notable neologism. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 07:37, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 04:54, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 Talk 13:29, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ☮JAaron95 Talk 14:58, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Article was fairly crufty, essay-ish, with hard-to-check references and original research using primary sources, but article here was upgraded to [File:Birger Kollmeier Oldenburg.jpg here] as per WP:HEYMANN and problems have been hopefully fixed. Notable term, if a bit vague, generating much buzz in the educational world. QED keep.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:54, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - a news search turned up some pretty good references to the term being used in quite a few quarters (articles in Forbes (there are more than this), Technically Philly, several in Wired including this one, there are a few others). Onel5969 TT me 16:26, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Flip or Flop.  Sandstein  07:58, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tarek El Moussa[edit]

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

He is not notable for anything except for his roll in the show Flip or Flop which already has his own show. No need for its own page - GalatzTalk 16:13, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating his wife's page the following related pages because its an identical page just with her picture and should be deleted for the same reasons:

Christina El Moussa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Galatz (talk • contribs)
  • I disagree completely. As mentioned on Christina's Talk page, Tarek and Christina have HUGE fan followings, and Tarek's very public battle with thyroid cancer has amplified the public conversation around thyroid cancer more than anyone or anything else. Flip or Flop is one of HGTV's most successful prime time shows EVER, and they've been commissioned by HGTV for a spin off called Flip or Flop: At Home, which is basically a reality show about their personal lives. (i.e. The Kardashian Effect) The pair have also served as judges on Brother vs. Brother with Jonathan and Drew from Property Brothers (which happens to be another of HGTV's highly successful programs). Tarek and Christina are full blown celebrities and considered experts in the real estate field. Ryannjean (talk) 23:24, 4 June 2015 (UTC) User:Ryannjean is the creator of this article. Disclosure added per WP:AFDFORMAT.[reply]
  • I also think this page should stay up! I love anything about Tarek and Christina - why shouldn't they get their own pages? They're 2 different people coming together as a team. I love their show on HGTV and I love watching Christina and following her blog with Success Path. I think this page should absolutely stay up because these people are actually interesting and they're successful by doing good old fashioned american hard work. Keep their page up! I love these two! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aprilaslc (talk • contribs) 16:43, 5 June 2015 (UTC) — Aprilaslc (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    • Its wonderful that you love that, but that certainly does not make them notable - GalatzTalk 14:02, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I might agree if Tarek and Christina were one hit wonders that existed solely on the show Flip or Flop, but considering the extensive amount of pull and notoriety that each of them have outside of Flip or Flop, I'm in full support of them having individual pages as a collective resource of them as people, too. Tarek and Christina were recently featured in PopSugar as well as Fox News, The Hollywood Reporter, and multiple mentions on People. None of these are highlighted on the wiki for the show, but are current and valid information about the people on the show. In addition to Flip or Flop, Tarek and Christina have a real-estate seminar company and their own Real Estate Company. While the two are often mentioned in tandem, there is often news specific to one or the other (Christina is expecting a baby boy in August 2015 and Tarek had his own press while battling thyroid cancer in 2013) so it would make sense for Wikipedia to have separate pages for each individual. AmyCC (talk) 21:25, 5 June 2015 (UTC) — AmyCC (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    • Problem is, there is nothing about them outside of their show. They wouldn't have been "featured" anywhere if it hadn't been for the show. Thus, they seem to have no independent notability. Drmies (talk) 00:04, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe that the page should stay up. Their show has a large following and does show techniques of successful remodelling. Keep the page. Savolya (talk)
  • Galatz, its seems you are outnumbered. Wiki users want Tarek and Christina's pages to stay up. Also, based on WP's notability requirements, both Tarek and Christina meet the criteria. The opinions of those individuals on this page also support their notability requirements. People watch Flip or Flop because they love Tarek and Christina, not the show itself. All of the news articles and web sources cited here are about Tarek and Christina, the people and not Flip or Flop, the show. Tarek and Christina meet ALL of these criteria: Entertainers Actors, voice actors, comedians, opinion makers, models, and celebrities: Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions. (Flip or Flop, Brother vs. Brother) Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following. Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment.(They are working hard to live the American dream, for better or worse, including cancer and infertility, and they just happen to be on TV while they do it.) Ryannjean (talk) 21:02, 10 June 2015 (UTC)Ryannjean (talk) 03:46, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why people tune in for the show is irrelevant (I'm watching it right now, and I'm not watching it for them). And no, they are not "opinion makers" or whatever, and the size of their fanbase (based on something as meaningless as Facebook likes, which isn't listed anywhere in our criteria for notability anyway) also doesn't matter--unless it is verified by reliable sources. But even then, they're clearly known for their show: they are not notable as real estate agents, for instance. Lots of people get cancer or are infertile (is that living the American dream? strange), and they don't acquire notability because of it. Drmies (talk) 00:04, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since when does one or two person's opinion establish if someone is notable or not? Clearly, judging by the response to this AfD, people know who Tarek and Christina are and they can't get enough of them. Also, one of the criteria is that the person must have a significant fan following. How else would you measure that other than their social media? And BTW, 400K-ish followers is pretty significant to me. Please provide a suggestion as to how to measure fan following with a reliable source. Is People Magazine a reliable source? Because they wouldn't write about Tarek and Christina (as individual people, not the show) on multiple occasions if they weren't notable. Also, just because YOU don't watch the show for them doesn't mean the same can be said for the majority. YOU, as an individual, do not count as the majority. Ryannjean (talk) 23:06, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Galatz. The show page is acceptable, the individual page is not needed, this content can be moved to the show page. -Rhmoore — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rhmoore (talk • contribs) 21:16, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • This issue is right at the heart of something that I have been meaning to, and still plan to, explore in more detail. I just saw this show "flip or flop" for the first time today - never heard of it before. Naturally, I turned to Wikipedia to learn more about the people involved - but I find that the individusls' pages have been nominated for deletion. That is ridiculous. Whenevr someone is held out as an expert - or otherwise exhibits espertise such that Wikipedia users might want to learn more about them, there SHOULD be a Wikipedia page for them - not for their own agrandisement but rather becuase that is something that Wikipedia users should have access to. Recently I wanted to learn about the expertise of someone who was held out as an expert on the History Channel, only to find out that their page had been deleted, apparently because they did not have sufficient notoriety. But this person is generally ubiquitous on the History Channel, American Heroes Cannel, Discovery Channel, etc. Many of the comments were to the effect that the person did not have sufficient notoriety because the commentor had never heard of them. Again, no matter how unkown they are in general, if Wikipedia users are going to see them held out as expserts on TV, then we should be able to turn to Wikipedia to learn more about them - their credentials, human interest factors, etc. That is what Wikipedia users need and, I believe, want. Therefore, to argue that any such person should not be listed on Wikipedia because they are not sufficiently noteworthy is missing the point - the fact that Wikipedia users will want to learn more about them IS, or at least should be, the necessary criteria.

    • I feel like Tarek and Christina's page should stay up - they are notable, they are celebrities, they have been featured in a large number of national media - Print and TV. They have a huge social media following and in every way are public figures who deserve their own individual wikipedia pages. To delete these pages is unthinkable. Please don't delete them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JenBean1 (talk • contribs) 19:04, 1 July 2015 (UTC) — JenBean1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    • Again, there are no arguments here based on our notability criteria. Drmies (talk) 00:04, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I won't consider this article for deletion, this is not about the show, this article refers about Tarek's life with its up and downs. It's more like a biographic article. The article doesn't break any rule nor policies regarding this type of pages in fact wikipedia encourages publishing material relevant to the person's notability, focusing on high-quality secondary sources. External sources like people.com or myfoxla.com are considered high-quality sources. --Jakeryanadler (talk) 03:10, 2 July 2015 (UTC) — Jakeryanadler (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • I can't even believe you are considering deleting the personal page for Tarek El Moussa based on the grounds of notability. The guy can't go to the grocery store without being swamped by fans. He and his wife have been featured in People magazine and on several major TV stations, yet somehow some folks think this guy doesn't merit a page of his own? Wikipedia features many other so-called celebrities who are much less well known without flagging their pages for deletion such as Grant Cardone or washed up singer Fab Morvan from the ill fated pop group Milli Vanilli. Yet here is Tarek El Moussa who is one of the most accomplished and respected real estate experts in America with his own TV show and somehow his page is being targeted for deletion? Come on people. Let's be consistent and fair on Wikipedia please. The guy is famous in his own right and meets the notability requirement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AidaAnne5 (talk • contribs) 19:52, 1 July 2015 (UTC) — AidaAnne5 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    • No, he is not famous in his own right--he is famous because of his show. Drmies (talk) 00:04, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually a lot of "notable" people with full-fledged Wikipedia articles are only famous because of their one reality TV show, i.e. Abby Lee Miller and Chloe Lukasiak. Based on this argument (which btw is pretty weak), what makes Tarek and Christina any different? Why do other "notable" reality TV stars make the cut but the El Moussas don't? There is absolutely a double standard here and it's affecting Wiki's credibility in a negative way. Ryannjean (talk) 22:53, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Galatz, and closing admin, this was a mess. Galatz, you forgot to list this in the log; I just did that--in case anyone was wondering why this has been open since May, and why it appears that only "new" users have opined here, by which I mean not the regular AfD folk.

    It is also clear that there are no real arguments presented here for keeping either article. The two fail our notability criteria in just about every way. They don't meet WP:ENTERTAINER since they haven't had "significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows", etc--they've only been in one, which obviates the need for a separate biographical article: their fates, as all the sources bear out (they're always "host of the HGTV show Flip or Flop", or words to that effect), are intertwined with that of their show. They don't meet WP:ARTIST since, well, they fail on all four counts. Since their importance outside of the show is pretty much non-existent (they're not notable because they were real estate agents, or one of them had cancer, etc.), what really applies here is WP:BLP1E: to put it plain and simple, they are notable only because of the show, and thus it is appropriate to merge the contents of both into Flip or Flop, which is what I would have done had I not run into this ancient AfD. Drmies (talk) 00:11, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I could not understand how this thread had not been closed yet. - GalatzTalk 13:06, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the contrary, Tarek and Christina appear regularly on Brother vs. Brother[1] and Property Brothers with Jonathan and Drew Scott. Another extremely popular show on HGTV. Yes, Tarek and Christina meet the WP:ENTERTAINER requirements: Multiple TV shows, HUGE fan following, and yes, they have made innovative contributions to the field of entertainment. Their show is among the most popular HGTV shows EVER[2], and they use their platform for good, i.e. cancer and infertility awareness. I honestly don't understand why they DON'T meet the criteria. These article should stay on Wikipedia.Ryannjean (talk) 23:06, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The El Moussa pages offer nothing except a popularity contest. There is no relevant biographical information about these two individuals. it is basically a public relations ploy. If Wiki decides to allow these pages, expect many more substandard entries. Bronx7 (talk) 22:59, 8 July 2015 (UTC) — Bronx7 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • A lot of the arguments to keep this article seem to fall into WP:ILIKEIT, which does not help the article's case at all. User:Galatz appears to be right on the nose regarding how flimsy notability is in this case. However, it may end up being kept anyway simply on WP:BLP grounds. Antoshi ☏ ★ 04:06, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge the two individuals' pages into the Flip or Flop page. The comments above by Drmies, Galatz, and Bronx7 state the case from Wikipedia's WP:NOT and WP:ILIKEIT perspectives perfectly, so I won't reiterate them. But I'm especially against having individual pages for people who would not have achieved celebrity/notability except for reality television. As realtors, they are not notable; as Reality TV stars, they are. Tarek and Christina's fan base should concentrate on augmenting the Flip or Flop page with material from these two pages. --Seduisant (talk) 15:57, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Was added to the "correct" log on July 8, so visibility of this AfD on the log pages has been nearly non-existent. ansh666 16:09, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ansh666 16:09, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 19:24, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 19:24, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Empty Lighthouse Magazine http://emptylighthouse.com/brother-vs-brother-season-2-episode-2-recap-invasion-tarek-and-christina-825797451. Retrieved 15 July 2015. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
  2. ^ "11 HGTV Shows That Sent Ratings Through the Roof (Photos)". Retrieved 15 July 2015.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ☮JAaron95 Talk 14:58, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to show page as per Seduisant. Also, perhaps I missed it, and I think I know which whey they are leaning, but I didn't see an actual "vote" from Drmies. Finally the plethora of accounts with little activity outside these pages, or those seemingly created simply for this discussion, makes me very suspicious. Onel5969 TT me 16:08, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to List of counties in New York#Proposed new counties. Both nom & !voter seem to prefer redirect so no point dragging this on, (non-admin closure) –Davey2010Talk 23:06, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Adirondack County, New York[edit]

Adirondack County, New York (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is an article on a proposal; I don't see that it meets WP:NPLACE or WP:GNG. Possibly worth a redirect to List of U.S. county secession proposals or List of counties in New York#Proposed new counties. Sending WP:APPNOTE to Mannanan51. Boleyn (talk) 20:25, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 20:36, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 20:36, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ☮JAaron95 Talk 14:56, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. North America1000 00:56, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Semplice Linux[edit]

Semplice Linux (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 about a Linux distribution with only two references. One of them is the official website, and the other is DistroWatch. Therefore, notability is not established and the article fails WP:GNG. sovereign°sentinel (contribs) 14:56, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 03:27, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Software (linux distribution) article of unclear notability. Distrowatch covers many non-notable distros and is not RS coverage. A search turned up a few blog entries but no significant RS coverage.Dialectric (talk) 18:11, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as my searches found nothing good aside from this. SwisterTwister talk 06:48, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom and above editors. Searches didn't come up with enough to show notability. Onel5969 TT me 14:48, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. North America1000 00:47, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Aheer[edit]

Aheer (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 couldn't verify that this meets WP:NOTABILITY. Sending WP:APPNOTE to Sitush. Boleyn (talk) 20:34, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 20:40, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 20:40, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - From my searches and English POV, I found nothing aside from self-generated social media and such. SwisterTwister talk 02:31, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:24, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:24, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ☮JAaron95 Talk 14:56, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I was toying with suggesting a redirect to Ahir on the grounds that Aheer is a valid transliteration. However, aside from poor social networking sites etc (eg: this), there doesn't seem to be much support for it as a synonymous term. I've found no support for it at all in reliable books/journals, either as a synonym or as a distinct community. - Sitush (talk) 15:37, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus.  Sandstein  08:03, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Harold E. Lurier[edit]

Harold E. Lurier (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 is presented that this gentleman passes WP:PROF. Article cites precisely zero reliable independent sources. Guy (Help!) 09:35, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:46, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:46, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:46, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:46, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:46, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. He does appear to have produced a good amount of work, but that itself does not confer notability. I could not find any evidence of significant coverage in reliable, independent sources, as required by WP:GNG. He also does not appear to satisfy any of the criteria listed on WP:PROF. --Biblioworm 19:28, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: I encourage the closer of this AfD to look at my comment below and consider which arguments are more policy-based. Please recall that AfD closures are to be made based upon the strength of the arguments, not the vote count. --Biblioworm 19:57, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I looked for sources and found several that (as self-published material) could be used to support the factual information in the article but don't provide much evidence of notability. He won a local teaching award and helped craft some local faculty policies but again that doesn't count for much. I think all we really have as evidence is moderately large (for an academic work) library holdings of one book, and two published academic reviews of the same book (only one of which I could find online). I don't think that's enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:54, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Very weak keep as a historian from the mid-20th-century whose contributions are still clearly being discussed. The number of book reviews is now up to three, but I think that's less relevant than the later book sources mentioning his work. I've struck my previous opinion. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:49, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep I don't want to overstate, like Eppstein and Biblio I can see that this is not a strong case. But I do want to point out that medievalists continue to argue about the original language of the Chronicle of the Morea, and to cite his work when they do.[9].E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:39, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Came back to say that it can be useful to scholars coming across an argument by a scholar whose work they dont know to have an easy-to-find source like Wikipedia to tell them who he is. With guys who are still active, this is easy, even minor scholars have faculty pages. But your faculty page dies with you. It's a genuine function that WP serves and, since this page doean't seem to be a MEMORIAL, it seems harmless and even useful to keep it. Just an opinion, not policy-based.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:05, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I'm quite surprised that this AfD is starting to turn toward "keep". I'll do an in-depth analyzation of this article compared to the individual criteria in WP:PROF: (1) The possibility that Lurier meets this criteria is very slim. Even if researchers of the Chronicle of the Morea do cite his work, the page states (in italics) that the field in question must be a broad field, and not a narrow one. The study of an individual chronicle seems to be quite narrow. Secondly, his award for teaching excellence appears to be an internal university award, which is expressly specified as not satisfying the criteria. Therefore, I do not believe that the subject satisfies this criteria; (2) No. If he had, it should be very easy to discover. (3) No. (4) The only books he has authored seem to be A History of the Religions of the World and The Emergence of the Western World, and they don't appear to be particularly significant in any way. (5) I couldn't find any information that would suggest this. (6) No. (7) No. (8) No. (9) He seems to have merely translated poetry, not written it. Conclusion: It seems here that the subject of this article fails all nine of these criteria, therefore failing the guideline itself. --Biblioworm 15:39, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • At best Weak keep -- I have never heard of his two books. Books on general historical subjects (like these) are liable to become dated fairly quickly. His translations may well be significant and it may be useful to retain a bio, so that people can know who the translator was. However, my guess is that the citations are of the text that he translated and edited, rather than of what he wrote. If he translated Greek poetry, I would have expected that to be published too. Nevertheless for a large part of his career, he seems to have produced nothing. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:08, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - even though he was productive only in spurts, he seems to pass WP:PROF based on his citations that I saw online. Bearian (talk) 00:05, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • He has produced a small amount of works, true, but it still does not meet the standard set forth in WP:PROF. His only somewhat significant published work seems to be on the Chronicle of the Morea, and as I emphasized above, that field is not broad enough to satisfy criterion one even if his work had made a very large impact in that field. I am of course aware of IAR and am not attempting to wikilawyer, but I do not see anything at all remarkable about the gentleman that would justify his exemption from our inclusion guidelines. Otherwise we could do the same for almost any other person whom we feel it "does not do any harm" to have an article on. --Biblioworm 14:20, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | Talk 00:49, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I would like to request that any admin who sees this on the new log not close it and leave it open for another seven-day period, in consideration of the new analysis I have presented above and which seems to be ignored. If there is no change after that period, then it can be closed. --Biblioworm (talk) 14:48, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Biblioworm (talk) 14:48, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Others must be seeing things I don't see, because I cannot find any evidence to support keeping this page. His Chronicles translation does not appear at all in WorldCat, although WC does list a copy of his dissertation (held in 3 libraries), which appears to be the precursor to his book. I do find the book listed in the Library of Congress catalog in a Columbia U series [10]. (But why does this not show in WC? No idea.) In g-scholar the book is cited 28 times. His other two books are listed in the LC catalog, but I can't even find them at Harvard, whose book collection is equal to LC's. His book "History of religions of the world," is self-published (Xlibris, Philadelpha). I don't see how this could support notability as per wp:academics. LaMona (talk) 17:22, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment My keep argument is that its is a modestly useful article, and that AFD ought not to be destructive of Wikipedia's usefulness. Lurier was a minor academic known for involvement in an academic policy debate and in a scholarly debate over a medieval text. Individuals interested in either of those issues will encounter ihis name and it may be useful to them to be able to rapidly locate him by means of that article. Since he passed away years ago; the article has no whiff of memorial, let along use of WP for promotion or politicized special pleading - there seems to me to be some use and no harm in keeping it.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:30, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Withdrawn by nominator, WP:SNOWCLOSE (non-admin closure) — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 06:26, 16 August 2015 (UTC) — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 13:29, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Plant-based diet[edit]

Plant-based diet (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)

Scope of this article overlaps completely with Vegetarianism which is set up to be the overarching article on this topic. Jytdog (talk) 13:23, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 13:38, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
yes, however as Jytdog indicated Vegetarianism which is set up to be the overarching article on this topic, so while you have made edits [11] it might be best to just have "vegetarianism"...IMO--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:00, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
By that reasoning, we should delete Economic system, because the article on Communism discusses all of the economic systems, and can be set up as "the overarching article on this topic". Also, there are dozens of incoming links to plant-based diet which will be broken if the article is deleted, and which are not necessarily about "vegeterianism". Who is going to fix those? bd2412 T 14:06, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I would do - it is important to me that WP is "meta-edited" well - that articles fit together in a thoughtful way. Jytdog (talk) 14:48, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A plant-based diet is a thing that exists and is discussed independently in reliable sources, distinct from vegetarianism, even if the article on vegetarianism mentions non-vegetarian plant-based diets. Per the description in the sources, a person can have a plant-based diet where they eat steak and pork chops on an occasional basis, without any intention to transition to another kind of diet from that. Such a diet would not appropriately be called "vegetarianism" even though it is based on eating plants. bd2412 T 13:45, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The main part of the body, "Variations" completely overlaps with Vegetarianism; the sentence you added could just as well go in that article. Jytdog (talk) 13:58, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think someone who eats a small proportion of meat in their diet solely because they do not have access to meat is a "vegetarian"? bd2412 T 14:07, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi BD2412, I won't be one of those AfD noms who argue endlessly, but I'll respond here since you asked me a direct question. Yes I do think they could be described that way. I also think there are several places where the Vegetarianism article could do with further discussion about that (e.g. the Economics and diet section. If this article were to be focused on the relationship between poverty and diet (which does lead to more eating of plants), in my view that would be a legit article. But again that is content that should start in Vegetarianism and be split out once it grows too much... Jytdog (talk) 14:46, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment BD2412 is correct in stating that a plant-based diet is distinctly different from vegetarianism or even semi-vegetarianism. Those are both practices rather than diets and much research equates low meat-intake diets with vegetarianism when looking at populations in countries with traditionally low meat consumption such as India or Ethiopia, but they are distinct. I see this was expanded upon today, and with a little more expansion I can support a keep. That said I wouldn't go through AfD anyway and if it isn't expanded we should just merge it. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 16:20, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Overlap or scope-clash is not a reason to delete. The title for this page seems reasonably common in the literature - see papers such as Public views of the benefits and barriers to the consumption of a plant-based diet, Consumers' readiness to eat a plant-based diet or Effects of plant-based diets on plasma lipids. As there is a family of diets of this sort, we should expect to have multiple pages about them and a general overview such as we have on this page seems helpful to the reader. Andrew D. (talk) 17:48, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Here is an obvious reason. Suppose I were to chain you to my basement wall for a few months, and in that time feed you beans and cabbages and almonds and beets three meals a day, with a three ounce chunk of brisket or a half a hot dog once per day. Would you then be practicing vegetarianism, under any sense of practicing vegetarianism as described? No. But you'd have a plant based diet, yes? Pandeist (talk) 17:57, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We require adherence to WP:MEDRS when it comes to medical-related articles. That means we can not have articles without references, and there is a risk this article would be without references if we picked off the list section. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 18:30, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't medical-related. At least, not more than cabbage is. Pandeist (talk) 19:01, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We require adherence to WP:MEDRS when it comes to medical-related topics. Feel free to request MEDRS-compliant refs to medical statements (even in the article "cabbage", by the way :-) Staszek Lem (talk) 21:09, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No. We require MEDRS for statements about biomedical information, just like we require BLP for statements about living people. The overall topic is irrelevant. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:39, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for clarifying, I expressed myself a little clumsily (tired).-- CFCF 🍌 (email) 14:42, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that MEDRS also are demanded for non-biomedical information, in effect strangling a lot of agricultural subjects. The Banner talk 18:07, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep - valid subject, references clearly possible.Staszek Lem (talk) 20:42, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because contrary to the deletion rationale, it doesn't overlap completely with vegetarianism, as is made clear in the lede. If anything, it needs expansion to better cover the significant proportion of the World population who follow a (largely) plant-based diet by necessity rather than choice. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:13, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but stop calling it a dab page (ie remove the dab project banner - it's already lost its dab template): it isn't one. It's a useful referenced article about the concept of "plant based diet". PamD 22:09, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I find this really confusing. If you take the time to read the Vegetarianism] article it talks about all the things that you all are saying here, including diets that include some meat. The articles do overlap in scope 100%. Jytdog (talk) 23:11, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I find your confusion confusing. You seem to think it appropriate to call a person who eats meat and intends to continue eating meat (but can't always obtain it) a "vegetarian".... Pandeist (talk) 23:18, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm... I don't really know how the sources are using these terms, but based on what the articles say, a person who eats sugar cereal for breakfast, egg salad on white bread for lunch, and macaroni and cheese for supper, with chocolate and full-sugar soft drinks in between, would be following a "vegetarian" diet but not a "plant-based" one. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:10, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
you seem to be making a case that is a more narrow version of vegetarianism, WAID. Others here are saying it is a broader category. Pandeist the Vegetarianism article says quite clearly "Individuals sometimes label themselves "vegetarian" while practicing a semi-vegetarian diet,[10][29][30] as some dictionary definitions describe vegetarianism as sometimes including the consumption of fish, or only include mammalian flesh as part of their definition of meat,[9][31] while other definitions exclude fish and all animal flesh" - this is part of what I mean, by people don't seem to be dealing with the vegetarianism article that actually exists. Jytdog (talk) 00:15, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly allow me to qualify: I am a vegetarian. I move in the circles of vegetarians. So I understand what it is to be a vegetarian. And so it seems odd that anybody would insist that we would discuss exclusively as "vegetarians" people who eat meat, and like eating meat, and do not consider themselves to be any kind of vegetarians, and who do not necessarily apply any ethical consideration or even health consideration to what they eat. By your calculus it would seem we ought to eliminate as well the page about herbivores (and opportunistic omnivores even) and simply call them all vegetarians. Would you consider aphids for example to be vegetarians? Or better described as having a plant-based diet? Pandeist (talk) 01:11, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Forgive me, but all that is irrelevant in WP - WIkipedia isn't written based on personal authority. And yeah I kind of figured that is where you coming from, instead of what sourced content in our articles say...... sorry. Jytdog (talk) 02:02, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Where is your sourced content claiming people who eat meat and enjoy eating meat and do not consider themselves vegetarian and do not apply any vegetarian principles are in fact vegetarians? I'm fascinated to see such a source. Pandeist (talk) 02:19, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Jytdog, I think that all of us are collectively making the case that vegetarian diets and plant-based diets are different – not broader, not narrower, but just different. You could have a plant-based vegetarian diet, and you could have a non-plant-based vegetarian diet; equally, you could have a meat-eating plant-based diet, and you could have a non-meat-eating plant-based diet. Neither diet is a proper subset of the other. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:30, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Then let this be SNOW closed. - I withdrawn it any case. I said I wanted to get the community's thoughts, and here they are! Thank you and I am sorry for having taken up your time. It will be interesting to see how this article unfolds. Jytdog (talk) 03:51, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. North America1000 00:09, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Freke[edit]

Tim Freke (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)

Unsourced BLP which I could PROD as such; I do not believe that this person is notable. What I'm seeing is promotional or self-published, nothing of real substance. TheLongTone (talk) 13:14, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 13:55, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 13:56, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I checked the first half dozen books that appear in Amazon and they are all self-published, mostly Kindle-only editions. However, he has published some of them in hard copy under imprints owned by Penguin and Harpers, and his books are listed in library catalogs under the name Timothy Freke. There are 10 such books in WorldCat, at least one with ~250 holdings (others are much less). His publishers all seem to be in the "spiritual/self help/etc." vein, a topic that I am hard-pressed to view without prejudice. There are numerous interviews with him in modern mystical resources, but I would have no idea if any of those are considered reliable sources. LaMona (talk) 17:40, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I searched, and could find no notability for him, or for his co-author Peter Gandy or for their book The Jesus Mysteries.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:58, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for now as although News, Books, browser and highbeam all found results, there's nothing outstandingly good. SwisterTwister talk 06:50, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - searches provided mentions, but not enough to meet the notability requirements as per WP:GNG or WP:NAUTHOR. Onel5969 TT me 14:36, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep all of them. (non-admin closure) Kraxler (talk) 16:01, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Aviation Academy Railway Halt[edit]

Aviation Academy Railway Halt (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 in the previous AfD, I believe the subjects of these articles fail the notability guideline. While many of the newly created articles are cited to reliable sources and are thus verifiable, the fact that they are all cited to the same books suggests that such coverage is merely passing, and doesn't help satisfy WP:N.

While the previous AfD saw the point being made that railway stations are generally regarded as notable, consulting with the Trains WikiProject has revealed that there is no consensus to support such claims. Furthermore, the nominated articles are merely halts, not fully equipped railway stations, so the argument probably doesn't apply anyway.

While the authors' contributions are appreciated, it must be noted that Wikipedia is not a directory. The mere listing of railway stations doesn't constitute encyclopaedic coverage, and not all railway stops merit an article on Wikipedia. Paul_012 (talk) 12:27, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Firstly, these are all rail stations, not halts. The nom changed the name of all of them from "Station" to "Halt" after their last batch AfD which was closed as "KEEP". In Wikipedia we include the designation "halt" in the train station article and small similar stations in other countries are called "station." Wondabyne railway station is a request halt but we call it station because that's what it is. Rail stations are all considered notable and nomination so many topics in one gigantic batch AfD is impossible for editors to vet every article anyway and is borderline disruptive. Stations like this in the UK or US would never be considered for deletion. Is this a case of systemic bias? --Oakshade (talk) 15:10, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Pardon me, but you seem to have confused a few facts. Allow me to correct them: (1) I renamed six articles following Necrothesp's discussion in the previous AfD. The rest were created with these names. (2) The AfD was closed as no consensus, not keep.
As noted above, there has been no consensus that railway stations are inherently notable. (The specific discussion referred to in the above link appears to be here.) Also, that other stuff exists is not a valid argument for retention or deletion, so the existence of other articles on stations in other countries should have no bearing on this discussion. If British and American railway stations have received more complete coverage by third-party sources than that of Thai stations, it would seem to indicate a difference in public interest rather than Wikipedia's systemic bias. I acknowledge that this is a rather large nomination, but the fact that almost all of the articles were created within ten days of each other, as well as the near-identical appearance of each one of them, indicate that not much consideration seems to have been given to the individual merits of each station either, so it should be fairly okay to consider them together. I'd performed google searches on many of the subjects prior to nominating, and most of the results were either from the State Railway's or railway enthusiast websites, or passing mention in the news. --Paul_012 (talk) 16:35, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Nothing has changed since the last nomination; I agree with Oakshade that this nomination borders on disruptive. It's well-established precedent that individual train stations are presumptively notable and that they are generally kept at AfD. The threshold tends to be street-running tram stops as they're functionally equivalent to bus stations. The nominator does not explain why these stations aren't notable. The distinction between a station and a halt is semantic at best; any number of stations in the United States could probably be described as halts but none have and furthermore none have been deleted. Any railway station has likely received non-trivial local coverage which is why they're presumptively notable. Spot-checking the articles reveal that they have reliable references; which in a normal scenario would be considered a good thing, not evidence of their non-notability. The concerns about systemic bias shouldn't be dismissed either. The issue isn't whether the public is more "interested" in railway stations in Thailand than in the United States, but rather the accessibility of sources, many of which are not in English and may be offline (even for US topics, I find that many useful sources are offline). As an aside, the referenced TWP discussion is hardly dispositive as one editor answered you (he does not speak for everyone), and the "RFC" he refers to was a discussion on a notability talk page and not a formal RFC (as many participants indicated). Mackensen (talk) 21:28, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 03:22, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all - many of the articles have photographs, thus proving the stations exists or has existed. A mass nomination of about 50 articles in not conducive to easy examination of the issue. Wikipedia is a gazeteer, thus railway stations should be included. Mjroots (talk) 20:45, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per above comments. Useddenim (talk) 21:03, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete I've not looked at all of them and I have no source material to go on. However of the dozen or so I have looked at, here and on their Thai articles, I'm seeing unsourced stubs about single line, single platform halts that are no more than a low platform and a shelter, with no other facilities or pointwork. These do not make the case for stand-alone articles.
Redirect'ing to sections within an article on the line would be a reasonable alternative. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:44, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to closing admin - The above two !votes are by the same user. --Oakshade (talk) 02:15, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Andy Dingley, this is looking like a double vote. Which do you favor? Delete or redirect? If redirect, to what exactly?--Oakshade (talk) 23:07, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
wikt:alternative might help you out there. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:03, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you alternately favor redirecting, redirect to what? A smart-alack Wikidictionary link doesn't help us read your mind. By your new paragraph and indenting, it looks like two different votes. I've corrected that.--Oakshade (talk) 02:15, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a challenging Afd since there are differences between some of the articles which may influence whether they should be kept or not. In general I favor Deleting those that do not cite any WP:RS sources and those that are merely rail halts. However I would Keep any that are actual rail stations and have at least one reliable source cited. I concur with previous comments that there has been a general consensus within the community that train stations are presumptively notable provided there is adequate RS coverage establishing their actual existence. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:50, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Has anyone found one of these with an indication (even unsourced) that it is any more than a mere halt? Andy Dingley (talk) 01:03, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Andy Dingley: Have halts been deemed non-notable then? I seem to have missed that notification. Oh well, bye bye Uralite Halt, Salehurst Halt, Black Dog Halt et al. Mjroots (talk) 08:11, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
They're not inherently non-notable, but nor are they implicitly notable (as we regard stations). If any pass WP:GNG they're of course welcome to stay. But so far, these all seem to be very minor in both importance and in notability. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:42, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:46, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Railway stations, however small, are generally held to be inherently notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:53, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Railway stations that verifiably exist are presumed notable. The nominator has not shown that there is any reason these stations are not individually notable, and if that were the case they should be merged and redirect to the relevant line/system article not deleted. Thryduulf (talk) 10:16, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per Thryduulf. I'd also like to point out that in the past, some users have accused the TWP editors of being biased towards American station articles, an accusation that has been readily dismissed. Eliminating ones for stations in Thailand would only serve to reinforce such suspicions. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 12:21, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) —☮JAaron95 Talk 14:04, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The World According to Monsanto[edit]

The World According to Monsanto (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 think this fails WP:NFILM. I cannot find independent critical reviews outside of the alternative health WP:FRINGE groups. The article simply cites promotional sites and the film itself as a kind of soaprack. jps (talk) 12:12, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, although article is badly sourced and written at present, there seem to be just enough RS to establish notability.Pincrete (talk) 15:46, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The French name gives other reviews, not being fluent in French, I am unable to assess their worth.Pincrete (talk) 16:42, 14 August 2015 (UTC) … nb corrected links given as 'Alts', 'original' below. Pincrete (talk) 09:37, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The sources are not independent (recycling the promoter's blurb) or are trivial (listings only). I see no evidence of analytical coverage, nothing supporting anything much beyond its bare existence. Guy (Help!) 15:47, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect to Marie-Monique Robin. The film seems to be very poorly covered in the (English language) media, and there is little evidence of notability to be found. The French media isn't quite as clear, there's quite a few WP:FRINGE media sources with some mentions, but I can't find much to suggest that it has received substantial coverage from reliable non-fringe sources. Based on that, it seems to clearly fail WP:NFILM. I'm not sure if the film should be summarized briefly on Marie-Monique Robin's page or just listed there somewhere, but it definitely doesn't justify a standalone article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Garzfoth (talk • contribs) 23:17, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. @Pincrete: that search is for the English title, but once on that page I pasted the French title into the search field and looked at the first half-dozen results. Most were just mentions in news pieces about other projects of Marie-Monique Robin’s, by way of introducing her as best-known-for. (I suppose that’s evidence of notability in the vernacular sense, if not in WP’s.) One was a brief go-see-it from an environmentalist blogger who calls Robin a friend. But the sixth hit was a fairly substantial critique from the Association Française pour l’Information Scientifique, with an introduction that says more or less that they hadn’t planned on watching the film, but having seen it on national TV felt obligated to confront the pseudoscience therein on a few points. Although that’s not exactly encouraging, having found one solid review so quickly I expect that with a little effort more coverage might be found.—Odysseus1479 02:45, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Guy and nom. Dbrodbeck (talk) 02:51, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 03:19, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Pincrete (talk) 10:47, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Alts
Original:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Filmaker:(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)
Finland:(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)
Sweden:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Finland (Swedish title):(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
ALt English:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:05, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:05, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:05, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the book has been multiply reviewed by sources such as Les Inrockuptibles, and the film has been reviewed by a scientific agency and shown before a meeting of the National Assembly. --110.20.234.69 (talk) 04:15, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep:: the article references coverage in Le Monde and Le Figaro, both of which are unimpeachable WP:RS and establish notability for this film. Vrac (talk) 11:50, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. While I agree that the sourcing was completely primary at the time of the original nomination, it's been improved with much better references to solid, independent reliable sources like Le Monde, Le Figaro and the Toronto Star. Bearcat (talk) 19:05, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Bearcat and Vrac. Sourcing has been improved to the point where it now passes WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 13:59, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep, withdrawn by nom (non-admin close). shoy (reactions) 17:27, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shadowmatic[edit]

  • WITHDRAWN BY NOMINATOR - Winning an Apple Design Award (2015) makes this game notable. JMHamo (talk) 12:29, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Shadowmatic (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 JMHamo (talk) 12:11, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Name pages are a special type of disambiguation pages. They are justified if there is a good number of items to list. Content disputes must be discussed on the pertaining talk page. (non-admin closure) Kraxler (talk) 02:19, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vishwajeet[edit]

Vishwajeet (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 name, does not meet WP:notability, should be transcluded to either language page or the name page, similar to henry in england may be there are millions of such name without any notabtility related to name Shrikanthv (talk) 10:37, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — CutestPenguinHangout 11:21, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]


The name Henry has an entire Wikipedia page, as it is a notable given name of English origin. Similarly there are hundreds of notable given names of Indian origin that have their own page (such as Rahul, Soumya, Abhishek, etc.).

Please refer to the following wikipedia pages for further evidence of popular Indian given names having their own Wikipedia pages: -

  • [12] - Category: Indian masculine given names
  • [13] - Category: Indian feminine given names
  • [14] - Category: Indian given names
  • [15] - Category: Hindu given names

The popularity of the name is established by means of adding a list of notable people with the given name, as is the case with most of the articles in the above mentioned categories. Therefore, the page on the Indian masculine name Vishwajeet deserves a Wikipedia page for the benefit of the users as a source for useful information on the history and meaning of the name. However, users are free to make appropriate edits as they seem fit, and wherever necessary. Either the deletion tag needs to be removed, or all the hundreds of pages on Indian given names need to be tagged for deletion with immediate effect, which would call for the deletion of every other article on given names irrespective of country of origin. Kreplach123 (talk) 17:23, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see mere presence can bring a notability to a generic name !, and just pointing out to some other page does not make the current generic name notable enough to have a page! , also note with the name "Henry" there were french kings and other notable charecter, I am little skeptical on the concerened generic name Shrikanthv (talk) 06:19, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I understand what you are trying to say. However, I believe the concerned name's notability has been established by adding the Notable People list on the article's page. More than a dozen important and notable personalities have been mentioned there, which is more than the other pages on Indian names. The name (which is also a Sanskrit word) is especially common and significantly popular in Bengal, and therefore deserves a Wikipedia page for the benefit of the users. Kreplach123 (talk) 06:25, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I would be very much happy to withdraw this nomination, please add some reference or sources to the article on the calims of notability you are stating Shrikanthv (talk) 06:42, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 10:57, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Bevan[edit]

Richard Bevan (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)

Attempted to speedy delete for lack of notability, editor removed. Is Richard Bevan notable? Samuel Tarling (talk) 10:22, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator at the request of User:Philafrenzy Samuel Tarling (talk) 10:47, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]



Yes, he is. Completely premature attempt at deletion. It was created a few minutes ago; it is clearly under construction...Zigzig20s (talk) 10:29, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Zigzig20s: Could you please explain to me why he is notable? Currently, he just seems to be 'another person'. Please see the notability criteria for people. Samuel Tarling (talk) 10:32, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you give us breathing space, yes. I've never seen a page go to AFD a few minutes after its creation--you really should let editors improve the page first.Zigzig20s (talk) 10:33, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
By all means continue editing the page. I don't enjoy removing content from Wikipedia, and I honestly and sincerely would like to see this article kept and this AfD shut down (and myself proven completely wrong!). Samuel Tarling (talk) 10:36, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nonsense, you AFd'd it in a fit of pique because Edwardx removed your speedy tag. Both the speedy and this AFD are premature. Please withdraw your nomination and let the creator do his job. If you still feel it is not notable in 7 days, AFD it then. Philafrenzy (talk) 10:41, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Philafrenzy: I disagree with your reasoning as to why I AfD'd the article, but I will concede and withdraw the nomination. Samuel Tarling (talk) 10:45, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, that is very gracious of you. Philafrenzy (talk) 10:51, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. North America1000 01:03, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deni Hoxha[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. Most references either don't mention Deni Hoxha, or are non-reliable (e.g. Twitter) and/or non-independent. The couple of exceptions only barely mention him. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:41, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Much too minor to be notable. Looks like a Facebook page. Anmccaff (talk) 14:56, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. — CutestPenguinHangout 11:24, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — CutestPenguinHangout 11:24, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:03, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - No evidence of significant coverage in reliable sources. --Hirolovesswords (talk) 04:01, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete searches turned up nothing to support notability. Onel5969 TT me 13:49, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 07:26, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jewell Marceau[edit]

Jewell Marceau (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 PORNBIO & GNG. Signy award is non notable and scene awards no longer count Spartaz Humbug! 07:35, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. — CutestPenguinHangout 11:26, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — CutestPenguinHangout 11:26, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:30, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:32, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) —☮JAaron95 Talk 14:05, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dana DeArmond[edit]

Dana DeArmond (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 PORNBIO & GNG. Scene awards no longer count Spartaz Humbug! 07:34, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. — CutestPenguinHangout 11:29, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — CutestPenguinHangout 11:29, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:38, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Clear case of no attempt at WP:BEFORE.[16][17][18][19][20][21] Here's a helpful hint to the nominator, use the findsources template in your sandbox before dismissing articles as not satisfying the general notability guidelines. Hell, look at some of the citations that are already in the article. Morbidthoughts (talk) 03:28, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Name-drops and p[assing mentnios in books, plus such in-depth gems as "I don't like a man in sandals. If I see a man in flip-flops, I'm like, "You better be headed towards the shower" in an Esquire blurb don't count for anything. Tarc (talk) 03:33, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, you should read some of the other links. Particularly that first one again. The point of notability is notice; "significant coverage" means the coverage has to be substantial; not that the subject matter has to be of substantive value to you. Morbidthoughts (talk) 03:41, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you're hanging your notability argument on a single non-notable book, then we're heading for an easy deletion. Tarc (talk) 04:33, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just keep on distorting those notability guidelines there. Morbidthoughts (talk) 05:15, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Passing mentions in sources do not add up to notability, no meeting of WP:PORNBIO either. Tarc (talk) 03:33, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Morbidthoughts.--Hillary Scott`love (talk) 06:06, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep, bad faith nom and patent lack of WP:BEFORE, clearly passes GNG and WP:BASIC, and at the time of nomination the article already contained several RS supporting, or at least suggesting, a claim of notability. A whole chapter devoted to the subject in Julia Angwin's book Pornography and Seriality: The Culture of Producing Pleasure, several pages in Rich Moreland's Pornography Feminism, the Las Vegas Sun, Esquire or Daily Beast articles clearly are not "a passing mention". Furthermore she was interviewed in Cosmopolitan [22] and in this CNN article. Cavarrone 06:21, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Morbidthoughts - The sources aren't amazing but notability does seem to be there, Meh piss-poor sources are better than nothing at all. –Davey2010Talk 17:39, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) —☮JAaron95 Talk 14:06, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Kozer[edit]

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

A runner up to a reality show is now normally considered notable. Spartaz Humbug! 07:33, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. — CutestPenguinHangout 11:31, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — CutestPenguinHangout 11:31, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:00, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:22, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - in addition to the nominator rationale, these [23][24][25][26] should meet the notability guidelines. Really, do a WP:BEFORE. Morbidthoughts (talk) 04:21, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, a bit reluctantly. Nominator is right on the general principle, but Kozer became notorious just before reliable US media outlets realized that spotting self-promoting exhibitionists with skeletons in their closets on reality TV was routine rather than legitimately noteworthy. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 11:55, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Hullaballoo Wolfowitz hits the nail on the head. I don't want to, but she appears to meet the notability requirements for all the wrong reasons. Onel5969 TT me 13:15, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. North America1000 23:52, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Aika Miura[edit]

Aika Miura (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 PORNBIO & GNG Spartaz Humbug! 07:32, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — CutestPenguinHangout 11:32, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. — CutestPenguinHangout 11:32, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:35, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 07:15, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Marina Matsushima[edit]

Marina Matsushima (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 PORNBIO & GNG Spartaz Humbug! 07:32, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — CutestPenguinHangout 11:37, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. — CutestPenguinHangout 11:37, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:35, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy deletion (G11). (Non-admin closure) AllyD (talk) 09:28, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Yellow Door Store[edit]

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

Fails WP:CORP with only one reference, which doesn't have a link. Conifer (talk) 07:18, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 08:43, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 08:43, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  Sandstein  08:10, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jasmine Sinclair[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Jasmine Sinclair (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 Pornbio and GNG - Signy award was deleted as nn in 2013 and the Bondage awards also appears nn. Spartaz Humbug! 06:38, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:34, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:34, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: above votes are destructive. Always votes for delete, indiscriminately. Fails PORNBIO? this is not a pornstar, does not apply to PORNBIO. She is model. Subtropical-man talk
    (en-2)     11:41, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Note - Above editor !votes keep on every single AFD for no valid reasons, As an aside I consider someone who's a bondage model" to be a PORNBIO, If I'm incorrect then I'm incorrect but either way she fails GNG anyway. –Davey2010Talk 12:05, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - this is not a pornstar, does not apply to PORNBIO. She is model, she has been featured in a large number of notable publications including The Sun (newspaper), News of the World and The Daily Sport newspapers, Playboy magazine, Toni and Guy Magazine, Loaded Magazine, Nuts Magazine, Zoo Magazine, Ann Summers Catalogue, REVS Magazine and Maxpower Magazine. Sinclair won the SIGNY Award for Best Bondage Model in 2003, She won the Silver Medal (2nd place) in the "Best Bondage Model" category at the 2008 Bondage Awards. She regained the title of "Best Bondage Model" after a 6-year wait, by winning the Gold Medal at the 2009 Bondage Awards, and then she became the first two-time winner in 2010. Subtropical-man talk
    (en-2)     11:41, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:PORNBIO clearly says "Pornographic actors and models" and that has always been understood to include softcore models (e.g. Playboy Playmates) and fetish models. Winning a non-notable SIGNY Award does not establish notability neither does posing for lots of men's magazines. • Gene93k (talk) 12:31, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The Sun, the News of the World and The Daily Sport ("which specialised in celebrity news and softcore pornographic stories and images") are tabloids. Please see WP:ROUTINE and WP:SENSATION where "tabloid journalism" is mentioned. Kraxler (talk) 18:38, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The one "keep" opinion does not address relevant guidelines and practices, or the arguments for deletion.  Sandstein  07:54, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of Digimon World characters[edit]

List of Digimon World characters (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 page consists exclusively of fancruft. It fails WP:GAMEGUIDE and WP:GNG. Fangusu (talk) 06:23, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 08:44, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 08:44, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 08:50, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- 100% unsourced in-universe fancruft. Reyk YO! 09:08, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:54, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:54, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- Article in bad condition bad can be improved. Digimon franchise is notable. There are articles on list of characters of almost every important franchise including Pokemon.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 17:34, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge or Delete I thought about a merge to Digimon World#Plot but this series transcends 11 different video games. If someone wants to merge all the info into the different article's plot sections that I feel could be a good solution, if not then this should be kept and improved. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:40, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also agree with a WP:TNT rationale here. No objectections here for a future re-creation with a better sourced list. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:26, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did you have someone in mind for userfying? It doesn't look like there's anyone who's regularly maintained it, or volunteering to clean it up... Sergecross73 msg me 13:02, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:TNT, though I wouldn't be opposed of someone recreating it someday if they wrote it professionally with sources. That recreation should contain about 0% of what this article is though. Sergecross73 msg me 14:45, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. North America1000 23:49, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sunyee Maluche[edit]

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

Delete: as non-notable actress/model. Quis separabit? 05:22, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 08:47, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 08:47, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for now as there isn't anything outstanding to suggest independent notability (apart from some results at browser) and this could be redirected to Teen Gen as she was part of the cast but it's probably better to delete for now. SwisterTwister talk 02:50, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - searches did not show anything which would meet the notability criteria. Onel5969 TT me 13:08, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:03, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Crusty Demons[edit]

Crusty Demons (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)

My searches found no good sources or signs of improvement here, here, here and here, there are articles saying they're "highly sucessful" and such but no good and in-depth coverage. I'm also not seeing a good target for moving elsewhere. SwisterTwister talk 04:38, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:13, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:13, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:53, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - a google news search produced what appears to be enough substantial coverage to warrant passing WP:GNG, such as this, this, this, and to a lesser extent this. While this isn't in-depth coverage, I believe it does go to the notability of the group. Article definitely needs improvement. In addition, there are enough tangential mentions of the group and how they affected later riders to warrant inclusion. Onel5969 TT me 16:49, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:09, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2015_August_14&oldid=1142626755"