Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 August 18

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 17 August	19 August >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was Delete. --MelanieN (talk) 00:22, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Phutureprimitive[edit]

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

Non-notable musician. Article only has one source, which is the musician's home page. Other than that, can't really find much information about him. Article previously put up for BLPPROD so can't prod this one. LionMans Account (talk) 23:47, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 03:05, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 03:05, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:MUSICBIO. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:02, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now as my searches found nothing good aside from this and this. SwisterTwister talk 05:23, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:MUSICBIO does have a bullet point about indie labels but rarely have I found that to be any source in determining notability. In this particular case, it doesn't seem like it either with WP:SIGCOV. Mkdw ^talk 00:58, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:MUSICBIO and appear to be WP:PROMOTIONAL. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 12:43, 25 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) 00:25, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Institute of Sex Research in Opole, Poland[edit]

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

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

Fails WP:ORG sovereign°sentinel (contribs) 03:21, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:26, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:26, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:26, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:26, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – After several source searches, not finding significant coverage; does not meet WP:N or WP:ORGDEPTH. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:25, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - To obtain credible results in net searching, you ought to enter original name of organisation (Instytut Badań Seksualnych Opole) or diffrent English translations (Institute of Sex Research, Institute of Sexual Research). Then, cosiderable data appears, for examle that the Institute, though acts only 6 years, has some successes yet: it published 2 books and several articles, where one of the books was recommended as university students readings, it tooks over the patronage of a scientific conference, carries out 2 research projects. So, readers and observers of this entertainments have right to receive from Wiki basic information on the organisation. Jerry3434 (talk) 06:14, 6 August 2015 (UTC) User:Jerry3434 is the creator of this article. Disclosure added per WP:AFDFORMAT.[reply]
- You can find reliable sources for this topic? WP:SOFIXIT! sovereign°sentinel (contribs) 10:58, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 03:37, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

- In Polish Wiki, the original entry has existed from 4 years and has been never under a dispute on deletion (the entry). The examples of considerable activity of the Institute: the initialization of new publishing serie "Eros i logos" ["Eros and logos"] in the form of the book "Homo eroticus" (The Institute of Sex Research in Opole Publishing, Opole, 2011), ISBN 978-83-931776-0-8, which earned high praises of specialists and was recommended as a reading for university students (see the book website), the initialization of a serie: "Following Bronislaw Malinowski" in the form of the book "The origins of homosexuality emancipation", An Amazon Kindle edition. The Institute of Sex Research in Opole Press, Opole 2015, ISBN 978-83-931776-3-9, the first publication of the Institute's Research Team for Human Sexual Orientation, the paper in the well-known Journal of Homosexuality, "Sex-partners roles in homosexual relations: An attempt of classification", doi:10.1080/00918369.2015.1078639.Jerry3434 (talk) 15:27, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - I nominated the pl wiki for deletion, too, but pl wiki is very inclusionist, so I wouldn't put much faith in arguments in that discussion. As for us, it doesn't matter for us what other wikis decide, we have our own policies, and I don't believe this one fits ours (see below). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:44, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 22:58, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I could only found one independent ref/media coverage in Polish ([1]), and that's rather minor. As such, I don't see how this fits Wikipedia:Notability (organizations). I am supportive of more inclusive criteria, but an organization should show some importance, this one does not. We are not Yellow Pages. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:38, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. One paper in journal and two books for an organization? It is not enough. No independent sources. Moreover, deleted even from the Polish Wikipedia. Kmicic (talk) 15:03, 25 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. Salvageable material has already been merged elsewhere. --MelanieN (talk) 00:42, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Haredi education[edit]

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

This article does not appear to have enough content to warrant its own article. It may make sense to include the subject as a paragraph in Haredi Judaism and/or Jewish education. (WP:Fork). Addionally, the article seems like a stitch up of some original research on the relevance of international law on Haredi Ed. & a coatrack of activist activities (like Yaffed). I.am.a.qwerty (talk) 18:00, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with no redirect: As per WP:TNT, (TNT tipping point argument): "if the article's content is useless... but the title might be useful, then delete the content to help encourage a new article.... [as] people tend to be more inclined to fill red links." I.am.a.qwerty (talk) 10:48, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per I.am.a.qwerty. In addition look at the SPA creator of the article. Some of the info could be included in another article as nominator pointed out.Caseeart (talk) 00:52, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I de-prodded this with the concern that its deletion might be controversial. I take no stance one way or the other. Bearian (talk) 20:16, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:29, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:29, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I agree that what is relevant could be included in other articles, as noted above. However, I note that the materials for US and Canada for example are only allegations or assertions, not what was the outcome. Enthusiast (talk) 23:39, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete The article as is, is best deleted. However, there are two points of interest here, and that is sex segregation and core subjects. These must be merged into other article before this article can be deleted. If the discussion will be closed as a delete, and the closing editor will want help in merging this information, please drop me a note before actually deleting. By the way, I think that with proper work this article could be improved into a small but independently interesting article. Debresser (talk) 17:58, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have added the point on sex segregation in education to Haredi Judaism and Jewish education, as suggested by you. Enthusiast (talk) 23:24, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - @Debresser, if you are willing to do the re-write, I am fine with temporarily holding off the deletion and will ask the voting editors can re-assess the article once you feel it can pass the basic threshold for WP. Haredi education is certainly an important topic, but the current article (in its current state) is worthy of WP:TNT. Wouldn't you agree? I.am.a.qwerty (talk) 09:39, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ewawer's merger made deletion untenable (see WP:MAD). Relisted to permit further discussion on the best path forward. T. Canens (talk) 22:47, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 22:47, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agreed that this article should be deleted. The article is more about orthodox Jewish education bashing than education itself. I have merged the part about sex segregation in education, which is relevant and true. The rest consists of mere allegations and assertions by individuals or groups with their own agendas, without any indication of outcomes. In short it was not my intention to "make deletion untenable". Enthusiast (talk) 23:02, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Just an idea for any editor who is interested in the topic but doesn't feel up to fixing the article, maybe it is time to create a List of Haredi educational institutions... I.am.a.qwerty (talk) 09:16, 24 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) 00:45, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2023 World Women's Handball Championship[edit]

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

WP:TOOSOON. Event is still 8 years away. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 22:06, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:51, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:51, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Still too soon for this article. MYS 77 ^✉ 19:33, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per WP:TOOSOON and WP:CRYSTAL. We just deleted an article about the 2028 Summer Olympics, and it had a great deal more substance to it than this. Rule of Thumb: if the article about future games has less substantive text than the AfD notice template, it may be too soon to create the article. Do we need to adopt a formal guideline to put a stop to this silliness? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:03, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above - way TOOSOON. –Davey2010^Talk 00:49, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not only is it WP:TOOSOON, but there isn't even an article for the preceding championship in 2021, which seems like it would be a prerequisite for this article's creation except in very special circumstances. Upjav (talk) 16:21, 25 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) 00:57, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Domestic hot water circulating pump[edit]

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

Stub article whose content is included in Circulator pump#Use with domestic hot water. No merge is necessary, since info is already included. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:04, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:08, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - basically a dicdef with little room for expansion. shoy (reactions) 14:42, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom. The 'domestic' makes it an implausible search term for a redirect. Vrac (talk) 00:26, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MILL. Existence of water pump should be more than enough. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 20:29, 25 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) 00:59, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Justin Galvis[edit]

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

No independent sources. Fails WP:BIO. Conifer (talk) 21:35, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 21:39, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, and due to total lack of evidence of meeting WP:PROF--not a single paper on his Google Scholar profile. [2] Everymorning (talk) 22:00, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Self-created article, no published sources. Looie496 (talk) 20:31, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now (draft & userfy if needed) as my searches found nothing good. SwisterTwister talk 05:31, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:32, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:32, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:32, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:32, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not appear that WP:GNG is met. A WP:BEFORE search results with very few results. Mostly things like Facebook, LinkedIn, etc. Mkdw ^talk 15:02, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Created by JGalvis, which most likely means it's a WP:COI (WP:YOURSELF). References aren't great, and there aren't any quality secondary sources provided, nor could I find any in my search. Notability also isn't clearcut. Upjav (talk) 16:16, 25 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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:09, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2016 FIA World Rallycross Championship season[edit]

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

Virtually no content at all. Recreate when more information about the season is available. QueenCake (talk) 21:25, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:53, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:53, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete either WP:TOOSOON or WP:CRYSTAL, almost no coverage yet, only some speculation Kraxler (talk) 01:37, 25 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 GCstar. (non-admin closure) Kraxler (talk) 01:45, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GCfilms[edit]

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

Non-notable defunct software product. Already mentioned on GCstar article. Searches provided no evidence of notability. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:41, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 03:02, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect as either way, my searches found nothing convincingly good. SwisterTwister talk 05:30, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect per above. No indication this is notable per se. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 17:59, 24 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) 01:01, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

David Crutcher[edit]

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

Unsourced WP:BLP of a person notable only as a non-winning candidate for the leadership of a political party, and as an unelected candidate for a provincial legislature. Neither of these are claims that satisfy WP:NPOL: unless you can make a credible and properly sourced claim that they're notable for other reasons independent of their candidacy, a person has to win election to, and thereby hold, a notable office to qualify for an article on here, not just run and lose. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 20:13, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 20:22, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 03:01, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 03:01, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 03:01, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - We have a high bar for politicians rather than a low bar. Unelected politician, not elected as a party leader, pretty easy call here. Carrite (talk) 03:02, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unelected candidate, fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG, no independent sources in the article Kraxler (talk) 01:56, 25 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) –Davey2010^Talk 00:50, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sajib Das[edit]

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

References are not enough for WP:GNG, only passing mentions or inclusion in list of musicians. Variation 25.2 (talk) 20:00, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:57, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:57, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Unable to find significant coverage in English-language sources, but there are ample Bengali sources to meet WP:BASIC. Some that could be used to expand and improve the article are: [3], [4], [5], [6], [7]. Worldbruce (talk) 02:48, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Possible keep if it can be improved. SwisterTwister talk 05:34, 24 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 delete and redirect to Whore of Babylon. Sock blocked, redirecting to original target and SALTing Nakon 19:52, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Great Whore of Babylon[edit]

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

WP:FRINGE. As a fringe theory, devoting an entire article to this concept gives undue weight to the concept and serves only as a WP:POVFORK from Whore of Babylon. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 19:47, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, restore original redirect It was initially created as a redirect to the Whore of Babylon article, and is synonymous. It does no harm as a redirect, and might do just a little good. Scr★pIron^IV 19:50, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Restore redirect - with full protection. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:52, 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) 01:14, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Young (politician)[edit]

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

Completely unsourced WP:BLP of a politician with no claim of notability that would satisfy WP:NPOL; all we've got is that he's a city councillor in a city with a population of just 5K and an as yet unelected candidate in the forthcoming federal election. As usual, he can have an article if he wins his seat in October, but nothing here gets him an article today. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 19:36, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:56, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:56, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Councillor in a small town. Not notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:57, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Politician elected to city council of a town with a population under 6,000. That dog don't hunt with respect to the Politician Special Notability Guideline. Carrite (talk) 03:04, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NPOL, is currently running for office, but Wikipedia is not a campaign site, thus also fails WP:PROMO Kraxler (talk) 14:54, 25 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) 01:16, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Municipal elections in Conil de la Frontera[edit]

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

Very localized city council election results. wp:not#info, prod removed by article creator with the Wikipedia is not paper rationale, a merge looks probable, but likely to be contested by article creator so sending it here for discussion. Delete Pokerkiller (talk) 19:10, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 19:30, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:58, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No notability whatsoever. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:58, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete: the results get published by national news orgs [8] so a case could be made for GNG; but every other Spanish municipality gets published as well and WP isn't an elections results database.Vrac (talk) 00:56, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:26, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:26, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete local elections are non-notable, that the number 1 newspaper has a link to the countries election department where all results can be checked, doesn't make it notable, it is a "primary source", nothing was written about the election, I suppose they get local WP:ROUTINE coverage Kraxler (talk) 15:01, 25 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) 01:17, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hugo Keto[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by an IP without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:09, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:09, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per failing WP:GNG. Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 20:05, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:55, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:55, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:55, 19 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. A case of WP:TOOSOON at best. Fenix down (talk) 09:25, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 11:00, 24 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 deleted as WP:HOAX. If some other person of this name can be found in the future who satisfies our inclusion rules for something, then a new article can be started about that other person at that time — but no person of this name who fits any of the biographical details that have been claimed in this version can be verified as ever having existed at all. Bearcat (talk) 17:46, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Morris Guggenheim[edit]

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

I found nothing good at all to suggest improvement and the listed source and related articles never mention him. Now what's interesting is the best my searches found was here which seem to be factual in confirming his existence but they're simply passing mentions and of worthy note or notability. As always, I'm inviting @Calamondin12, Ironholds, and ProfReader: for comment as they may be interested by this. SwisterTwister talk 19:06, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The Google Books sources mentioned above have nothing to do with this supposed Morris Guggenheim.

This reference lists a Morris Guggenheim as treasurer of Yukon Gold Co. as of December 31, 1912, when the article's subject would have been 17, and this reference shows the same individual as treasurer of American Smelters Securities Co. three years later. There are numerous similar corporate references to one or more Morris Guggenheims during the 1900s and 1910s, but nothing that could be linked with the subject of this article.
This reference, and most of the others, relate to a Morris Guggenheim as a party in a 1916 New York lawsuit (Guggenheim v. Guggenheim) involving some individuals within a mining partnership concealing a South American mining venture (the "Chuquicamata Prospect") from other partners. It also states that Morris Guggenheim had died prior to the trial, which clearly rules out this individual as the subject.
A couple of other references ([9] and [10]) are highly technical mining-related documents listing a Morris Guggenheim (possibly the one in the first note above) as an author, but seem totally different from the subject of the article.
A 1977 Internal Revenue Service Arbitration Handbook mentions an individual named Morris Guggenheim as a "management analyst" within the agency, but this again seems unlikely to be the Morris Guggenheim of the article.

More damaging, though, is the amount of known false material within this article or its earlier versions. At one point or another, the subject has been claimed to be a longtime mayor of Charleston, South Carolina, the husband of a member of the British royal family, and a member of the Advisory Committee on Intergovernmental Relations. All of these statements are false. A few details seem to have been taken from current Charleston mayor Joseph P. Riley, Jr., who actually was named to the advisory committee (as mentioned in the "reference" given within the article). The article's creator also added similar dubious information at Guggenheim family, but those edits appear to have been removed. All of these facts point to a likely hoax. Calamondin12 (talk) 23:41, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:54, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:54, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The original version claimed that he had been a mayor of Charleston, South Carolina, but no source indicates that this was ever true. At the same time as creating this article, the same user added him to the list of mayors by replacing an actual, properly verified former mayor's name with Guggenheim's, which has since been reverted there as well. The original version claimed that he was married to a member of the British royal family, but no source provides any evidence that any person of that name has ever been part of the British royal family at all. No source attests to Solomon R. Guggenheim, claimed as his father in this article, ever having had a son of this name. And the only listed reference in the article contains no mention of Guggenheim whatsoever, but instead concerns the appointment of Joseph P. Riley (a former mayor of Charleston who isn't even the former mayor of Charleston whom the creator replaced with Guggenheim in our list) to a presidential committee. I'm speedying this as a WP:HOAX. Bearcat (talk) 17:46, 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) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 01:53, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shortis and Simpson[edit]

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

Article about a pair of theatrical collaborators, written just a little bit too much like an advertisement for their work rather than an encyclopedia article about them, and resting too heavily on self-published primary sources and not enough on reliable source coverage. Delete, without prejudice against recreation in the future if it can be written and sourced properly. Bearcat (talk) 18:32, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 19:36, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep poor style, tone and low NPoV certainly: nevertheless the subject is Notable. See 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5. I don't have time to work on this article and tackle all of its problems; the topic is sufficiently mentioned in independent reliable sources to be kept.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 08:56, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Shaidar cuebiyar has provided good links. They are from Canberra but get national coverage.Alec Station (talk) 07:10, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Agree that the tone needs to be more neutral, but don't think it reads like an advertisement. Also there are many sources (National Library, ABC, Georgia Conservatory, Fairfax Press, Victorian Government) that are reliable. Does need more work to include back links with existing Australian artists on Wikipedia who have collaborated with them. Andrewpinhall (talk) 23:11, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:24, 24 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 Dune secondary characters. Overall consensus is to redirect, If anyone wants to Merge i obviously suggest discussing on tp (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:52, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Glossu Rabban[edit]

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

Long unreferenced article, with only discussions of in universe plot details (and citing the fiction). Also, no claim to WP:N Last AfD discussion ended in no-consensus, without subsequently referencing or improvement to cover real world content. Sadads (talk) 18:00, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:52, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Glossu Rabban is much better represented in literature as "Beast Rabban", the title he is known by in the book and other works, even though they document Glossu as his given name. Looking through things, I've been able to find a few mentions of him, but lots of these seem trivial, or mention Rabban solely in the context of his family members: [11][12][13][14][15] As such, while I think it would be reasonable to keep a separate article on Beast Rabban, it might make more sense from a notability standpoint to merge some of the content into List of Dune characters where all he (or most entries) has is a link to this article. Jclemens (talk) 03:24, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Jclemens: I'm also okay with a merge, but wasn't fully convinced that list is the best place to merge so much information (it seems to not be focused on full discussions of the characters). Is there a better way to merge? Could we merge all the articles about Rabban's family into one "family" page? Sadads (talk) 13:35, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
For instance, could we merge them up to House_Harkonnen? Cheers, Sadads (talk) 13:37, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If the consensus is to merge, I wouldn't object to House Harkonnen as the target. My main beef with Wikipedia's Dune coverage is that it pays too much attention to the extended universe works, and distracts from Dune itself--you know, the one book that won any major award?--which seems to hold true with that article as well. Jclemens (talk) 16:58, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I worked up a draft List of Dune secondary characters as a destination for characters like Liet-Kynes, Glossu Rabban and Farad'n. I trimmed down and cleaned up the content from the existing articles and will seek some more sources, but I think this works.— TAnthony^Talk 03:58, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've been meaning to do this since Wellington Yueh was merged! — TAnthony^Talk 04:01, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@TAnthony: It would be awesome to see as many of the secondary characters in a list like that: I think there are an awful lot of plot-heavy individual articles about the characters, with not real justification of their notability through real-world sourcing. Sadads (talk) 14:28, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My only hesitation about adding too many (besides the list becoming unwieldy) is that I feel images are of great use/interest, and we can't have many images in a list like this. So while the characters I've started with are fine, I would hate to, for example, have to lose the Brad Dourif as Piter photo. And while some articles are plot-heavy, there is some great content and some characters have appeared in many works. But I'll work on it. I'm the one that created Organizations of the Dune universe, Dune prequel series, List of Dune Bene Gesserit, List of Dune Fremen and even Glossary of Dune terminology from individual articles and stubs, so I'm big on consolidating smaller articles.

I would also like to add, that as much as I understand and support the notability guidelines surrounding fictional characters, I think some allowance should be made for the situation we find ourselves in with "old" works. The fact is, the internet has created more outlets for professional reviews and analysis; every newspaper or magazine can cover anything it chooses, more often and in more detail, and get a wide audience at limited cost. PR and marketing teams push for more reviews and author interviews than ever. Old works like the Dune novels or even the 1984 film are at somewhat of a disadvantage in this regard, and what coverage exists is not necessarily available (or even indexed) online—and I'm not headed to a library anytime soon, are you? LOL. I pretty much singlehandedly improved the Game of Thrones articles Tyrion Lannister, Ned Stark and Jon Snow, and even though A Game of Thrones was published as recently as 1996 and the series was hugely popular before the HBO series, it was very difficult to find commentary on the novels until the show came out. Now, I don't think Rabban is necessarily notable enough for his own article, but there are certainly other characters who I feel have a significant impact within the series but for whom I'd be hardpressed to find praise in The New York Times.— TAnthony^Talk 15:08, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Dune secondary characters, where an entry for Rabban has already been created.— TAnthony^Talk 22:52, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:59, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Dune secondary characters per TAnthony. This article is poorly sourced and I can find nothing that would indicate notability, or allow anything beyond an in-universe plot summary to be written about this person. Reyk _YO! 13:00, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:22, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:22, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:22, 24 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. Passes WP:LISTN. (non-admin closure) —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 10:08, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of Formula One broadcasters[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a television guide T v x1 16:20, 18 August 2015 (UTC) T v x1 16:20, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 19:01, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly against. Formula One is a commericial, televisiual sport, unlike many other sports such as football and cricket. In the event, whilst the article is becoming a little trivial, a rewrite of the prose section would definitely help. Spa-Franks (talk) 00:31, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong speedy delete – Per nom. This is literally nothing except a TV guide, with most references being the broadcaster's TV guides themselves. Twirly Pen (Speak ^up) 05:11, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Of minimal use I would have thought. Eagleash (talk) 08:44, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am certainly for deleting the useless F1 race rights article, but this one I find quite interesting, even though it could use some work. Zwerg Nase (talk) 09:26, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I was about to put my foot in my mouth by saying "Great! This makes it easier looking for world feeds" now that some races are no longer free to air locally... however, I say keep because this commercial aspect is a pillar of the sport and the success or failure of feeds by country has also seen F1 races come and go from the calendar. Hope this makes sense. Very thorough and not just a TV guide in my humble opinion but agree it could do with some re-work. CtrlXctrlV (talk) 14:49, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And just how are, say, the identities of the Albanian, Macedonian, Montenegrin and Korean broadcasters relevant to that and in fact to the English language wikipedia? T v x1 16:58, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relevant enough for those countries to be involved in F1 and F1 organizers letting them signup? Remember that Korea and Azerbaijan etc would have been on your list too in the past. Besides, knowledge is universal, and not just in English otherwise this Wiki would not be containing international matters related to non-English speaking countries. CtrlXctrlV (talk) 02:42, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide even one source, in support of your claim, that any Grand Prix came in to existence as a direct result of the sport being broadcast in that country. Bear in mind that many Grands Prix (a number of which are still held to his day) came into existence well before television was of a great importance. T v x1 20:42, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. There's a lot of junk on that page (do we seriously need a list of pit lane reporters?), but the subject of sporting broadcasters does seem to scrape over the notability hurdle. I know WP:Other stuff exists isn't meant to be an argument, but we do have a whole category of articles of broadcasters for top level sporting events. QueenCake (talk) 15:29, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, just having a look here, many other sports leagues have a "List of Broadcasters" page. I find this interesting and useful to find out information from. I would hardly call this a TV guide. CDRL102 (talk) 20:54, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Needs work but it's worth keeping per similar articles for other sports. It's plainly not a TV guide. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:02, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thaischumi (talk • contribs) 22:48, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Interesting and useful information, I don't see that this is 'simply' a TV guide. ARDawson (talk) 12:15, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Certainly not 'just a TV guide'- there is no 'central database' of Formula 1 broadcasters and this page allows for comparisons between different countries and their coverage to be made. Some sections (e.g. list of pitlane reporters) are probably too trivial to remain but the main focus of the page is relevant. CF1V8 (talk) 12:55, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And do you genuinely think it is Wikipedia's function to be a central database of Formula 1 broadcasters? T v x1 20:43, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, for being interesting information, especially over time, how the broadcasting changes over years. Snowsuit Wearer (talk|contribs) 21:06, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:17, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:17, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:17, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and arguably a WP:SNOW keep. The article clearly has some WP:SURMOUNTABLE problems that painfully need to be addressed. That being said, this appears to meet WP:LISTN. Mkdw ^talk 01:03, 25 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. There is a general disagreement about whether the fifth tier passes or doesn't pass NSEASONS and whether this particular season passes or doesn't pass GNG. I suggest the NSEASONS guideline be clarified and, if necessary, then renominate this here. (non-admin closure) Kraxler (talk) 15:28, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2015–16 F.C. Halifax Town season[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSEASONS JMHamo (talk) 16:10, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. JMHamo (talk) 16:14, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:41, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the same reasons as for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2013–14 Chester F.C. season . Discussions should be merged. Martinklavier (talk) 07:42, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Clear WP:NSEASONS failure, club plays below the current consensus view for a "top professional league" in England - tier 4. Although filled with numerous sources, the article still fails WP:GNG as these are, essentially without exception, all from primary sources, either the Halifax town website or the website of another club either in the same league or involved directly in a particular transfer with Halifax. There is no indication that, outside of routine match reporting, transfer talk, etc that this season has recieved sufficient, significant, reliable coverage in third party sources to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 09:15, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Professional club in a predominantly professional league. Conference clubs are included in the seasons template as well; surely if this one goes then the many other pages for the many other seasons of the many other teams must go too. Leo1802 (talk) 22:54, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NSEASONS is pretty strict about this – only teams playing in fully professional leagues should have a season article unless the season itself meets WP:GNG. As the English fifth tier is not fully professional, and GNG is not satisfied by pure WP:ROUTINE coverage alone, no other choice but to delete the article.
Keep Same reasoning as this similar AfD, that being that while the article could be improved/expanded, the national and local coverage is out there for WP:GNG to be satisfied. Mattythewhite (talk) 15:30, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Long-standing consensus that we should not have season articles for non fully-professional leagues. Number 5 7 15:43, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Easily meets WP:GNG with coverage available, the article may need some improvement however. Paul Bradbury 08:54, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NSEASONS. Giant Snowman 10:59, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - play in a predominantly professional league, and plenty of sources to meet the WP:GNG of the season as a whole. --Jimbo^[online] 14:39, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:NSEASONS states 'top' professional league. Largely a dump of stats and the 'timeline' section is also unencylopedic. Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 14:48, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:14, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:14, 24 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. With conclusory "delete" comments accorded less weight, given the sources provided in the "keep" comments. T. Canens (talk) 21:46, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Handshake Murders[edit]

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

Fails notability guidelines. I looked for online sources for the band but found no RSes. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:16, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This band and their music clearly pass general notability guidelines, for it's reviews for Usurper, from About.com's Chad Bowar, AllMusic, Exclaim!, Outburn issue 38, and Prefix Magazine, where this settles and satisfies the No. 1 benchmark set forth by band, also, a biography written by AllMusic's Eduardo Rivadavia.The Cross Bearer (talk) 04:57, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure I agree. I did specifically search on AllMusic and found nothing. Thanks for finding that. If anyone else agrees, I'll revoke my nomination. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:16, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I will advise you to use Google next-time, for this search is how I unearthed the information.The Cross Bearer (talk) 06:01, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - I did that as well. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:06, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - Just making sure, you know how to find information fast(er).The Cross Bearer (talk) 06:48, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:06, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arkansas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:06, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now (and draft/userfy, although I'm not sure if this group would reform again) as my searches weren't as fruitful as The Cross Bearer's but even then I think there's not much so delete for now. SwisterTwister talk 05:14, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The sources that The Cross Bearer dug up establish that he meets the general notability guidelines. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)} ~ 19:45, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- He? This is a band, not a person. It leads me to believe you don't understand the content. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:31, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sorry, I meant to say the band. I do understand the content. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)} ~ 16:14, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thanks. We all make mistakes. At least now supporting the poor sources is the only one you have left to recant. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:32, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ☮JAaron95 ^Talk 15:32, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 15:45, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the coverage in Allmusic, Exclaim, and Blabbermouth.net. [16] [17] This seems to be enough coverage to meet WP:BAND. Everymorning (talk) 18:38, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. BMK (talk) 21:38, 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 and salt. --MelanieN (talk) 01:23, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The National Society of Leadership and Success[edit]

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

almost no substantial, independent sources on this organization per WP:Golden rule. Created by ~~conflicted editor~~ WP:SPA editor and subject to loads of COI editing - see headers on the article Talk page. -- Jytdog (talk) 15:07, 18 August 2015 (UTC) (clarified via REDACT Jytdog (talk) 06:59, 20 August 2015 (UTC))[reply]

Delete - no evidence of any notability. Two refs show that it exists and the only commentary is a from student magazine from the University of Connecticut, and even then only a passing mention along with other honor societies. Could have been a speedy A7.Fails WP:GNG. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 15:15, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Did you see the other versions of this article when it was nominated for deletion twice before? --Agamemnus (talk) 18:16, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously?-google this company and you'll find more than enough notability. This was established during the last two deletion requests where a Director from the company represented them officially. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Die death1 (talk • contribs) 15:23, 18 August 2015‎ (UTC) — Die death1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete Passing mentions in several college newspapers, almost no in depth coverage except by primary sources. Fails WP:ORG--Savonneux (talk) 21:07, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Salt, salt, salt.--Savonneux (talk) 05:12, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No acceptable evidence of notability. Maproom (talk) 21:59, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:39, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:39, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:39, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:39, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There seem to be a number of sources given in the first AfD that were never integrated into the article. I'm therefore sceptical on the merits of this nomination - maybe there should be more article writing and less AfD !voting... Samsara 03:57, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The nominating editor has a history of creating AfDs while removing and/or ignoring sources.--Agamemnus (talk) 17:18, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is AfD not DRN. If you have a problem with the nominator (you posted quite a bit on that AfD you linked) take it to the appropriate venue.--Savonneux (talk) 01:32, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Click through the sources on the other AfDs.--Savonneux (talk) 22:00, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep My name is Patrick and I work in the Communications Department for "The National Society of Leadership and Success". I would like to reference back to the previous nomination for deletion as it provides insight on the previous sources and references. Orthogonal1

The WP:NPOSSIBLE guidelines note that just because an article does not have a significant amount of content or sources, doesn't mean they aren't out there. This article has had a sufficient amount of verifiable sources in the past and there are many more out there that can be used. Therefore according to these specified regulations; if the source material exists, even very poor writing and referencing within a Wikipedia article will not decrease the subject's notability.

I would also like to make note that "Sigma Alpha Pi" is listed in the Honor society article. Many of the other organizations listed alongside it looked very similar in content/source relativity to the previous versions of this article. If possible could someone provide me some insight as to why those articles do not have the same difficulties with AfD nominations?

The previous two nominations for this article to be deleted were revoked as "The National Society of Leadership and Success" has been deemed notable; notability is not temporary WP:N#TEMP. In regards to the concern noted by "Savonneux", within the WP:ORG guidelines it states; "notable means "worthy of being noted" or "attracting notice." With nearly half a million members from over 500 chapters all across the country receiving recognition both locally and nationally— the evidence suggests that "The National Society of Leadership and Success" is worthy and attracting notice. Patrick at theNSLS (talk) 02:19, 20 August 2015 (UTC) — Patrick at theNSLS (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

No consensus is not the same as a keep. It essentially means time ran out. Other pages are irrelevant to this discussionWP:OTHERSTUFF. Notability has to be reliably sourced, like being the main subject of news articles from organizations with a record of high quality editorial control. Think New York Times, BBC, Al Jazeera.--Savonneux (talk) 02:43, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The amount of COI editing on this Wikipedia page is substantial. Marketing department has been keeping an eye on this page and has showed up at every AfD. There are insufficient independent sources to justify an article and we should delete this article and WP:SALT. Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion, per WP:PROMO, which is policy. Jytdog (talk) 08:42, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia's standards for inclusion are low and the modest proof which needs to be demonstrated to justify inclusion has not been presented. This is not a subjective judgment - there are some objective things which anyone can show and no attempt has made to present what the guidelines request. Ping me to reconsider if anyone attempts to comply with the rules. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:40, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Borderline Organization appears to have a wide presence but independent coverage is extremely thin. User:Patrick at theNSLS should note that what little coverage of the organization exists tends to be highly critical of the NSLS. Wikipedia policy requires that this criticism must be included in the article. Do you really want an article on your organization that includes the description "sneaky and deceitful"? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:16, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The participation of a director of the society in past discussions helped produce an absurd result. I hope that by now we know how to discount such comments. Not notable, or borderline notable at best, and used repeated as an opportunity for promotion and experience has shown the difficulty of keeping it out of the article. Not a major society: giving $150,000 a year worth of scholarships is trivial, but will inevitably provoke news pseudo-articles about them. What they reference is worthless content, as previous versions suchas [18] show. Lack of notability is not the only reason for deletion. Borderline notability combined with clear promotionalism is an equally good reason. Small variations to the notability standard either way do not fundamentally harm the encycopedia, but accepting articles that are part of a promotional campaign causes great damage. Once we become a vehicle for promotion, we're useless as an encycopedia. DGG ( talk ) 20:51, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Google shows page after page after page about this grandly named society, but almost nothing among these promises to be of any use. (I also arrived at this debunking page, which is no less authoritative than anything else and certainly a lot more interesting.) -- Hoary (talk) 23:05, 20 August 2015 (UTC) PS Yes, for the reasons Orangemike suggests below, salt. -- Hoary (talk) 02:26, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt - as my distinguished colleague, the notorious deletionist DGG has pointed out, the topic lacks our required standards of notability, and its history absolutely reeks of shameless WP:PROMOTION of the most hucksterish sort. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:51, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: "Lack of notability is not the only reason for deletion. Borderline notability combined with clear promotionalism is an equally good reason" sounds like gospel to me. If that puts me in league with a notorious deletionist, oh well. Brianhe (talk) 03:17, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable fails WP:GNG and is promotional.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 12:22, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability is marginal, as is the business. As a for-profit, it has to meet WP:CORP, which it doesn't. The Association of College Honor Societies reports "ACHS and this society agreed several years ago that it did not fit the ACHS model. But students getting invitations confuse it with an honor society." [19] John Nagle (talk) 19:30, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not appear to meet notability guidelines. Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 16:13, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nominated; fails WP:CORPDEPTH and is promotional in nature. Scr★pIron^IV 19:57, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -the organization may be a bit shady but that is all the more reason to keep the article because prospective members can benefit from learning about the organization BEFORE joining and make a more informed decision. If they are only interested in getting a scholarship then they can find out that the chances are seriously low and they can save their money. Alternatively, if the prospective student just wants to join a real organization, shady or not, then they can confirm it is real after reading the article and join. I think the article is notable because the organization has approximately 500,000 members who paid money to join and that is significant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:1C0:C900:7EA5:9477:4E25:EFCE:F1CD (talk) 20:07, 25 August 2015 (UTC) — 2601:1C0:C900:7EA5:9477:4E25:EFCE:F1CD (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. per SK1 - No valid reason for deletion, Just because an article is in a shit state and is unsourced doesn't really mean it should be nominated, WP:BEFORE hasn't been followed in the slightest as I in 5 seconds found [20] so I'd imagine there's more and better sources under its Indian name. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 18:22, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Basinenipalli[edit]

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

No indication of notability (no references whatsoever in fact); article needs significant clean up to meet WP quality standards. Rambunctious Racoon (talk) 13:19, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Deletion is not cleanup. As a named, inhabited place, this satisfies WP:GEOLAND. This one is larger than the last Indian village that came to AFD, and gets more frequent mention in news reports and other works. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 14:43, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Does appear to exist and all settlements are notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:53, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:53, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GEOLAND. Philg88 ^♦talk 16:07, 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) 01:34, 26 August 2015 (UTC) P.S. Since this was the third time the article was deleted, I also salted the title. --MelanieN (talk) 01:37, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Poonja Jinnah[edit]

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

Non-notable person. Notability is not inherited. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:16, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Notable why? -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:59, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -Not notable. ABF99 (talk) 14:31, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. It's not hard to find sources about Jinnahbai Poonja, although most of them discuss him only in the context of his children. As already observed, notability is not inherited. That said, there is some more detailed coverage available. Salman Akhtar spends a page or so discussing him. And there are paragraph bits about his business dealings and religious background in other sources. I'm not convinced that's enough to hang an article on. In any case, it wouldn't be this article, which is a cursory mention cited to unreliable sources. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 14:54, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:38, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:38, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete G5. Created by two sockpuppets of indefinitely blocked User:SahabAliwadia in violation of a block or ban. DrKiernan (talk) 15:46, 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) 01:42, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

F1 race rights[edit]

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

Trivia article that centres only on the UK and the US Zwerg Nase (talk) 12:31, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 August 18. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:55, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:UNDUE, WP:NOTGUIDE. --Falcadore (talk) 14:35, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. QueenCake (talk) 16:15, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per now and per WP:NOTGUIDE. –Davey2010^Talk 20:51, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete – per nom, also borderline WP:TRIVIA. Article/list is also completely unsourced, and formatted in such a way that it is absurdly impractical on any viewing format. Twirly Pen (Speak ^up) 04:54, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. CDRL102 (talk) 20:56, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

– WP:SNOWBALL anyone? Twirly Pen (Speak ^up) 23:10, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: May I just say it is concerning that an article has apparently been created by an IP editor. How was that possible? --Falcadore (talk) 09:49, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed puzzling. Agree with SNOWBALL. Zwerg Nase (talk) 09:55, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:09, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:09, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:09, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment re "How was that possible?" - another editor moved it from the IP's userspace to mainspace.[21] --MelanieN (talk) 01:42, 26 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) 01:46, 26 August 2015 (UTC) P.S. Since this was the third time the article was deleted, I also salted the title. --MelanieN (talk) 01:48, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oliver M. Gruber-Lavin Ochoa[edit]

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

I find no independent, substantial coverage in reliable sources, and his political office was within one of the 23 districts into which Vienna is divided. I searched under "Oliver M. Gruber-Lavin" and "Oliver Gruber-Lavin". Fails WP:GNG and WP:POLITICIAN. —Largo Plazo (talk) 12:45, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. —Largo Plazo (talk) 13:50, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. —Largo Plazo (talk) 13:51, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If he was one of the city councillors of Vienna as a whole it would be different, but he's only a councillor within one of the city's many districts. No other especially significant posts that I can see. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:54, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I still suspect this person may in fact be notable, and in particular that there may be significant sources in German. But those sources, if they exist, are not before us, and the ones presented so far do not establish notability. DES ^(talk) 22:52, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The article does not make any claim of notability that would constitute an automatic keep under either WP:NPOL or WP:AUTHOR, and is not sourced nearly well enough to satisfy WP:GNG — it's sourced exclusively to raw tables of election results, and even those tables express the results solely in terms of party, while not actually naming any individual candidates at all. Delete, without prejudice against recreation in the future if proper reliable sourcing can be piled onto his writing. Bearcat (talk) 19:33, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I continue to believe the subject does not meet the general notability guidelines, or the ones for politicians. I did search in German sources and there is some material out there, I don't think it's enough to warrant inclusion. The original version of the article was a puffed-up resume obviously created by the subject, but that's neither here nor there. I'd be happy to reverse my !vote if someone can come up with something more tangible than resume material. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 19:54, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:07, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unsourced BLP, district council member in one of the districts of Vienna, fails WP:NPOL, the four refs in the article show district election lists/data but don't talk about the subject, it's a name in a list in three cases. Kraxler (talk) 15:36, 25 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) 01:50, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gianna Cutler[edit]

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

Delete: as insufficiently notable actress or performer. Quis separabit? 12:14, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 12:42, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I found nothing to suggest improvement and this is vulnerable to BLP issues, I would've suggested moving to her best known work but I'm not seeing something obvious. Wikipedia is not IMDb and not to mention there's not an IMDb page. SwisterTwister talk 22:02, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per SwisterTwister and Quis separabit? and my Philippine news sweeps did not turn up much. Also, unofficial test, but for me, anemic pageview stats is a confirming indication. Maybe WP:TOOSOON?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:35, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:34, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.--RioHondo (talk) 02:10, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Tomwsulcer, SwisterTwister and Quis separabit? - TOOSOON & Fails GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 00:55, 25 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) 02:08, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Julia Barretto[edit]

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

Delete: as insufficiently notable or accomplished actress or performer. Quis separabit? 12:11, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: different ways to result in ABS-CBN actress every newspaper/research paper lead role from And I Love You So. in since made possible to fail WP:NACTOR. only there are test edit, vandalism or disruptive editor who will keep there Filipino scheme vandal in WP:BLP, actually who need the pending change from protection. Oripaypaykim (talk) 12:26, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources found [22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33] - Some are pretty shite but notability is there, Passes WP:BASIC. –Davey2010^Talk 21:00, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:31, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:31, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Frequently covered in the news media over here, including both television news reports and newspaper/website articles. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 10:58, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Narutolovehinata5.--RioHondo (talk) 02:11, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Davey2010 and others.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:14, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Davey2010 has a very strong argument that WP:SIGCOV is being met here. Mkdw ^talk 01:06, 25 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. There seems to be a rough consensus that, while the concept of safety cars as they relate to F1 is notable, a dedicated list of models that have served as safety cars does not constitute encyclopedic content. I sympathize with the WP:NOTPAPER sentiment, as well as the fact that Wikipedia incorporates aspects of "specialized encyclopedias [and] almanacs", but there have been no terribly persuasive arguments presented as to why this list specifically meets our notability guidelines. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:29, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of Formula One safety cars[edit]

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

WP:OR, WP:INDISCRIMINATE, WP:NOTSTATSBOOK A list article has been created from data previously deleted as being of a trivial nature from Safety car [34] after a discussion Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Formula One/Archive 42#Safety cars Falcadore (talk) 10:50, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 11:00, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Upon advice the additional criteria of WP:PROMO relating to advertised products. The function of a safety car is not affected by the model of car so the detailing of these models, and indeed their selection, is largely advertising. Wikipedia articles should be free of such material. --Falcadore (talk) 00:26, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion Falcadore (misleadingly) refers to was about details of safety cars in existing F1 season articles not as a stand-alone article as it now exists. Given his nationality and automotive enthusiasm (going by his username), what's the difference between (or relative merit of) such a list and say List of Holden vehicles or similar ones even in non-automotive fields (e.g. List of Harley-Davidson motorcycles)? Should such similar lists not be deleted also going by Falcadore's logic? Despite his personal dislike or bias, no real F1 follower or fan or expert can possibly deny that Safety Cars are not part and parcel of Formula 1. Specifically:

they are part of the sport's suite of safety initiatives in the 1990s
there are explicit Sporting Regulations that govern their place in the sports (see this and Regulation 40 and every other reference therein).

As a further point, if one checks the Safety Car article, for other motorsports (North American ones), there are mentions of specific models of cars that, curiously, Falcadore did not have issue with with the exception of similar detail for F1. So what differs between these motorsports to skew his opinion so much? If it were as trivial and unimportant as I think Falcarode is continuing to argue, those cars would not exist and neither would the FIA or F1 and car outlets or car manufacturers dedicate articles to it - see this and this and this and a foreign example here plus a video for good measure by a car magazine here. And to point to other proof of importance or relevance (without me being expert enough to quote your beloved WP objections), in some cases (e.g. Senna's crash) the very type of safety car used has been the subject of F1 literature and discussions and condemnations - look for the Opel Vectra in this Australian example. I do not comprehend the attempt to mix the prior discussion of safety car info being inserted in existing articles vs a whole new stand-alone article as it has since been created using reliable external references too. CtrlXctrlV (talk) 15:19, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article in question does not detail the usage and function of safety cars - and it should not as there already is an article on the subject at Safety car. This article does little other than list the specific models of vehicles used for safety car duties, which is no more notable for example, than say List of cars used by New York Police Department. The make and model of a motorsport safety car is very much secondary to its role and does not directly affect its performance. This is a non-notable list and what is more WP:Original Research as it seems to be that no-one, not even Formula One themselves believes keeping this data is significant.
Wikipedia should not be used as a dumping ground of statistics with no actual value. WP:INDISCRIMINATE. --Falcadore (talk) 15:33, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quoting you Falcadore "The article in question does not detail the usage and function of safety cars - and it should not as there already is an article on the subject at Safety car." Well, the cars were listed in the Safety Car article (as are for the North American sections) but you contributed to the deletion of that information even from there. Wanting it both ways perhaps? And someone impartial should provide an interpretation of WP:Original Research (in this case, it does not seem to be violated here because there are plentiful reliable sources for each listed car in an F1 context) and WP:INDISCRIMINATE (which you raise in the context of "statistics" - "Long and sprawling lists of statistics may be confusing to readers and reduce the readability and neatness of our articles" - the stand-alone article exactly avoids this situation were it to be instead put back in the Safety Car article). CtrlXctrlV (talk) 15:43, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is a deletion discussion. This is not about putting data into other articles, but removing it completely as non-notable content.

There is no need for another editor to provide an impartial definition of WP:OR or WP:INDISCRIMIATE as the provided for links already direct you to an impartial definition. --Falcadore (talk) 15:59, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – One or two cases of the safety car model being mentioned outside the context of "the safety car this year is the Xxxxx Zzzzz" does not warrant a comprehensive list of all models throughout F1's history, I'm sorry. Twirly Pen (Speak ^up) 10:39, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As and I quote you a whole new stand-alone article, currently the article fails WP:SALAT as pointed out further down in this debate. --Falcadore (talk) 09:46, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete This looks a lot like trivia. It doesn't seem to pass the general notability guideline. Furthermore Falcadore has not been misleading at all. The last few comments of the discussion they refer to directly deal with a complete list of the F1 Safety Cars that was included in the Safety Car article at one point, which is the exact same lis that has now been spun off into a standalone article. Make and models of Safety Cars is not that important and the most (in)famous ones are already mentioned in the Safety Car article for every motorsports class and the affected races' articles. Many races don't even see the deployment of the Safety Car. Tvx1 15:56, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
trivia is about such sections in an article (as it was for Safety Car) - here we have a stand alone article instead. Tvx1 you raise notability? Then I refer to Falcadore's WP:Original research point and related question to me on whether I was the only person who compiled the list. I was not, I simply added to it by finding verifiable and reliable external references. Look at the HISTORY for the Safety Car article to see that it is notable given other users (not me) started off that list long before I added to it. CtrlXctrlV (talk) 16:35, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- As wikipedia can not be used to reference itself, "Look at the HISTORY for the Safety Car article to see that it is notable given other users (not me) started off that list long before I added to it." is completely irrelevant. --Falcadore (talk) 17:36, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - I am struggling to understand your position so much, and how you miscontrue things and are coming across (at least to me) as a law unto yourself in the process. I am not referecing wikipedia on itself. You asked the question (in the F1 portal) if I was the only person who put together the list. I repeat - I was not, and I invited you to look at the relevant history (of Safety Car). I will not further reply if you keep going off a tangent or making extraordinary claims such as the few here, purporting to be acting neutrally when you are not. CtrlXctrlV (talk) 17:41, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - Why? It is not hard. Is there a reliable source anywhere outside of wikipedia that has compiled a list of safety cars or is it only wikipedia edittors that consider such a list notable?
      
      Also, can you substantiate any accusations of bias with anything other than your own opinion? --Falcadore (talk) 17:46, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      - Bias means, among other things "prejudice in favor of or against one thing, person, or group compared with another, usually in a way considered to be unfair". Judge yourself against that and then consider you are asking questions for which you find the answer on this very page - see this and this and this and a foreign example here for other external editors (since, now, you are no longer interested in hearing there were other "internal" wiki editors - which was the focus of your original question). I am done answering you. CtrlXctrlV (talk) 17:57, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        
        I suggest you re-read the original question rather than creatively re-interpret it. --Falcadore (talk) 18:01, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like Roches (as a third party whom I don't know) wasted time and err with their patrolling, review and linking of the article to Safety Car then? Nice to see trivia thrown in the mix now. See above references and points, noting that Tvx1 was another of the gang that contributed to no such information being incorporated in the Safety Car article. Are there no independent administrators/moderators? I note that even other users had wanted to have that information in Safety Car - see this by another F1 fan (Theflash88 whom I don't know either). CtrlXctrlV (talk) 16:05, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. I'm surprised this got to AfD. It certainly seemed notable. The make and model of the pace car at the local dirt tracks is announced several times a night. It may not influence the outcome of a race, but the importance the tagline "the official safety car of Formula One" would make a difference in car sales and even the manufacturer's reputation.

This is verifiable, this is certainly not OR, and it's not an indiscriminate collection of information. It's a concise list of vehicles with links, without statistics. WP:NOTSTATSBOOK would apply, maybe, if it stated each vehicle's torque, power, speed, headlight model number, and the number of bolts per wheel.

I can see how a strict reading of some notability guidelines might make this article seem non-notable, but in reviewing articles I see things that are much less notable than this. Some lists are basically arbitrary points made by the editor. As an example, "Qualities of a Formula One safety car" (as in 'what makes a good safety car?'), might be deleted.

Per WP:NOTPAPER, there is no limit to the number of articles. It may not be a subject of vital importance, but it is sufficiently useful that it is worth keeping. It's true someone could look up a similar list elsewhere, but having the list as a Wikipedia article allows direct links to the articles about the vehicles. Roches (talk) 16:52, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Roches, the announcement of safety car models at a local dirt track has no bearing on Formula One whatsoever. The ONLY thing Formula One does is issue a small press release every few years when they update the model. There is hardly continuing notability on the subject. Notability is so small, in fact, that Mercedes-Benz themselves pride the current model on being DTM's safety car over that of Formula One's. Twirly Pen (Speak ^up) 05:05, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Sorry Twirlypen but your link points to nowhere useful (wrong URL?) and you are making the car's importance to DTM higher than to F1 on the wrong premise. 1) The F1 announcement came in or about March 2015, DTM in May 2015. It doesn't mean that the most recent announcement wipes out the former. 2) Importance to F1 is much more important than DTM, because whereas the DTM announcement is on the "standard" Mercedes-Benz website, the F1 involvement of their latest car is worthy of inclusion on their "dedicated" F1 site instead - see [35]. To further substantiate notoriety, , in addition to the other external sources linked previously, see also: http://www.autoexpress.co.uk/mercedes/amg-gt/90762/mercedes-amg-gt-s-and-c-63-confirmed-as-f1-2015-safety-cars UK car publication] and F1 fan site and the international sporting website ESPN and a very detailed article here. CtrlXctrlV (talk) 11:49, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't think it meets WP:GNG to form a stand-alone article, on the grounds that all of the references I can find look like they fall under the definition of WP:ROUTINE. I've looked back at the original attempts CtrlXCtrlV made in April to include the content in the Formula One season articles, and my views on those are: I didn't like the fact that such a small fact was given its own subsection; I wouldn't personally be averse to including the model of safety cars in one of the other sections in seasons when the model changed (call it a 'technical change' or a 'team change' or something like that), but I don't feel particularly strongly about it. Aspirex (talk) 08:01, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Aspirex your noteworthy suggestion of including the type of safety car in each Season article as a single line, instead of under its own heading, is how this started. Then some commented that it was not a technical change, hence a separate section. Then, people complained about a separate section under each season. Seems like no matter what one tries, it never works, typically to the usual few. Nobody has yet explained to me (for my future benefit), why other lists such as List of Honda vehicles can exist and this one cannot, when: (1) Safety Cars are integral to Grand Prix racing; (2) they have influenced the race results at times; (3) "safety car" status is relevant to raise the performance status, prestige and sales of the standard production models (and brands) involved. CtrlXctrlV (talk) 11:29, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – added this for clarity. Reasons and argument already above but to make life easier with anyone impartial or inexpert wishing to determine NOTORIETY by themselves, here are all the random external resources mentioned above (a few of many online), compiled in one line: official F1 website and official Mercedes-Benz website and random website and random foreign website and German car magazine VIDEO and dedicated Mercedes-F1 website and UK car publication (AutoExpress) and F1 fan site and international sports website, ESPN and 2015 press release on random car website. Again, what's so different and unmeritorious about this List and, say, something like List of Pontiac vehicles? Please educate me. CtrlXctrlV (talk) 11:30, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If your so offended by the presence of the Pontiac article, then go ahead and propose it for deletion. I don't any of those with the opinion in favour of deleting have directly supported that article. Note that it has no citations and a tag has been in place requesting some for six years. It has a low chance of survival considering those facts. However, it is not that relevant to this article. The (lack of) the existence of similar articles has no bearing on this content and it's deletion discussion. So please stop citing other articles. The only question raised here is whether this content merits a standalone article in its own right. I'll reiterate that the most notable content of this article (e.g. Safety Car used at the 1994 San Marino Grand Prix) will stay in the Wikipedia regardless on the appropriate places. T v x1 16:51, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No offence at all caused to me by a list of Pontiacs (or Harley-Davidsons or Or Hondas etc) - you're exaggerating (see The359's more sensible reply on the merit of such lists). Was just pointing out the inconsistent (discriminatory?) approach with respect to calling for the deletion of this list. CtrlXctrlV (talk) 03:55, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – User:CtrlXCtrlvV has been canvassing users to come here and support keeping the article. This may have compromised this discussion. T v x1 16:51, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Aside from the blatantly obviously cases of canvassing pointed out here, CtrlXctrlV wrongly and continually refers to user Roches as an administrator, which the user is not. Any user can patrol a page, not just administrators. Twirly Pen (Speak ^up) 18:33, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for elevating your status Roches, perhaps you both demonstrated attributes worthy of same in my mind at least and I should learn my way around Wiki a bit more. As to canvassing, I was not aware of the "concept" until the last 24 hours (thanks to a "fresh set of eyes" that I have been calling for to bring more neutral and balanced views to the discussion, even from mine) I would have thought advocating a position in a discussion is normal. I did not realise Wiki operates differently (which might explain why some users appear to be out of touch with the real world) and this is probably no defence, but for days I have just been responding in kind. If the warning received on my Talk page was not extended to others or is randomly used on this project page, it is hypocritical but not troublesome to me. CtrlXctrlV (talk) 03:37, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

CtrlXCtrlV, I fail to understand how you can think going to a select few users to ask them to support your cause is acceptable behavior. And how is that out of touch with the real world? Doesn't every jury trial feature a jury that's completely unrelated in any way to both the defendant and the prosecutor? And for trials that don't feature a jury, isn't the judge unrelated to the involved parties as well? Every article fall within a subject area and it's perfectly normal to notify the relevant WikiProjects in a neutral manner. So basically just notifying of the discussion without mentioning one's own opinion at all. Deletion discussions are posted on relevant noticeboards anyway. Under the statement of the nominator you can find the noticeboards on which it has been advertised. If you think others canvassed as well, please tell who and they will receive their warning as well if it applies. But please drop the idea that "Formula 1 regulars are ganging up on you" and hunting you down. Note that non F1 Project members have weighed in their opinion in this discussion both for delete and keep. The reason why a number of editors think this article should be deleted is because they think the content does not merit inclusion and that has nothing to do with whom created the article. I myself couldn't care less who created it. T v x1 14:49, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tvx1, I don't take any pleasure in saying this, but you should stop embellishing things and being overzealous, so these side discussions that detract from the topic of discussion would end. Believe it or not, I am replying as a matter of courtesy only, just as also a matter of courtesy that I explained my knowledge of "canvassing" or lack thereof until recently on your page, which you did not knowledge. Do I care? No, much like the warnings (one of which you soundly deleted) you belatedly made. You refer to the legal system? Well, allow me to refer to the Spanish inquisition in the way some of you carry on in the F1 project/portal - just refer to complaints made by others as well. For completeness though, nothing was ever said about you having a go at the creators of articles. What was said is, it is amazing how something that does not breach WP (they are termed using "should" and not in the absolute and miscontrued terms used to support deletion), does not cause any harm, adds to knowledge, is consistent with other lists, is supported by external reliable sources, is part of F1 history and events, could be integrated in a single line in each Season report (but was opposed also) - could cause such havoc. Now, if you don't mind, accept this as the last "side discussion" reply and if you or others don't like what is being said or has been said remember this - everyone is entitled to their opinion and there have been other complainants about the usual suspects in F1 portal/project (it's really true, the rotten apples do spoil the cart). If you or others can relate to that, do ponder on it and try making this environment more welcoming and collaborative instead. On my part, I have acknowledged my errors where genuinely made in ignorance of the Wiki ways. CtrlXctrlV (talk) 12:30, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Safety cars are part of Formula One, but they are also part of every form of motorsport. Their importance to those sports however does not require a listing of every single safety car in every form of motorsport ever. In my opinion the only listing of safety cars that is relevant is List of Indianapolis 500 pace cars due to the uniqueness of the role: many of the cars are custom-made creations or one-off concept cars, plus the fact that celebrities and heroic figures are given the role of driver for the pace laps at least gives something worth discussing. Other lists for general, mass-production cars exist simply because they produce a wide variety of cars in a wide variety of roles in a wide variety of markets, it is unlikely that the average reader would know of all models ever built. The reason for this deletion discussion is not because it is a list, but because it is a trivial list. A listing of every Pontiac model is not trivia, a listing of every Formula One safety car from year to year is. Simply because information exists and can be put in a nice little chart does not mean it should be a Wikipedia article. "Some people might want this information" is not a reason for inclusion.

As an aside, I think the article suffers from not having a clear understanding of what a safety car is. Cars which are used for the purpose of pacing the field under caution are safety cars. Cars which respond to accidents and provide medical assistance are not safety cars. This includes cars which follow the field on the opening lap of the race for the purpose of assisting any accidents that occur on that first lap. Several cars on this list, specifically "unofficial safety cars", have not been shown to have actually been used for pacing duties. I'd further point out that much of the sourcing, beyond "Mercedes announced this new model for this year", is from blogs that fail WP:RS. The³5₉ (Talk) 18:26, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment: The understanding exists, and it is in the linked Safety Car article. The "unofficial" section is because not even F1, prior to 1992/93, had set rules. The list could always commence from the "official safety car" era, would it be more appropriate? As to anomalous references, easy fix. CtrlXctrlV (talk) 03:55, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - My proposal would just be to mention that seasons safety car in the introduction to the page. CDRL102 (talk) 21:02, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd support this idea (Aspirex does too) as a last resort - it would mean that it can be done with no more than a single sentence in each season article. CtrlXctrlV (talk) 03:37, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If there are factual errors in the page, that is not a reason to delete all of it, because the errors can be corrected. I think the article meets the notability criteria, and "some people might want this information" is a reason for inclusion, because Wikipedia doesn't have a size limit. The presence of information on a subject in the print world or on the web makes it notable, not the importance in a particular field.

Those in favor of deletion have mostly said that the article should not be on Wikipedia or that it's unnecessary. Many of the notability guidelines cover what "should" be on Wikipedia in the sense of what is desirable but not what is acceptable. Once an article is created, things are different. Does this article cause any negative effect? Does it promote something that has been ignored by the media, or involve a conflict of interest, or is it just that it's taking up space? Roches (talk) 22:16, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I specifically said as an aside that the article had issues. My reason for deletion is quite clearly the subject matter of the article, not its flaws. Some people might want this information is not a criteria for inclusion. Look specifically at the examples in WP:NOTSTATSBOOK to see that just because information exists does not mean it warrants inclusion. Giving the article a pass simply because it exists and is not harming anything is completely bunk logic. The³5₉ (Talk) 08:37, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Which one of the four items at NOTSTATSBOOK are you referring to? Kraxler (talk) 14:18, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"As explained in § Encyclopedic content above, merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia." The³5₉ (Talk) 18:50, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think WP:NOTEVERYTHING would be the more direct link. And see WP:NOHARM for the value of the "Does it cause any negative effect question." T v x1 20:12, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Articles don't get to exist just because they're "not hurting anything." One of the negative effects I used as an example was promoting something ignored by the media. WP:NOHARM addresses why harmlessness shouldn't be used as an excuse for non-notable content, and I wasn't suggesting that we allow a non-notable article to remain. I meant that while WP:NOTSTATSBOOK might be construed to apply, the article does IMO present notable information, and so objections under WP:NOTEVERYTHING don't mean the article should be deleted.

"Merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion" applies to things like List of Pokémon with blue eyes or List of valedictorians of Grand Bend High School. It's referring to things that aren't notable, or to arbitrary lists. A complete list of safety cars in F1 is not an arbitrary list. One way of testing that is that it is possible that another person totally unconnected to the creator of this article might reasonably create the same article. This would not be the case for Qualities of a good safety car, for example.

I thought about the alternative of listing the safety car for each season. That, really, just seems to be a way of deleting this article, but keeping the information. If that were done, a reader would have to go to a different article to see the safety car for a different year, and would have to look through all the season articles to know all the cars. It almost recognizes that the safety cars are notable, but for some reason they cannot be put into a list. So is this just up for deletion because of a talk page discussion? Roches (talk) 20:43, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Safety Cars in as concept general might be notable as a concept, but I strongly doubt that the make and model of every single F1 Safety Car is notable. Otherwise they would receive more significant coverage in the source. As has been stated time and time again, the most (in)famous F1 Safety Cars are mentioned in the Safety Car article. That should be giving them enough due weight. That some Safety Car models are notable does not justify having a list including utterly unnotable ones. T v x1 23:21, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in mind that, since 1996, the Formula One safety car has been nothing more than a sponsorship scheme for Mercedes-Benz. The only coverage is from Mercedes themselves promoting their latest and greatest model. The cars are not chosen by the series or the FIA, they are chosen solely by Mercedes-Benz. This is similar to MotoGP where BMW is the official safety car, despite BMW not even participating in the series. Why is a list of what models Mercedes-Benz chose to promote notable? Surely their status as safety car provider can be integrated into Mercedes-Benz in Formula One.

Pre-1996 safety cars were merely whatever the individual circuit had at their disposal, hence why a Honda Prelude paced the field at a Honda-owned circuit. These cars have not been chosen by some merit, success, or notability like List of Formula One World Drivers' champions or List of red-flagged Formula One races. Its simply a list of who was promoting what and when, of which Mercedes-Benz occupies 90% of the field. This list would be akin to creating List of Formula One timekeepers, which again is a sponsorship platform. The³5₉ (Talk) 23:33, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments specifically addressing the 3 reasons for deletion nomination - if we go back to Safety car as a concept and, inevitably, the relevant article, then I need to point that the NASCAR and Indianapolis 500 sections do list the cars involved, without there being any external or reliable reference (instead, Wiki is used to reference itself via links to the respective cars) or reference to sporting rules, as they clearly exist in F1. Consequently, if I keep going on about "inconsistencies" or "bias" by some of the opponents here, it's because these same parties have demonstrated both phenomena by failing to "sanitize" the rest of the Safety car article consistently. THAT IS, unless it is suddenly ok to re-instate the F1 safety cars list there, thereby putting an end for the need of the separate List of Formula One safety cars article being the subject of deletion discussions here.

But back focussing on this topic, List of Formula One safety cars has been nominated for deletion on the basis of:

WP:OR - the F1 safety cars listing is not "original thought" and is based on ample published and reliable source - as a key example, see ESPN's article here listing all cars since 1996. So what that it now happens to be the case that the same car manufacturer is the supplier? What WP does that breach? Certainly not WP:OR
WP:INDISCRIMINATE - this is not an indiscriminate collection of information, since it is in the context of Safety car (which lists those cars in other motorsports) and Formula One and the relevant seasons. By being its own list, it does not unduly prejudice the content of any other article (much as lists such as, say, List of Formula One broadcasters (that, incidentally, I support) or List of Formula One video games (that has less or no utility in the context of the sport and is more commercial in nature than a safety car whose function is paramout to the sport now)
WP:NOTSTATSBOOK - it is not an excessive listing of statistics, since it only provides information and links to the respective seasons and cars (the latter being another "context" to this information). Moreover, it is only a listing of cars (themselves providing additional context) and not a compilation of statistics or data on their engine size, power, speed, etc.

Even if I am wrong with the above summary, the Wikipedia WP's are not in the absolute terms put forward in arguments for deletion. And the deletion arguments are also circulary to an extent or lack basis (e.g. just because some external references may be questionable, they do not negate the rest). One such argument is that this information lacks notoriety - apologies if I indulge myself again with recycling these external references - F1.com and Mercedes and random publisher and foreign research plus a video here as a German here car magazine special

There is always a silver lining in every cloud, and for me it is learning more of what I described as "the Wiki way". This day is coming across WP:CON, which stipulates that Decision-making involves an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Given that Wikipedia's policies and guidelines here are not being disrespected in any material way, why don't we look all adapt? The alternatives can be referring to the safety car once only in each respective F1 season article (or each Grand Prix, if it is responsible of any particular outome - e.g. the Vectra at San Marino 1994) or simply reinstating this content (now with fully referenced sources), in Safety car. For me, these are and remain a last resort but could provide a way forward.

List of Formula One safety cars is not poorly written (if it is, it can be fixed easily), does not have unrealiable sources (if there are, they can be easily removed), is definitely contextual (with respect to the sport and manufacturers involved) and is not trivial (e.g. because the specific cars used can and do impact race results or events; contrast it with other articles where commentary or photographs exist to show different race car liveries - which have NO impact on anything)

As is, without saying the opponents' views have no basis (and I fail to see basis when the WP's are properly read and applied), they have no greater value than views in favour for this list to remain, in whatever form CtrlXctrlV (talk) 1st3:46, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Comment (Disclaimer: User:CtrlXctrlV has asked me on my user talk page to opine here, not being aware that I routinely check all AfD pages, he also mistook my "keep" closure of a previous AfD of one of his articles as a "keep" vote, obviously I didn't vote there, I merely assessed consensus) User:CtrlXctrlV sums up correctly why OR, INDISCRIMINATE and NOTSTATSBOOK do not apply here. There is in fact still the question of WP:PROMO #5: The safety car has become a sponsored promotional item, and for a long time it has been supplied by the same car manufacturer. I suggest !voters ponder over this, or cite different guidelines for or against keeping this list, and leave the WP:ILIKEIT or WP:IDONTLIKEIT arguments out. Wikipedia is not a question of personal preferences. Kraxler (talk) 14:11, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – It should be noted that the above commenter was pretty heavily canvassed, rather than asked in a neutral manner to simply provide an opinion, which would explain the abstinence of a vote. Twirly Pen (Speak ^up) 08:04, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Should I have bolded the disclaimer? AfD is not a ballot, it's a discussion, and my above comment doesn't need any further explanation, or does it? Kraxler (talk) 14:38, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I had explained my comment pretty clearly, that your "disclaimer" made it sound like the request was a pretty neutral one, when in fact it was far from it. The actual content of your remarks isn't the issue here at all, so there's no need to get defensive about that. Twirly Pen (Speak ^up) 22:47, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Does this article pass Wikipedia:Notability#Stand-alone lists, which says:
One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list.
(I was asked to comment here.) Cunard (talk) 04:12, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Response: I do not believe it has. I have, for other reasons, previously asked User:CtrlXctrlV if the Safety Cars as a group or set had been discussed by Reliable Sources but the editor concerned chose to interpret my question differently so the question has never been answered. The Mercedes-Benz cars have been - although as mentioned above that has some WP:PROMO concerns, but certainly a list has not been linked or provided, so on that basis fails WP:SALAT. --Falcadore (talk) 09:43, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Answer: Falcadore could be that your original question was so ambiguous that it lead to an answer you had not envisaged and I note that you correctly point out you had asked that question "for other purposes". If you want to have another go at it, happy to answer it if relevant and appropriate. I also don't follow how you're purpoting to rely on (the newly argued) WP:SALAT as part of your deletion argument. On WP:PROMO, the concerns may be described as superficial only, since many things in Formula One are supplied by single companies (as a most notable example, tyres by Pirelli. CtrlXctrlV (talk) 11:06, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: And none of those single companies have a stand alone list either. --Falcadore (talk) 14:22, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: That's indeed true but that's no reason to judge the pertinence of this list. If I had time, I'd setup a tyre suppliers, especially in the context of the "war years" between +1 manufacturer. CtrlXctrlV (talk) 11:19, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies: Let me also take this opportunity to apologise to Roches (for getting his user status wrong), Kraxler (for approaching him and contextualising same on his past actions elsewhere, that I wrongly interpreted and that he has corrected me on here), Cunard (for approaching him also) - feel free to follow the time stamps of my approaches, but they all occurred before becoming aware of canvassing and making this known too. Whether you accept this or not, it is of no consequence now, but instead of criticizing those people, criticize me. I have no issue admitting any error, as I have done previously above and elsewhere (this had nothing to do with the subsequent warning I received). In the interest of full transparency, I have also contacted Dennis Brown who instead chose to abstain. Our discussion has not been prejudiced in any material way. The above approaches were made to introduce "fresh eyes" to this discussion. For completeness, I do not know or have previously contacted CDRL102 or Aspirex and it should be noted that both users put forward suggestions of adding safety car details in each season report. This might put an end to this discussion or bypass the newly introduced WP:SALAT argument against, although the latter is not made out pending a more substantive basis. If anything, WP:SALAT supports the appropriatness of this list remaining. CtrlXctrlV (talk) 11:06, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, safety cars are and has always been a major part of the sport. It is as important in this sport as the maker of the World Cup ball is in association football, and we have an article on the latter. Snowsuit Wearer (talk|contribs) 21:10, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We have Safety Car to satisfy that need. That does not justify having a full list every version of F1 Safety Car ever used in addition to it. T v x1 22:46, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tvx1, as you know, the article Safety Car used to satisfy that need until it was "washed down" to cater for multiple motorsports and not just Formula One, or else I'd agree with you. This list is complimentary, in much the same way as "list of vehicles" (as the examples I used above), compliment articles on the manufacturer and the respective cars. None of these lists breach any relevant WP. CtrlXctrlV (talk) 11:19, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison with the maker of the footbal is not appropriate. The football is an important part of the game, where as the safety car is merely a tool employed by officials. A closer example would be the maker of the referee's boots or their whistles. --Falcadore (talk) 06:50, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The safety car, post-1992, is more than just a tool used by officials as can be gleaned from the fact that: (i) they can no longer be the family sedans that used to be in the role; (ii) they are now custom-built; (iii) their role is prescribed under the rules and part of a tender process; etc.. A referee's boots or whistles can be performed by any of the kinds and that's where that analogy fails. If it were a list of "what wristwatch do drivers wear", your analogy would stand up. CtrlXctrlV (talk) 11:19, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nevertheless, while every football match needs a ball and referee's whistle to be able to happen (and that counts for every type of football, whether is american, association, australian, rugby or gaelic), whereas the majority F1 races don't need the intervention of the Safety Car at all to be completed. And yes Safety Car does satisfy the need. That it doesn't is just your opinion. Contrary to what Snowsuit Wearer seems to insinuate, deleting this list would no private our users of information on what a F1 Safety Car is. That's where their keep argument falls over. It is simply a case, like a number of the other keep arguments, of ILIKEIT. Furthermore, their argument that they have always been a major part of the sport is plainly wrong. Prior to 1973 there were hardly any Safety Cars in Formula 1. Don't forget this sport has existed since 1946. While Safety Cars have been used in the sport as early as 1973, they have only really become an important part of the sport since roughly the mid-90's. T v x1 11:59, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:04, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – I would not be opposed to a simple table being introduced to the safety car article, like

Season	Model	Notes
Trials
1973	Porsche 914	Candian Grand Prix only
1980-1983	Lamborghini Countach	Monaco Grand Prix only
1992	Honda Integra	Canadian Grand Prix only
1992	Ford Escort RS Cosworth	British Grand Prix only
Official
1993	Fiat Tempra	Brazilian Grand Prix only

...and so on. Twirly Pen (Speak ^up) 04:47, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That has no bearing on this deletion discussion however. T v x1 05:15, 25 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 01:53, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dale White (RAF)[edit]

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

Non-notable middle rank RAF officer. A term as equerry to the Duke of Edinburgh and a subsequent bestowal of the MVO doesn't establish notability. Nthep (talk) 10:02, 18 August 2015 (UTC) Nthep (talk) 10:02, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails WP:SOLDIER. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:06, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Rank and award too low for inherent notability. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:01, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:01, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:01, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:10, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:25, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - lacks significant coverage in reliable sources per WP:GNG. Anotherclown (talk) 03:42, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. unremarkable militart officer just doing his job.TheLongTone (talk) 12:05, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but I feel that it is WP:TOOSOON and WP:BLP that are the key issues here, rather than notability per se. Le petit fromage (talk) 03:32, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't appear to have WP:SIGCOV. A WP:BEFORE search doesn't bring forward anything conclusive. My inclination is for delete unless someone else can ease the WP:BURDEN that this person meets WP:ANYBIO or WP:GNG. Mkdw ^talk 15:01, 25 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) 01:55, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2022 Ryder Cup[edit]

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

WP:TOOSOON. This event is still over 7 years away. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 09:47, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Way too soon, with next to nothing being confirmed. The creator Ma75k (talk · contribs) appears to have been added more way-too-soon articles for other sporting events, so any interested editors can go ~~hunt them down~~ check them out if you want. 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 10:09, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:02, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Golf-related deletion discussions....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:02, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Although sourced I'm not really seeing the need for this article right now, As the above have noted it's over 7 years away and between then and now anything can happen. –Davey2010^Talk 14:35, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - too soon. Tewapack (talk) 15:36, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the content was extracted from a section in the Ryder Cup page. It can go back there but we then have the issue of whether this section is out of proportion - do we need 22 refs (and counting) for the bidding process? probably not Nigej (talk) 15:56, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:TOOSOON and WP:CRYSTAL. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:43, 24 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 Deleted (G11) by Deb. –Davey2010^Talk 14:34, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

KHarlles[edit]

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

No independent reliable sources, only sites like AllMusic. Fails WP:BIO. Conifer (talk) 09:15, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy - obviously promotional and non-notable to boot. I've deleted it. Deb (talk) 14:07, 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 deleted A7 by JzG. (non-admin close) shoy (reactions) 14:47, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sahir Rasheed[edit]

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

The article's only reference is an interview in a business magazine, a primary source. Conifer (talk) 09:10, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence at all of notability. Deb (talk) 14:05, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:19, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:19, 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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:29, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of selfie-related injuries and deaths[edit]

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

Trivia list, compiled through original research. Seems to fail Wikipedia:Notability#Stand-alone_lists. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:26, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 11:44, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Plenty of related discussion out there, see [36], [37], [38], [39], [40], [41], [42] or any similar google search of your choice. "Proper" news media don't usually publish lists of things; however, see e.g. [43] and [44] or any similar search of Google News to see that this was widely covered as a government concern. Samsara 16:10, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A load of non-notable people, pretty much the definitions of WP:LISTCRUFT and WP:NOTNEWS. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 17:52, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability of individual people is not relevant here - see any of the similar entries in Category:Lists of people by cause of death or Category:Death-related lists, e.g. List of fatal snake bites in the United States, List of fatal shark attacks in Australia, List of fatal, unprovoked shark attacks in the United States or List of people who died climbing Mount Everest. Samsara 18:49, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Nominate it and see what happens. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:16, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - Ignoring my main point, which is that notability of individual people is not relevant. You could make a lot of lists of notable people that would not be considered apt for acceptance of Wikipedia. So please stick with the criteria, and avoid ignoring the main points made in the discussion. There are reliable sources that show this lemma to be a topic of broad interest, from pop culture all the way to politics. Samsara 16:35, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I remember when a list like this would fly on WP (10+ years ago), but not now. shoy (reactions) 18:04, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Age is not a criterion in deleting articles. Samsara 18:49, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete original research, first few sources listed by Samsara are tabloids and human interest stories in random websites which doesn't meet WP:RS and the last two sources listed is more appropriate on a section of safety in the selfie article. Pokerkiller (talk) 19:18, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- What is your requirement? The nomination is based on Wikipedia:Notability#Stand-alone_lists, which states One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources. I believe the section you are referring to in the selfie article demonstrates that this criterion is met. Selfie related deaths have been the subject of news coverage citing government action and awareness of the problem, and those news articles (RS!) give partial lists of the incidents as required by the guideline. Samsara 19:52, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Samsara, are there any reliable sources that have compiled such lists? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:18, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - http://www.ibtimes.com/deadly-selfie-couple-dies-after-taking-selfie-while-vacationing-portugal-latest-selfie-1655322 Samsara 03:22, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      - I don't see the source as particularly reliable, but I guess this will be closed as no consensus... oh well, the community seems to have spoken. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:24, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge. It looks as though some people need to read WP:RS again Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight.. Searching this brings up a huge article in the Christian Science Monitor (has nothing to do with Christian or Science before the uninformed lose their shit) [45], covering most of the incidents listed. Coverage on a government website of one incident [46]. NBC news one incident [47]. Among others. Not to mention general coverage of the topic in the CS Monitor [48], the Russian Ministry of Internal Affairs [49]. And so on and so on.--Savonneux (talk) 04:07, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note to admin Every single line in the list and the introduction is sourced.--Savonneux (talk) 23:50, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Also still waiting on a response from Piotr, whom I left a message for - or anyone else for that matter. Samsara 15:47, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: feels like trivia but it's well referenced and reliable sources are covering it, those are the criteria that matter. Vrac (talk) 18:08, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Why is this even an article ? .. I mean seriously ?, I've seen some daft articles in my time but I think this beats them all!, Unencyclopedic and quite frankly a moronic list of morons unable to take an image of themselves without fucking it all up!. This is is the kind of crap that belongs off of the internet. –Davey2010^Talk 01:00, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - List is well sourced, other such lists appear in reliable sources and most delete votes seem to be emotional, ranty, and of the "I think this is a stupid topic" variety. However, this is an encyclopedia, and if things are sourced, it doesn't matter what one's personal opinion of the topic is, opinion isn't how we determine inclusion. pschemp | talk 04:00, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Segan, Sascha (2015-02-04). "6 Lethal Selfies You Need to Learn From". PC Magazine. Archived from the original on 2015-08-25. Retrieved 2015-08-25.
2. "Selfie deaths: five people who died taking a selfie". The Week. 2015-07-09. Archived from the original on 2015-08-25. Retrieved 2015-08-25.
3. Sleigh, Sophia (2015-02-07). "Haunting selfies capture victims in last few minutes before their sudden deaths". Daily Mirror. Archived from the original on 2015-08-25. Retrieved 2015-08-25.
  The article notes: "Seconds or minutes after these people took these shots they were dead - including a vet who accidentally shot himself and a bride-to-be taking an in-car shot involved in crash"
4. "Russian police launch 'safe selfie' guide after spate of deaths". Herald Sun. Agence France-Presse. 2015-07-07. Archived from the original on 2015-08-25. Retrieved 2015-08-25.
  Here are the selfie-related injuries and deaths listed in the article:
  1. "a 21-year-old woman in Moscow accidentally shot herself in the head in May while taking a selfie while holding a pistol. She suffered head injuries but survived"
  2. "In January, two young men blew themselves up in the Urals while taking a selfie holding a hand grenade with the pin pulled out. The cell phone with the selfie survived as a record."
  3. "In May, a teenager in the Ryazan region died while attempting to take a selfie as he climbed on a railway bridge and accidentally came into contact with live wires."
5. Kauffman, Gretel (2015-07-07). "How to prevent death-by-selfie: a guide from Russian government". The Christian Science Monitor. Archived from the original on 2015-08-25. Retrieved 2015-08-25.
  Here are the selfie-related injuries and deaths listed in the article:
  1. "Last April, inspired by a trend of Russian youths climbing tall structures to take selfies at the top, a Saint Petersburg teenager died when she fell on railroad tracks.
  2. "Another young woman fell to her death taking a selfie on a bridge this past weekend,"
  3. "and a Moscow woman accidentally shot herself in the head while posing with a gun in May."
  4. "Earlier this year, a civilian plane crashed in Colorado, killing the pilot and his passenger, when the pilot lost control of the plane while taking selfies."
  5. "Another man was electrocuted to death in Spain when he attempted to climb atop a parked train to take a photo with friends."
  6. "In 2014, a viral video of a man getting kicked in the head by the conductor of a moving train while shooting a video of himself attracted over 37 million views on YouTube. He was unhurt, but three college students from India attempting a similar stunt weren't so lucky."
  The article notes: "The list of accidents under thrill-seeking circumstances goes on and on – and that's not even counting the accidents caused by people snapping photos of themselves while driving."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow the subject to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 04:40, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The subject also passes Wikipedia:Notability#Stand-alone lists, which says, "One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list." Cunard (talk) 04:40, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, sources indicate notability. Everyking (talk) 07:08, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: See little difference between this and List of unusual deaths. Well-sourced and relevant to current culture. Julia\^talk 23:30, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Per the sources presented above, the topic passes WP:LISTN, having "been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources." North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:59, 26 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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:30, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Misee Harris[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

WP:BLP1E. Non notable dentist who was involved in a minor news event when she resigned. Paid vanity page. duffbeerforme (talk) 08:03, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Need better sources to raise about vanity level, inappropriate for Wikipedia. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:28, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - current refs: #1 an activist's blog article #2 is just a brief event summary and ends with "Go to her Facebook page to show your support." #3 and #4 are indiscriminate collections of Harris' quotes in "Local News" and the "Chicago Defender" #5 ends with "Congratulations to my dear friends, Chris and Misee!" and is a sponsored post #6 is SPS obviously. In short: the references suffer from the same weaknesses as previous refs in the last AfD: none of them is clearly reliable and independent and in-depth. They may raise some temporary publicity, but not any kind of lasting notability. The description of her non-notable acting and producing activities is also exaggerated and needlessly detailed. GermanJoe (talk) 11:21, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:17, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:17, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:BIO clearly Not notable and clearly paid vanity page.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 06:34, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think the original deletion was correct, and that the sources in the "new" version weren't substantially different than the ones in the deleted version. (Obviously, since I g4'd it.) The sourecs added and events since then haven't dissuaded me. It should additionally be deleted as a blatant and now-admitted violation of the Foundation's terms of use. —Cryptic 06:44, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
God knows - I was convinced in the first AFD it should be deleted, I G4ed a particularly egregious PR-puff version of it in January, at DRV I was persuaded she might be more notable now in the aftermath of the Ferguson outrage...

I think the only thing I would suggest is if it is deleted, this redirect was a useful thing and should be restored. Pinkbeast (talk) 13:09, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete another case of attention-seeking, and not attention-getting, fails WP:PROMO, her claim to fame seems to be "her protesting for the unfortunate, but unavoidable killing of the late Michael Brown of Ferguson, Missouri" could some English teacher parse that for me? Kraxler (talk) 16:00, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Unfortunate but unavoidable" is a drive-by by an IP with an axe to grind. Pinkbeast (talk) 16:22, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And what means "to protest for"? And "the killing of the late X"? Kraxler (talk) 16:50, 25 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. Randykitty (talk) 22:06, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Global Officials of Dignity Awards[edit]

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

Part of a promotional walled garden. Lacks depth of coverage in independent reliable sources. Current bombardment of sources is non reliable sources, passing mentions and PR driven puff. duffbeerforme (talk) 08:01, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I have removed CNN iReport and added some more reliable sources which are in Arabic and Bengali. The recipients are mostly from India, Malaysia, The Philippines and other Asian and African countries, I don't think so the coverage in native languages could be brought here to support the subject's notability. And it is very difficult to guess whether those regional native publications are online presence; though if they are, it is very difficult to google them for others who don't know those languages.Kailasher (talk) 13:32, 18 August 2015 (UTC) — Kailasher (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Note on SPA: I have created Campa Cola Compound Case and Saraswati Mandir High School.Kailasher (talk) 09:12, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Her works are mostly in..." But this article isn't about her. --Ronz (talk) 15:48, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, corrected.Kailasher (talk) 16:29, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You really shouldn't change your comments like that when someone has responded to them. --Ronz (talk) 16:51, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really think so, I have thanked you after the correction.Kailasher (talk) 17:08, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What is intended is that an editor leave the original, use a <s>~~strikethrough~~</s>, and then include the correction. That way the conversation does not confuse others. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 17:35, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The following is the original version;

*Keep. I have removed CNN iReport and added some more reliable sources which are in Arabic and Bengali. Her works are mostly in India, Malaysia, The Philippines and other Asian and African countries, I don't think so the coverage in native languages could be brought here to support her notability. And it is very difficult to guess whether those regional native publications are online presence; though if they are, it is very difficult to google them for others who don't know those languages.Kailasher (talk) 13:32, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Michael.Kailasher (talk) 19:20, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note. It appears the topic has coverage and note enough to meet WP:ORG. The article could benefit from some calming of tone, but an addressable issue is not a cause for deletion, nor are WP:NONENG sources. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 17:35, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I was going to make a note saying just the opposite, adding that there appears to be no notability at all separate from that of Maria Amor Torres. A redirect would be in order, if her article survives the AfD. --Ronz (talk) 20:30, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please elaborate your factors, then we know where we stand.Kailasher (talk) 20:34, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Either Keep and expand and cleanup or, at a minimum, merge as an expanded section at its awarding organization We Care for Humanity. Sources need not be solely about the topic being discussed, just so long as they do provide more-than-trivial information. The awards receive just enough note to meet WP:N through Javanan Magazine, Sunday Times, Modern Ghana, NIgerian Voice, Cold heat News, The Standard, 24 Hours 1, The Star, The Hindu, 24 Hours 2, and many others. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 12:10, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
They use their awards to promote themselves, and the press sometimes echos their press releases. This is trivia and soapboxing, specifically excluded by WP:N and WP:NOT and WP:NPOV. --Ronz (talk) 15:29, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That criticism is there everywhere, please read Nobel Prize controversies.Kailasher (talk) 09:53, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
These aren't anything like the Nobel Prizes. Do take a look over WP:NOT, especially WP:SOAP and WP:NOTNEWS. --Ronz (talk) 15:40, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per Schmidt. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 15:51, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete Sources are simply public relations pieces. Notability not met. WP:SOAP and WP:NOTNEWS violation. Redirect to Torres' article if it passes AfD. --Ronz (talk) 16:11, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please rather than repeatedly making your claims of reliable sources into press releases, you instead take the authored article to WP:RSN to let other wiser heads offer their inputs.Kailasher (talk) 08:53, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please WP:FOC. If you're not interested in addressing the WP:BLP and WP:COPYVIO problems, leave them to those who will. --Ronz (talk) 14:44, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:GNGand Per Schmidt.122.174.17.183 (talk) 11:38, 24 August 2015 (UTC) — 122.174.17.183 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
~~Merge~~, in concise manner, into the organization's article. The coverage cited isn't coverage so much of the award, which for all intents and purposes does not seem to be notable in its own right. I mean, it's fine to cite a reliable source like the 'Evening Standard, but all it has to say on our subject is, "Will you be attending the Global Officials of Dignity Awards at the UN headquarters in New York?" "Yes on August 6 and 7. I am looking forward to attending and I will probably give a small talk." This apparent press release mentions the thing ("GOD") but doesn't even spell it out. No, notability requires in-depth coverage, not brief mentions in sometimes iffy publications; if there weren't a parent article this would be a clear case of delete. Drmies (talk) 15:01, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Update: I just deleted Maria Amor Torres as a promotional copyvio, and will vote delete on the "main" article, We Care for Humanity, which appears to be little more than a vanity club and is certainly not notable by our standards--and thus, we should also delete this thing here. Drmies (talk) 15:08, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:50, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:50, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:50, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Let's look at some recipients of these so called awards [50].

Mollywood Mcleim. Who? An Indonesian Celebrity Photographer. "Most important is her interaction with Maria Amor, whose nonprofits, Exotifit for Humanity, We Care for the World, and her professional networks , ’Are just like family’." "She visits thousands events, from those hosted at Hollywood’s “The W”, to 99% of Maria Amor’s functions." [51].

Sandra Baskh. Or is that Sandra Baksh. Who? Founder of Oohlala Divas. Would this award have anything to do with this donation?

Noah Dahl. Actor [52]. No major parts. No indication of how he contributed to humanity significantly. No indication of why he "won"

Brett Hunt. Aparently he is rendering a comedy/rap act for the homeless [53]. [54] Funkalicious, Laci Kay, Athena Katalaris, Mellia Diehl, Look how many others from that 1st GOD honorees are involved here. Were the "nominated" for their participation here? Ahh! Look further down the brochure. Now we have it. "Hero Sponsor - $3000." "Receive Humanitarian Ambassador Award at the Global Officials of Dignity Awards". The "awards" are for sale.

If I strike my afd nomination would I become an Ambassador? How much would it cost me to become a Prince? duffbeerforme (talk) 13:21, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Torres appears to be trying to build her organization through donations of time and money from past award winners. I've not looked closely to see if they are making the donations before or after receiving the awards, and my general impression is that it is the latter. It appears to be a vanity play on the award recipients, focusing on making the awards higher profile in each subsequent year. Combining that with Torres' princess persona, it doesn't look good. --Ronz (talk) 15:17, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:BLASPHEMY GOD awards? Really.... Kraxler (talk) 16:05, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable. George Custer's Sabre (talk) 16:16, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the fact that one can buy one of these "awards" isn't very relevant, the fact that the sources presented in the article are all PR fluff or of dubious reliability is. Does not meet WP:N in my view. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 13:06, 26 August 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Delete - non RS sources, purely a promotional piece for a non-notable award. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:52, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable, sources are poor/passing mentions. Fyddlestix (talk) 15:29, 26 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. T. Canens (talk) 22:43, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We Care for Humanity[edit]

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

Part of a promotional walled garden. Lacks depth of coverage in independent reliable sources. Current bombardment of sources is non reliable sources, passing mentions and PR driven puff. duffbeerforme (talk) 08:00, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I have removed CNN iReport and added some more reliable sources which are in Arabic and Bengali. The services of WCH are mostly towards India, Malaysia, The Philippines and other Asian and African countries, I don't think so the coverage in native languages could be brought here to support the subject's notability. And it is very difficult to guess whether those regional native publications are online presence; though if they are, it is very difficult to google them for others who don't know those languages.Kailasher (talk) 13:35, 18 August 2015 (UTC) — Kailasher (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Note on SPA: I have created Campa Cola Compound Case and Saraswati Mandir High School.Kailasher (talk) 09:13, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"support her notability" It's not her notability that is in question. --Ronz (talk) 15:43, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, corrected.Kailasher (talk) 16:23, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You really shouldn't change your comments like that when someone has responded to them. --Ronz (talk) 16:52, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really think so, I have thanked you after the correction.Kailasher (talk) 17:09, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What is intended is that an editor leave the original, use a <s>~~strikethrough~~</s>, and then include the correction. That way the conversation does not confuse others. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 17:27, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The following is the original version;

*Keep. I have removed CNN iReport and added some more reliable sources which are in Arabic and Bengali. Her works are mostly in India, Malaysia, The Philippines and other Asian and African countries, I don't think so the coverage in native languages could be brought here to support her notability. And it is very difficult to guess whether those regional native publications are online presence; though if they are, it is very difficult to google them for others who don't know those languages.Kailasher (talk) 13:32, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Michael.Kailasher (talk) 19:23, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note. It appears the topic has coverage and note enough to meet WP:ORG. The article could benefit from some calming of tone, but an addressable issue is not a cause for deletion, nor are WP:NONENG sources. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 17:31, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I was going to make a note saying just he opposite, adding that there appears to be no notability at all separate from that of Maria Amor Torres. --Ronz (talk) 20:29, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please elaborate your factors, then we know where we stand.Kailasher (talk) 20:34, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No sources meet WP:N for this article, nor the award article. The only notability seems to come from that of Torres. --Ronz (talk) 21:49, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Michael has already responded above.Kailasher (talk) 05:31, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Speaking about the organization in a more-than-trivial manner, we have Borneo Post 1, Bangalore Tribune, Arab New, 24 Hours Vancouver, Newsfirst, The Star, Borneo Post 2, The Nation, and others. We do not need hundreds of sources to show notability, and the organization does not have the sole subject spoken of in available sources for WP:ORG#Primary criteria to be met. It serves the project and its readers that it be discussed herein. It can remain and grow over time and through regular editing. Thank you. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 11:55, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We only need one that clearly meets WP:N. What I'm seeing is "Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject is not sufficient to establish notability." and none separate from Torres. Am I missing something? --Ronz (talk) 15:23, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Really Schmidt? Did you even look at the sites you're linking? Article "By WE CAREFOR HUMANITY (WCH)". A quote from her. An unrelated article. Passing mentions and trivial coverage. PR rehashes. Whole thing seems a bit iffy. A charity who's prime purpose seems to be to hold lavish dinners to give "awards" to rich people. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:34, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But sources say they use the award ceremony part and parcel of their fund raising campaign for various of their humanitarian projects. Allegations are there everywhere, please read Nobel Prize controversies.Kailasher (talk) 09:58, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:15, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:15, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per Schmidt. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 15:53, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per MichaelQSchmidt and passes WP:GNG.122.174.55.241 (talk) 13:45, 22 August 2015 (UTC) — 122.174.55.241 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Strong delete Sources are simply public relations pieces. Notability not met. WP:SOAP and WP:NOTNEWS violation. Redirect to Torres' article if it passes AfD. --Ronz (talk) 16:09, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please rather than repeatedly making your claims of reliable sources into press releases, you instead take the authored article to WP:RSN to let other wiser heads offer their inputs.Kailasher (talk) 08:57, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please WP:FOC. If you're not interested in addressing the WP:BLP and WP:COPYVIO problems, leave them to those who will. --Ronz (talk) 14:44, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree with the nominator. I have just deleted the article on the founder as a promotional copyvio; this article shows no in-depth coverage of the organization to suggest it passes GNG--the mentions are just that, mentions. It's all trivial and promotional, more a vanity club than anything else. Putting a princessal stamp on it doesn't make that any different. Drmies (talk) 15:10, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this article has the exact same 12 sources refbombed at the GOD awards. Looks like fake source WP:PROMO Kraxler (talk) 16:08, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom and above editors voting for delete. Purely a promotional piece. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:54, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable, sources are not good. Fyddlestix (talk) 15:31, 26 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 delete. I'm cutting this short: it is obvious that this was a copyvio from the get-go, and promotional to boot. That doesn't make her not-notable as a subject, but in this case, there is nothing to keep that's valid to keep, given our policies. Drmies (talk) 15:06, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maria Amor Torres[edit]

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

Part of a promotional walled garden. "Princess" Maria Amor Torres lacks depth of coverage in independent reliable sources. Current bombardment of sources is non reliable sources, passing mentions and PR driven puff. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:58, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. Borderline. Not seeing anything reliable in books or GNews search. Self-marketed princess, but has some media presence. [55] is short and mentions her in passing (despite the eye-catching title). [56] is similar. [57] is e better, but it seems to be a minor media outlet. No mainstream coverage, all I see is minor/vanity/combined with blogs (CNN entries are 'citizen journalism' - iReport). I think it's vanity entry, WP:TOOSOON at best. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:58, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(Is she even a princess?) Of the articles you link: 1, as you say is short and mentions her in passing. 2, is "By WE CAREFOR HUMANITY (WCH)" so not independent. 3, Pure PR puff from a personal wordpress blog that routinely republishes press releases (egs [58] [59] [60]), clearly not a reliable source. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:01, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep.GNews search on Princess Maria Amor brings some tangible sources; she is generally known as ""Princess Maria Amor". I have removed CNN iReport, thanks 'Piotrus'. I have added some more reliable sources which are in Arabic and Bengali. Her works are mostly in India, Malaysia, The Philippines and other Asian and African countries, I don't think so the coverage in native languages could be brought here to support her notability. And it is very difficult to guess whether those regional native publications are online presence; though if they are, it is very difficult to google them for others who don't know those languages.Kailasher (talk) 13:16, 18 August 2015 (UTC) — Kailasher (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Note on SPA: I have created Campa Cola Compound Case and Saraswati Mandir High School.Kailasher (talk) 09:15, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note It appears WP:BASIC is met. Article can benefit from cleanup per WP:STYLE, but WP:NONENG sourcing and addressable issues do not mandate deletion. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 17:42, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Appearances can be deceptive. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:01, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can you elaborate one factor that appearance can be deceptive on this regard?Kailasher (talk) 11:20, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If so, all these gathering and the keynote address by former Senator Diane Watson are also deceptive?Kailasher (talk) 12:32, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:12, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or, at the minimum merge and expand at a section in the article of the organization she founded. Sources do not have to be solely about this woman, just so long as they provide more-than-trivial coverage. WP:BASIC is met through Newsfirst (1), The Nation, News Sri Lanka, 24 Hours(1), The Star, The Hindu, Bornoe Post, The Hollywood Times, Newsfirst (2), Daily FT, Elle Nation, and others. Enough sources have taken note of this individual, that it is sensible that we do too, and the article can grow and expand over time and through regular editing. Deletion does not serve the project. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 12:31, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Really Schmidt? Did you even look at the sites you're linking? Articles "By WE CAREFOR HUMANITY (WCH)". A press release site. Same link twice. Her talking about her self. A video of her talking on a site were users can upload videos. Passing mentions and trivial coverage. PR rehashes. She's representing the royal family of Philippines? Does the Philippines know about this family? duffbeerforme (talk) 07:32, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The sources say, she is from The Royal House of Baloi. For, "Does the Philippines know about this family?", please refer The Present System.Kailasher (talk) 08:45, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The sources are nothing but puffery, but that Lanao article sheds some light on the situation. Thanks. --Ronz (talk) 15:33, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kailasher, Thanks for that link. So not the royal family of Philippines then. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:02, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Before you get into asking some questions on others, you shoul clear your doubts on history; there is no royal families of India, Indonesia, Malaysia and Philippines, these are recently created political entities by amalgamating various kingdoms, principalities and other.Kailasher (talk) 04:29, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:12, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:12, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per Schmidt. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 15:53, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to We Care for Humanity. Notability is dependent on the organization she founded.--RioHondo (talk) 02:12, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per good work by MichaelQSchmidt.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 13:59, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll ask you the same thing. Did you even look at the articles MichaelQSchmidt linked? Which do you think helps with GNG? The press releases? the passing mentions? The articles by her org? Her talking about herself? Which ones? duffbeerforme (talk) 11:59, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note Most of article is copied from her website. The copyvio policy has changed hugely since I've dealt with a situation this bad, so I'm not sure how address both the copyvio and AfD properly so one doesn't cause problems with the other. I'm guessing the two other articles have similar problems. --Ronz (talk) 20:28, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted your removal of large sunk of content without prior discussion on the talk page. Please identify those on the talk page of the subject then we can do our best. I will report next time at ANI, if you revert that your edits are not in the best interests of Wikipedia. Don't undermine the project that others are not dancing with you. Please listen Michael he is a long standing Administrator.Kailasher (talk) 06:54, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

While there is a deletion discussion going on, you removed the Afd tag also without any prior consensus. Please remember it is a serious violation and you may be blocked eventually if you continue like this.Kailasher (talk) 07:30, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please rather than repeatedly making your claims of reliable sources into press releases, you instead take the authored article to WP:RSN to let other wiser heads offer their inputs.Kailasher (talk) 08:09, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please WP:FOC. If you're not interested in addressing the WP:BLP and WP:COPYVIO problems, leave them to those who will.

I did not remove any tags. I pointed out that I'm unaware of how to proproperly address COPYVIO problems when an article is up for AfD. --Ronz (talk) 14:51, 24 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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:37, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Willis Ikedum[edit]

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

Self-serving autobiography/vanity page, spam links to stuff he's done, mostly unsourced, dubiously notable Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:58, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 11:55, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sadly no evidence of notability. WP:TOOSOON applies. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 21:56, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now (draft & userfy if needed) as my searches found nothing better than this. SwisterTwister talk 21:59, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:07, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 24 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. Wizardman 15:57, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

David Denson[edit]

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

While the subject has been the object of the routine coverage one would expect of a promising High School and college baseball prospect, as well as what would be expected of any minor league player, we don't post articles on baseball players who have not played in the major leagues. And the coverage that is cited could easily be claimed for any number of other minor league players. The only real claim to notability is the player's decision to announce his sexual orientation. Subject fails WP:NBASE and WP:BLP1E. Ad Orientem (talk) 04:44, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Passed WP:GNG, with significant coverage in multiple, independent sources. This supersedes an SNG. As WP:NSPORTS itself says: "Please note that the failure to meet these criteria does not mean an article must be deleted". Might not be the most talented baseball player at this time, but meets WP:WHYN in that a neutral, whole article can be written, and it's already beyond a WP:PERMASTUB. WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST is not generally a reason to delete. The article currently only has three sentences on his sexuality, so BLP1E is not an issue. For those still in doubt, his being the first publicly gay baseball player is likely to get (at worst) some continued coverage. At worst, this is a wait and see.—Bagumba (talk) 05:14, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. —Bagumba (talk) 05:19, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. —Bagumba (talk) 05:19, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Routine coverage isn't notable for bios. If he is the first MLB player to come out as gay he might meet WP:ANYBIO criteria 2. At this point it is too soon to tell WP:TOOSOON. The possibility of notability is not notability.--Savonneux (talk) 11:15, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- This coverage is "routine"? Did you read any of it? – Muboshgu (talk) 16:12, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sports reporters covering sports is like entertainment press covering actors. Also WP:AGF--Savonneux (talk) 00:27, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Much like WP:ITSLOCAL, coverage is coverage, despite its perceived scope. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:31, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Milwaukee Brewers minor league players. Agree that its too soon for a stand alone bio, but he is suitable for the minor league list article. Spanneraol (talk) 12:35, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Enough coverage to pass WP:N, which trumps WP:NBASE. While his sexual orientation may be considered BLP1E, he also has coverage for being a decent prospect that precedes his coming out, such as a the Woods article, which is more than routine. If not kept, then certainly merge per Spanneraol is more appropriate than delete. Rlendog (talk) 15:42, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Milwaukee Brewers minor league players. Right now, his fame is based on what one might consider WP:ONEEVENT. Alex (talk) 15:48, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- You create Kyle Hunter (baseball) and Phil McCormick with pretty much zero coverage, and you don't think this guy is notable? Amazing--Yankees10 17:16, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As the nom I am comfortable with a merge as suggested above. It seems like a reasonable course of action conceding that he has garnered some attention and there is a suitable target article. I remain convinced though, that excepting the attention over his personal life, the rest looks purely routine and does not rise to the level justifying an exception to NBASE. -16:07, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
Strong Keep With help of Bagumba, I think we've provided sufficient sources for this to remain a stand-alone page without the need for a merge. Closing admin should take note of the sourcing that exists from before his publicly coming out, which goes along with the significantly in depth coverage of him upon his coming out. It's not the "coming out" that gets the article, that would be BLP1E. No, this is a biography about a notable person who came out. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:11, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Also to respond to Ad Orientem's mention in his initial rationale that "we don't post articles on baseball players who have not played in the major leagues", we have many articles written for people who have yet to make their major league debuts. Many will, others won't. Lots of them are already retired. See Category:Minor league baseball players. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:17, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment On the surface, WP:BLP1E might sound applicable, but lets run through the actual conditions in the policy: 1) If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event. The bulk of this article is not about his coming out. 2) If that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual. He's a pro athlete that was already in the public eye, not your average Joe Citizen where privacy is a bigger concern. 3) If the event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented. Individual's role is clear and well documented.—Bagumba (talk) 16:35, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Some might think WP:ONEEVENT is applicable, but that is only relevant if there are overlapping articles on an event and involved individuals. In this case, there is no duplication; this is the only article, and his coming out is a small portion of it. In the worst case, if one still argues that he is just famous for the one event, it doesn't say the article can't exist: "a person famous for only one event may be more widely known than the event itself, for example, the Tank Man. In such cases, the article about the event may be most appropriately named for the person involved." —Bagumba (talk) 16:35, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Plenty of coverage.--Yankees10 17:16, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Article is significant enough. Boaxy (talk) 07:48, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think there are enough sources here. First gay baseball player is significant. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 13:42, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Other first professional gay baseball players:
- Sean Conroy via Sports Illustrated [61] another Minor League player who has come out aroud the same time as this guy
- Glenn Burke in 1982 [62] who I might add actually played in the major league.--Savonneux (talk) 02:00, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Nobody created Sean Conroy because he doesn't meet WP:GNG. Burke came out after he retired, whereas Denson came out while he's active. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:30, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - (edit conflict) Conroy is not affiliated with Major League Baseball, the preeminent baseball league in the world. Burke's sexuality was never made public while he was playing. Here's an article from grantland.com that might convince some as to why an athlete coming out still remains a big deal.—Bagumba (talk) 02:37, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - Doesn't meet WP:GNG? He got a wire story. Apparently that's enough here.--Savonneux (talk) 06:08, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes WP:BIO as several have pointed out already. See also some sources not cited in the article from the last few days: CNN, Sports Illustrated, Slate, Daily Beast, Peru.com, USA Today in broader context, RDS.ca, Jetzt.de, Independent Record follow up... and 114,000 results in a Google News search for '"david denson" baseball'. A first of this kind, which is now part of LGBT and MLB history, is the kind of story that receives coverage over time. His coming out is a single event (not that BLP1E would apply, as there's plenty of baseball coverage, too), but being the first openly gay MLB-affiliated player is ongoing. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:08, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - in agreement with discussions to keep. Gmcbjames (talk) 22:18, 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 and salt. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 13:56, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Darius Brown-Bey[edit]

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

Seemingly non-notable YouTuber. Absolutely zero external references found, other than statistical sites. Additionally, the truthfulness of this article can be called into question, as the article claims its subject to be related to Bing Crosby, Jester Hairston, Hal Williams, Sister Sledge, and LeBron James, which, with no references for verification, seems completely ludicrous. Westroopnerd (talk) 03:51, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete – like the previous three times. A salting may be appropriate at this point.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 10:11, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I deleted it last, so I'm only !voting this time. Dubious contents, no reliable independent referencing. A lot more content than the last version, but still nothing that makes me think of notability, especially without referencing. Nominated at the Shorties? The majority of the winners don't seem to qualify for articles (although I have just wikilinked one, and there may be others that no-one's bothered to link yet). Peridon (talk) 11:04, 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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:38, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mid-volume transaction output[edit]

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

Not notable Kendall-K1 (talk) 03:38, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Entire content seems to be directed toward evaluation considerations for MVTO equipment purchases. My updates yesterday were to remove Orphan status. After further thought, there is not enough content for a stand-alone article. Prior to deletion, perhaps this Mid-volume transaction output article could become a section in another article?

For example, in articles Offset printing or Printer (publishing) this content might be added as a new section title of Equipment purchase considerations or similar name.

JoeHebda (talk) 10:36, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think this article is too poor quality to salvage anything. It doesn't even say what the subject of the article is; "a space in the production printing environment" could be just about anything. And without sources it's going to be hard to fix. Kendall-K1 (talk) 13:39, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with JoeHebda above. Not to mention that it's completely unsourced. I do not believe this could become a section in another article to be honest; and if it were to be considered for that; it would need a massive overhaul and some sort of sourcing. The Undead Never Die (talk) 04:45, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:RS, WP:NOTDIC. Appears too specific a term to stand as its own section in existing printing articles. --Djembayz (talk) 00:23, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 24 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. Michig (talk) 07:21, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rodger Azadganian[edit]

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

Intended or not, this looks more like a personal page and my searches found nothing to suggest improvement with the best results here, here and here. SwisterTwister talk 03:14, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -Article does have some secondary sources listed, but reads like an ad. ABF99 (talk) 05:26, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - no indication of importance plus it's a clear advertisement. —Мандичка^YO 😜 19:56, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:57, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:57, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Fails WP:Bio completely. Looks like a slight promo article too. The Undead Never Die (talk) 04:46, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:30, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:30, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article is not eligible for speedy deletion as per the sources and its very loose attempt at asserting notability. Upon a further WP:BEFORE look it doesn't appear this individual meets WP:ANYBIO or WP:SIGCOV. Mkdw ^talk 00:53, 25 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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:39, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rett Varner[edit]

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

Non-notable minor league baseball player. Wizardman 02:36, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 07:52, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable.--Yankees10 17:45, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:BASE/N – Muboshgu (talk) 02:09, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:28, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:28, 24 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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:39, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Athula Gunawardena[edit]

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

The subject is an Associate Professor. Not notable under WP:PROF or WP:GNG. A series of general references provided which mention the subject in passing but do not establish notability.Dan arndt (talk) 02:21, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 02:21, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 02:21, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 02:21, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP notability guidelines, could not find any reliable secondary sources to suggest improvement. ABF99 (talk) 04:24, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:58, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Mathematics is a low-citation field, but the subject works in a corner of it that is not well appreciated even by mathematicians (finite geometries) and has only three papers with double-digit citations. And despite its governor's predations Wisconsin–Madison, is still a good school, but associate professor is not enough to indicate notability, and the subject's actual affiliation appears to be at the lesser Whitewater campus. So WP:PROF#C1 seems out of reach, #C5 is definitely not on, and what else is there? —David Eppstein (talk) 07:02, 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:09, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sailendra Dev Appanah[edit]

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

My searches found absolutely nothing thus with no signs of improvement, there's nothing to suggest keeping. I found some results (although some non-English) for ChangeFusion but I'm not if it is notable for an article. SwisterTwister talk 01:59, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -Found no reliable secondary sources to establish notability. ABF99 (talk) 04:52, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unless there is a name variation that I can search, there is nothing to be done here except delete. Nothing comes up for the name in Google News (0 results) and very limited (non-notable) sources in Google Search. Fails WP:GNG. --TTTommy111 (talk) 06:19, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 07:50, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 07:50, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - searches provided zero results. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:58, 25 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 02:10, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OpenEmulator[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable software product. I can't find any references, other than spam from the author(s) that a new version is available. No substantial coverage (reviews, analysis, academic research) that demonstrates this product meets WP:N. Note that this is a second deletion. The first deletion was resolved "no consensus", despite the only two "keep" votes being for dubious and rebuked reasons. Since that process, about three years ago, the article hasn't been referenced and the product hasn't been maintained. Mikeblas (talk) 01:49, 18 August 2015 (UTC) (categories)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 02:24, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - A search shows that it is a real product, but there are no sources other than GitHub and other open source project forums that discuss it. I would think there would be a mention in Tech Crunch or similar source, but nothing. Fails WP:GNG. --TTTommy111 (talk) 06:22, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no WP:RS that I could find either. shoy (reactions) 18:10, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - existence is not notability. Searches do not show anything to indicate it meets notability requirements. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:37, 25 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 Kompania Piwowarska. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:02, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dębowe Mocne[edit]

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

The exact information in this longtime stub is already contained in a parent article Kompania_Brewery#Brands_produced_in_Poland. The article has had a longtime notability template and seems unlikely to be expanded beyond what is already on the parent page. Prof. Mc (talk) 21:53, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:23, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into ~~Kompania Brewery~~ Kompania Piwowarska (the only thing that is in the source article and not in the target article is the picture). — Kpalion^(talk) 06:56, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:40, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:40, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Kompania Piwowarska, any information not already there!Pincrete (talk) 16:06, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:30, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Kompania Piwowarska, as needed. Kierzek (talk) 02:16, 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. Will userfy upon request if anyone wants to use the content to cover aspects of this wrestling stable in the individual members' articles. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:13, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Dollhouse (professional wrestling)[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. There are sources in the article, but they are WP:ROUTINE match results. No significant coverage in reliable independent sources exist to satisfy notability criteria. The information can easily be covered in the individual members' articles. Nikki♥311 20:07, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Nikki♥311 20:09, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete cover it in individual articles, not notable and just invites week-to-week uldates of "x won this match, y lost this match" because that is all there is to fill the article. MPJ -US 20:50, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:28, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable as a stand alone article; move/merge any specific information to articles which cover same. Kierzek (talk) 02:19, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom and above editors. Nothing to suggest notability. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:19, 25 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. Mkdw ^talk 00:51, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Fugger[edit]

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

Football player who was drafted, but has never played professionally. Fails both WP:NGRIDIRON and WP:NCOLLATH, and the references provided are minor transaction reports which do not indicate any sort of notability. --Bongwarrior (talk) 19:37, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 19:57, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:45, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:33, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete if there is a notable college career, it isn't contained in the article. The article as it stands now shows a subject that does not pass WP:GNG. --Paul McDonald (talk) 15:44, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:28, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable as a stand alone article. Kierzek (talk) 02:20, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't pass WP:GNG, WP:NGRIDIRON, or WP:NCOLLATH. Very little coverage beyond routine information about sports transactions. ~ Rob^Talk 08:44, 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 and redirect to Marilyn Monroe. T. Canens (talk) 22:37, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Natasha Lytess[edit]

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

Delete: non-notable individual. Few sentences of info can easily be added to Marilyn Monroe article. Quis separabit? 00:37, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:04, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:04, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. She seems to have been a key person in Monroe's life. There is the allegation that they had a lesbian affair,[63], and she gets at least a chapter ("Natasha Non Grata") and lots of other mentions in J. Randy Taraborrelli's book The Secret Life of Marilyn Monroe.[64] Clarityfiend (talk) 20:28, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per Clarityfiend also there is a source here and a mention here and a few paragraphs here. Meets the WP:GNG.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:06, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully disagree. Salacious speculation does not equal notability. There is not enough for an article here. Anything/everything that is reliable/sourced about Lytess can be added to the Marilyn Monroe article, if it's not already present there. Quis separabit? 13:27, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We could redirect Beetle to Insect too. That a redirect is possible is insufficient reason for doing such a redirect.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 17:46, 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 15:32, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. That the redirect can be made does not mean it should be. In this case the redirect should be done because it is the appropriate course of action as Lytess, her tragic untimely death notwithstanding, is insufficiently notable in her own right. Quis separabit? 02:18, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Salicious speculation"? Why do you think that way?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:29, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:26, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable; only has a very tenuous connection to a high profile individual. Kierzek (talk) 02:22, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable. Notability is not inherited, and she appears to only have any press as in regards to her relationship to Marilyn Monroe. Since there are sources, some of that info could be added to the Monroe page, but I don't believe its even notable enough to be included there. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:42, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Selectively merge the sources and a short note, avoiding placing too much in there. Bearian (talk) 16:20, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Onel5969. Notability is not inherited. Me5000 (talk) 19:49, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Marilyn Monroe, where she is already mentioned. Not independently notable. --MelanieN (talk) 22:18, 26 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. Extremely weak (irrelevant?) arguments from both sides of the debate, but the article does seem pretty shaky. I speculate that a re-nomination (but with a valid, policy-based statement) might yield a more thorough consensus. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:43, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Javotti Media[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

No opinion from me, but an IP user placed the AfD tag so something needs to be here. ... discospinster _talk 02:01, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A list of trivial WP:FANCRUFT. 75.129.230.8 (talk) 02:09, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I can't believe my article is being nominated for deletion. It's not false. DBrown_SPS 02:02, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@DBrown SPS: One reason to list it for deletion is because it needs additional references to support notability. I did a search and I see many hits for it. However, I don't know which of those sources is considered a RS in that music culture. Could you identify some better sources? LaMona (talk) 16:21, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@LaMona: I couldn't find any sources that match the notability of it. It was so much hard work to do. I tried, but didn't found anything that match the artists' names, the foundation nor its releases. DBrown_SPS 18:58, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@DBrown SPS:I found these: Frank151, The Source, Fusicology, Rolling Stone. There are others, but I'm not sure which publications are considered key in this field. (Also, remember to sign your comments here with four tilde's, not by typing your username.] LaMona (talk) 15:59, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - This article is filled with nothing, but nonsense. It should be removed and the user responsible for this page should be blocked. 75.129.230.8 (talk) 02:09, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. 75.129.230.8 (talk) 02:25, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. 75.129.230.8 (talk) 02:09, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. 75.129.230.8 (talk) 02:09, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. 75.129.230.8 (talk) 02:09, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:07, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep We're talking about a label founded by a major artist. Why is this nominated lol? Ovo16 (talk) 13:58, 9 August 2015 (UTC) per WP:SOCKSTRIKE Kraxler (talk) 12:31, 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 15:31, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - independent sources seem to exist, see [65] eg. shoy (reactions) 18:21, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:26, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - reads like a PR statement and needs better sourcing so WP:TNT may be in order. Kierzek (talk) 02:26, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ You can vote only once - I got all of the reference links I could find and added them to the page. It's just that it's not done yet. I need help. DBrown_SPS 23:39, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Talib Kweli as a compromise as although it's newly founded, it seems best known through Talib as shown here and here. If I were persuaded to keep, it would be a weak keep at best. SwisterTwister talk 05:47, 24 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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:44, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Toradex[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Deletion review – 23 April 2015

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

Still not notable. Still lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Current sourcing is press releases, primary, blogs, passing mention. Last 2 afds found no suitable coverage and a search found nothing since then.
A look at some of the current sourcing claimed to be independent reliable sources:

EFYTimes, press releases, see quote "Visit us at http://www.toradex.com and get to know more about our products & services. We believe in building long term partnerships where ever we go." [66].

CNXSoft, personal blog, see quote "I aim to share some of my knowledge though this blog and possibly learn from others as well." [67].

This Week Bangalore, press release, see the quote "Press Release" [68].

gizmag, repost of someone else's content, lacks any depth if coverage about the company.

EE Herald, press release, see quote "Source: Toradex" [69].

APN News, press release, compare it [70] with This Week Bangalore [71].

ARM? who? that goes to a disambiguation page? How about the link? Just a company listing.

Freescale, just a listing, nothing independent.

Microsoft, blogs.msdn.com, "Partner Spotlight", not independent.

The Qt Company, "Technology Partners", not independent

This is an advert created by the company for SEO. It's bombarded with bad sources to make it look good. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:59, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:10, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:10, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:10, 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 15:08, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with nom - everything I looked at was either directly from the company's site, a press release, or an article that took most content verbatim from the press release. There is clearly a lot of pressure to keep this article on WP, and the main editor appears to have a COI. The sources, numerous though they are, are not ones that would confer notability as per WP:CORP. Note that links to this article have been created in various WP articles so some cleanup around this company page will be needed if this article is delete. For reference: Computer-on-module, Pico-ITX, Tegra, Computer module, XScale. On some of these, Toradex was introduced by adding an unnecessary photo to the page with Toradex in the caption. LaMona (talk) 17:30, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, WP:GNG The article in the discussion has a good external reference links along with decent media coverage. Jonathan(talk) 11:10, 12 August 2015 (UTC)— Jonathan_Koller (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This user has made less than a dozen edits, including this one. LaMona (talk) 20:58, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article has been updated with new notable links WP:IRS taken from Electronics Weekly, Electro Pages, EDN, PHYS, EECatalog, Shab.ch (Swiss Govt Site) etc. Moreover, many company, PR, and blog links have been replaced with media coverage links. WP:NPOV The article content has undergone extensive rewriting to now include more citations during the 2nd AFD with no space for advert. With this WP:EP Strong Keep You can vote only once Sunil (talk) 11:00, 13 August 2015 (UTC) User:Suniltx is the creator of this article. Disclosure added per WP:AFDFORMAT.[reply]

15 links were added as references to the list of products, and now we have list-cruft. Adding MORE references does not help the article and one can't expect reviewers to look at 30 links, of which a majority add no new information. Also, I have to note that while the name of the company is given in the display form of nearly all of the URLs listed here, those display forms are descriptions provided by the editor and are NOT the titles of the articles list. For example, the display of link #14 is given as "Toradex's claim of a 22 EUR ARM system-on-module at Embedded World 2015", while the actual article title is "Smart implementations and innovations of embedded technology at Embedded World 2015" and Toradex is given 3 sentences. The standard for URL-based citations is to include either just the URL or to add information such as the title. It is not appropriate, AFAIK, to "editorialize" within the citation. Some of the replaced links do not support the data in the page. In any case, what this article says is that the company exists, it has participated in some normal events for such a company, and it has products. There is nothing encyclopedic about this. It is possible that there is information in the articles about the products that could be added that would be significant, but that's not what we've got here. What I see are product announcements, which again are "business as usual." LaMona (talk) 15:09, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, The article was nominated for deletion for "Still not notable. Still lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Current sourcing is press releases, primary, blogs, passing mention". As compared to previous media coverage, this article has cited with more independent reliable sources that have made passing mentions on Toradex such as Electronics Weekly (News Paper), ECE (Magazine), Electro Pages, EDN, PHYS, EECatalog, Shab.ch (Swiss Govt Site), etc. These sources provide the basis for the information available in this article. The titles of the reference sources have just been altered to give a better understanding on what actually the link is speaking about. Embedded World is the world’s largest annual event of its kind in the embedded industry and is held each year at Nuremberg, Germany. As per WP:RS and WP:ORG guidelines the citations are enlisted. With this WP:EP I still vote to Keep You can vote only once the article on Wikipedia. Sunil (talk) 12:44, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Once again Sunil is lying about sources. EDN? "The EDN Network is an electronics community for engineers, by engineers" so not a reliable source. Electronics Weekly? Ref#19, actual title is "German firm runs ARM processor-based supercomputer in Leipzig" not "Toradex ARM-based computer module with Samsung’s Exynos 5 Dual processor for mobile devices" as Sunil originally claimed. It's not about Toradex and only gives them a passing mention. electropages? Ref#24, actual title is "Data Modul – Cost-efficient ARM carrier board" not " Toradex Cost-efficient Colibri carrier board" as Sunil originally claimed. Ref#25, actual title is "Data Modul – New 7-inch industrial panel PC offers widescreen format", not "Toradex Colibri modules with various performance classes" as Sunil originally claimed. Both are short product announcements from Data Modul, not independent reliable source, see Submit PR. At least the deception about the titles has been fixed. PHYS? "How NVIDIA's Tegra processor can help land a plane in an emergency" article supplied by NVIDIA, not independent, only has a passing mention of Toradex. EECatalog, straight up press release. Shab.ch? just a listing, not an independent reliable source.

The same pattern from the previous afds continues. A shill bombards the article with bad sources, turning it into more of an advert and then claims that the article has been rewritten. Absolute Bull. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:14, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Let's try to keep it civil here. The facts should speak for themselves. User:Suniltx (who is the author of the article) actually states that "... independent reliable sources that have made passing mentions ... " which defeats their argument for notability, since passing mentions do not support notability. To support notability, I would suggest that Suniltx, who should know the sources well, point out the ones that are 1) independent and 2) more than a passing mention. Thank you. LaMona (talk) 15:10, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article includes many sources which cover the article information (notability) along with passing mentions. During the previous edit the article has cited with a few more resources as mentioned in my last comment. Ref #19 has an actual title nothing was claimed, #24 and #25 has covered about Toradex modules, EECatalog[72] is a Magazine. If there are problematic links in the article trim them down, but the article should stay. Sunil (talk) 13:38, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:07, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the article doesn't even mention the company's Apalis standard which has enough sourcing available beyond the already WP:GNG sourcing. VMS Mosaic (talk) 07:25, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
sourcing for apalis would make apalis notable but not inherited by the company. Not that you've supplied any sourcing for apalis. duffbeerforme (talk) 13:10, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ You can vote only once The article has few independent sources to pass GNG which satisfies basic notability criteria as per WP:Reliable with sufficient references. Jonathan(talk) 06:38, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Duffbeerforme and LaMona.Fails WP:CORP.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 13:12, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as per nom and LaMona and Pharaoh. Should be deleted either because of lack of notability or for its clear advertising. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:36, 25 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 delete as WP:NOT violation, as this is at best a personal blog post/review of the book and film. It also qualifies as WP:A10, since it doesn't really expand on the pre-existing articles for the book and film. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:20, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Mouse and His Child (1967) by Russell Hoban vs. The Animated Film: The Extraordinary Adventures of the Mouse and His Child (1977)[edit]

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

Fails WP:INFO. Falls under the banned "indiscriminate information", comparisons aren't something that, in most cases, belong in an encyclopedia. Westroopnerd (talk) 00:56, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 07:48, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 07:49, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh my. That's really the title? In any case, I'm going to go ahead and close this. The article is entirely a personal WP:OR essay and we already have articles on the book and the film. There may be a case for a section talking about the differences between the different media, but this article isn't really about that - it's more on the writer's personal opinions about how the book and film came across to them. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:18, 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. Mkdw ^talk 00:49, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Patriot Week[edit]

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

Non-notable holiday. Made up by a couple of people in Michigan and recognized once by a resolution of that state's legislature, not permanently observed anywhere nor widely known outside of the founders' attempts to publicize it (which attempts may well include this article). WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 11:22, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. — CutestPenguin^Hangout 14:33, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. — CutestPenguin^Hangout 14:33, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article certainly was a hype piece when posted; I've edited out the more egregious statements. However, I too am not finding significant coverage of the event, mostly event listings, mixed in with other celebrations of the same name but not being this event (not same dates). --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:07, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 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 15:08, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:54, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is full of promotional weasel words and isn't sourced. This is clearly a local thing but doesn't have the coverage or importance for anyone else to know about it. --Cagepanes (talk) 00:59, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable at this point in time and as pointed out, no RS sourcing. Kierzek (talk) 02:29, 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. T. Canens (talk) 22:35, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Greg Laughery[edit]

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

Not notable - fails WP:PROF St Anselm (talk) 11:27, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. St Anselm (talk) 13:29, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. St Anselm (talk) 13:29, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:12, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:StAnselm are you sure, or should someone take a closer look [73] for possible scholarly impact?E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:22, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's certainly the person. Google Scholar indicates an h-index of 3. St Anselm (talk) 21:44, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

h index is irrelevant in the humanities, and of all possible humanities, most irrelevant in theology. . DGG ( talk ) 03:05, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know. But it is so very low, and it is hard to find anything to suggest significant impact as a scholar. St Anselm (talk) 03:51, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@StAnselm; take a look at what I was able to cite in the voting below, and let me know what you think. (P.S. Big Anselm of Canterbury fan here — great name!) --UBI-et-ORBI (talk) 23:01, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- A significant, if modest output of published works. I suspect that his scholarly output is of a kind not likely to lead to a lot of citations. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:46, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ☮JAaron95 ^Talk 15:08, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete web searches turn up no independent sources, only external link in the article is the subject's own blog, fails WP:GNG and WP:ACADEMIC, to pass WP:AUTHOR I'd like somebody to show me book reviews. Kraxler (talk) 23:24, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:54, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No coverage in reliable sources referenced or found. Sandstein 07:04, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (was comment) per UBI-et-ORBI: I was uncertain about this, along DGG's comments above. Yes there isn't much written about him, as most of the academics in his field. He's written a ton of publications and his books are placed in library collections. WP:AUTHOR and WP:PROF tend to favour online sources, ironically. It'd be extremely tough to put forth significant reviews on theological publications or prove his academic influence otherwise. I reckon these lesser known individuals are discriminated upon by the very fact that they don't work in areas most of the public care about; which consequently makes their work harder to judge, harming their chances in deletion discussion such as this. Anyway, I've posted a message in the relevant WikiProject that will hopefully garner much needed input to this discussion. Update: having seen UBI-et-ORBI's rebuttal below, I'm more comfortable in !voting for keep. Regards, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 18:01, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I admit that I was at first skeptical about this gentleman's notability; however I have managed to uncover some relevant source information, which if included in a revision of the Article, would lead me to support keeping it (per WP:AUTHOR and WP:PROF).

He is the director of the Swiss "shelter for spiritual seekers" L'Abri for 20+ years, which was covered by an article in Christianity Today, and according to a piece by BeliefNet author Robert Gelinas, "stirred up a bit of controversy" under his leadership. see Gelinas article, here.
In Apostles of Reason: The Crisis of Authority in American Evangelicalism by Molly Worthen, he is among those given thanks for assisting in her research. see relevant page (p.267) of Worthen book, here.
In Fasting: The Ancient Practices by Scot McKnight, he is acknowledged as reviewing/commenting on early manuscripts to the book. see relevant page (p. 175) of McKnight book, here.
He is given a special acknowledgment as a reviewer/editor in Genesis: The Story We Haven't Heard by Paul Borgman. see relevant page (p. 8) of Borgman book, here.

In conclusion, I would judge these are solid pieces of evidence for his impact on the academic community (though it seems much work has been done "behind the scenes"). In addition to his own publications, there appears to be a valid argument for preserving the Article. --UBI-et-ORBI (talk) 22:39, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As far as WP:PROF goes, behind-the-scenes mentions do not really contribute to notability at all. I received such a mention myself, recently. As far as the CT article goes, I saw it, but I don't think it is enough for GNG. He doesn't inherit L'Abri's notability, of course - and it seems that after Schaeffer's death the whole movement fragmented somewhat, and Laughery led one of the fragments. St Anselm (talk) 23:51, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The other thing about the CT article is that Gelinas quotes Laughery as saying it was a "remarkably inaccurate piece". So I'd be reluctant to rely too much on it for notability purposes. In any case, the article is much more about L'Abri than it is about Laughery. St Anselm (talk) 00:00, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quite true (I've also received such mentions myself, though would shudder at the though of this type of biographical coverage); but does not his extensive tenure at L'Abri and its fracture, augmented by his citable influence on his colleagues, indicate a certain importance which we ourselves might not yet fully recognize? I am more than ready to admit that the present Article is severely lacking in substance, but with this source material on his impact both discussed and referenced via editorial revision (and I emphasize adding discussion of these things, which the current iteration is devoid of), what harm can be done? As for the CT piece, I noted the same comment, and so instead provided a link to Gelinas as a potential new reference (as he appears more straightforward in his assessment).

(As an aside): I am no fan of this man's theological principals, so please do not think me biased towards an affection for him. Rather, it's an affection for salvaging our NPOV compendium of human knowledge, where it is appropriate to do so. --UBI-et-ORBI (talk) 00:27, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just taking a look at the "sources" shown above:
1. is a "letter to the editor" by Laughery, a primary source
2. a trivial mention, a bare mention of his name as a "thanks to X" for having made an unknown amount of contribution (maybe one word, maybe a year of discussions, who knows)
3. same as 2. but says "read earlier versions of the manuscript" but nobody knows what his contributions/suggestions were
4. similar to 2. and 4., saying "hours of reading and comment" (how many?)
Conclusion: Very vague contributions, nothing documented, Wikipedia is based in sources, not in hearsay. Sorry, but my !vote stands. Kraxler (talk) 20:04, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Though it seems you are fixed in your position, for the benefit of others partaking in this discussion, I will briefly reply:

To your first point: My interest was more in Gelinas' straightforward introductory statement; which discusses Laughery's role at L'Abri, presents the context of the earlier CT article, and the associated controversy (all of which are currently missing from the Wiki Article, and goes towards WP:PROF).
To the subsequent thee points: The extent of his influence is not so much an issue, as much as is the fact that he did directly influence other published authors.

The goal here should not be to judge the grandeur of his notability, but to gauge wether or not he meets the baseline criteria for inclusion. The aforementioned leadership role and academic influence speak to that fact. --UBI-et-ORBI (talk) 20:19, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Further Citations (New): The following can be viewed at the L'Abri Fellowship's selection of published works (listed by author), here. Each of the three quotes are in regards to his book Living Reflections, and are attributable to Professors at three distinct Universities:

"Living Reflections, written by Gregory J. Laughery the Director of the L'Abri Fellowship in Switzerland, is a worthy contribution to contemporary Christian thought in the tradition of cultural engagement championed by Francis Schaeffer, co-founder (with his wife Edith) of L'Abri. Laughery deals with a number of key issues from contemporary Christian philosophy, hermeneutics, and Biblical scholarship, moving seamlessly from philosophy to theology and back. The book is notable for its engagement with both "continental" and "analytic" philosophy, and also for the good sense and balance the author shows in dealing with a number of contested issues."
— C. Stephen Evans, University Professor of Philosophy and Humanities, Baylor University.

"Continuing in the spirit of Francis Schaeffer, but with more careful scholarly acumen, Greg Laughery shows how and why philosophical reflection is important for Christian witness. This is philosophical wisdom in service to the Word."
— James K. A. Smith, Professor of Philosophy, Calvin College.

"For those wondering what Francis Schaeffer might say about postmodernity and contemporary disputes over language, philosophy, and interpretation, this collection of essays by a third generation staff member of the Swiss L'Abri may provide the answer. Greg Laughery's book runs the gamut of contemporary hermeneutics, using Paul Ricoeur as his sparring partner in each of its five chapters. Here is no despising of the intellect, but a probing reflection on the nature of Christian thought and biblical interpretation. Schaeffer can rest easy: the community at L'Abri continues to ask the right preliminary questions."
— Kevin Vanhoozer, Blanchard Professor of Theology, Wheaton College.

The following is taken from the book Entrepreneur? Bring Your Vision to Life: The Guide for Christian Entrepreneurs to Turn What If Into Reality by Ralph McCall, of which the relevant pages (pp. 211-212) may be viewed here:

"Dr. Greg Laughery, theologian, author and director of L'Abri Fellowship in Huémox, Switzerland provided insights into many of the theological underpinnings of this book. He reviewed the manuscript and gave clarity to the redemptive nature of our works and centrality of Christ's lordship on all aspects of life. Greg directs L'Abri Fellowship in Switzerland where thousands of people have been, and continue to be, challenged to grow in their faith. I am appreciative to him for giving his precious time to this book and for his detailed and thoughtful comments."
— Ralph McCall, Author of "Entrepreneur? Bring Your Vision to Life: The Guide for Christian Entrepreneurs to Turn What If Into Reality."

--UBI-et-ORBI (talk) 21:19, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The first three are blurbs; we judge notability by reviews. The last one is in a book published by Destinée Media, which I see is a "not-for-profit Swiss Association" which includes Laughery among its authors. I suspect it's not really independent of the subject. St Anselm (talk) 21:35, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This first objection seems to be a matter of nomenclature; the purpose of my inclusion of them is to establish impact on the relevant community. As for the second issue, I do not think the book's author makes any effort to hide the extent of Laughery's contribution to his work — here again, my purpose is to demonstrate pertinent impact and collaboration. --UBI-et-ORBI (talk) 21:50, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

N.B.: I can find noting in the WP Notability Guidelines that discriminates between "blurbs" and "reviews," save for in the context of academic journals. --UBI-et-ORBI (talk) 22:44, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The guidelines require "significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject" All we get here is mentions and accolades from sources that are connected to the subject: his shelter, his books' publisher, authors he helped (to unknown extent) to write books. His own books are largely ignored by the public. Although "preaching to the wind" is widely practiced by religious figures, there is no way to gauge notability in the case of no feedback. Sorry, he may be a nice guy, but he fails Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Kraxler (talk) 00:50, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea if he's a nice guy, in point of fact, I somewhat doubt it. However you ignore these elements of WP:PROF — "Differences in typical citation and publication rates and in publication conventions between different academic disciplines should be taken into account. [...] in sciences, most new original research is published in journals and conference proceedings whereas in humanities book publications tend to play a larger role (and are harder to count without access to offline libraries)." --UBI-et-ORBI (talk) 13:12, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And yet again, the public has nothing to do with it, Kraxler. His field is mostly ignored by the public, and even within the humanities. This sort of coverage is pretty much the most one can get. I wonder if DGG would like to commit and !vote? FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 14:40, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete. I do not think he actually shows notability under WP:PROF. There is only one academic work,Living Hermeneutics in Motion: An Analysis and Evaluation of Paul Ricoeur's Contribution to Biblical Hermeneutics, , a reprint of his thesis, in 110libraries. That's a reasonable number of holdings, but its only one academic book. Nor is it the major book on Ricour. WorldCat shows multiple books on him by much more prestigious publishers than University Press of America, with many hundreds of holdings. The book is supplemented by 4 respectable academic articles, in good journals in the field. This sort of publication record would normally correspond to the minimum requirements for tenure in the humanities, at the Associate Professor rank. We almost never consider academics at that level notable. (Personally, I think we should, but there has been a reasonably consistent consensus otherwise, and I no longer challenge it.) I The other books are popular spirituality with no library holdings and do not contribute to notability as WP:PROF. The various acknowledgements do not contribute to notability--academics are very profuse in giving them, & they cannot be considered as other than indiscriminate. Relying on such material for notability often indicates there is no actual notability in our usual sense. Popular spirituality books can sometimes make for notability as WP:AUTHOR, but for people who qualify for that in this field, thee are normally multiple books with many hundred library holdings--popular writings on religion are very widely read, unlike academic theology. I am also concerned that we have no information in the article about his career, but I see some cited above. The international L'Abri organization might be appropriate for an article. The Swiss branch is the original location, but I am not sure that Direct of the Swiss L'Abri Center is notable. DGG ( talk ) 18:42, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For the matters relating to L'Abri, I would draw together both the Christianity Today article and the introductory comments of Gelinas (as I cited above). From there we may see that his term as the Director of L'Abri (see WP:PROF) and the secondary sources regarding its controversial nature (see WP:N), in combination with his noted impact & contribution to other published works, his own works, and the praise given by reliable academic sources (as above), creates a subject worthy of note under the guidelines. Furthermore, his Directorship of the L'Abri Fellowship in and of itself must be valued subjectively, and cannot be flatly dismissed pursuant to WP:PROF.

That being said, thank's for lending your thoughts to this discussion! --UBI-et-ORBI (talk) 19:17, 26 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 Barcelona–Vallès Line. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:27, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Terrassa Metro[edit]

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

This articles refers to the extension of the Barcelona–Vallès Line in Terrassa as if a metro system was to be created in this city (although the Terrassa City Hall and the media have referred to it as such), which is certainly not true. Furthermore, the information contained in this article could be perfectly in the "History" section of the Barcelona–Vallès Line article (the Terrassa extension has already opened), since it does not need its own dedicated article. Mllturro (talk) 12:03, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:13, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:13, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Barcelona–Vallès Line article -- As a project that was under construction, it does not fail WP:CRYSTAL but it comes close to that. It seems likely that (as with another extension) that construction was stopped by the Credit Crunch, so that it will remain a pipedream until the Catalan economy revives. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:45, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ☮JAaron95 ^Talk 15:08, 11 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, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

merge per Peterkingiron. Thryduulf (talk) 10:44, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Barcelona–Vallès Line as a functional WP:ATD. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:59, 25 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 New York Press Club . – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:45, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nellie Bly Cub Reporter Award[edit]

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

The award itself is not a prestigious standalone honor, but one of many tributes handed out by a local media group. At the very least, I would recommend redirecting the article to New York Press Club#Awards for Journalism. And Adoil Descended (talk) 15:02, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:17, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:17, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable award within the journalism world with sources here and here and here and here and here and here and with many more sources possible.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 16:56, 4 August 2015 (UTC) User:Tomwsulcer is the creator of this article. Disclosure added per WP:AFDFORMAT.[reply]

It is also one out of more than 100 awards given out by this organization - see the list of 2015 winners [74] for confirmation. And Adoil Descended (talk) 18:07, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa this increasingly looks like a deletion war between two editors who are bringing one anothers' articles to AFD, then one edits the other ones article to show that the prizes cited are mere redlinks, then this article is started to show that the redlinked award is in fact notable, so the other guy brings this to AFD..... Guys, maybe you should both take a deep breath?E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:17, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

E.M.Gregory, think you're making too much of this. We simply disagree about what belongs in Wikipedia, whether journalists, high priests, awards. Let the community decide.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:14, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And you may be surprised to learn that sometimes we can agree - I just created Newswomen's Club of New York to enhance Mr. Ulcer's Front Page Award article. And Adoil Descended (talk) 18:38, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge/redirect to a subsection of the "Awards" section of the New York Press Club.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:34, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ☮JAaron95 ^Talk 15:07, 11 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, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and merge information into a subsection of the "Awards" section of the New York Press Club; agree with E.M.Gregory. Kierzek (talk) 02:32, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to New York Press Club as per above. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:32, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to New York Press Club as a functional WP:ATD. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:19, 26 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 10:14, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Claus Hinrich Casdorff[edit]

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

Subject does not appear to meet the notability requirements for biographies per WP:BIO. The Orders of Merit mentioned in the article are handed out by the thousands per year by the German federal and state governments. Failing the appearance of multiple, independent, reliable, and especially non-trivial sources to support a notability claim, I propose this article be deleted. KDS4444^Talk 17:08, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — CutestPenguin^Hangout 17:36, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep - passes WP:ANYBIO, WP:AUTHOR, and WP:JOURNALIST. The nominator failed to observe WP:BEFORE. Subject received (beside the 2 Orders of Merit) the Theodor Heuss Medal in 1990 for his journalistic career (handed out maximum 3 per year) a very significant award (see list of receivers here). He hosted the first political TV talk show in Germany, in 1965, and remained on air for decades, see the celebration of the 50th anniversary of the first edition at WDR. His talk with controversial politicains made TV history. Web searches still produce a lot of coverage, mostly of people who refer to him and his TV show when comparing to present day TV. This nomination is like nominating Walter Cronkite for deletion. Kraxler (talk) 17:57, 5 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, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep although the article should be noted as a stub as it says very little about the person. The obits in national papers and awards suffice to confer notability, but you'd never know that from the content of the article. I note that the obits have very little factual information that could be brought over to the article. There must be a different obit style in Germany than in the US where a major paper's obit is nearly enough to populate an entire biography. Surely there are German sources that say more about this person?! The German article says more, but has zero references, so it doesn't help. LaMona (talk) 17:40, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:52, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:09, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:09, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:09, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:09, 24 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 Formula Ford EuroCup. Kraxler (talk) 16:25, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2011 Formula Ford EuroCup season[edit]

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

No content apart from a table with the calendar and event winners. As this event is at the very bottom of the single-seater ladder, no thorough coverage is likely to exist from reliable sources. QueenCake (talk) 21:43, 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) 04:08, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 08:51, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 08:51, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:48, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Formula Ford EuroCup, along with its sister article, 2012 Formula Ford EuroCup season, neither deserves its own article for this short-lived series. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:26, 25 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. I might be overstepping my authority here, but I'm inclined to agree with The Banner: if there's one thing we don't need, it's another stagnant, malformed, spammy article on a marginally notable subject. Given the unanimous agreement that the article needs a complete overhaul, and the lack of any strong objections after three weeks, I'm closing this as delete with no prejudice toward reinstatement if somebody wants to take the time to craft a well-formed page. In that event, I'll happily userfy the deleted content. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:51, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cook’n With Class[edit]

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

Advertising The Banner talk 20:45, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:38, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:39, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:39, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 04:05, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep- Company meets notability, better to clean up article than marking for deletion.Ireneshih (talk) 11:24, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:47, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - as per Ireneshih. While the AfD guidelines do show that articles which are advertising should be removed, and this article is clearly written in a promotional tone, there is enough real info to warrant keeping and editing. Definitely needs to be tagged as Advertising if kept. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:16, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Problem is that nobody will do the editing... The Banner talk 20:34, 25 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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:52, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gala Montes[edit]

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

No evidence of any notability. Refs are at best publicity releases, peripheral mentions or no mention at all. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 19:01, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: If it is for references also should delete the article Joey Bragg. Gala was nominated in the awards Premios Tu Mundo in 2014, and it has made known in several telenovelas. What more remarkable than that?. If missing references, but I don't see that this is reason to delete the article.--Philip J Fry • (talk) 19:11, 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) 04:04, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 08:53, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 08:53, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No notable roles (she's been in a single show and played a minor part), no notable awards, no coverage whatsoever (only coverage mentions her in passing, usually as mere photo captions). She's 13, so she might become notable at a later point in time. Regarding Philip J Fry's comments above, this deletion discussion pertains to Miss Montes. There simply isn't extensive coverage about her in independent and reliable sources. Failing WP:GNG is a clear reason for deletion. Regards, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 22:16, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @FoCuSandLeArN: Really?. And it shows that you know the actress, her most notable roles have been in the soap operas; En otra piel, El Señor de los Cielos and UEPA! Un escenario para amar . I recommend that you investigate more or you start to see Gala on television. Before saying things like these, make referrals or speaking with base, and it seems I can see that you don't see telenovelas and nor do you know who is the actress.--Philip J Fry • (talk) 22:25, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  Please do not approach this with a personal, vindictive and fanatical tone. I did the pertinent research, which was clearly explained in my previous comment. This is simply a matter of notability. Her roles have been minor ones, which is understandable for her age. Your argument that seeing her on television makes her notable (or that I should watch telenovelas in order to ascertain her notability appropriately) is preposterous and doesn't merit a serious reply. Go play fanboy somewhere else. Best, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 22:34, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not it's "fanaticism", it's the truth or if someone who has one minor role in a tv show deserves to be nominated at tv awards?.--Philip J Fry • (talk) 22:49, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Your username has only ever edited novela articles. You've been blocked before for disruptive editing. Clearly you have an agenda and I recommend you abstain from commenting here or in other relevant discussions due to your conflict of interest. I won't continue this futile engagement because my patience is running thin. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 22:57, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:47, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom and FoCuS, who very eloquently explained in detail the reasons. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:02, 25 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 deleted as G3 - Rather than commenting, I'll close this as an obvious joke as the author's name is basically NAMBLA for Life (hardly beneficial) and FWIW my searches found absolutely nothing. (NAC) SwisterTwister talk 19:04, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Power[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Can't find any evidence of these claims. Adam9007 (talk) 00:47, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -Looks like a hoax. ABF99 (talk) 01:59, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, "if" true, not notable. Kierzek (talk) 02:34, 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. Mkdw ^talk 00:48, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Little Ko-Chees[edit]

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

Early nineties American rapper. Does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:NMUSIC. The only source in the article is a Google search link, but looking up the citation leads to this short routine announcement, which mentions him as an opening act. I wasn't able to find any other sources to suggest that he meets the inclusion criteria here. Fuebaey (talk) 16:57, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. — CutestPenguin^Hangout 17:39, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — CutestPenguin^Hangout 17:39, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — CutestPenguin^Hangout 17:39, 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) 04:03, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there's nothing at all to suggest improvement with searches at News, Books and browser finding nothing and even Newspapers Archive found nothing. SwisterTwister talk 05:05, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:46, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable. Kierzek (talk) 02:37, 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 redirect to George Jones. Content may be merged at editorial discretion. (non-admin closure) Mz7 (talk) 19:31, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wrapped Around Her Finger[edit]

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

Song does not appear to meet the notability guidelines given at WP:MUSIC. Propose that article be deleted or possibly redirected/ merged to George Jones. KDS4444^Talk 05:49, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:28, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:28, 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) 03:43, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:46, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and merge info into George Jones; not notable as stand alone; did not even crack the top 40. Kierzek (talk) 02:40, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and merge as per nom and Kierzek. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:59, 25 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 Dose-volume histogram. (non-admin closure) Kraxler (talk) 16:38, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cumulative DVH[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Renominating as previous discussion did not attain quorum:Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Differential DVH, this article seems to be within the series of articles. Per the nomination in that AfD, "No indication of importance". Algircal (talk) 03:34, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:27, 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) 03:36, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:45, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:45, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge into Dose-volume histogram. No need for a separate article here. Bondegezou (talk) 22:15, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect, nothing to show notability for standalone article, and no need to merge since this is already covered in Dose-volume histogram. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:58, 25 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 02:22, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Website Translation Proxy[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG: two sources, both of which may qualify as self-published (one is O'Reilly Community). May even be WP:NEO. I could not find sources online that are independent of the involved companies. Bad examples include Google News hits: a widely copied May, 2015 press release "Sajan Acquires Technology..." and a May, 2015 piece placed at B2C by Sajan. Brianhe (talk) 19:58, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. — CutestPenguin^Hangout 19:46, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. — CutestPenguin^Hangout 19:46, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Probably delete (unless it can be improved) as my searches found nothing particularly good aside from this and this. SwisterTwister talk 05:15, 6 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) 02:01, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:40, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - searches found nothing to meet notability criteria. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:50, 25 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. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:26, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Milbert Amplifiers[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

The 2006 AfD on this company was 'no consensus' but I think the current WP:NCORP notability guidelines for companies makes this article a ripe candidate for deletion. At best this is written by an extreme fan and at worse it's written by the company. The article is very adverty, entirely based on reviews of products in very specialist magazines (the Time article is about a kitted-out car with only the briefest mention of the use of Milbert products), a press release and the company website. There's no suggestion there's every been any general news coverage about the company, or wider interest beyond specialist audio magazines. This sort of information should remain on audio websites, or the company's website, not Wikipedia. Time for it to go? Sionk (talk) 19:22, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I fully agree that the article is written like an advertisement. However, if it were well written, is the company even notable enough to merit its own page? π♂101 (talk) 19:26, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:48, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:52, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:52, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:52, 4 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) 02:00, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Of course this article is written and edited by the company. Is there something wrong with that? Who's more of an authority? Over the years there's been extremely little attempt -- other than sporadic pot-shotting or nominations for deletion, by wayward anonymous accounts -- to genuinely help improve the article. So who's left to create and edit? Does that mean the article shouldn't exist at all because only the company cares enough to write and edit? By the way, what constitutes "even notable enough to merit its own page"? Why the seeming broad push to expunge American company info from Wikipedia? Milbert Amplifiers was formed in 1986, making it among the oldest audio equipment manufacturers. With small companies, independent press usually covers products and targets specific users or markets - they do not create encyclopedia-oriented content. Milbert Amplifiers products are notable because they were the first to reintroduce vacuum tubes in mobile applications (after the tidal wave of transistorized amplification swept over the audio industry yet was ultimately found lacking for sound quality) in any meaningful way. Milbert Amplifiers products are also first to introduce a revolutionary new way to use vacuum tubes in guitar, bass and musical instrument amplifiers. Patents are forthcoming. These are niche products, applications, and advancements but does that make them wholly irrelevant? Inclusion in wikipedia adds credence for any company, but it's a two-way street: When the articles in Wikipedia are written (and decided upon) by alternately anonymous or rabid third-party editors (possibly with hidden agendas), and essentially made devoid of primary, living, first-person sources, what will be left? Articles talking about "reliable sources" talking about topics - and in that way will Wikipedia diminish and gut itself. You guys have a monstrous undertaking here; it will be most interesting to see how it all goes. -- Michael Milbert -- [email protected] -- TubeGod (talk) 08:40, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Response to comment. This isn't some conspiracy. Wikipedia has some pretty significant (and not very high) standards for an article's subject to meet to show notability. The general standards can be found at WP:GNG. Failing those, there are specific standards for different types of subjects, in this case it would fall under WP:NCORP, which deals with the notability of corporations or organizations. This article does not appear to meet either of those standards.

There is also a concept called conflict of interest, which explains why it is not a good idea for interested parties to write articles. This article is a prime example of that policy, since this is not really an article, but more of an advertisement for the company. Nothing precludes interested parties from participating in the process, but they should make an announcement on the article's talk page, and they will be more likely to undergo stringent review, to prevent a non-neutral point of view. The lack of other editors in working on the article is also most likely not a conspiracy, but more a testament to the lack of notability of this company.

All that said, please remember that not meeting Wikipedia's notability standards does not reflect on the value of the subject itself. The company may make a very valuable and important product, but if it hasn't achieved notability, then it doesn't qualify. Some of the sources in the current article (#1, for instance) don't even mention the subject of the article. I hope this answers some of the comments. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:59, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article is definitely an advertisement, but that can be fixed through editing. The question is of notability. Some of the citations (as I pointed out in my comments above) are not about the article's subject, others are pure press release. And when you do a google news search, you only get a single press release. Google newspapers search and Highbeam both return zero results. However, in my opinion, there are some pretty solid cites in the article. The Absolute Sound (#2), while a niche journal, is a highly respected one for sound enthusiasts (I wouldn't know, I'm tone deaf, but I asked several musician friends who say that it is very well known), and that article is very in-depth about one of this company's products. Same with the Robb Report Collection article (#3). The Tone article (#4) is a brief, but good mention. #5,6,7 don't go to notability at all. The Vintage Guitar (#8) review is very good. While the rest of the cites might be good, it would be better if they went directly to the articles themselves. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:59, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Essentially an advertisement, and that it was written by the company correlates with the total inappropriateness for an encycopedia . If the company is notable, which may or may not be the case, it needs to be started over by an editor without COI. Lack of notability is not the only reason for deletion. Borderline notability combined with clear promotionalism is an equally good reason. Small variations to the notability standard either way do not fundamentally harm the encycopedia, but accepting articles that are part of a promotional campaign causes great damage. Once we become a vehicle for promotion, we're useless as an encycopedia DGG ( talk ) 05:08, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:39, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article is not part of a "promotional campaign" - it's been there a long time, and it reads more plainly than many other manufacturers' entries. Published sources and/or links are provided. Why the lately asserted "need" for complete rewrite? If it's necessary that somebody unrelated edit or rewrite it, why not take a whack? This would be a great opportunity to exemplify editing skills. -- Michael Milbert -- [email protected] -- TubeGod (talk) 04:59, 18 August 2015 (UTC) (We deleted practically the entire article; please rewrite it, or leave as is. It's presently a single-paragraph followed by published sources, and it's based on the conrad-johnson entry.)[reply]
Keep Some people make books, music, art, other people (actually use science to) make useful and notable products. Keep, and the article should be restored to this revision.[75] Per Onel5969 the subject meets notability. 009o9 (talk) 04:17, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Though this isn't a person, it's a company, and needs to meet WP:NCORP criteria. Sionk (talk) 18:08, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral/default keep - it's right on the edge of WP:N. Prior to the recent trimdown I would've said "delete per WP:N is marginal if it exists at all + WP:TNT would cure the problem + WP:Ignore all rules if you don't think TNT applies". Any references lost in the trimdown which are reliable sources should be copied to the article's talk page for possible future use. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 02:51, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Added another Source to page that presents mentions of Milbert Amplifiers in Auto Sound & Security, Time Digital, BMW Roundel, Car Audio & Electronics, Vibe, Car Stereo Review, Newsweek, syndicated Knight-Ridder news, U.S. News and World Report, Vogue, and the book "Auto Audio" by Andrew Yoder (ISBN 0-07-076536-7) -- Michael Milbert -- [email protected] -- TubeGod (talk) 07:30, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. This company has got some good sources as shown above, but the article needs to be maintained by someone else, otherwise WP:NPOV and WP:COI become irrefutable problems if they aren't already. ^My^name ^isnot^dave (talk/contribs) 15:54, 26 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 all articles linked here. However, since all but Dreieck Potsdam were never formally listed or edited to include a notification of this debate, an admin may at least userfy any of the pages upon request. Any reinstated pages, as well as similar articles not discussed, will need to be properly renominated. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:03, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dreieck Potsdam[edit]

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

This is a series of articles by this same editor about a bunch of non-notable freeway interchanges. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:08, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If the result of this is delete, articles about other non-notable interchanges should also be deleted:

Kreuz Schweinfurt/Werneck
Dreieck Bayreuth/Kulmbach
Kreuz Bamberg
Dreieck Südharz
Dreieck Nürnberg/Feucht
Dreieck Karlsruhe
Dreieck Parthenaue
Hattenbacher Dreieck
Kirchheimer Dreieck
Dreieck Nossen
In fact, it looks like all the articles in Category:Road interchanges in Germany might need to go away. Simply because something exists doesn't make it notable. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:15, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:34, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:35, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Other articles recently created by the same editor with the same deficiencies also include, in addition to the ones noted above:

Dreieck Werntal
Dreieck Suhl
Viernheimer Dreieck
Bad Homburger Kreuz‎
Kreuz Castrop-Rauxel-Ost
Darmstädter Kreuz
Dreieck Bad Neuenahr-Ahrweiler
Dreieck Allgäu
Mönchhof-Dreieck
Kreuz Kaarst
Kreuz Stuttgart
Dreieck Bad Dürrheim
Dreieck Hockenheim
Kreuz Alzey
Dreieck Ahlhorner Heide
Kreuz Aachen
Kreuz Altdorf

Anything else in the aforementioned category pre-dates his recent creation spree. That said, I say delete all of these. They fail to meet our notability standards at this time. Imzadi 1979 → 09:49, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dreieck Darmstadt and Dreieck Darmstadt/Griesheim were also made by the same editor, and also should be deleted with the others for the same reasons. Imzadi 1979 → 23:38, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - Wikipedia has articles on roads, where these interchanges are mentioned, stand-alone articles are unwarranted, except some coverage of the particular interchange can be shown. None of these articles have any refs, though. Kraxler (talk) 16:08, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:20, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per WP:GNG, WP:NOTDIR. Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 19:40, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all which are completely unreferenced and relist remaining ones if any. No prejudice against WP:REFUND to non-article space so an editor can improve the existing pages to the point that they will survive a deletion discussion. Delete any categories which are emptied and check for "parent" categories which might become empty as a result of a category being deleted and delete those as well. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 02:26, 26 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 redirect to Timeslip (disambiguation). T. Canens (talk) 22:29, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Time slip[edit]

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

I am unable to find discussion of the topic in reliable secondary sources. Fringe sources appear to refer to it as a variation of time travel. Location (talk) 00:15, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have no objections to redirecting to Timeslip (disambiguation). - Location (talk) 15:25, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:19, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable credulous dingbattery, preferably at least two weeks ago... AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:25, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Time travel Term is in some use mostly in sci-fi works/settings (mostly Japanese? eg. eponymous series by Tōichirō Kujira), but no RS indicating that it is separately notable (in JAWP is redirected to Time travel). 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 05:53, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum: No objection to redirect to Timeslip (disambiguation) and then link to Time travel there. 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 01:16, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A list of harmless crankery and modern folk beliefs. Topic is distinct from time travel and has some support among the credulous. Xxanthippe (talk) 10:33, 18 August 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Redirect to ~~time travel~~timeslip (disambiguation) - not a notable topic among the cranks and nutjobs; trivial aspect as a science fiction meme. --Orange Mike | Talk 12:49, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The subject "time slip" does not reckon with the obscure Fortean spin on time travel it describes: i.e. anecdotal stories of people who say they were inadvertently thrust into another time. Not enough notability for its own article. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:09, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to timeslip (disambiguation) - fails WP:GNG. shoy (reactions) 13:56, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fictional topic purporting to be real, no reality-based sources to support its existence. Possible redirect to Time Warp (song). Guy (Help!) 14:23, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per WP:NOTNEO. For a neologisms to be included it needs to be discussed and defined extensively in reliable sources, not simply used in reliable sources. Nwlaw63 (talk) 15:32, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, then move Timeslip (disambiguation) here. This is just another name for time travel, so I suppose an entry could possibly be added to the dab page. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:00, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Rather unique form of time travel paranormal phenomena. Worthy of its own article due to being both a common feature of some paranormal experiences and paranormal-related fiction. It is something relevant to the field, not at all obscure. DN-boards1 (talk) 01:57, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Individual cases might be well documented, but syncretizing them seems to be original ideas. The term/concept is not established by anything reliable. If sources documenting paranormal folklore describe this as a common class of story, it could be mentioned as such within a more general article or rewritten from this perspective.Cyrej (talk) 17:31, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete redirect. Article as it stands is not supported by peer reviewed academic research except as a plot device in literature.--Savonneux (talk) 05:06, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a so-called paranormal phenomenon of some notability, since it is a term which has frequent mentions in the secondary sources (as a quick Google will show), the characteristics of which are not the same as sci-fi Time Travel (no "Time Machine" involved). Cases have been considered by, for example, the sceptic Mike Dash for the Smithsonian Magazine http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/when-three-british-boys-traveled-to-medieval-england-or-did-they-35698485/?no-ist . Or possible Redirect to Retrocognition, though that term seems less common? Unless it's the case that all articles about claims of the paranormal must be expunged from Wikipedia, lest those of us living in the real world start believing them. Flying saucers and ghosts don't exist either, but that doesn't stop people reporting seeing them, or Wikipedia having articles about them. Liverpres (talk) 00:07, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment for notability, a neologism needs to not just be mentioned in secondary sources, but extensively discussed and defined in those secondary sources. Nwlaw63 (talk) 16:19, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Says who? Xxanthippe (talk) 22:32, 22 August 2015 (UTC).[reply]

See WP:NOTNEO. Nwlaw63 (talk) 23:01, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

it's not a neologism as Wikipedia means "neologism". It's frequently used in Fortean literature with a clear understanding of its meaning (whether they happen or not, the meaning is clearly understood by the target audience). Liverpres (talk) 00:34, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's literally the definition of a primary source. Secondary source would be if someone outside their group analyzed its meaning in published WP:RS content.--Savonneux (talk) 11:26, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's absolutely not the definition of a primary source, a primary source would be the original direct statement of someone who claims to have experienced this. Discussion of such a statement in print would be a secondary source. Liverpres (talk) 16:58, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Timeslip (disambiguation) Editorial choices can be made later on if it's determined that it would be better served as a disambiguation page. Mkdw ^talk 00:47, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Timeslip (disambiguation) and link entry there to Time travel much per the opening to this article. It doesn't matter whether or not you like it. It doesn't matter whether or not this a real phenomenon (it isn't). It isn't a neologism as it has been in use for a long time. It doesn't need to be covered in academic research to be included. If it's only a plot device in fiction that would not rule out having an article on it. The key thing here is the lack of sourced information and the poorly defined scope of the article, which currently includes too much vaguely related content. One sentence on the disambiguation page (which would be a better target that Time travel for anyone typing in this title) would suffice until decent sources can be found discussing this specific phenomenon as a claimed occurrence in real life and/or an element of fiction. --Michig (talk) 08:04, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from what you're saying, there doesn't seem to be a reason why there should not be an article on the subject, just that as it stands it's not a very good article? In which case surely that's a case for keeping and improving what exists? There's a fair amount of reference material out there, both credulous and debunking, for example the Mike Dash piece for the Smithsonian that I referenced above , and this http://www.spr.ac.uk/main/page/conference-abstracts-2009 Liverpres (talk) 17:55, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but rename to Time slip (paranormal) and redirect Time slip to Timeslip (disambiguation) as it's hard to argue that there is a clear WP:Primary topic. "Keep" because of its wide use in fiction - I am not claiming that the paranormal activity alone would meet WP:N but when you add in its use in fiction in various related forms, it does. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 02:16, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine with me. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:32, 26 August 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Agree Liverpres (talk) 02:45, 26 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.