Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 December 27

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 26 December	28 December >

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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:26, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Ives (racing driver)[edit]

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

WP:DEL4 created as a self-promotional advertisement by the same editor who created Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Duncan Barbour and WP:DEL2 as content appears to be lifted from here Falcadore (talk) 23:56, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because of the same reasons:

Delete - I have gone through the article and attempted to bring it up to some kind of suitable standard based on the links in the article, and it still falls way short of WP:BLP standards. The only claim to notability that might be relevant is the Segrave Trophy. I don't think winning the Camel Trophy is sufficient for notability. --Scott Davis ^Talk 01:26, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. sst✈^discuss 06:41, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. sst✈^discuss 06:41, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. sst✈^discuss 06:41, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all Not competed in anything notable, both fail WP:BLP and WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:46, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 06:31, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Stumblin' Blox[edit]

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

Article lacks any sources to show notability. From what it shows, the group recorded one single that was unsuccessful and the band members cannot even be identified. ABriefPassing (talk) 22:14, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP: The Stumblin' Blox from Texas can be considered notable. Their work has been included on well-known garage rock compilations such as Green Cyrstal Ties and Acid Visions, which AllMusic gave 4 1/2 stars. People are still listening to their music fifty years after it was made. Respected music historian and writer Bruce Eder did a biographical write-up on this band in AllMusic in addition to the review he did on Crystal Green Ties Vol. 3, and he mentions this band by name in the review on the compilation (something he only does for some of the bands). If he deemed the band to be noteworthy enough to feature in AllMusic, then why shouldn't we? I also included book references from Mike Markesich's Teenbeat Mayhem. I could order a copy of Green Crystal Ties, Vol. 3--there is a good chance the band members are listed in the liner notes there. This article should be kept. Keep in mind that it is a new article. Let's give it a chance. Garagepunk66 (talk) 01:15, 12 December 2015 (UTC)Garagepunk66 (talk) 08:41, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:05, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep While they made it into Allmusic, a three-sentence writeup isn't much of a notability endorsement. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 01:46, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But, before we throw this article into the dustbin, why don't we give it some time. New sources could emerge in the course of time. Their A-side is indeed catchy and had hit potential. We might be able to find mentions of its airplay in the Abilene area--we may end up finding out it was a hit on local and regional stations there (a possibility). It is included on the third volume Crystal Ties, and the earlier entries in the series cover the more popular acts--there may have been some regional chart action with it. Look, this is a brand new article. I realize that if things do not pan out for it, then I would accept a deletion down the road, but let's just give it more time. Garagepunk66 (talk) 04:35, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now and at best & draft and userfy as my searches including archives found nothing better at all. SwisterTwister talk 05:49, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why not just keep it for now, because it will be harder to start all over and re-write it. This article's existence isn't going to cause the world to come to an end. It might actually be beneficial to people who want to learn about garage rock and its illustrious cast of unsung heroes. Destroying it will just get in the way of people who would like to learn a thing or two. So, just keep it and be happy. Garagepunk66 (talk) 17:52, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:36, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:31, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy and delete from article space. Fails WP:NMUSIC, fails WP:GNG. Userfy to Garagepunk66, because as they (singular) say otherwise it will be harder to start all over and re-write it, with the caveat that it only returns to article space when it has citations to significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Significant coverage addresses the topic directly and in detail. WP:GNG @Garagepunk66: the reliability of a source can be checked by putting it up on the WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Allmusic.com is not a reliable source, but Bruce Eder may be, check him out there. As far as being benificial to people who want to learn about garage rock, there is a Garage rock article already. --Bejnar (talk) 23:18, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Topics to consider:

I have made an inquiry about Eder at the reliable sources noticeboard. I have read that that he has not only written music pieces for AllMusic, but has also written movie criticism for the Criterion Collection, the most prestigious DVD label (as well as in a host of other publications).^[1] He also wrote the liner notes for the Rolling Stones' Singles Collection (deluxe box set).^[1] He seems to be a writer of impeccable professional credentials.
Right now the editor who nominated this article for deletion has two simultaneous accounts (ABriefPassing and ALongStay) blocked which he created for the sole purpose of harassing me. He does not have an unbiased agenda--his intention is to harm. Please see the things he wrote on my talk page [[1]]. This editor has gone after three of the articles I started up and has expressed the intention to go after more. He has very few edits to speak of doesn't mind destroying a piece of historical knowledge in order to achieve a more hurtful objective. His agenda is to stop me from writing new articles about the music I love by making me operate in an atmosphere of fear. I would understand a proposed deletion at a later time from and established, detached, and unbiased editor. As I've said, I would more than understand that--if it came in a different set of circumstances and after a sufficient trial period. That would be fair. But, this article is only two weeks old. Why give this harmful editor the victory he craves?
As for the garage rock article, I am well aware of it--I worked hard expand its length almost tenfold and added over 350 references to it in the last half year (see where it was on May 27 [[2]] and now [[3]]), helping push it to its newly attained GA status. In a time when I should have been celebrating, I had to deal with the harassment situation which was strategically planned to coincide with the Dec. 15 DYK mention. So, I ask you to consider all of this before you push the delete button. Garagepunk66 (talk) 05:38, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't see how Wikipedia can rely on Google for its notability on a band from the '60's! (And now Google's relying on Wikipedia for reliability. Oh, the irony!) --MurderByDeletionism^"bang!" 03:25, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as far more notable then many of the pageant winners that attract keep votes. People are still listing to them which means they have a cult following per WP:NMODEL. Article coukd use a little cleanup though as it seems to repeat itself. Legacypac (talk) 08:26, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nomination. Very insignificant band that does NOT pass GNG. CrazyAces489 (talk) 15:57, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: It is interesting how the user who just voted "Delete" has had approximately 45-50 articles deleted, so is hardly one to lecture about notability. I would say that this article looks like War and Peace compared to many of the one to three-sentence stubs I've seen this user write. I have not gotten involved with the controversies surrounding those articles. I also need to mention that the previous commenter has been blocked on several occasions [[4]], where I have not been blocked once [[5]]. I do not go around here advocating deletions for other editors' work. I have written over 100 quality articles and have done one of the largest expansions that can possibly be done on a general article covering a whole musical genre, Gargage rock (March: [[6]], Today)--helping push it to GA Status [[7]]. If you don't think that I've put in some diligent work here, then think again. But, sometimes things can get demoralizing around here for a dedicated content generator, who works tirelessly for the good of the encyclopedia. I am a dedicated writer, who is very kind to volunteer my time. Garagepunk66 (talk) 17:32, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ ^a ^b "Bruce Eder: Biography". AllMusic. All Media Network, LLC. Retrieved December 18, 2015.

Keep I agree with Legacypac that this passes WP:NMODEL. --MurderByDeletionism^"bang!" 20:30, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - clearly fails both WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC. Am a bit curious as to why one of the keep !votes referenced nmodel, since this has nothing to do with that. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:41, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 23:42, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. I would err on the side of keep because of WP:BAND, item 5: "Has released two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years, and with a roster of performers, many of whom are independently notable)." The fact that they have had songs released on compilation albums by the "largest independently owned reissue label in the United States" could be construed as to fall into that category, but only weakly at best. Lithorien (talk) 00:12, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - While I wouldn't rate this band in the same level of notoriety as, say, the Count Five or Paul Revere and the Raiders, among garage enthusists, they still have garnered some attention even though they disbanded almost 50-years-ago. The fact the band has come back to the attention of listeners is impressive, and helps readers comprehend the grand scale of the garage scene across the US.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 17:50, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:25, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hamzah Aljahmi[edit]

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

Boxer died after first professional fight, notability not established, fails WP:NBOXING and WP:GNG, Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS. WWGB (talk) 23:37, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 23:40, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nominator.Peter Rehse (talk) 23:40, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This appears to fall into WP:1E as his career otherwise did not receive any coverage. Mkdw ^talk 00:18, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All coverage related to his dying after his first pro fight so WP:1E applies. Jakejr (talk) 21:31, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Plenty of press coverage in reliable sources. However, I will agree that this is a one-event type article and Wikipedia is not a news service. The Detroit News and Daily Mail have covered the incident just fine, Wikipedia does not need to. --CNMall41 (talk) 07:31, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy deleted by RHaworth as a copyvio— Preceding unsigned comment added by Happysquirrel (talk • contribs) 02:28, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Desjardins' point[edit]

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

Does not appear to be notable in the English language. In fact I can't find any English-language sources at all to support this point existing. Tom (LT) (talk) 23:10, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment First of all, I found the one sentence in the article to be a copyvio and have tagged it as such. On the topic of notability, note that although English sources are preferable, sources in any language are acceptable. At least in biology, there is no such thing as "notability in English", only notability. Happy Squirrel (talk) 20:00, 28 December 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. Was blanked of G12, becoming an A3. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:25, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

History of pathology in Iran[edit]

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

no content - all removed as copy viol Rathfelder (talk) 23:07, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 08:33, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 08:33, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete there's nothing here. Curro2 (talk) 15:27, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Kind of too late, but WP:A3 is justified.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 02:55, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:24, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nathan Nishiguchi[edit]

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

(Former) child actor known almost exclusively for a 5-episode recurring stint on Full House in the late 1980s. Virtually no other credits listed at IMDb (and wasn't even asked to the follow-up Fuller House (TV series) – another actor took over Nishiguchi's former role), so clearly fails WP:NACTOR. Worse, this article has existed since 2007(!), and has yet to attract even a single reliable source. Strong case for deletion. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:41, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support, since I agree with all your points and I don't see any reason to keep the article around. 74thClarkBarHG (talk) 00:47, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 00:52, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 00:52, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 00:52, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete by all means as IMDBlb summarizes it solidly especially with only 5 listed episodes and 3 total works overall. SwisterTwister talk 01:05, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not enough media coverage of the actor FiendYT 16:28, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
Delete, for essentially the same reason stated by 74thClarkBarHG. NewYorkActuary (talk) 22:17, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:24, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Harvard International[edit]

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

Non-notable company. Cloudbound (talk) 22:36, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:52, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:52, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:52, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as simply none of this suggests even a minimally better notable article. SwisterTwister talk 21:07, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I googled them, looked for news, nothing there that I can see. They appear to be a licensing company, I've bought a product for which they own the brand name under UK license but they don't appear notable. Szzuk (talk) 22:40, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Esquivalience ^t 00:19, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hagar (company)[edit]

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

Non-notable holding company. Cloudbound (talk) 22:24, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iceland-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 22:31, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:53, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 21:06, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 21:06, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as simply none of this suggests a better notable article. SwisterTwister talk 21:06, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The subsidaries of Hagar have an combined 48% market share in the food market in Iceland. I have added the source to the article.--Snaevar (talk) 16:02, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Examples of significant coverage by independent reliable sources (here, for example) demonstrates the article meets WP:CORP. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 19:27, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - significant coverage of independent reliable sources as brought here by user Cactuswriter. indeed.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:31, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to 2010 United States Census and Harris Corporation. (non-admin closure) → Call me Razr Nation 01:24, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hand Held Computer[edit]

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

This article is not at all about "hand held computers" in general. It is about a handheld computer developed by Harris and used in the 2010 census of the US. This does not appear to be a notable device, since only passing reference is made to it in a couple of references provided in the article. Searching for more refs was difficult given the generic name (or lack of name) of the device. Perhaps others can find good refs to demonstrate notability. Edison (talk) 21:02, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

CommentHandheld computer redirects to Mobile device. Thus we already have an article which covers handheld computers in general. Edison (talk) 21:17, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable in itself at all. And much of the "sourcing" appears to be PR from Harris Corporation in any event - (almost as badly written as if it were written by an actual employee, alas). All uses other than from Harris simply refer to "handheld computers" which indicates outside sources did not consider this specific example to be notable on its own. And the editors on Harris Corporation do not deem it worth even a parenthetical mention. Collect (talk) 22:24, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge relevant information to 2010 United States Census. The whole contract attribution etc. seems to have gotten a fair bit of coverage. Then redirect the title to Mobile device.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 03:37, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge w/ 2010 United States Census. Since I originated the article, let me provide some insight. I was a regional Manager for the 2010 Census and had inside info about the device. It had a specific usage that was unique to the 2010 Census's need for management of information. It was a tool that assisted the enumerators in locating people and places in a safe and controlled manner. It made their job easier and quicker and the information supplied was more reliable. Within the Census, we called the device the HHC. It has some notability and deserves its own article but I would understand if the consensus rules otherwise. Plesae see [8]... These systems will support the data collection activities of Census Bureau enumerators and local census offices during the 2008 dress rehearsal and ultimately the 2010 Decennial Census. At the peak of data collection operations during the 2010 Census, the FDCA system will support approximately 500 local offices and over 500,000 enumerators. That's alot of offices and alot of people. Also, see [9] and [10] which explain the use of the HHC device as a GPS ascertaining device for the 2008 dress rehearsal, the 2010 Census, and potentially all future censuses. Efficiency, speed, reduced paper costs, secure collection and, most importantly, confidentiality (finger-print technology) were all important. I'm sure Google searching can show many media articles. There were some glitches related to enumerator mis-use that should be available if the right question is asked. Another source is [11] which has an image of an early prototype very similar to the unit that was eventually used during the 2010 census. As you can see there is no keyboard so maybe calling it "computer" is the problem and should be removed from the title of the article and changed to "device" or some other more descriptive and less confusing word. Buster Seven Talk 05:34, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note WP:COI appears to apply here. And the "personal opinion" that the problems were due to operator "mis-use"(sic) seems to avoid the primary responsibility that we use neutral language gleaned from reliable sources in the first place. Nor is the Harris Corporation a proper source at all here. Sorry - but this article looks worse by the hour. Collect (talk) 13:36, 29 December 2015 (UTC) Appending: The "Popular Mechanics" article appears to be Press Release material from the company. See also the PR at http://spinthecat.blogspot.com/2007_11_01_archive.html . And the myriad press releases from Harris which are not WP:RS material. Collect (talk) 13:59, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the relevant information across both 2010 United States Census and Harris Corporation, then redirect this title to Mobile device ensuring {{rcats}} {{R from alternative name}} and {{R from other capitalization}} are displayed on the redirected page. The information in this article is verifiable in reliable secondary sources and though it is not sufficiently notable for a stand alone article, it is necessary information that should be included in existing Wikipedia articles where its best fit is found. In my opinion, it becomes disproportionate and undue if all of this article's information is merged into any single article. I disagree with the assessment that conflicted interests are apparent within the article. The closeness with the subject the article's creator self-declared above appears to have been well managed when based solely on a reading of this article.--John Cline (talk) 15:04, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Operator mis-use. I remember reading mainstream media articles in 2009-2010, I believe from Texas or Kansas, about problems that enumerators were having with the units. The problems noted in the articles were almost always human error; using the wrong finger, not daily charging the battery, new cuts on finger, hand lotion on finger, not allowing the unit to update over-night while not in use, improper care (rain, dropping, etc.), trying to send info while in a closed-off space, etc. I didn't mean to cast aspersions on the enumerators but it was too easy to blame the machine. Field Operations reports showed conclusively that the device was 99% reliable. I can think of only two incidents where the device was defective as to Fingerprint Identification. Anyway, secondary articles exist. Buster Seven Talk 17:55, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge across 2010 United States Census and Harris Corporation per intelligent contribution from John Cline.; or at least with the former, per SwisterTwister. Also agree with JC about COI. A close read of the article satisfies me that such aspersions are inappropriate in this instance, and out of place. Writegeist (talk) 00:26, 31 December 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) → Call me Razr Nation 01:26, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ken Kratz[edit]

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

Fails WP:N Casprings1 (talk) 20:33, 27 December 2015 (UTC) — Casprings1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

My apologies on setting up another account. I have been having trouble logging on with Safari. I was also in a rush. That said, I think this is a pretty textbook case of WP:BLP1E - "Being in the news does not in itself mean that someone should be the subject of a Wikipedia article. If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them.Casprings (talk) 21:11, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If that's your argument, it fails on several counts, not the least of which that the article already identifies several highly publicized events in which Kratz played a central role and was clearly identified as having done so. It presumably could easily be expanded to include many more, since he was appointed to his position in 1992 and remained in office for 18 years. A county district attorney will not be, by definition, a "low-profile individual", for the simple reason that as a public official their opinions will frequently be sought and they will be frequently quoted in the press. General Ization ^Talk 21:19, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would respectfully disagree. This is a person of little notability. A local sexting scandal covered mostly locally and being an extremely low level offical does not mean that WP:BLP1E is not the policy we should look at. This article is created shortly after Making a Murderer is released. The creation of the article is driven by that fact on 25 December. The events captured by the documentary is why the article was created and why I came upon the article. On a side note, an absolutely great documentary, but not a reason to have the article.Casprings (talk)

"A local sexting scandal covered mostly locally"? Both CBS News and ABC News are represented among the current references for the article, links to articles produced in 2010 and 2014. (Here, I'll throw in a 2010 NBC News report while I'm at it.) Nope, I stand by my original position: Speedy keep as clearly notable. General Ization ^Talk 21:57, 28 December 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 December 27. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:55, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~Speedy keep. Subject appears notable both as a public official, and as a public official who was the subject of a scandal that received extensive publicity. ~~(The nominator's status as an SPA is worrisome.)~~ General Ization ^Talk 21:08, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per General Ization. Further, there are likely to be more sources covering the subject in the near future.--Jorm (talk) 22:10, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep WP:POINTy nom made due to publicity of Avery doc; even without Avery the 2010 forced resignation by Governor Doyle on conduct concerns would seal a keep on that alone. Nate • (chatter) 07:28, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per General Ization-thank you-RFD (talk) 13:30, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep extensive publicity. I'm sure there are MANY even better sources available then those used. Royal broil 14:09, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom, the guy is notable for one event. The sexting was just publicized because of that one other event. And there are thousands of district attorneys in the US; being one in a small unknown county is definitely not notable in any sense of the word. This is one of the clearest cases of WP:BLP1E I've ever seen. 32.218.32.92 (talk) 18:36, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. General Ization ^Talk 22:17, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. General Ization ^Talk 22:21, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I think if anything, his name should redirect to the article that pertains to him. He's only notable in that one incident, and that's really it. I think a simple redirect to the documentary is justifiable, or create a new article page about the case itself, if one hasn't been created. Nick2crosby (talk) 05:17, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Kratz is notable for his involvement in the Avery case, the sexting scandal, and his being featured in the documentary, to the extent that the documentary and the Avery case can be counted as separate. As noted by Jorm, there is likely to be continued coverage of Kratz and those associated with the trial, as has occurred with the individuals featured in Serial and The Jinx.--MainlyTwelve (talk) 20:10, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Compare to, say, Len Kachinsky, coverage of whom is limited to the documentary; even during the trial there was little coverage of him or his role.--MainlyTwelve (talk) 20:14, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for the reasons stated by others. He's also currently giving interviews with major publications. As others have said, there is likely to continue to be more information on him from reliable sources and there are I agree he is notable for his involvement in the Avery case, now the documentary, his resignation. Knope7 (talk) 02:53, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with redirect per nom. "He will be notable soon" isn't a good reason to keep an article now -- if/when that happens it can be undeleted and expanded.NE Ent 11:54, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He is notable not just for Avery trial but also the sexting scandal. --Baron Larf 13:04, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the article This man is an example of what someone in law should not be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:5AC9:300:552D:AC20:D9A1:8D29 (talk) 04:58, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:22, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

F.C.E. 365 Firmware Manager[edit]

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

Non-notable computer program, fails WP:GNG. ukexpat (talk) 20:38, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, the only sources I can find are another Wiki, a forum and Twitter none of which are sufficient to establish notability. Theroadislong (talk) 12:22, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't see significant coverage in reliable sources. Google search results show about 100 hits, none of which even look iffy. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:35, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:22, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Craig E Allison[edit]

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

I could not establish that he meets WP:BIO or WP:GNG. TV show he presents appears to be non-notable. Boleyn (talk) 19:15, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Could not find significant reliable sources confirming his notability. Meatsgains (talk) 19:49, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Boleyn ,Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:ANYBIO.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:29, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Obvious keep is obvious. (non-admin closure) — Jkudlick ^tc_s 00:44, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2015 SAFF Championship Final[edit]

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

Unnecessary to have an article for an insignificant tournament final. Can be merged with the main article. The information is already summarized in the main article 2015 SAFF Championship. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 19:07, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The final is for a tournament that is recognized under FIFA and the AFC. It is standard-practice to have articles of the final of football tournaments such as this in which senior international sides are pitted against each other, which this is, just for nations in South Asia. I also believe this match will pass WP:GNG, article was created with date and venue decided. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 19:19, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Totally agree with ArsenalFan700. For removing queries, see the previous finals like this one. — Swastik Chakraborty (User talk) 20:00, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 22:07, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per ArsenalFan700 Seasider91 (talk) 23:30, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Inter&anthro (talk) 01:52, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: its a official tournament recognized by FIFA and AFC so needs to stay. totally agree with ArsenalFan700 (Goalkeepar (talk) 05:03, 28 December 2015 (UTC))[reply]
Keep as above. Giant Snowman 09:13, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per ArsenalFan700 Debarghya89 (talk) 19:06, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Swastik has nailed the point of keeping this article.Suman420 (talk) 15:26, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 06:30, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Radioactive Chicken Heads[edit]

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

References provided in this article include the following: 1. Something from a late-night Thursdays radio stand-up comedy show in Albany (lacks breadth of interest) 2. Source is the band's own web site (not independent) 3. These reviews are all collected and posted on the band's personal website. Some might be independent, but the source given clearly is not. 4. An "untitled" article from a free paper called the OC weekly which has only local distribution in Long Beach and Orange County, California. 5. Youtube video 6. Youtube video 7. Another OC Weekly article 8. I am not entirely certain what this citation is supposed to support and cannot review its content but it looks like the only reason the band would be mentioned is because of its name, which makes this a trivial mention. 9."CD Baby" is an online music store like iTunes and not a viable method for establishing notability 10. Another OC Weekly quote. 11. The Demented Music Database is an appearance in that database (i.e., a trivial mention with no in-depth coverage). 12. Youtube video 13. Band's own website 14. Youtube again 15. This is a home video news and reviews website run by a single individual— not indicative of broad public interest 16. This is a campaign website for raising money for a tv show (lacks independence) 17. This comes from ChillerTV, which has no written content, only links to various video clips 18. This comes from HeebMagazine.com, a Jewish-themed website which I suspect has a limited audience 19. This is a Polish radio station "top 20" list appearance (only a passing mention, no depth of coverage) 20. Again, the OC Weekly ... There are 23 more "references". These include more from the band's own web site, more Youtube videos, some listings at Allmusic.com, two campus newspaper publications, a VERY brief mention by the LA Weekly, some links from a promoter (BigWheel), and a Huffington Post article in which the band is not actually mentioned anywhere as well as two or three others which are highly suspect of being in the same category (i.e.;, of not actually mentioning the band).

I understand this is a crazy, whacky endeavor to create some crazy, whacky music, but I am not convinced, even based on what at first glance looks like "a lot" of evidence, that it is, in fact, notable by Wikipedia standards. This article needs in-depth (non-trivial) coverage in multiple, reliable, independent, secondary, and verifiable sources with significant readership, and what I am seeing is a large number of problematic sources pulled together to present the subject as notable when it is perhaps not. Are there no better sources for this article, sources that do meet the standards? KDS4444^Talk 10:38, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 18:34, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 18:35, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete at best as this sure seems acceptable at first but I also found nothing better than a few local links at News, browsers and Highbeam, hardly much to suggest a better article yet. SwisterTwister talk 03:30, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. I've done the most work on this page, so I thought I might as well chime in. OC Weekly, Fearnet, Heeb, Broowaha and Allmusic all have their own pages as notable publications, so I don't see why sourcing them wouldn't count for notability, especially since you can find a myriad of other articles which also use them as sources. The YouTube videos are physical evidence of the band's appearances on The Tyra Banks Show, Tom Green's House Tonight, America's Got Talent and spots on ABC, NBC and the Game Show Network, all of which is notable media coverage. The archived pages on the band's own webpage are physical evidence of reviews in Maximumrocknroll, LA Weekly and Thrasher, all of which are notable sources by Wikipedia's standards. Plus, the band has established links to notable bands including Green Jellÿ (whose own article, might I add, has only ten references, only three of which are to publications with Wikipedia accreditation, including Allmusic). The Antyradio reference is at least one source to show the band's received international coverage (there are more foreign websites who've mentioned them, but Antyradio was the only one with a Wiki article). The Huffington Post article doesn't mention the band name, though it does mention the name of the lead singer and the band was named and featured in the (now defunct) video which was attached to the article.

The rest were admittedly filler (student newspapers, independent publications without Wiki articles, etc.), but what's been provided above should be enough to establish notability. I can re-work the references and work to add more, but it seems like overkill to outright delete the article. Skibz777 (talk) 02:20, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So the article as it is has a fair amount of WP:CITEOVERKILL in it. This is kind of what I suspected. It is in part because of this that I began to doubt the subject's notability— too many citations is sometimes a bad thing, and this article had too many citations. Regarding the other issues just mentioned:

the fact that OC Weekly has its own Wikipedia article does not mean that it can de facto be considered a reliable, meaningful indicator of notability for other articles, though I completely understand the misconception. Likewise, identifying an "international" source does not mean the band therefore has worldwide notability. What matters is if that source itself has a significant worldwide readership.
YouTube videos are almost never considered evidence of notability because they have no editorial oversight and anyone can make and post them. If the band has actually appeared in one of the TV shows mentioned, then we would need to see a link to a place that says so (like an article in the Hollywood Reporter that goes something like, "Chickenheads make a splash on Tyra Banks").
Using Allmusic as a source to prove notability is problematic because Allmusic's objective is to cover everything— every record ever made by anyone. So showing up on Allmusic is not an indicator of notability, only of existence (though information from it can certainly be used to add information to an article whose notability has already been established via other means).
Archived pages on the band's own website don't take us where we need to go: we need to go to the sources themselves, not through a filter.
Being associated with another notable band is problematic for the same reason that the spouses of famous people are not independently notable: notability is not inherited, it has to be established independently.

If the article's sources can be trimmed down and we can see the original links to the ones that really will support a claim of notability, then I'd have no problem with keeping the article. Do you think you can do this? KDS4444^Talk 01:33, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll definitely start re-working the references, especially since I've found a few more doing some searches on Google News and even some of the older '90s coverage from the archived pages. There are a few obstacles here and there, though: Take the Tyra Banks appearance, for instance: other than the YouTube video being physical evidence, the only solid mention of it found online is in press bios (not an independent source) and OC Weekly, which comes back to the issue of credibility.
As far as what's on the archived pages, most of their early press coverage stretches back to the '90s; unless if the pertinent info is all that's required (publication, author, date, issue, page), wouldn't I need to provide a physical link or copy of the text?
Other than that, I think I have enough to start with. Skibz777 (talk) 14:47, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This has significant coverage in notable sources. FYI - Having "too many" citations seems like one of the oddest thought processes ever on Wikipedia. --MurderByDeletionism^"bang!" 07:29, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Not always - WP:BOMBARDMENT can, unfortunatly, be a thing. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:11, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:26, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting...I'd never read those pages on notability before (Bombardment, Wikipuffery, Masking, etc.). At the risk of rousing any suspicion, I feel I should clarify that I didn't create the Chicken Heads' page; it had been up for about six years by the time I started working on it in 2013, so notability was never a concern of mine. Much like I've done for several bands (most notably The Aquabats, which I modeled the RCH page after), my intention was to create a comprehensive entry based on whatever references I could find. In retrospect, I do see a lot of "puffery" and apparent name-dropping, some of which I've deleted from the article (for example, the feud with The Aquabats, based on one OC Weekly article, which is more trivia than important biographical information, and the extensive list of media appearances which include a lot of non-notable guest spots on independent web shows and cable access). I may also remove the sub-section on the video game and reduce it to a few sentences in the main biography, since the game itself didn't receive wide coverage. Other than that kind of restructuring, I've done away with the most problematic references (YouTube, CDBaby, the band's personal website (except for explaining their fictional backstory), etc.), but what remains is the bulk of what notable references this page has for the time being. Skibz777 (talk) 09:42, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 18:49, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This has been relisted twice with no clear consensus. As the page stands now with its current references, re-organized by the suggestions made by the user who submitted it for deletion, are there any glaring violations which need immediate attention? Skibz777 (talk) 09:36, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:16, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Makhdoom[edit]

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

Non-notable article. Fails WP:GNG as it is an entirely unsourced article. Not a single reference exists failing WP:RS. Merely seems like an attempt by someone tied to it to exploit Wikipedia to generate publicity. Contains promotional material WP:PROMO. Markangle11 (talk) 19:45, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:SIGNIFICANCE. Note that sourcing is not absolutely required for an article to stand. Claims of "generating publicity" and WP:PROMO do not seem to have substance when checking the article text - unsure why the nominator has inserted them here. kashmiri ^TALK 21:53, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment what you are referring to is merely an essay and essays are not Wikipedia:policies or guidelines. Markangle11 (talk) 14:28, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is definitely not an essay in the meaning of Wikipedia policies, see WP:NOT#ESSAY. kashmiri ^TALK 16:06, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Essays hold no weight in discussions like this where an article is not meeting a single Wikipedia policy to exist. So you cannot defend your article by referring to an essay i.e. wp:signifiance. The article has NO REFERENCE AT ALL and it cannot stand per WP:GNG apart from violating other Wikipedia policies such as WP:SIGCOV. Information on Wikipedia must be verifiable; if no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, then it should not have a separate article. Markangle11 (talk) 18:21, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I do not see any promotionalism or attempt to generate publicity in the article. And from what I have seen when reading articles relating to Islam in southern Asia, the topic does indeed have some significance - when applied to a person or family, the word Makhdoom (in this or other transliterations) has an implication of religious wisdom or authority which it is useful for readers to understand. Having said that, however, while significant or useful but unsourced information on many (but not all) topics can be allowed to survive on Wikipedia until it is challenged and reliable sources are asked for - once reliable sources have been asked for, they need to be provided within the period of one of these discussions. In this case, this is the only suitable source I have found in an admittedly short and cursory search, and by itself, it falls quite a long way short of justifying a standalone article - there quite likely are other more detailed sources, but if so, I can't find them among those that simply use the word as a title or family name without explanation. And, by previous experience, those sources probably need to be found and mentioned here in order to get a consensus for the article to survive. PWilkinson (talk) 19:53, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The article does not have a single reliable source violating WP:SIGCOV and the list of names proves the promotional part WP:PROMO. Also for a standalone article, if a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, only then it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list. This topic does not and the one source you stated does not cover the topic at all. The articles fails the most basic criteria for the article to exist. It is clearly not a notable topic. It is primarily based on WP:Original Research failing notability.

This article is a major copy edit WP:CV of a blog [12].Markangle11 (talk) 14:52, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Are you then arguing that those names should not be on Wikipedia? BTW, the Makhdoom article precedes the blog post by a few years. kashmiri ^TALK 15:52, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kashmiri, you dont even know the difference between WP:P&G and WP:ESSAY.Markangle11 (talk) 18:12, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This one seems like a no brainer: it's a common title among South Asian Muslims that is carried down through descent or nobility lines. The top half of the article is poorly written and in dire need of sourcing, but regardless it most certainly passed WP:NLIST. We keep articles simply explaining the name of and then listing members of families like Stevenson as well as articles about loose bands of people sharing similar descent such as the Blackfoot Confederacy. For the sake of consistency, a group of South Asians sharing common or similar descent and bearing the same title - which likely includes a higher number of people than both of the aforementioned two examples combined - is certainly notable. The article is just bad and needs a lot of work. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:49, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: No. Inclusion within WP:LIST IS determined by the notability criteria i.e. inclusion in lists contained within articles should be determined by WP:Source list, in which the entries must have the same importance to the subject as would be required for the entry to be included in the text of the article according to Wikipedia policies and guidelines and this topic "Makhdoom" violates WP:Notability because a topic is presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other and "Makhdoom" has none such sources because it is not notable enough.Markangle11 (talk) 18:12, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You misread or purportedly manipulate the text of the policies and any experienced user can attest to it. Until you use direct quotations, I refuse to feed the troll. kashmiri ^TALK 18:56, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good one when you have nothing to defend yourself with.Markangle11 (talk) 03:19, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A cursory glance on Google Books for about three minutes yielded explanations sourcing the existence and descent of the clan from a U. of Michigan publication, Routledge, Atlantic Publishers and Distribution and Ferozsons. If these quick look is any indication, then I don't think it would be too outrageous to suggest that a more thorough search would yield even more sources. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:49, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Existence and notability are two separate tings. About your forceful research above:

1 U. of Michigan publication: Only talks about a feudal lord belonging to a clan not even Makhdoom clan and not title Makhdoom. Book on social pollution with no connection to the article whatsoever. Irrelevant.
2 Routledge: Fake. No mention of Makhdoom anywhere.
3Atlantic Publishers and Distribution: There is a world of difference between mentioning Rose and citing him as a reliable source. There is a widespread consensus that we avoid these Raj "ethnographers", who were actually gentleman-scholars documenting things as a sideline to their main functions as civil servants of the British Raj. Using books written a hundred years ago as sources is almost never a good idea in Wikipedia articles. However, modern scholars often use antique texts as primary sources, which is quite acceptable, and these modern works can then be used as secondary sources. So for example, modern scholars on Rome may base their conclusions partly on the accounts of Tacitus, Caesar, Suetonius, and other ancient writers, but we should not use those accounts as sources for articles about ancient Rome. These were professional soldiers/politicians/civil servants first and amateur ethnographers second. Their purpose was political and not scientific, they swallowed a lot of now-discredited racial theories, they were very selective in who they listened to, and they had a habit of largely unquestioningly accepting what these not-disinterested reporters told them.
4 Ferozsons: Only mentions a name Quraishi Makhdum Ghulam. who is he and what has this mention got to do with Makhdum or its notability.

Drag it all you want. It fails WP:V. Markangle11 (talk) 19:06, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Routledge source isn't fake. Check it again. I also find it quite odd that a simple AfD discussion results in such absolute rudeness and uncivil behavior, in addition to such grasping at straws to discredit the arguments of others instead of simply stating a point and moving on. MezzoMezzo (talk) 10:07, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:36, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Off-topic
What a great chemistry between User:Kashmiri and User:MezzoMezzo!!! [13] [14] [15] [16] [17]. etc.Markangle11 (talk) 14:47, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MezzoMezzo (talk) 05:32, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. MezzoMezzo (talk) 05:32, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 18:48, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment First, since WP generally shuns honorifics, I checked to see what had been done with other religious titles, like Cardinal (Catholicism). It does seem that pages that explain honorifics are acceptable. Next, I looked up some of the people on the list in this article, and some have "Makhdoom" in their article title but others do not, and at least one (Mian_Mir) doesn't have a mention of Makhdoom in the article at all. What this tells me is that there is a bigger issue than just this article, and that some decisions need to be made about how to handle this particular honorific in WP. A good place to do that would be on the talk page of this page. Next, this page does not explain clearly what Makhdoom means, how it is confered, etc. At one point it refers to "Makhdoom families" and another "Makhdoom persons" which is very confusing. Once some order is brought to this, the list of people with the title could become a category, since lists themselves make boring reading, and since the article titles most likely will often not have the honorific, as per WP style. So I say Keep but put an effort into making this something that is consistently treated and easily found. LaMona (talk) 18:18, 28 December 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. On balance, consensus is that there is not enough sourcing and material on this topic to justify an article separate from Muhammad al-Mahdi. Sandstein 06:30, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad al-Mahdi in the Quran[edit]

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

The very first line of this article reads "The name of Muhammad al-Mahdi in the Quran is not mentioned any time". then why do we have this article? The article is basically full on various "interpretations" of the Quran from Shi'ite scholars who may have explained a couple of verses of the Quran as mentioning the "appearance of Mahdi", and that too in a very ambiguous sense. There are thousands of interpretations of Quran with each verse being explained a thousand ways. If a person is not mentioned in the Quran by name, we should not mention him in a wikipedia article, because doing so will be cherry picking and OR FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 08:34, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nominator. Edward321 (talk) 00:01, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There's no need to have a direct mention of his name when he is ~~explicitly~~ tacitly mentioned in Quranic verses as the scholars say. If there are reliable sources regarding this issue then the article deserves to be kept. We are not here to judge the materials, and we have to reflect the reliable ones. "Mahdi in Quran" had been the subject of some scholarly works so we may have it here as an stand alone article. Mhhossein (talk) 06:52, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Self published and/or non notable run of the mill "scholars". Regards FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 06:54, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Which of the sources used are self published or non ~~notable~~ reliable? Mhhossein (talk) 07:23, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Createspeace and Lulu.com are selfpublishing platforms providing everyone who has 100 dollars to publish a book. this appears to be in the grey area of notability to be frank and may not be removed if used with reliable sources but by itself it is nothing. Regards FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 07:30, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Per your previous nominations I think you have lack of knowledge in Islamic fields that's why you can't judge the sources in a proper manner. ِDo you know Sayyid Abul Makarim Hashim bin sulayman al-Bahraani? Mhhossein (talk) 08:09, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ad hom much? And why do you ask this question? Do elaborate please. Btw do you know Al ding dong rocket bomb? FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 09:11, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As I thought, you did not consider how the author may add weight to reliability of a source. You could judge the sources better if you were familiar with the case and unfortunately you are not! Mhhossein (talk) 16:54, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And just as I thought you have resorted to ad hom attacks instead of coming up with any excuse to keep this article. Why don't you quote one single policy which can be used to keep this article. This is all I ask, the next time you reply, be brave enough to quote one single policy which will allow this atrocious mockery of an article to stay alive. Otherwise, you can try to let go of your POV and edit like a normal editor. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 17:13, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I just provided the source which determines the subject passes WP:GNG while you don't know how notable the author is. Please be civil and don't accuse others for pushing POVs or being abnormal. Mhhossein (talk) 04:57, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Mhhossein wikishia.net will become a source when big fat pink bacons are flying around in the sky and rosy red cherubs are riding them shooting golden arrows at lovers while semi nude ladies play the harp in clouds and Satan ice skates in hell. Regards FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 05:02, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Funny! You even failed to see that wikishia was linked to only let you now about the author and this is the source! Btw, being polite will help the discussion go toward consensus. Mhhossein (talk) 05:07, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Mhhossein this has already been found out to be......how should I put it lightly without hurting my feelings......."a mockery of reliable sources". yes that should do it. The "thing" you claim is a "source" is nothing more than a typist sitting at a PC and typing whatever comes into his mind then uploading it to his website. Perhaps you can stop flogging this dead horse? It is more than dead to be frank, it is decomposed. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 05:14, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You fail to judge the scholarly works, unfortunately. Your comment on the source, like mine, is just a comment. You are not the one who determines whether it is notable or not. FYI, the book is the translation of an old work entitled "المحجة فیما نزل فی القائم الحجة" which is written by one of the Shia well known scholars called "سید هاشم بحرانی". Mhhossein (talk) 05:31, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And you fail to leave this decomposed smelly carcass alone. even your WP:STICK is smelly now. How do we know that it is an accurate translation? As I said it is nothing but a "Dude in longjohns sitting behind a PC typing away at the keyboard, then uploading it to his website, just to make 15 bucks.". nothing more FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 05:40, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your language is really annoying and disruptive. I suggest you to be more careful selecting your words. The translator is "Sayyid Mohsen Al-Husaini Al-Milani" who has translated works by Tabari and Ibn Shadhan Al-Qummi. Mhhossein (talk) 05:54, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

First off BRAVO! a Goodreads author, he MUST be important. Secondly how do I, OTHER FOLKS and THE general PUBLIC know for sure that this translation is authentic? Was it published by a reliable publication house? No it wasn't. For all we know it was john bin Trump al Obami who wrote the translation while sitting at his PC wearing a tutu and a tiara, then he uploaded it on his personal website and put a price of 15 bucks on it to fund his coke habit. See! as there is reliability in this publication, you cannot refute my argument. Had this been Oxford or Cambridge, you can say "No, these guys have Jack, and John, and Ali and those guys are well known guys, and the publishing house has its reputation to maintain, it will never employ a two bit guy". See the difference? Good publishing house = good and reliable staff/personnel = good and reliable book = Reliable source on wiki. Bad/unknown publisher = the tutu wearing John bin trump al Obami = bad/unreliable typing masquerading as a book = unreliable source. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 06:04, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We would understand each other if you watched your language! Others will also judge the source. Mhhossein (talk) 08:06, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please reset the indentation from time to time, thank you. - HyperGaruda (talk) 09:08, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:PROFRINGE says: "Proponents of fringe theories have in the past used Wikipedia as a forum for promoting their ideas. Existing policies discourage this type of behavior: if the only statements about a fringe theory come from the inventors or promoters of that theory, then various "What Wikipedia is not" rules come into play. Wikipedia is neither a publisher of original thought nor a soapbox for self-promotion and advertising. The notability of a fringe theory must be judged by statements from verifiable and reliable sources, not the proclamations of its adherents." The argument by Mhhossein is that "There's no need to have a direct mention of his name when he is explicitly mentioned in Quranic verses"; he cannot have been explicitly mentioned if his name is not directly mentioned.-- Toddy1 (talk) 11:29, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I meant "tacitly". Mhhossein (talk) 05:02, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Seyyed(t-c) 06:57, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Conditional delete. Toddy1 has a point with WP:PROFRINGE. Of all the sources currently used in the article, only one seems to be from a non-adherent: Dr. John Calvert (2008). Islamism: A Documentary and Reference Guide. Greenwood Publishing Group. pp. 113–. ISBN 978-0-313-33856-4. Upon closer inspection however, that one statement is part of a quoted document written by "Ayatollah Baqir al-Sadr and Ayatollah Muratda Mutahhari" (the source at the end of the quoted document leads to this site. Unless someone comes up with non-Mahdiist sources that discuss the appearance of Muhammad al-Mahdi in the Qur'an, it's going to be a delete for me. - HyperGaruda (talk) 18:55, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Then I suggest HyperGaruda to take a look at this scholarly article by Dr. Leonardo N. Mercado. Mhhossein (talk) 06:13, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That "scholarly article" discusses the Last Day in the Qur'an, the Second Coming of Jesus in the Qur'an, and the Mahdi, but not the Mahdi in the Qur'an. I would have expected something in paragraph 2.2 THE RETURN OF IMAM MAHDI, but there's only 1 reference to the Qur'an and it only talks about entrusting "the followers to the prophets". Did I miss something and if so, could you quote what passage does discuss the appearance of the Mahdi in the Qur'an? - HyperGaruda (talk) 06:34, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Look, when we approach this subject, in fact we are talking about commentaries of Quran which is a field related to mulims. I want to say that, I have seen no non-mulsim interpreting Quran. So we should not expect a direct mention to quranic verse s from this non-mulsim scholar. This is while there are still some points to say; he writes for example "We shall treat about the signs of the end-time, such as cosmic signs, human unrest, the rise of false messiahs, death and resurrection of humankind. These are preparatory signs to the return of Imam Mahdi and Jesus Christ. and the author discusses these signs in details in next sections. The signs are supported by Quranic verses which itself can be a link between Mahdi and Quran. Could I say what I mean? Mhhossein (talk) 07:18, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Now you're just drawing your own conclusions. The signs are also supported by hadiths, so it might only be a link between the Mahdi and the hadiths. Do you see now to what speculation such original research leads to? Unless a reliable source (this "scholarly article" is not reliable; it mentions Wikipedia as a reference at the end) makes a clear connection between Muhammad al-Mahdi and the Qur'an, Muhammad al-Mahdi in the Quran is still a case of WP:PROFRINGE. By the way, it seems that the current Wiki-article is specifically referring to the Twelfth Imam Muhammad al-Mahdi, son of Hasan al-Askari. Sources that just mention an unspecified Mahdi (which non-Shias believe has yet to come) are not enough, unless the article title is changed to something like Mahdi in the Quran. - HyperGaruda (talk) 09:08, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I never said to act based on my conclusion, I was trying to say that A shia belief is best described by Shia (or at least muslim) scholars. I think WP:PROFRINGE does not apply here, because we are not talking about a fringe theory, rather a belief is being discussed here! Could I ask what mainstream view is in contradiction with the fact that "some (if not many) shia scholars believe that some verses of Quran are pointing to the twelfth Imam of shia"? This matter is related to commentaries on Quarn which consists a broad scientific field (you know what Quran commentary is? A sort of interpretation of Quranic verses). Btw, the author has used works by Madelung, Tabatabie, Marilyn Robinson and etc so you can't call it unreliable. Mhhossein (talk) 10:54, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am well aware of tafsir. More detailed descriptions of Shia beliefs may be supported by Shia sources in some cases, but for establishing basic notability (and the right of an article to exist) we need significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent [emphasis added] of the subject (WP:GNG). Since such coverage does not seem to exist, it appears that the mainstream view is that the 12th Imam Muhammad al-Mahdi does not appear in the Qur'an. You could try to search for Sunni or non-Twelver sources, either confirming or refuting, but I doubt that they exist at all. - HyperGaruda (talk) 12:14, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

HyperGaruda: Could you please say what the problem is with this source? Who is the mainstream? How do you expect a source by non-muslims discussing Muhammad al-Mahdi in Quran? Btw, do you think this view is rejected by the mainstream? Mhhossein (talk) 17:42, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Mhhossein It has three very basic problems and is therefore rejected. 1)It quotes three verses which are used to talk about the "Final and complete victory of the righteous and the faithful". Not the Mahdi, the victory of faithful. The author clearly says that the Mahdi is supposed to come and then the faithful will be victorious, and how will they be victorious? Well it is written in this , this and that verse that they will be victorius. So zero mention of Mahdi, just the mention of victory. 2) Secondly this is the view of a narrow minority as the source is Ayatollah Baqir something, and ayatollah someone else. So basically it falls under fringe. 3) The third problem is that this may not be talking about Muhammad Al-Mahdi at all, as there are three kinds of Mahdi's in Islam. Regards FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 17:53, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

HyperGaruda: Still waiting for your response and I'd like to ask you and Seyyed to evaluate these two sources. Mhhossein (talk) 18:30, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Mhhossein once again, zero discussion of any Quranic verse mentioning the Mahdi. None whatsoever. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 18:41, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Mhhossein: Problem 1a: The book by John Calvert is only talks about a general Mahdi, not the 12th Shia Imam Muhammad al-Mahdi. Problem 1b: John Calvert's book is composed of original documents, each time followed by an analysis (starts at page 114 for this chapter). The page that is cited (113) is part of such an original document, in this case written by Ayatollah Baqir al-Sadr and Ayatollah Muratda Mutahhari (a copy of the document can be found here, with the cited section over here). In other words, we're citing an adherent's source now. If the cited section would have been part of "Context and analysis", everything would be ok, since that part is written by the book's non-adherent/neutral author.

Secondly, your other two sources do not seem to discuss if and where the Mahdi is (implicitly) mentioned in the Qur'an.

Finally, if an idea were mainstream, it would have certainly been discussed somewhere in third-party sources. There are plenty of non-Muslim sources that describe Shia beliefs, so if there is no significant coverage in reliable independent sources about Muhammad al-Mahdi in the Qur'an, then it does not appear to be a much-discussed mainstream idea. - HyperGaruda (talk) 19:58, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you HyperGaruda for your comprehensive and civil response. Please note that this source (one of those two previous sources I presented) is discussing related Quranic verse on page 218, and see how the author this source discusses the Quran tafsir of verses related to Jesus and Mahdi on pages 135 and 141. Mhhossein (talk) 04:29, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Mhhossein page 218 of your first source has again, ZERO mention of Mahdi in Quran, rather it is about muslims who fight the Jihad. It has been interpreted to say that jihad will continue for ever. page 135 of the second source does not even mention the Quran, it mentions the hadith, you would know the difference between the two I presume. page 141 mentions Jesus in Quran, not Mahdi. To be frank this is getting lame. The horse carcass is more than decomposed now. Regards FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 05:43, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but You have little (if not ZERO) knowledge of the field that's why I did NOT pinged you and you are unwanted in this dialogue. Please, let us continue the discussion. Tnx. Mhhossein (talk) 06:40, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Meh to being unwanted, you posted a "source". I told you it does not mention Mahdi in Quran, did I hurt your feelings? I think so. Did I act according to policy? Absolutley. So If you want a private conversation use a chat service or email. This Afd is open for everyone. And once again, my advice will be to "just let it go dude!" FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 07:02, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It was not a matter of policy! It was a matter of social issues. I clearly don't want a private conversation. My advice will be to "don't be the unwanted editor". You can of course leave your comments in a separate para (this is not a policy but a matter of politeness and social issues). Mhhossein (talk) 07:15, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As I said before, if your feelings are hurt by my comments on your conversation with Hyper. Use the email service for a private conversation. Ty. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 07:28, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was just asking you not to interrupt our dialogue and not to be the unwanted editor. Mhhossein (talk) 12:33, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Mhhossein if you want a private dialogue, go find a room. Clearly you have WP:STICK issues. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 12:44, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Another source in this regard. An article by Dr. Ahmad Shafaat. Mhhossein (talk) 08:10, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[Jesus in Islam] has already been created, with far better sources than this. Regards FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 08:38, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

According to this source, "A related shi‘ah interpretation, also held by some sunnis under shi‘ah influence is that the verse refers to the coming of al-Mahdi". We are not talking about Jesus. Mhhossein (talk) 10:58, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Muhammad al-Mahdi was a real-life (non-fantasy) person who was born in July 869 AD and died in 941 AD. The Quran is a book whose compilation was completed during 644-656 AD when Uthman was caliph. i.e. The Quran was completed more than 200 years before Muhammad al-Mahdi was born. This should tell you everything you need to know on the subject of Muhammad al-Mahdi in the Quran.-- Toddy1 (talk) 09:05, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think we are talking about another Muhammad al-Mahdi! Accrording to shia and sunni he is still alive. Just discuss the notability. Mhhossein (talk) 10:37, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shias believe that, but I doubt that Sunnis do too. - HyperGaruda (talk) 12:14, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are reliable and academic sources which have referred to the issue such as: "Islamic Messianism: The Idea of Mahdi in Twelver Shi'ism"[18] pages 109 and 172. "The Divine Guide in Early Shi'ism" [19] in several cases including pp.218 and 219 ~~"Medieval Islamic Civilization: L-Z, index" [20] page 500. Of course, these sources have not restricted the issue to Shia viewpoint, therefor,~~ I prefer to move the article to al-Mahdi in the Quran. . There are some Sunnis who refers to al-Mahdi in Quran like Adnan Oktar [21]--Seyyed(t-c) 12:51, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And again I don't find any discussion about "Mahdi In Quran", just about signs of "end of days" and other mentions.

Page 500 of "Medieval Islamic Civilization: L-Z, index" [22] gives zero mention to any Quranic verses about Mahdi. Literally zero mention
page 109 of "Islamic Messianism: The Idea of Mahdi in Twelver Shi'ism" is totally dedicated to showing that Shi'ites had to distort the Quran in order to show that imamate can exist with zero mention of Imam-Al Mohammad Al Mahdi everywhere. The author says that when the Shi'ites were confronted with their imam disappearing they had to create new interpretations of Quran to show that imamate can even exist.
page 172 takes about Jesus being mentioned in Quran and quite clearly avoids 'any mention of Mahdi in Quran.
"The Divine Guide in Early Shi'ism" mentions a Quranic verse which mentions the "IDEA of Mahdi's return and victory" not mahdi himself. Furthermore it does not mention if the said person is the "muhammad al mahdi" or the normal "Mahdi" or the "mahdi who is supposed to pray with jesus". Without this distinction we cannot do diddly squat.
Adnan Oktar's book [23] gives a total of 5 pages, widely spaced to the topic of MAhdi in Quran and in those pages there is Not a single verse referring to mahdi. I repeat, not a single verse about mahdi at all. the entire discussion is about the Islamic eschatology. which is already an article here on wiki. The other 90% of book does not even deal with the Quran so I did not even bother to peruse that.FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 05:32, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

comment@Mhhossein, HyperGaruda, Toddy1, and FreeatlastChitchat: Please focus on the AFD instead of polemical debate! We are not here to discuss about our faiths. We just want to improve the articles. Thanks.--Seyyed(t-c) 12:55, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We did not go through the details. Just some general points were exchanged between me and HyperGaruda. He was civil. Mhhossein (talk) 14:58, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Based on WP:GNG, there are enough sources about Muhammad al-Mahdi in the Quran.Saff V. (talk) 06:46, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And just how does this pass GNG? this is exactly the kind of off handed argument to avoid in deletion discussion. You created the article but it does not mean that you give this sort of non-argument at the AFD. Perhaps you can show us ONE SINGLE RELIABLE SOURCE that discusses this indepth. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 06:57, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If your information was enough, you can find and see the reliable sources. Read above text again.Saff V. (talk) 07:09, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can I call your reply "imbecilic" without hurting your feelings? because it appears as such to me. You are saying If your information was enough, you can find and see the reliable sources. Read above text again, while the ONLY TEXT you have written is Keep Based on WP:GNG, there are enough sources about Muhammad al-Mahdi in the Quran. Just where in your text does this so called "information" rear its ugly head? I mean seriously, come ON! FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 07:17, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Are you angry? I said read above text and not said my comment. Read again this page from the beginning to the end. There are many information for you.Saff V. (talk) 08:49, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Mahdi is not in the Quran, so it should be deleted. --92slim (talk) 22:05, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That "Mahdi is not in the Quran" is not a policy based reason! Mhhossein (talk) 19:11, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —azuki (talk · contribs · email) 11:54, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Article says "Mahdi is in Quran". voter says we should delete it because "Mahdi is not in the Quran". Seems to be the most concise and precise argument in the whole page. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 03:04, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Jobs is not mentioned in the Quran. Therefore the argument Steve Jobs is not in the Quran is a valid, policy-based argument for the deletion of an article Steve Jobs in the Quran.-- Toddy1 (talk) 13:17, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Toddy1, many other believe he, Mahdi, is mentioned in Quran. So, the argument is not valid. If you think he is not mentioned, this is just your belief (and the belief of many others). Mhhossein (talk) 06:40, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Mhhossein many believe that Ayatollah Trump bin Bazoomba al-Obami Al-Irani is mentioned in the constitution of Iran. I am one of those. should we make an article with that heading? FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 06:57, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, guys. I agree, and it is pretty clear that Mahdi isn't mentioned in the Quran, so this article is completely pointless. --92slim (talk) 05:51, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: I propose that views of both side editors may be incorporated in the article under discussion. Nannadeem (talk) 16:14, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to article on Muhammad al-Mahdi. That article can cover this in enough depth.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:51, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 18:48, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete though I completely disagree with the case being made above - which implies that Shia Islam is a 'fringe theory'. There is not enough content to justify an article separate from the main Muhammad al-Mahdi page, which already covers the topic sufficiently. There is nothing to merge as this page is just Qura'anic verses. Curro2 (talk) 20:58, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:07, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Animals, Property, and the Law[edit]

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

This is an awkward one: Were there any secondary sources backing the claims for notability, I wouldn't dream of nominating this. However, the only sources stating a claim of notability are primary ones, and I can't find good sources to back them up. This is a problem, of course, as anyone can claim uniqueness of their book within their book itself. That said, I'm quite open to being convinced otherwise, but we'd actually need the sources. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 18:43, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article cites independent reviews of the book in the The Washington Post, the Houston Journal of International Law, and The Federal Lawyer. I did a google search and I found citations in this book and this book, among others. Therefore, I think this book passes the first notability criterion of WP:NBOOK. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 19:58, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That looks like a good start, though I'd like to see the reviews, if possible, to properly judge them and their detail. But the book cites are pushing this towards keep for me. I suppose that we can't expect 90s books to have all their reviews online, though. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 20:56, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Cuerden, if you have access to HeinOnline, I think you can access the reviews in the law journals (see, e.g., this link for the HJIL review). If you type the name of this book into Google Scholar, you can see that it is often cited in legal scholarship (see, e.g., this, this, and this), though "being widely cited in a field" is not one of the criteria listed at WP:NBOOK. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 21:13, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:19, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:22, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Notecardforfree; there are multiple independent WP:RS for the book, including the reviews in the Further reading section (and the source at the end of the Notes section). The lack of direct citation, except of the book itself, is an unrelated problem (but still a problem), and the claim to be "the first extensive jurisprudential treatment of animal rights", citing the foreword, isn't the basis of its notability: WP:GNG is, which it clearly passes. ‑‑Yodin^T 22:15, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quite happy for this to be Speedy kept at this point. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 23:00, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:14, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alankit Group[edit]

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

Fails WP:CORP Fiddle Faddle 18:24, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable corporation. -- Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:34, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:23, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:24, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as my searches found a few mentions here and there but nothing considerably better. Notifying tagger Meatsgains. SwisterTwister talk 21:04, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. per Sk1 - Not sure how this even came to be nominated as like the IP I've found a few sources aswell!, I dunno but anyway withdrawn (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 01:30, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gower Explorer[edit]

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

Non notable bus service, Fails GNG –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 18:12, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:11, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:11, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:11, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, obviously. Fails GNG? No it really doesn't, and these took about thirty seconds to find. Offline sources must have even more. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.149.20.97 (talk) 00:39, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:14, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

123 Junk[edit]

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

Successful local business, some local coverage - I couldn't establish that it meets WP:ORG or WP:GNG. Pinging notability tagger Derek R Bullamore and creator, Arvinahmadi. Orphaned, no valid redirect target. Boleyn (talk) 18:09, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't seem to meet GNG or ORG criteria, can't find any sources that really establish even local notability. Only one article came up in a cursory search about the company. Lithorien (talk) 00:50, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:26, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:26, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there's simply nothing to suggest a better notable article here. SwisterTwister talk 21:02, 29 December 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 A7, G11. (non-admin closure) shoy (reactions) 15:18, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vivacell[edit]

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

Very short article, may be WP:Spam as editor has only added references to this company. Iamoctopus (talk) 17:40, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:03, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:03, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged as obvious A7 & G11 material. SwisterTwister talk 08:00, 28 December 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. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:26, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2015 Gatwick boarding incident[edit]

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

Wikipedia not a newspaper. Of course it was in the news, but not lasting impact. - üser:Altenmann >t 17:30, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Covered in news but not nearly notable enough for a page. Meatsgains (talk) 17:40, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Meatsgains. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:58, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:06, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Yes another news article of no lasting notability, this perhaps being the most blatant of the ones that have come up at Afd recently: a family being denied boarding for flight to Disneyland. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:08, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:22, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wikipedia is not the news. Complete failure of notability; recent events get spurts of coverage but no WP:PERSISTENCE. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:22, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – WP:NOTNEWS. Aspirex (talk) 22:27, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per all the above. snowing at Gatwick. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 10:59, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:47, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Single event with no encyclopedic value. WP:NOTNEWS → Call me Razr Nation 01:27, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy keep, withdrawn by nominator, no outstanding delete votes -- GB fan 12:29, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Future of Food[edit]

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

Released to a maximum of five theatres, with a bare smattering of coverage, the notability of this film is, at the least, questionable. Completely unsourced. That said, it seems a fairly good, neutral description of the film, so if (note the "if") the notability is there - which would, of course, mean that good-quality, non-primary sources were found - then the article's issues should be fixable Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 16:51, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Release to theatres is not a measure of notability, only of distribution finances. I found many reviews and many mentions. I've added multiple significant references, including one critical of the film. Thisisnotatest (talk) 07:52, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:27, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:27, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:28, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

alts:

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

Speedy keep Per WP:NRVE, WP:BURDEN, and lack of WP:BEFORE. The notability of an independent documentary film is not gauged by releases, but by wide analysis and commentary... and (at minimum) true diligence using Metacritic gives multiple good quality independent sources to show this film as easily meeting WP:NF: Variety, San Francisco Chronicle, Village Voice, Boston Globe, Seattle Post-Intelligencer, AV Club, Slant Magazine, The New York Times, and The Chicago Reader to share but a few of the MANY showing a lot more than the nominator's claimed "bare smattering of coverage". Someone really failed to look and we do not substitute a personal opinion for diligence. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 17:43, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Update: The nominator conceded "if the notability is there - which would, of course, mean that good-quality, non-primary sources were found - then the article's issues should be fixable". Fine to state the obvious, but WP:BEFORE encourages a truly diligent search before a nomination and discourages improvable topics being sent to AFD due to a current state. Though it sometimes does, AFD is not to be used as a bludgeon to force improvement... however, since I easily found so many good sources available I was able to easily perform improvements anyone could have done over time and through regular editing to perhaps show the nominator the error in his evaluation. There is no valid reason for this to remain open, other than to embarrass someone else for their failure however well intended.

Thanks, Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 23:23, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:HEY anyone? Does someone feel empowered to close early under WP:OUTCOMES? THIS is the improvable (but unsourced) topic that was brought to AFD. As truly decent sources were plentiful and even though it was not required, I took a few of the many and addressed issues thusly.... taking the 1927 characters (320 words) start-class-needing-work and turned it into a quite decent and well-sourced 6894 characters (1115 words) B-class article... a 3x expansion. It is exceedingly obvious that the topic meets WP:NF in all ways and, specially after improvemsnts, I am pretty certain that an early close will not be taken to WP:DRV... which would simply be a public embarrassment. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 20:26, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@MichaelQSchmidt: Honestly, I think you've proven your case. Feel free to have this one closed. Withdrawn Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 12:05, 31 December 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. WP:G11, WP:G12. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:15, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Duncan Barbour[edit]

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

WP:DEL4, an obvious advertisement of a self-promotional nature and WP:DEL2 as content has been lifted from this page Falcadore (talk) 16:44, 27 December 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 05:16, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dreieck Oldenburg-West[edit]

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

Contested prod. One of a number of non-notable interchanges, which some feel are notable simply because they are named. No evidence of coming close to passing WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:43, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—as written, this fails to meet WP:GNG. Imzadi 1979 → 17:43, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:38, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:38, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unremarkable trumpet interchange. Dough4872 21:43, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There is no consensus for the deletion of these German Autobahn interchanges articles as a block, and insufficient time allocated by the AfD process for editors to research their GNG individually. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kreuz Oranienburg and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kreuz Duisburg. Bahnfrend (talk) 08:47, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence that the GNG is met by a WP:RUNOFTHEMILL interchange. Interchanges anywhere are not inherently notable. Named interchanges often are, but as all Autobahn interchanges are named there is no presumption of notability from that. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:10, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
delete No claim of notability and no reason to infer one. Interchanges are not inherently notable. Mangoe (talk) 03:42, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Checking the first AfD, it's noted that it was kept because it was started by a block-evading editor...and the IP who asked for this nomination to be made is the IP who added their deletion !vote here...using the exact same wording as the sockpuppet from the first nom. Looking things over it's blatantly obvious that this is the same block-evading editor, and therefore this is being speedily closed. No blame should be given Eteethan, they assumed good faith and rightfully, these things happen sometimes. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:31, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pometenik[edit]

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

Nominating per request at my talk page. Eteethan(talk)🎄 16:38, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While I'd presume most of the sources will be in Serbian or a related language (the borders have shifted a few times, after all) there's no particular reason to think a mountain isn't notable. It also worries me that neither the nominator nor the talk page correspondent have actually given any deletion rationale, which seems like a minimum step before nominating. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 18:39, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If the IP that wanted me to nominate doesn't give a reason for the nom feel free to close as speedy keep. Eteethan(talk)🎄 19:40, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Adam Cuerden That's no reason that should be taken seriously. There is a discussion and a vote, and it does not matter what the item is and from which branches when the discussion is argumentative, rational and efficient.
Delete Pometenik not mountains but the landscape on the eastern edge of Pešter plateau near the village Duga Poljana. Mountain Pometenik doesn't exist already exist landscape and therefore this page should be deleted. Height Pometenik is absolutely incorrect because it is a region that does not have a certain height. This is the main reason why you need to delete this page. 109.121.29.37 (talk) 19:54, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- http://www.maphill.com/serbia-and-montenegro/crna-gora/pometenik/panoramic-maps/shaded-relief-map/ seems to indicate a rather definite rise in the area indicated, and that it exists is sourced. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 21:46, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. The IP that requesed the nomination be made is clearly a block-evading editor who was blocked for sockpuppetry. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:34, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stojkovačka planina[edit]

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

Nominating per request at my talk page. Eteethan(talk)🎄 16:37, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While I'd presume most of the sources will be in Serbian or a related language (the borders have shifted a few times, after all) there's no particular reason to think a mountain isn't notable. It also worries me that neither the nominator nor the talk page correspondent have actually given any deletion rationale, which seems like a minimum step before nominating. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 18:38, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If the IP that wanted me to nominate doesn't give a reason for the nom feel free to close as speedy keep. Eteethan(talk)🎄 19:37, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. No reason given for deletion, other than that an IP thinks it should be deleted. General Ization ^Talk 20:55, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:09, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Islamopologist[edit]

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

Non-notable neologism. I can find almost no in depth coverage of the subject outside of the the Allen B. West blog. Fails WP:GNG. - Mr X 14:45, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nomination.--John Cline (talk) 15:36, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:56, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:56, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I could not find reliable secondary sources to substantiate the notability of this term. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 16:41, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. No secondary sources, all signs point to it being a non-notable neologism that only pops up on blogs and fringe websites.-- 山村貞子 (talk) 03:45, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NEO. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:33, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I've tried searching for islamopologist, islamopologism, and islamopologetics. GScholar: nothing. Gbooks: nothing. GNews: only some passing mentions on 2 Tea Party-like websites, but no in-depth coverage of the term. The article creator's list of sites that use the term to prove "look how often it is used!" is WP:OR/WP:SYNTH. - HyperGaruda (talk) 14:53, 31 December 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 McMaster University. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 19:17, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Farncombe Institute[edit]

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

Relevance is largely little, can be merged into the link the articles gives to John L. Wallace. Surrey101 (talk) 13:43, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to McMaster University. The institute is named in research publications, but often as the affiliation of a researcher or involvement in the research. Not enough to stand alone. LaMona (talk) 18:37, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 19:06, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 19:06, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 19:06, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as there's nothing to suggest this is solidly independently notable. SwisterTwister talk 19:06, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Per WP:SK#2, a disruptive and obviously frivolous nomination where no uninvolved editor recommends deletion. (non-admin closure) Sam Sailor ^Talk! 14:59, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Julia D. Nelson[edit]

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

Delete No reliable news links to support the contents written. Oneplusoneistwo (talk) 10:28, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Several of my newly-created articles were targetted by 116.68.120.114 (talk · contribs) and Oneplusoneistwo (talk · contribs). Magnolia677 (talk) 12:23, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - This article appears to be appropriately sourced for a biography of a politician. Nominated by new account and nothing to suggest WP:BEFORE has been followed. This nomination appears frivolous. Drchriswilliams (talk) 12:42, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - Nomination made in bad faith. Oneplusoneistwo is clearly someone's sock and is WP:NOTHERE. CatcherStorm ^talk 13:02, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:POLITICIAN the subject was elected to the Indiana House of Representatives.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 14:14, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Per WP:SK#2, a disruptive and obviously frivolous nomination where no uninvolved editor recommends deletion. (non-admin closure) Sam Sailor ^Talk! 14:58, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Florence Wood Hanby[edit]

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

Delete No reliable article to prove notability. Oneplusoneistwo (talk) 10:37, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Several of my newly-created articles were targetted by 116.68.120.114 (talk · contribs) and Oneplusoneistwo (talk · contribs). Magnolia677 (talk) 12:19, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - This article appears to be appropriately sourced for a biography of a politician. Nominated by new account and nothing to suggest WP:BEFORE has been followed. This nomination appears frivolous. Drchriswilliams (talk) 12:45, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - WP:NOTHERE CatcherStorm ^talk 13:05, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:POLITICIAN the subject was elected to the Delaware House of Representatives.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 14:17, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Per WP:SK#2, a disruptive and obviously frivolous nomination where no uninvolved editor recommends deletion. (non-admin closure) Sam Sailor ^Talk! 15:00, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lottie Holman O’Neill[edit]

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

Delete No reliable news links to support the contents written. Oneplusoneistwo (talk) 10:33, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Several of my newly-created articles were targetted by 116.68.120.114 (talk · contribs) and Oneplusoneistwo (talk · contribs). Magnolia677 (talk) 12:21, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - This article appears to be appropriately sourced for a biography of a politician. Nominated by new account and nothing to suggest WP:BEFORE has been followed. This nomination appears frivolous. Drchriswilliams (talk) 12:42, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - WP:NOTHERE CatcherStorm ^talk 13:06, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:POLITICIAN the subject was elected to the Illinois House of Representatives.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 14:19, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:05, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Corridor Digital[edit]

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

Fails WP:WEB, WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Non-notable YouTube channel, lacks mass coverage outside of YouTube. First source is the YouTube channel, the second being the about us section on the YouTube channel's personal website, and the 3rd source being CorridorDigital's Patreon. Sources are therefore all primary and fail to show why the channel is notable outside of YouTube. CatcherStorm ^talk 12:36, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:29, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:29, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:31, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as simply none of this suggest a better notable article. Notifying taggers Prof. Mc and K6ka. SwisterTwister talk 21:00, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for all the reasons stated. I put an early "Multiple Issues" tag on it, but probably should have AfD'd it. Prof. Mc (talk) 22:07, 29 December 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:54, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WAP (Web Application Protection)[edit]

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

Security software created last year. Article was created by the author of the software. Fails to establish notability; references are not independent: the main website of the software, to research papers written by the authors of the software, and to a wiki page created by him. Proposed deletion removed by article's creator. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 12:00, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 12:30, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not finding much in the way of independent sources, does not appear to be notable. Artw (talk) 22:52, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:33, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:33, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There doesn't seem to be sufficient coverage in independent sources to support notability. —Psychonaut (talk) 17:43, 30 December 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. WP:SNOW. Bad-faith pushing by creator and the acceptor notes they were snookered. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:54, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Family Guy (disambiguation)[edit]

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

Per WP:2DABS, disambiguation pages are not required when there are only two links and one is the primary topic. Instead, a hatnote should be used.

This page was a draft that was submitted tendentiously; the editor repeatedly removed previous declines in an attempt to have the page accepted, despite policy to the contrary. /wia🎄/tlk 12:21, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unnecessary disambiguation page. A line at the top of each page saying "not to be confused with" would suffice Seasider91 (talk) 13:06, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Seasider91 and nom. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:41, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete and salt This editor is nothing more than a vandal at this point. See also the history of Template:User Minecraft, where this editor has been trying to force a non-free image onto a template, directly against WP:NFCC #9 policy and despite being informed of said policy. All contributions to date have been only to harm the project. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:50, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 16:34, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I accepted this, thinking it was an acceptable DAB and was not aware of its troubled history. SwisterTwister talk 17:11, 27 December 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. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:01, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Melbourne Derby (BBL)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NRIVALRY and WP:GNG. This is a statistical rivalry only. Neither the article nor any sources give any explanation for how this is a culturally significant rivalry, and these seem to be been written on the false basis that a local derby is automatically notable.

I am also nominating the following related page for the same reason:

Sydney Derby (BBL) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Aspirex (talk) 12:09, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all as non-notable rivalries. Rivalries are not significant and are only used for statistical listcruft purposes, the articles themselves just have results of fixtures and info on the teams (which should be in the teams' respective articles). Joseph2302 (talk) 23:35, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 06:33, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per nom Nick-D (talk) 06:52, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all a rivalry that has only existed since 2012. The competition exists for a month a year LibStar (talk) 08:32, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both. Maybe these games will turn into proper derbies at some point, for now this is just stats bloat. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:34, 31 December 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Keep both. This has been proposed for deletion just because it hasn't yet gained a long history. So basically you're saying that for a derby to be significant, it has to be 50 years old? Then, I guess you need to delete A-League rivalries as well. Moreover, the amount of media attention to these derbies is significant, as I've seen for it to still remain a page. If you still can't see why Melbourne or Sydney gets 20,000 more people in through the gates during Derby matches, you would call it a statistical rivalry? I've never seen anyone mention it anything else except "Derbies", be it cricinfo, smh, skysports or any other source you may wan't to refer to. Karyasuman (talk) 07:57, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a reason for keeping. When you regularly get more people attend a season AFL game that doesn't translate to automatic rivalry either. They are expecting 50,000 tonight between Adelaide and Sydney Sixers perhaps we need to create a rivalry article too based on attendance? LibStar (talk) 08:01, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Moreover, the Sydney Derby had aready been up for deletion before being removed from the list. The buzz before the opening game this season (as a "Derby") had shown how much of it was "culturally" significant for Sydney. In Cricket, when people don't attend games, but then suddenly turn up in large numbers regularly for a match, that does tell something. Can't tell about the AFL in the same way, though. Karyasuman (talk) 08:10, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Using your argument we should create an Adelaide Sydney Sixers rivalry article. To argue 20,000 attendance gives a free pass to notability is weak. State of Origin which is a 30 year rivalry gets minimum 70000 attendance LibStar (talk) 08:14, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

20,000 in a 20,000 capacity stadium is weak? Around 1 million watching it in metros is weak? Opening matches in BBL hardly get that, considering BBL only gets stronger crowd post-Christmas.--Karyasuman (talk) 08:17, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

50,000 today at Adelaide Oval is significant because of its establishment as a New-Year eve match, not because of the rivalry between Adelaide Strikers and Sydney Sixers. --Karyasuman (talk) 08:20, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No using your logic. Attendance greater than 20,000 = notable rivalry. Sydney Thunder moved from the 80,000 ANZ Stadium from previous seasons to a much smaller ground due to low attendances. Your argument about 20,000 in a smaller Stadium is flawed. LibStar (talk) 08:23, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't they get lower attendances due to their own performance against other teams? They got much larger attendances during derby matches. Derby matches always break domestic attendances records and viewership here, including more media coverage compared to other BBL matches specially in Sydney. Last year too, they got the highest attendances for Derby matches. Karyasuman (talk) 08:30, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe because derby matches involve fans of the same city? Only a very small number of fans would fly interstate for a match. So decreasing the stadium size increases the notable rivalry? LibStar (talk) 08:33, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Creating same city teams might have been CA's strategy. That might've been A-League's strategy too! Maybe both follow the same strategy. Occupying ANZ just for a single Derby match did actually seem funny, however. --Karyasuman (talk) 08:41, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

when 2 AFL teams from Melbourne play each other they always get higher attendance, that doesn't equate to notable rivalry. LibStar (talk) 08:34, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And a mention on television and newspapers as "Melbourne Derby" too? BBL gets that. How many sources do you want? --Karyasuman (talk) 08:43, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I thought the 20,000 attendance (in a city of 4.8 million with much larger Stadium literally next door ) was your criterion for notability. LibStar (talk) 08:49, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, that one is a criteria too (would easily have been 35,000+ this year at ANZ). Regularly increasing attendances in these matches do show how the rivalry is building. Moreover, I did say before that every notable media-site mentions these matches as "Derby matches". Do see above. --Karyasuman (talk) 08:56, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Now you are making things totally up, 35000 plus attendance of they played at ANZ. How is that even credible when the Sixers have only achieved that I think once in the many seasons of BBL at the SCG. One day you're saying 20,000 is fantastic now you're saying it would easily be 35,000 if they had a bigger ground.LibStar (talk) 09:17, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I said 20,000 in a 20,000 seater is fine! They moved to Spotless because other matches didn't attract good enough crowds for other matches except the Derby match (obviously due to performance reasons). As for the 35,000 argument, last year match at ANZ had attracted 31,262 (was a record at that time before the SCG Derby). The season before that, they had 25,000. Even before that season, 20,000 people had attended the Derby match. Karyasuman (talk) 09:24, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You said 35,000 that's an exaggerated claim. If the thunder could get 35,000 most games based on your erroneous exaggerations they would not have moved right LibStar (talk) 09:27, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

let's just jack up estimated attendances by 75% to suit my argument. LibStar (talk) 09:30, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they didn't attract big crowds FOR OTHER GAMES uptil last season! Didn't I state the reason for 35,000 crowd (although statistical) just before? Would you stay at ANZ for a single match during the whole season (which attracts bigger crowds)? How does not attracting bigger attendances for other games de-mean the Derby Matches? Karyasuman (talk) 09:36, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You've still just plucked 35,000 out of thin air. The first "derby" was not a sell out it had 18297 people which is lower than ground capacity of 22,000. The highest BBL attendance in Sydney was about 32,000 last season. And that was not a sell out . To somehow extrapolate this and a non sell out of 18,000 to 35,000+ (an exaggeration of 91%) at a different venue is blatant misrepresentation. They didn't even achieve your notability mark of 20,000. LibStar (talk) 12:32, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would like people present here to search news on Google for Melbourne Derby as well as news on Google for Sydney Derby before concluding anything. Many media mentions, and they are still not notable? In-fact these matches are officially called derbies by CA. I have never seen a news report on these matches without being mentioned as derbies. It is surprising that some people still want to delete these articles, specially after Sydney Derby was earlier proposed for deletion, but was later removed from the list. Karyasuman (talk) 09:59, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes looking at the Melbourne and Sydney search , most of the results are for soccer not cricket. There's even one article calling Sydney fc vs central coast mariners a NSW derby and reference to horse racing derbies. How meaningless is the Derby term becoming. LibStar (talk) 16:27, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Most searche results might go for football, but the top search results go for Cricket, that means more people are seeing pages related to Cricket's derby rather than football. Maybe you need to talk to newspapers, magazines, cricket fans and Cricket Australia (or even horse racing fans in that case!) if you feel Derby term is starting to become meaningless? Karyasuman (talk) 04:45, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Media coverage:

I can give any amount of references to prove these matches are called nothing except the Derbies and that's what makes them more notable than other BBL matches. I would request the administrator to see merit in my views too and rule out deletion for these pages, and just not look at the number of heads present here. The main aim behind creating these teams were the Derby matches, and there's hardly any doubt that interest in these matches is increasing day by day (not only in Australia, but in parts of Asia as well as UK). I'm here to make Wikipedia more informative, with Cricket at the core. Karyasuman (talk) 05:38, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – I've reviewed about half of that list of references, and they're all routine coverage. None of them describe the rivalries in anything other than a straightforward and routine statistical way, and many of them simply mention the derbies by name without describing them at all. None of this is adequate to demonstrate meeting WP:GNG of the rivalry. Aspirex (talk) 08:00, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Another post on how the coverage for the derbies is increasing day by day. Here's a preview everyone would like to see:

- Lots of derby and Stars coverage in the papers today! Grab your copy on the way into the @MCG! Karyasuman (talk) 03:51, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

a primary source twitter account is not considered a reliable source. LibStar (talk) 06:28, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See the newspaper clippings! Are newspapers personal? These are photos from the newspapers. :O And in-fact, see the excitement here in Melbourne for the derby. I would ask you to come down. Karyasuman (talk) 07:30, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

More references:

- One of cricket's most astute judges, Stephen Fleming, predicts the Melbourne Big Bash League derby will "send absolute shockwaves through the cricketing world"
- The Melbourne Stars — Eddie McGuire’s burgeoning club — drove a dagger through cross-town rival Melbourne Renegades’ season and drove the sporting landscape green with envy of the booming Big Bash League derby Karyasuman (talk) 14:49, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both. Rivalries are not inherently notable, and they don't have the coverage to meet GNG.Doctorhawkes (talk) 00:42, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both. Not prominent. Chris8924 (talk) 05:33, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep both. Agree with Karyasuman. — Swastik Chakraborty (User talk) 14:06, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:JUSTAVOTE. do you agree with the flawed estimation of 35,000+ attendance. LibStar (talk) 06:26, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone would agree if they have some common sense, and some mathematical skills. Just wait to see this year's crowd at the Melbourne Derby (at the MCG and the Etihad) as well as Sydney Derby (at the SCG). Karyasuman (talk) 07:33, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

70,000+ already at the MCG today for the Melbourne Derby. Highest domestic crowd ever at a cricket match, beating previous record by atleast 20,000. As the Age journalist Jesse Hogan said, "Excluding World Cup, this 70k+ crowd is higher than past 23 ODIs/T20Is for Aus at @MCG. Threatening 84,041, T20I vs India in Feb 2008". Karyasuman (talk) 07:40, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just an update, 80,000+ at the MCG now, 60,000 more than previous BBL game at the venue. Karyasuman (talk) 08:20, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You said the first Sydney match of 20,000 in 20,000 stadium was great. It was in fact 18,000 in a 22,000 stadium . LibStar (talk) 08:25, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As much for approximations, I, infact the whole sporting fraternity says 80,000 in a 100,000 capacity stadium is great. In case you didn't know, it was the sixth largest attendance EVER at the Spotless, watched by more than 1.5 million people in Australia. Karyasuman (talk) 08:32, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

using your exaggeration factor this would be 152,000 attendance. The sixth highest attendance at Spotless is irrelevant. The venue is not used regularly for any competitive sport in Sydney. The thunder are the first team to commit to all home games there , some think they even got 20,000 not 18,000 for their first match. LibStar (talk) 10:42, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Exaggeration factor? :o What is that? Haha, 152,000? I was rounding that up in 10,000 - so that makes 18,287 crowd a 20,000 (just like I said 80,000 for MCG crowd). Did I say 81,000 for a 80,883 MCG crowd? Views which point something different to your ideas become irrelevant? Karyasuman (talk) 14:18, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I pointed out 35,000 like this (as said above, it was a statistical calculation) -

- 20,000 for Sydney Derby at ANZ in BBL|02
- 25,000 at ANZ in BBL|03 (+ 5000)
- 31,000 at ANZ in BBL|04 (+ 5000)
- Predicted a 35,000+ at ANZ in BBL|05 (+ 5000)

Can you understand now? How many times do I need to say the same point. Karyasuman (talk) 14:18, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No one predicts stadium attendances on an incremental fashion like that by simply adding differences. If that were true they wouldn't have moved to Spotless stadium and then they'll get 40000 in 06 and 45000 in 07. It is pure speculation to predict attendances in that manner as noted below it doesn't demonstrate notability except that you try to invent statistics to exaggerate attendance. Next thing you'll round up an attendance of 15,000 to 20,000. This AfD is clearly heading to delete as should be LibStar (talk) 15:01, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

They moved to the Spotless because they didn't get large attendances in OTHER matches (NOT involving the DERBY teams), as I had already said before. I won't restate my comments going on like a round-robin. Thank god, at-least your mind could get the logic behind. Perhaps you could follow BBL more closely, then 35,000 would have hardly looked like an exaggeration. -_- Karyasuman (talk) 15:45, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Could I respectfully suggest the two of you cease this specific line of argument about crowd numbers, or take it to a different forum? It's clear from the discussion to date that there's no chance you'll be agreeing on the matter; and, it is irrelevant to this AfD since the WP:GNG states that notability is based on what is stated about the rivalry in references, not based on any Wikipedians' interpretation of what raw crowd numbers or audience numbers or other real-world statistical measure counts as notable. Aspirex (talk) 14:27, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Look, even the foreign Kiwi media emphasized on the term Local Melbourne Derby in their article. So what more proofs do we need to conclude that IT IS a derby?? *The term 'derby' mentioned in the Kiwi media too Arka 92 12:06, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Nobody in this AfD has ever tried to argue that the game is not a derby, nor that the names Melbourne Derby and Sydney Derby are not in use. The point is that a rivalry does not become WP:NOTABLE simply because it has a name. Aspirex (talk) 06:22, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think you missed the point. Check those news links. They are more widely discussed as a rivalry than the currently existing CSK-MI and CSK-RCB rivalries are discussed in the media. I think you guys are just overseeing the true notability factors as it is very popular in media right now and being pessimistic. Arka 92 09:20, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep both or Merge Merge with Big Bash League or List of Big Bash League records and statistics but i think both should be kept it is a big event on the Australian sporting calendar This editor has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Keep both It should be kept keeping in mind the fact that the latest of this clash has drawn record crowd of 80,883 for a domestic cricket match in the world. Also it has been a big point of discussion throughout Sydney Morning Herald, The Herald Sun, ABC, Daily Telegraph, ESPN Cricinfo as well as in the Kiwi media too. The term derby is well mentioned and discussed in the media too. And after all these, I don't know how it doesn't match any notability criteria on Wikipedia according to pessimists and exclusionists! Just google Melbourne Derby and see that 90% of the results in Google news will show the rivalries of Renegades-Stars, not Victory-City (in A-League I mean). Arka 92 11:59, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment – you are mistaking the newsworthiness of what is currently a once-off large crowd with notability of an entire rivalry. Aspirex (talk) 06:12, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Additional comment Also, let it be known that Itz Arka was brought to this AfD by an explicit "request for help" from Karyasuman diff.

Is that a problem? I invited him because he was the one who brought this article into discussion. You can see it here. Karyasuman (talk) 06:32, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

it's definitely WP:CANVASS. LibStar (talk) 07:53, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Given Itz Arka's prior involvement in a 'should it exist?' discussion about this page he has a right to be notified. But you need to be more careful with the way you invite people to AfDs, because "I need a bit of help" sounds like canvassing. Aspirex (talk) 08:04, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I dont think he is CANVASSing here, because I was the person who mentioned on the talk page of cricket a month or two ago whether these two new articles can be recreated or not given the fact that it is widely discussed in the media nowadays. I Karyasuman didnt ask for a keep vote rather asked me to involve in this discussion. Anyone can ask anyone to involve in a discussion unless he or she is exclusively asking for a support vote. Arka 92 09:20, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have something to suggest. As these derbies are popular but most people here are strongly going against these articles, then if we have to delete these articles in the end of the discussion, why not to make a sub-column under the Big Bash League article within a column called rivalries briefly mentioning about these two slowly developing rivalries and giving the list of the matches between them with the hide and show options for the tables. Also we can add the Adelaide-Sixers rivalry as someone suggested up here in the discussion. If we really are to delete these articles, then why to delete the facts and info? Although I am for the motion of keeping them but if we finally have to delete it, then let's mention them briefly in the main article of BBL. So if in future these derbies become some serious rivalries, then we can make a separate article (if required). Arka 92 12:02, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: It is interesting that the derby with the record crowd has come in the middle of this discussion. But coverage about the crowd seems to focus on the BBL as a whole rather than the derby "rivalry". St Anselm (talk) 17:06, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That means you haven't read those articles properly. Arka 92 18:54, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:04, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Cockerell[edit]

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

I've been working on this article for a while trying to improve it, and I've noticed now that I've removed all the references to the subject's personal website, all that remains is vaguely promotional. The remaining reference is a blog/interview with the subject. Attempting to search for references is only coming back with seminars on leadership. Additionally, the article was created by JullianCharles (only contribution) and later expanded by Walt France, Julliancockerell and Margotcockerell -- samtar ^whisper 12:08, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm not seeing any independent sources and this is a BLP. Andrew D. (talk) 13:09, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I'm trying out a new AfD format as suggested here by Biblioworm -- samtar ^whisper 12:30, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the section headings which break the layout of the daily pages such as WP:AFD/T. Such a structure is contrary to WP:AFDEQ which states "Do not reorder comments on the deletion page to group them by keep/delete/other. Such reordering can disrupt the flow of discussion, polarize an issue, and emphasize vote count or word count." Andrew D. (talk) 13:09, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah understood, apologies -- samtar ^whisper 13:11, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- samtar ^whisper 12:09, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- samtar ^whisper 12:09, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. -- samtar ^whisper 12:09, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No non-trivial third party coverage with sufficient coverage to demonstrate any kind of notability. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:38, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now at best as he would be best mentioned at another article, instead of having his own article himself, with no solid signs of better notability here. SwisterTwister talk 01:35, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Capital Region International Airport (non-admin closure). Sir Sputnik (talk) 02:07, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Capital Region Airport Authority[edit]

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

No significant coverage outside of Lansing. This is an insignificant layer of government bureaucracy, one of little interest even to the local population. Fails ORG. John from Idegon (talk) 10:28, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 10:44, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 10:44, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ but some of the history can be included in Capital Region International Airport, the list of directors is not needed (even in this article if it is kept). MilborneOne (talk) 12:10, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @MilborneOne:, if content is included in the other article it cannot be deleted, it must be redirected and retained for attribution as otherwise the content moved from the article becomes a copyright violation. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:26, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Merge and Redirect - changed per The Bushranger comment. MilborneOne (talk) 10:24, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Capital Region International Airport. As the board operates the airport, the airport's article is the suitable location for information on the board. The nom is, however, cautioned that "it's not interesting" should not be used in an argument for deletion. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:26, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Redirect per The Bushranger would be an acceptable outcome to the nominator. BTW, my statement on the "interesting" nature of the subject was meant to indicate that improvement in notability is highly unlikely. John from Idegon (talk) 17:26, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:34, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Capital Region International Airport. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:35, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect as this seems obviously better. Notifying past AfDer Mr. Guye. SwisterTwister talk 21:14, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, redirect to Capital Region International Airport, which actually has WP:SIGCOV. As I stated in the 2nd AFD, this article is mentioned frequently but no one goes in depth. Thanks for the notification, SwisterTwister.--Mr. Guye (talk) 18:17, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:04, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sean James Cameron[edit]

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

British gardening journalist who wrote a couple of local history books a decade ago. No suggestion that he meets WP:JOURNALIST or WP:BASIC, no secondary sources, and I can't find any myself that aren't trivial "John Smith at Big Company said..." mentions. Article was prodded, and immediately unprodded by an IP. McGeddon (talk) 09:18, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacking any non-trivial RS coverage for WP:BIO. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:34, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not yet solidly notable. SwisterTwister talk 20:08, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 20:09, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 20:09, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 20:09, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, have only been able to find this Daily Telegraph article[24] - YouTube gardeners: dishing the dirt online which reports on Cameron amongst other youtube gardeners, but not enough for WP:ANYBIO, article references are not useable for notability (even his My Mail Garden blog that has pictures of a cute squirrel and a cool cat:}) Coolabahapple (talk) 14:45, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:03, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Hennessy-Brose[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet WP:MUSBIO - one source mentions subject only in passing, the other lists one performance Melcous (talk) 08:50, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Though the article in The Age appeared promising at first (featuring a photo of the subject), it only mentions her in a couple of sentences. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:38, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The photo is another artist, who is described in the first half of The Age article. The subject of this wp article is mentioned as one of two children of another artist described in the latter half of The Age article.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 20:42, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 01:11, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete obvious self promotion as article created by user name of subject. LibStar (talk) 15:42, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 06:25, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Enemies Within: Communists, Socialists and Progressives in the U.S. Congress[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBOOK -- haminoon (talk) 07:50, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I could not reliable secondary sources that substantiate this book's notability. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 16:21, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As stated in the Notability guidelines, "The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself." The book is the subject of a Western Journalism Center broadcast and a review at the American Thinker. I updated the page to reflect this. ReneeNal (talk) 18:30, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Non-trivial excludes personal websites, blogs, bulletin boards, Usenet posts, wikis and other media that are not themselves reliable." None of the reviews come close to meeting this criteria. -- haminoon (talk) 04:26, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The American Thinker is perfectly legitimate source. It is not a "blog" and is newsworthy according to Google News standards. Capital Research Center is a Think Tank in Washington, D.C. Neither of those sources are "personal websites, blogs, bulletin boards, Usenet posts, wikis and other media that are not themselves reliable." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.23.225.52 (talk) 18:39, 28 December 2015 (UTC) I should add that Western Journalism Center is also a perfectly legitimate organization.173.23.225.52 (talk) 18:42, 28 December 2015 (UTC) — 173.23.225.52 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

The problem with the American Thinker source is that it's not really about the book but about topics brought up in the book. Its author was brought in to give an expert opinion, but the focus isn't' on the book itself and other than a brief mention that he wrote it, the book isn't actually mentioned in the article. It's not a review at all, nor should it be represented as one. The Vadum and Nyquist remarks appear to be run of the mill book jacket blurbs, the type that publishing companies and agents seek out in order to publicize a book. What makes these different from reviews is that these are almost always about 1-3 sentences in length and are never part of a longer review. They were deliberately sought out by the publisher, which makes them primary in this situation since they were written with the express intent to promote. You'll never see a negative book blurb quote (outside of an obvious joke) as long as the publicist is doing their job correctly. And as was stated below, WND is not usable as a RS on Wikipedia for various reasons listed in the linked to RS/N discussion. Per this discussion, the Western Journalism Center is not seen as a RS either. I'm aware that Loudon writes within a very set niche, but the coverage still needs to be in places Wikipedia considers reliable. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:28, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse my Wikipedia newbieness, but would it be appropriate to include an excerpt here re: "the focus isn't' on the book itself"? Secondly, the discussion on Western Journalism Center does not seem to draw conclusions. Regardless, this is a "book review;" not being used as a "reliable source" to support a hypothesis (same with WND). ReneeNal (talk) 17:05, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:14, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, Updated the page to add review by Jerome Corsi of WorldNetDaily.ReneeNal (talk) 21:36, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is a consensus that WorldNetDaily is not a reliable source in most circumstances (though its fine to be in this article). -- haminoon (talk) 22:43, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:01, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:03, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I performed a search in Google and the educational databases of two colleges and found nothing to show that the book would pass NBOOK. The problem here is that Loudon is someone whose work would rarely be covered in the places that Wikipedia considers reliable because he's ultimately considered fringe. While this is a definite issue, there's a reason why many of the fringe websites on either end of the spectrum (liberal or conservative) are almost always considered to be unreliable and RS/N is full of discussions that illustrate those points (self-published, biased, etc etc etc). The end result is still that all books will need to establish notability via Wikipedia's guidelines in order to merit an entry. The sources in the article are almost either primary or in places that are openly considered unreliable on Wikipedia. The only one that could be seen as a RS, American Thinker, is not a review in the slightest and should not be interpreted as such, as stated above. It's very clearly an article where Loudon was brought in to bring his opinion on a topic that happens to brush against the topic in the book, which is why it's mentioned. The quote placed in the article currently is very, very obviously the news source's author writing about the general topic rather than the book itself. As for the blurbs, those are unusable for the above reasons. Long story short, this book just doesn't pass NBOOK, a state that's unlikely to change any time soon. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:37, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As required by NBOOK, the book "has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself" & while you mention "fringe websites," perhaps keep in mind that "reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective." The assertion has been made that the American Thinker review "is not a review in the slightest and should not be interpreted as such." If it is appropriate, I believe an excerpt would settle that question. ReneeNal (talk) 17:05, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now and draft and userfy later if needed as none of this currently suggests a better notable article. SwisterTwister talk 05:14, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 02:13, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Portuguese profanity[edit]

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

Article fails to demonstrate verifiability by containing zero sources, reliable or otherwise. Obvious WP:OR problems, revisited from last AFD in 2012. Contested prod. Prodego ^talk 07:04, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I can't find any sourcees through the above links that mention it more than simply in passing. --Rubbish computer (Merry Christmas!: ...And a Happy New Year!) 07:51, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 10:41, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 10:42, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 10:42, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The last AFD was a clear Keep and this nomination doesn't add anything new. That discussion identified a good source and here's another one. Andrew D. (talk) 11:45, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It has been 4 years since the last AFD, so I think a revisit is in order. We need to cite reliable sources to satisfy WP:V – it isn't sufficient that one simply exists. No one has done so in the last 4 years since the last AFD, or the nearly 10 years from the first. This page has been tagged for OR for 8 years, tagged for RS for 2 years, tagged to be rewritten for 6 years, and tagged for notability for 6 years. This isn't a proposal to salt the earth, the current page can be deleted and the article built anew in the future. It can even be restored if someone wants to build from the old page. Unless someone rewrites it now, the alternative is to remove all the unsourced statements and leave an empty article. Prodego ^talk 17:06, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
WP:V does not require that we add sources as a matter of course; only for statements that are disputed or quotes. Nabla is Portuguese and tells us that the current page is mostly correct. Adding sources for their own sake would therefore be mostly busy work. Andrew D. (talk) 17:30, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
WP:V does not require inline citations as a matter of course. It does require verifiability against a reliable source. From the first sentence of WP:V: "In Wikipedia, verifiability means that anyone using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source." See also WP:BURDEN, which is even more explicit: "All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution." Prodego ^talk 17:50, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
comment I doubt we need this kind of "comparative linguistics" sets of articles. I understand learning profanities in another language is something we tend to do and find interesting and amusing, but do we have - and should we have - sets of articles on how to praise in each language? what words are used to refer to cars? or apples? or trees?... I really doubt it. Nevertheless the article is mostly correct (note: I am Portuguese) - Nabla (talk) 16:02, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As an example of more positive language, see Honorifics in other languages and cultures and the associated specific pages such as French honorifics. Andrew D. (talk) 16:52, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, good point, thanks. That one certainly makes a lot of sense to me, as quite useful to understand History articles, or current events. What irks me with the profanity series is that is looks like a "random" choice of subject. Note however that I am not against these articles, it feels like a waste of time and bytes for me, but if someone works on them (here and out there) then fine. - Nabla (talk) 22:00, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Profanities in general are notable, and Portuguese is a notable language. I quickly found a source. The article needs cleanup for any OR, but at least some of the profanities exist and deletion is not cleanup. Thisisnotatest (talk) 08:12, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's useful, and all the previous AFD resulted in a clear keep too. I think being nominated 5 times for deletion is enough. MaeseLeon (talk) 12:55, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because of the lack of a serious challenge to what was written in the last AfD. --Sammy1339 (talk) 08:05, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a valid subarticle. Esquivalience ^t 00:29, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:03, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Center for Modeling Immunity to Enteric Pathogens[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Promotional and non-notable; almost none of the claims are sourced. This is a subcenter of the (non-notable )Modeling Immunity for Biodefense Program, which is a subcenter of the (very notable) National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases We do not normally make articles on such sub-sub-centers

The PI , Josep Bassaganya-Riera, is the only potentially notable person involved--it's basic his own laboratory. There might well be potential for an article on him, but it would need to be started separately by someone without coi. DGG ( talk ) 05:55, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now at best as I also concur there's certainly not currently a solidly acceptable article here yet and the best I found was only some links here and there at News, Books, browsers and Highbeam. SwisterTwister talk 06:08, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:08, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:08, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Of the sources given, several do not mention the topic and all but one are not independent. The only good source is the big grants one, but it is far from enough. I see they have published a book, but the hits on that are press releases from what I can tell. Apart from that, references to them seems to be conference attendees and mentions of work done there, but nothing major. Happy Squirrel (talk) 16:51, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:08, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:08, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:02, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sandi Ci Moua[edit]

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

Article does not have any sources, and individual does not have enough notable news articles or positions to merit a page; the role of production assistant on a film is not noteworthy enough to merit a page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thesqueegeeman (talk • contribs) 03:15, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This reason was placed by User:Thesqueegeeman at Talk:Sandi Ci Moua. I'm just fixing the AfD nomination. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:29, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't meet WP:BIO or WP:GNG; no reliable sources with non-trivial coverage whatsoever. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:28, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:CREATIVE. Safiel (talk) 00:12, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The policy reasons for keeping show the consensus as keep. (non-admin closure) Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:20, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sunil Paul[edit]

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

I actually considered speedy and PROD and was about to click and save my PROD but finally changed to AfD after this older version so I question whether this article is independently notable and improvable as it seems he may only be an entrepreneur who started some companies but is not notable himself. My original PROD: "Founder of three listed entities but my searches, although, finding several links including mentioning these ventures, showed no solid signs of notability and improvement so this is likely simply be deleted altogether instead of changing to a redirect to one of the two listed company articles.". The searches that found links were this, this and this. Notifying AfC accepter DeltaQuad and tagger DGG. SwisterTwister talk 06:56, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:00, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:00, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:00, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:00, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This guy is actually discussed quite a bit for Sidecar which is a rather well-known company. I isolated searches here and here which show better results. On one hand, he is mentioned along with his companies when discussed in the media. However, he is known as the founder of those companies so not sure what he would need to do to be independently notable. I'm riding the fence on this one. --CNMall41 (talk) 07:44, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 02:10, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or Delete: Consider mentioning him in the list of Internet entrepreneurs or anything similar. Otherwise, just delete it as it contains only one source. :( Vincent60030 (talk) 08:20, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - single sourced to nonreliable source. Article reads like a semi-literate PR release. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 16:52, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to Sidecar (company). Quite a bit of coverage around (and it's the existence of coverage that matters, not the current state of sourcing in the article), although a lot is in relation to Sidecar: [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32]. Any issues with tone can easily be addressed by editing and are not a good reason to delete. --Michig (talk) 09:42, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 11:02, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:BASIC and WP:GNG. Two decades of more-than-passing coverage in the likes of The Washington Post and The New York Times goes well beyond Sidecar. Plenty of independent material from reliable sources is available for a biography:

Chandrasekaran, Rajiv (27 August 1996). "First the Surfing, Then the Wipeout; Two Who Founded and Then Sold Internet Search Firm Get a Lesson in High-Tech Volatility". The Washington Post – via HighBeam Research. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |subscription= ignored (|url-access= suggested) (help)
Sreenivasan, Sreenath (30 September 1996). "The World Wide Wait: Don't Get Mad, Get Off". The New York Times.
Nanda, Tanmaya Kumar (4 June 2004). "Sunil Paul sells Brightmail for $370 million". India Abroad – via HighBeam Research. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |subscription= ignored (|url-access= suggested) (help)
Rivlin, Gary (5 June 2005). "If You Can Make It in Silicon Valley, You Can Make It . . . in Silicon Valley Again". The New York Times.
Weissman, Michaele (24 February 2006). "Entrepreneurs: Living in a serial world: Once is just not enough". The New York Times.
Riddell, Lindsay (26 June 2012). "Entrepreneur Sunil Paul launches ride-sharing app". San Francisco Business Times.
Gannes, Liz (26 June 2012). "Sunil Paul's SideCar Ride-Sharing App Will Flag a Stranger's Car for You". All Things Digital. The Wall Street Journal.
Hull, Dana (28 June 2013). "Sunil Paul, founder and CEO of Sidecar, discusses the ride revolution". San Jose Mercury News.
Said, Carolyn (16 May 2015). "Could Sidecar's patent trip up Uber, Lyft?". San Francisco Chronicle.

Worldbruce (talk) 04:16, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:24, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not an especially noteworthy businessman. What's more, his company, Sidecar, is closing its doors on Dec. 31, 2015. Is this man really important enough to warrant an encyclopedia article? This is an encyclopedia, not a Who's Who of Business, right? Chisme (talk) 21:58, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. References restored at 02:58, 25 December 2015 are enough to establish his notability. And the fact that his company Sidecar is closing does not mean that he is not notable. A closed company could be notable. So could be a closed company's founder. --Neo-Jay (talk) 23:21, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – A notable businessperson who passes WP:BASIC as per the sources provided above. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:21, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – This discussion was closed by the nominator with the rationale "The result was Keep as I'll simply close this myself though quite honestly I still question its notability, I'll let this stay for now and renominate later if needed (NAC)." (diff). Per WP:NACD, "Closing discussions in which you have offered an opinion or for a page in which you have a vested interest (i.e., a page that you have edited heavily) should be avoided. The sole exception is if you are closing your own withdrawn nomination as a speedy keep and all other viewpoints expressed were for keep as well." As such, and also because there are outstanding delete and merge !votes herein, I have re-opened the discussion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:44, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 14:45, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gail Leven Pollock[edit]

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

Not notable composer and educator. Fails WP:MUSIC - searched for third party sources as the current ones are mostly WP:PRIMARY or not working. No interviews or reviews that indicate notability. Much of the page hinges on the write up of her university page. Karst (talk) 23:24, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Reasonable body of work. Performs internationally as a musician. Writes and composes for advertising. Wikipedia needs more articles on prominent women. If deletion proceeds, I recommend merging the article with Macon State College. Pkeets (talk) 11:56, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This vote/special pleading appears to be an admission that subject does not meet any actual standard for inclusion. You say "Wikipedia needs more articles on prominent women", yet you avoid providing or pointing to any evidence that subject is such a person. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 03:42, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Can't find a single, independent third party voice that indicates any sort of publicly recognized notable achievement. ShelbyMarion (talk) 16:52, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm finding enough to make them notable. FYI - Found more when searching w/o the middle name! --MurderByDeletionism^"bang!" 03:36, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please share your findings. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 03:42, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why? You've obviously already made up your mind!!! --MurderByDeletionism^"bang!" 05:15, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Because if other voters and AfD closer see that you have made wholly unsubstantiated claims, have been questioned on the point, and still decline to back up your claims, they may discount your vote. If, on the other hand, there is substantial coverage of the subject from independent, reliable sources, then the article should be kept, and I would change my vote accordingly. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 11:32, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep votes are always discounted, meanwhile delete votes need only say per nom! --MurderByDeletionism^"bang!" 19:11, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I find your lack of good faith disturbing. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 11:09, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't create the environment here. One can't be expected to assume good faith after an editor's already voted. It then just dissolves into the backfire effect which I've already been through. All of my user boxes are credited to an extremely horrible experience on AfD. So I now only hope is to attempt to lessen that terrible experience that I faced here on AfD for other editors. Unfortunately, most of my efforts have little to zero effect due to the pervasive and accepted level of bullying done on Wikipedia. --MurderByDeletionism^"bang!" 17:51, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails any standard of notability. None provided, none to be found. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 03:42, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:00, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I tried searching news, newspapers, books (I get 3 hits amazon music scores), scholar, jstor, worldcat (4 musical scores). I also tried subscription sites newspapers.com, newspaperarchives.com and find nothing save a few wedding notices. Tried under Leven and Pollock, as well as Austrian and Italian newspapers because her profile at Mercer here indicates she played there. No adequate sourcing to verify GNG, which is the only standard that is required. (Note, Gail Pollock without a middle name does generate hits, but everything I found is for the Gail Pollock who used to work at Monument Records and is the long time partner of rock n roll hall of famer Scotty Moore). She may be notable but there are insufficient RS on the web to confirm that she meets WP guidelines. SusunW (talk) 07:58, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:54, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now at best as the best I found were only a few links here and there at Books and browsers, hardly much especially for a better article. SwisterTwister talk 20:42, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —azuki (talk · contribs · email) 11:52, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:23, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is not even a suggestion of notability here. As a composer/musician, her work does not seem to have generated much press (in that NYT article only a composition by her is mentioned--there is no coverage), and she fails PROF. I am not sure this should have been relisted: one "keep" is more a support for merge than anything else, and the other "keep" does not actually present an argument (all it says is "I found stuff but I won't tell you what it is and you're bullying me"). If SusunW pulls out all the stops (now that's due diligence) and can't find anything to prove notability, the subject is not (yet) notable. Drmies (talk) 06:46, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Passing mention in the NYT is about all we have here. After three weeks, no one has been able to drop any info here regarding how she could possible meet WP:BIO or WP:GNG. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:32, 27 December 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 --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 14:54, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Americans for Legal Immigration[edit]

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

Fails WP:ORG rather plainly. As a PAC, it has supported various causes and occasionally has been mentioned off-handedly in news sources. This does not notability make, not even of the WP:GNG variety. Flash in the pan, obviously also being used as a political WP:SOAPbox. Put this horrible partisan article out of its misery as it is a blemish on Wikipedia. jps (talk) 07:37, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - despite talk page discussion, the primary IP editor has been unable to provide reliable sources or establish notability. I have searched myself and just do not find this group to be notable - I could not find any quality sources to improve the article, which is currently sourced substantially to its own website. Minor4th 17:32, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Too much of the article seems to be devoted to one-off incidents and frighteningly partisan quotes. GAB^Hello! 17:52, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The PAC is only mentioned in a brief passing in reliable sources. Most of the page's content is supported by a primary source. With the IP's activity and COI aside, the page is biased and lacks significance. Meatsgains (talk) 19:19, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This national organization is well established and mentioned in hundreds of news reports and videos. Reliable sources attribute the group as one of the leading voices in the debate about illegal immigration and the Library of Congress archives the group due to the notability of their contributions to legislation and campaigns. Unfortunately, Wikipedia is too filled with biased editors that are hell bent upon attacking this group, censoring information, maligning the group with falsehoods, etc... It is best to Delete this page because otherwise the group will be the constant target of dissenters attempting to use Wikipedia to malign the group. Wikipedia is clearly not a place where any kind of accurate and quality description of this group can be achieved because it is a place where one or two editors can pursue a political agenda. The organization derives no benefit from being on Wikipedia and Wikipedia has proven itself to be incapable of providing a fair and balanced open source platform where the organization's well documented actions that have shaped national discussions on major issues can be displayed. At first the hacktivist editors tried to defame the group, then tried to claim the group was not notable, and when sources citing CBS, PBS, New York Times were put up, some were deleted! Delete this page and leave ALIPAC out of the Wiki hell box full of vipers! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.109.148.22 (talk) 02:35, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This organization might be notable enough but based on RS I have found the article should read quite differently.[33][34][35] It's an obvious hate group and the article should reflect this. ViperFace (talk) 16:55, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- My god. Those sources don't so much speak to notability as shock jock humor. It's possible the group will one day will be as intensely examined and maligned as, say, the Westboro Baptist Church, but right now the CBS local and Huffpost pieces look more like sensationalist shark bait rather than reliable sources. Best to steer clear of that argument as being one that established notability, in my opinion. jps (talk) 19:25, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is part of a smear or delete campaign against a well known, decade old, national organization cited in about every major media publication in America as well as foreign media. Editors Volunteer Marek and Minor4th are calling for deletion (citing a lack of sources) after they deleted several sources added including PBS, Associated Press, Breitbart, and World Net Daily. Volunteer Marek's first edit of the page was an attempt to inject a disparaging comment from an opposition organization into the first sentence of the article as you can see in the edit history of the page. Also, Volunteer Marek initiated this edit war and proceeded to try to delete any positive 3rd party acceptable source materials about this group. Volunteer Marek's Wiki profile shows that he has been warned before about trying to use Wikipedia for a political agenda, most notably in defense of sexual predators on sex offender registries. Of note is the fact that the organization that Volunteer Marek is attacking chronicles and archives information about a large volume of sexual predators in America.

Comment @unsigned IP: You really need to come up with reliable sources that discuss this organization. It seems like the president of ALIPAC is way more notable than the organization itself. ALIPAC is indeed passingly mentioned in multiple sources because William Gheen has said something. None of the sources directly discuss ALIPAC, however. Currently this article fails to establish notability ViperFace (talk) 00:58, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As much as I dislike people and/or groups like this on, I think the article should stay. It should be fair and unbiased. What it should not be is what it started out as: a promotional site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.157.122.132 (talk) 14:32, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator although I also agree with ViperFace - if the article is to stay it really should read differently. What sources there are - not many - do emphasize the "nativist" (to put it politely) nature of the group. Volunteer Marek 00:22, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the IP's accusations about me are, needless to say, utterly false. I have no idea what they're talking about, but since this person is clearly affiliated with this hate group (self-admitted) I don't find it surprising that they're a dishonest, pathetic, lying sack of shit. Volunteer Marek 00:27, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

He most likely confused you with me. I already replied to him at the talk page. ViperFace (talk) 01:03, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Volunteer Marek: Callanecc kindly removed the offending comments and blocked the IP for two weeks. GAB^Hello! 01:58, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I read what the IP said: they said Marek "played dirty", so to speak, but they did not say anything that could even remotely compare to "I don't find it surprising that they're a dishonest, pathetic, lying sack of shit" (if there is more I did not see it). I suspect that is libel right there... Cheers, --62.157.122.132 (talk) 12:25, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Let's focus on discussing whether or not we should keep this article. You can address your concern with specific users and behavior on their talk page. Meatsgains (talk) 16:51, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Doesn't seem that notable at all to me. It looks like just a forum community with minimal activity outside the website. Free Bullets (talk) 13:13, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —azuki (talk · contribs · email) 11:54, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:23, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I could not find secondary sources that establish notability for this organization. After an extensive search, all I could find was this piece by the ADL and a few other blog posts. The article cites a few articles from major news sources that mention the organization in passing, but these seem to be merely trivial mentions. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 03:12, 27 December 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 apparently (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 04:12, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mimi Miyagi[edit]

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

Fails POLITICIAN by the same margin she fails PORNBIO & GNG. Hint, its by a country mile. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:32, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:06, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:06, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:06, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:06, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge any relevant content to Nevada gubernatorial election, 2006 - After doing a fair amount of research on the subject under consideration here, there does not appear to be enough notability to justify a stand-alone article on Ms. Damayo at this time. Guy1890 (talk) 04:09, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There are enough reliable sources under the general notability guidelines to support an article. Most already in the article. Articles about her run[36][37][38] and also her being one of the first porn girls to turn to webmastering their own site[39][40] (which I believe also satisfies criteria 2 of pornbio) [41][42] Morbidthoughts (talk) 06:15, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Far better known in her earlier career than in her political career and plenty of sources for that. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:10, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:10, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:10, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Note: I have heavily edited the article under consideration here and added many of the references mentioned above. The subject here now appears to pass GNG and/or PORNBIO by having "been featured multiple times in notable mainstream media", namely The Standard, The Village Voice, Complex, the book Image Ethics in the Digital Age, and several times in the Las Vegas Review-Journal. Guy1890 (talk) 06:57, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While her attempt as a politician was a joke, she has received enough coverage related to her porn career to warrant an article. Wikiuser20102011 (talk) 00:32, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails notability guidelines for pornagraphic actors and for politicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:44, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I don't see a satisfactory outcome here. The subject pretty clearly isn't notable as a performer. The limited, but apparently not negligible, coverage she received as a losing-by-a-country-mile candidate would ordinarily support a merge/redirect to the election article. But that article is skeletal, and devoting more space to Myagi than to the candidates with substantial support wouldn't be justified. Therefore, temporizing keep until the election article is appropriately developed. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 03:38, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:22, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, very obviously passes GNG, by a country mile. There is no reason for deletion outside the very dedicate POV pushing by the nominator. Cavarrone 07:46, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, It doesn't matter that she "lost by a country mile" or what her motivation or purpose was to run for office. There are many insignificant politicians who have run for office and have articles. Also, the fact that she has done mainstream/non-porn industry work makes her notable. Despite the lack of success. Hobbamock (talk) 13:16, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Esquivalience ^t 00:26, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hainault depot[edit]

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

Subject lacks notability and coverage in reliable sources. Meatsgains (talk) 01:12, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It seems easy to find sources such as Reconstructing London's Underground and Hainault Depot 65 Years Old and All Systems Go!. Andrew D. (talk) 11:53, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The current status of this article is a stub. I always thought the purpose of a stub was to give people a chance to add to it and hopefully one day soon that will happen. As a writer of several engine shed articles I would be saddened to see one disappear.--Davidvaughanwells (talk) 20:09, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Davidvaughanwells: Feel free to expand it! Meatsgains (talk) 20:19, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Meatsgains: I am not sure if I have much reference material on this particular depot!--Davidvaughanwells (talk) 20:28, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, I too had a tough time finding information. Meatsgains (talk) 20:32, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is some information on the Hainault station page which I think could be shared onto the depot page or perhaps de;lete the depot page and put it as a sub-section on the station page. Several smaller depots are so treated.--Davidvaughanwells (talk) 20:47, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There appears to be sufficient information available to create a reasonable article and to establish notability. I'll note that I restored some sourced information that was removed by an IP (with the erroneous claim it was "jargon") immediately before the AfD was created. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:00, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't notice that. The information was removed right before I put the page up for AfD. The content is sourced too, which helps. Meatsgains (talk) 00:23, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Please keep and expand this page as found it very useful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.43.231.187 (talk • contribs) 18:47, 28 December 2015 (copied from talk page)
- WP:ITSUSEFUL. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:22, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've added a history section, referenced to four reliable sources, and might get to do a bit more as and when. Bob1960evens (talk) 20:24, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 05:17, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Emeka Anozie[edit]

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

Subject of the article fails WP:GNG. I can't find that evidence of notability. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 21:07, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 21:10, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 21:10, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 21:10, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 21:10, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:08, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Subject is not notable and not covered in reliable sources. Meatsgains (talk) 05:12, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Subject does not appear to be notable. --Rubbish computer (Merry Christmas!: ...And a Happy New Year!) 08:02, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ~ Fails WP:GNG by a wide margin. JTtheOG (talk) 19:58, 31 December 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 --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:00, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sirsendu Chakraborty (drummer)[edit]

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

Subject of the article fails WP:GNG. I can't find that evidence of notability Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 20:56, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Appears to have practically no coverage. --Rubbish computer (Merry Christmas!: ...And a Happy New Year!) 23:48, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:08, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:12, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:12, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:BAND. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:04, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Certainly not an acceptable article with better signs of better notability and improvement. SwisterTwister talk 06:46, 27 December 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. WP:SOFTDELETE The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:59, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

La Academia (Indonesian)[edit]

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

The factual accuracy of this article is doubted, Most links are dead links. Some sections are completely gibberish. Alvin the Almighty (talk) 09:13, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence of notability, unreferenced, so many redlinks that will never be articles. --AussieLegend (✉) 12:38, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. sst✈^(discuss) 15:33, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. sst✈^(discuss) 15:33, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note - The article's creator has removed the AfD notice from the article several times.[43][44][45][46] --AussieLegend (✉) 14:27, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:30, 20 December 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, 27 December 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. WP:SOFTDELETE The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:00, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ess'mode par Irene Major[edit]

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

Not notable. Promotional (created by COI editor). Show not in English, aired in England, or culturally significant to justify a page on en.wiki Very poor article, completely unreferenced. Speedy nomination removed by creator so taken to AfD for independent judgement. Rayman60 (talk) 22:48, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 14 December 2015 (UTC)*[reply]

Delete Just want to say, @Rayman60:, that a show does not have to be in English or aired in England to meet Wikipedia's criteria. This is the English-language version of Wikipedia, not the Wikipedia about English-related topics. That said, I cannot find any Reliable, independent sources about this show. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 17:50, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: True. In absence of definitive TV show notability criteria, other ways of assessing it should be employed, hence the 'culturally significant' consideration. I looked at parallels to Wikipedia:Notability (films) as well as general criteria and it was considerably short of both. If it was something like the original Dutch version of Big Brother, that would most likely go unchallenged, however the line is drawn somewhere to prevent this from becoming an IMDB-esque global database for all TV and subsequently any media hence my nomination. Rayman60 (talk) 20:21, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:26, 20 December 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, 27 December 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:51, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Susana Rodrigues[edit]

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

Apparently non-notable actress- no decent third-party sources have been provided. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/God Tech: Mark of the Beast and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David John Jeffery. Josh Milburn (talk) 20:36, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now at best as there's nothing to suggest satisfying the applicable notability guidelines. SwisterTwister talk 05:51, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:21, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:06, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- We have a list of quite minor roles. Not yet notable; i.e. NN. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:22, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:55, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kajal Ahmad[edit]

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

This is a vanity articl of a non-notable writer. Does not meet GNG. Hassan Rebell (talk) 20:15, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment part of a mass deletion of Kurdish bio articles now underway by this WP:SPA editor. Who, having joined the project yesterday, is now bringing up articles for Kurdish writers and artists en masse. There's no evidence that this article, created by @Vekoler: back in 2006 is "a vanity articl" (sic). Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:38, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment . The issue is of course is that a single "WP:SPA" editor has mass-spammed wikipedia with a walled garden of non notable articles. So far all who voted have agreed that the articles are not notable, but some have suggested that I should have bundled all the articles together into one nomination. I have given a mild warning to Shawn for his disregard of civility and good faith. I have joined earlier as IP and my previous account had an username clash, and editing at ADF is not possible with IP. --Hassan Rebell (talk) 20:56, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly don't agree "that the articles are not notable." Some are, some aren't. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:03, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Her work was reviewed in the UK literary publication/website Sphinx. There's a page on her in the US Kurdish website Kurdish Aspect. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:11, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kurdish aspects is a website without any editorial oversight. Sphinx is not an academic publication, the website or web-magazine is run by Happen Stance. The poems by Kajal were not reviewed there (they do review some of the poems in their publication, see here or here (rating at bottom).

This person falls into the WP:AUTHOR policy. The person does not meet points 1), 2), or 3). This leaves 4), but I don't think that a short mention on the Sphinx web-mag without even a proper "Sphinx rating" is "significant critical attention". --Hassan Rebell (talk) 21:36, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now at best as my searches found nothing to suggest better sourcing. SwisterTwister talk 06:05, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Nom has been indeffed per WP:NOTHERE. —Мандичка^YO 😜 22:45, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:21, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She is notable within the Kurdish community itself which has been shown by the sources in the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 08:06, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:06, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This article from the Poetry Society of America provides in-depth coverage of four of her poems as well as incorporating biographical information into the analysis, and indicates that she was editor-in-chief of Kurdistany Nwe, an Iraqi daily, for over a decade, as well as having worked as a TV host for Kurdsat (examples of which are on Youtube). ku:Kejal Ehmed links some additional references. She's mentioned (and pictured) in this Radikal story. Another mention is http://www.fairobserver.com/region/middle_east_north_africa/kurdistan-where-poets-are-more-than-poets-10687/ here]. She's also in this Zaman story. The implication of this is that she's significant among Iraqi poets, and there are almost certainly not only Kurdish but Arabic sources, possibly offline.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 06:39, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sharif Mahamud Abdurhman[edit]

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

This article is about a non-notable person. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 01:42, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. ssт✈^(discuss) 02:17, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Somalia-related deletion discussions. ssт✈^(discuss) 02:17, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:10, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. 2 hits on Google for the name as written in the title, 6 when using the more correct spelling "Sharif Mahamud Abdurahman". Apart from the wiki mirrors, the other hits seem to be business directories. If even a standard google search has this few results, I doubt that this guy passes WP:GNG. - HyperGaruda (talk) 08:12, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are some more hits when searching for "Abdurahman Sharif Mahamud", assuming it's the same person. LjL (talk) 18:54, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks LjL. "Abdurahman Sharif Mahamud" seems to be the author of Before Blackhawk Down: A Look inside Pre-Civil War Somalia (published by Lulu.com). Alas, the publisher actually makes it worse (self-publishing) and I'm still unable to find significant coverage of the author himself. - HyperGaruda (talk) 19:15, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That book is mentioned within the article so it must at least be the same person. LjL (talk) 19:51, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:12, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:04, 27 December 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. Disregarding the "No compliance with WP: Before" argument because that does not address the arguments for deletion. Sandstein 06:33, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hanna Barysevich[edit]

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

"claimed to be the world's oldest person, having allegedly been born in 1888 ... It seems the only evidence of her age is her passport" etc etc. Apparently non-notable, but even if notable, dearth of worthwhile information demands redirect to appropriate list, per WP:PERMASTUB, WP:NOPAGE. EEng (talk) 05:05, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article as we have needs further reliable and verifiable sources. Far more detailed biographies about Barysevich exist in versions of this article in the Belarussian, Polish and Russian versions of this article. The failure here seems to be a misguided effort to achieve absolute WP:TRUTH, when in fact our job in Wikipedia is to demonstrate verifiability. The claim as world's oldest person has been widely covered, and that's what our job is here. Alansohn (talk) 05:45, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERLANGS. CommanderLinx (talk) 08:07, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I wasn't clear for those participating. The articles in other languages include material and sources that can be ported into this article, which should be used to provide the expansion necessary to meet the demands of even the most rabid deletionist. Alansohn (talk) 15:17, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Move to draftspace This is literally nothing here beyond "this person allegedly was born on date X" and unsourced statements about whether she contacted Guinness, what her sources are and the like. Arguably, there's more detail to make an article out of Birth date of Hanna Barysevich rather than this page but that's beyond ridiculous. Deletion isn't indefinite, I'd suggest asking for editors who speak those languages (or just Google translate with a lot of double-checking) to start on a draft as a translation of the Russian version shows enough for a WP:GNG claim. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:54, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The existence of pages on other wikis is totally irrelevant to our inquiry. Reading the text, I'm struck by the fact that there is a sole reference, but the article features competing claims. From whence do they come? There is quite clearly no WP:SIGCOV in multiple, independent reliable sources evident here. The WP:WALLEDGARDEN of longevity articles needs to be pruned back so that it starts getting closer to compliance with the rules, policies and guidelines that govern our collaboration in creating an encyclopedia. Reflexive opposition to deleting even such clear embarrassments to the project as this thoroughly out-of-policy stub is baffling. David in DC (talk) 18:28, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belarus-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and forget with that many unverified questionable "facts" how can we be serious about this. We know a lot more about ISIL leaders with fake names. Legacypac (talk) 09:49, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No compliance with WP: Before. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 10:49, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What part of BEFORE would that be? EEng (talk) 11:38, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I was able to find this source [47] and this source [48]. Passes GNG we can add information to warrant a standalone article. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 15:40, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not in question, so what does this have to do with anything? EEng (talk) 16:32, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly notable, converting to nothing but a list entry diminishes the usability of the encyclopedia. Merging would result in clutter. A stand-alone page is definitely what we need for this and similar persons. Jacona (talk) 15:48, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Walton (talk) 19:30, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This version, removed as likely copyvio, is much more informative. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hanna_Barysevich&oldid=29335963 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Legacypac (talk • contribs) 14:35, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails NOPAGE, SIGCOV, GNG. Minimal, vague, trivial coverage does not justify a stand-alone Wiki article. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 10:48, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect This article has few sources and concerns a person with a claimed, but not proven, age. Article could be moved to a thread about supercentenarian claims. 930310 (talk) 16:51, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:15, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:04, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete frankly as there's simply hardly even much here, nothing to suggest a better article. SwisterTwister talk 04:12, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:ONEEVENT. She has only received coverage about her age, and only a brief flurry of reports around the time she died. Longevity does not automatically imply notability. Pburka (talk) 04:20, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Alternatively, delete per WP:NOTNEWS. Pburka (talk) 14:51, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Soft delete because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Stub of original research; nobody seems willing to translate the version on the Polish Wikipedia. Esquivalience ^t 00:25, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:TOOLITTLE. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:52, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~No expansion opportunity; does not meet WP:GNG; WP:NOPAGE, WP:NOTNEWS.~~ Apparently, there is an article on the Polish Wikipedia about the subject, but nobody wants to translate it or expand it using the Polish version. Esquivalience ^t 21:52, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. There seems to be little dispute that the sourcing isn't up to general expectations (even several "keep" arguments acknowledge this). A couple of editors also brought up an "IAR keep", but there was not consensus that an IAR exception is warranted in this case. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:16, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SkyscraperCity[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fourth attempt at deletion here. This article was deleted for the third time in February and recreated again in April. This version at least has some independent reliable sources but these are all just passing mentions to me rather than significant coverage (some are just images that were sourced there, not really coverage at all). I think it's time for a serious WP:SALTing of the page and to suggest that any discussion about recreating it go through WP:DRV first. Ricky81682 (talk) 21:52, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:06, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:07, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep You know, why don't we just give it some time to naturally develop. I think that there are plently of articles out there that don't even warrant existence, such as say Totes McGoats, which I would've nominated for deletion but haven't felt like doing. There are sources out there and there is a Portuguese version of this article which hasn't been deleted. We are just WP:Beating a dead horse. Buffaboy ^talk 00:01, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Buffaboy, OTHERCRAPEXISTS is on the list of Arguments_to_avoid_in_deletion_discussions. It somehow manages to become an even worse argument when that other crap is on a unanimous road to not existing. Alsee (talk) 17:28, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete This isn't going anywhere, so I'll just pile on to stay with the right side of history. Buffaboy ^talk 02:39, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per the information uncovered by User:Joy. Some WP:RS are better than none. Buffaboy ^talk 18:18, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without prejudice, due to lack of non-trivial coverage from reliable third parties. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 00:33, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and SALT. I have given this further consideration and in light of the repeated re-creation of this article, with community consensus supporting deletion each and every time the subject was considered at WP:AfD, the appropriate channel going forward would be Wikipedia:Deletion review. As expressed before, the subject fails WP:WEB and related notability guidelines as it lacks non-trivial coverage from reliable third parties, as it has in the AfD listings prior. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 18:49, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It strikes me as odd that an article about a fictional video game, Races of StarCraft, can hold greater notability that a well-known website. I think this is a major flaw in the WP:RS system as well as WP:N, but that won't have much of an impact on this AfD as it will be business as usual. Buffaboy ^talk 03:00, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like you're making a presumption and then backtracking logically from that. Given the lack of reliable sources about it since 2007, it's not clear to me how this is a "well-known" website. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 15:11, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It has a global Alexa ranking of 2,361; by contrast, SkyscraperPage has a ranking of 34,261. So there's a clear difference~~, but these statistics will not aid in a losing battle when my premonition says the page will be deleted.~~ Buffaboy ^talk 15:42, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The best sources are worthless passing mentions. I checked the Portuguese version via Google Translate, their sourcing is worse than ours. I'm not sure what the usual standard for Salting is, but I'd support it. 4 creations and 4 deletions is wasting both article-writer's time and deleter's time. This hasn't increased in Notability since it was first deleted 8.5 years ago. I'd say that is suggestive of a low likelihood of becoming notable in the next 8.5 years. Alsee (talk) 17:28, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ as failing WP:GNG at this time. If an article needs to "develop", particularly if it has been deleted previously, the place to develop it is either user space or WP:AFC. The padding of sources doesn't fix the problems it has, as the number of sources isn't a criteria for inclusion, the quality of them, plus the amount of significant coverage, does. Ask to userfy it if you want to work on it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:43, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Alsee's comment. APK whisper in my ear 09:12, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I nom'd this del last go round but there are a number of publications which discuss the activities of the forum, community members and the like. [49] [50] [51] [52] FAIR has a small biblio of content from the Las Vegas Law Review involving the site [53]; and people are sourcing some of their works as can been seen by Google Scholar. Lots of smaller mentions as well in media -- the reason we shy away from "mentions" is because it is difficult to write articles with them and we prefer nice fat chunks of text where the work is done for us -- but journalists are calling it "influential"[54] and constantly citing the opinions of forum users there for some reason[55][56]; plus a lot of stuff in Polish which I can't read[57] (they are the 316th site in Poland among people who have installed Alexa's spyware; and 2300th in entire world[58]; similarweb has similar metrics[59].. and if wanna data mine them: here) and appear to be a robust and frequently used media source for architectural photographs used in media reports about various topics, similar to Commons.[60] -- dsprc ^[talk] 19:47, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The first four links are the same as before: links that reference that the forum hosted an image. The FAIR article mentioning the lawsuit notes the exact same issue ironically, namely that the forum hosts copyrighted text (likely the same as the images). I'm not sure that because it's lax on copyright and will host copyrighted images and reproduce entire articles is particularly a notable feat. Then, the exact quote here is "According to a poll of skyscrapercity.com, an influential urbanistic forum, ...." (with no other mention) which makes a influential forum which I guess is useful but not particularly significant coverage. I find all these metrics citations to be nothing more than WP:PRIMARY sources and WP:OR about whether or not a metric means anything here. Statements like "Fans on the forum skyscrapercity.com have noted that the plans are also similar to Apple's flagship store at Regent Street in London" aren't citing their opinion, just lazily citing an opinion that people on an forum think things are similar which isn't particularly important. ~~As to why the forum doesn't care about "mentions", I can see why: because following the WP:SIGCOV guidelines have caused this page to be deleted multiple times before.~~ -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:14, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Ricky81682: Just a bit of Devil's Advocate. I agree with your overall position. Unlike the other keep votes (again, which I do not agree with) at least I tried to present some evidence other than opinion. -- dsprc ^[talk] 15:13, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Dsprc: Sorry, I wasn't trying to be personal, just evaluating the sources in detail. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:06, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve Perhaps you should first have a proper look at it. This is clearly the most extensive community on urban skyscrapers and construction projects, with more original fact-based and picture content than most other sites. It is often referenced in local media on construction news, as there are also insiders of various construction and property companies, as well as high profile architects, designers, renderers and model builders. I really don't see how this could fail relevancy by any chance. The significantly smaller community SkyscraperPage has a Wiki article for years, while obviously it's just hiding behind skyscraper graphics to be listed as an information portal. There's also online magazines, web articles and portal content on SkyscraperCity. Cheers, Horst-schlaemma (talk) 04:14, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Could it be because, after seven years, no one can point to any actual examples of "references in local media" that aren't just "here's an image they had on their forums somewhere"? There's been "proper looks" over the years and each time, it's just recreated with similar excuses about how it's really actually notable with a just a little more time. In contrast, SkyscraperPage has two reliable independent sources that actually discuss the website. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:04, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, oddly enough. I did a few Google Books searches regarding the site, and it's fair to say that WP:SIGCOV is not met, but nevertheless this website seems to have a fair bit of mindshare, because it seems that it has been referenced from hundreds of books by now. So it stands to reason that we should do what a book would do - keep a footnote quickly explaining the topic, in a sentence or so. In Wikipedia parlance, that would probably be a very short article that just states that it's a website with a forum, which is verifiable. This seems obvious to many readers, but isn't really. It would probably help a bit to elucidate to readers that it's not a reliable source in and of itself. Also, it shouldn't be marked as a stub, since the encyclopedic expansion potential is unclear. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 08:33, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree with this approach. -- Horst-schlaemma (talk) 20:55, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Maybe nobody has written something direcly about this, but being not only mentioned but also used by experts for lots of their publications is also important. True, there won't be any big article without direct attention, but some basic facts are verifiable.--Müdigkeit (talk) 21:41, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve. Notable enough. Elk Salmon (talk) 04:55, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The website itself has been blacklisted per MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist#skyscrapercity.com so the page would need to be whitelisted to include the forum link. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:09, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Horst-schlaemma, Joy, Müdigkeit, Elk Salmon: Please provide evidence that this subject is a particularly notable forum and warrants inclusion. Even I had much difficulty and needed to stretch it quite a bit for the ones I found as they are extremely weak (only reason for presenting was balance -- thinking no others would -- and this position was easily and quickly refuted). We have articles for many notable online communities which are extensively written about in the press and elsewhere (4chan, for example); however, this does not appear to be one of them. -- dsprc ^[talk] 15:13, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I still see references to the website at the fifteenth page of Google Books search results, at https://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&q=skyscrapercity.com+-wikipedia+-%22books,+llc%22&pws=0&start=140 Again, there's no dispute from me that each of those seems to be a very weak reference, but there's just a crapload of this in the wild, and it's past the point where it can be dismissed out of hand. I don't see how we would be doing our readers a disservice if we left in a simple and brief mention of this thing. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 18:47, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You aren't concerned that, after over eight years, the best anyone can find is possible passing references in other languages from the 15th pages of Google books? And where is the evidence that this is referred to or anything by actual experts? This and this "references" are just again someone copying an image from a discussion on the forum, not particularly substantive and without context, no idea whether the image was itself a copyright violation or someone's personal work or what. Again, no actual discussion of the forum, just examples of its usage as a image host. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:06, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You misunderstood the point of linking that. The point isn't that a reference on the 15th page is special, the point is that it is not special. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 14:20, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I misread that. Struck my comments out. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:33, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: More refs will be provided asap, no reason to be hasty here. All the best, Horst-schlaemma (talk) 15:23, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. These sources are thin gruel indeed. After this long, we still have nothing but namechecks - not one single article *about* this subject, just a few passing mentions. This is not hasty. We already deleted this article three times for the same issue. Enough is enough. Guy (Help!) 16:51, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note to potential closer: - Please relist a time or two. I've voted to delete, but if it really has been cited that many times, I would prefer to allow an extra week or so, to give every chance. Either we find enough sources here, or we salt the earth, but if there is a chance (and that is one hell of an Alexa ranking), then we don't need to rush. Relists are cheap. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:45, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Incubate or Redirect: Possibly draft it or just redirect it to other articles like Londonist and have a brief mention of it. Vincent60030 (talk) 07:28, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: While a lot of comments have been made, could do with a bit more discussion. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:51, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:51, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing notability at this time. The so-called sources are too weak to support a keep as a stand alone article. Kierzek (talk) 14:06, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I have added some more sources, in my opinion the subject of article currently is a subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself. --Jklamo (talk) 17:30, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are six citations for the opening sentence "internet forum website for skyscraper hobbyists and enthusiasts" ... this is over-reaching. 97.99.101.135 (talk) 11:43, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Specific quotes from users were quoted in 2007 Miami Herald story titled "Engineer photographing city on the fly", that most likely included pictures as well. Access would require paying to view their archives, they remove online articles quite quickly and it proves a hassle. The whole article http://www.kyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=461996 < appears to be quoted here (add "s" at beginning-ssc is blacklisted). This is slightly relevant to history as not even 10 years later camera drones are on their way to a dime a dozen. This was an RC airplane. Apparently even a video was included with the story. A reference can almost be concocted from the forum.^[1] < date is from infopig archive. This is more than a passing mention of the site. Not only quotes and pictures, but the fact that the site proved better than Flickr for photo sharing (though images are usually hosted on Flickr). B137 (talk) 05:17, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

^ Spangler, Nicholas (April 11, 2007). "Engineer photographing city on the fly". Miami Herald.

I've added the Miami Herald link and am working on other refs, have changed vote to keep. I don't really think this subject is a long shot, but it needs to be kept well track off to not get too trivial. A leaning towards notable media mentions vs post counts could be good. B137 (talk) 07:33, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral leaning keep - I was for deleting above, and I can't see where it clearly and obviously passes GNG, but there are so many pointers and minor mentions and other factors that make me think this is bordering on a WP:IAR KEEP. I think I've done that twice in 50,000 edits, so it isn't something I use often. It boils down to "is Wikipedia better off with or without the article?" and I think we are better off with since it is so well known, I just can't find enough sources to pass the normal criteria, and it clearly doesn't. Keep in mind, criteria isn't a hard pass/fail line, it is a fuzzy line, a really good general purpose guideline that works 99.99% of the time. This isn't a spam article, or some wannabe superbusinessman's biography, it is an article on a website that is references an insane number of times by other high quality websites, meaning this might qualify to be that .01%. This is exactly the circumstance that WP:IAR exists for: exceedingly rare situations where we are better off ignoring the rules. It is just a matter of whether others agree we are better off with it or not. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:44, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete - Wikipedia is not a directory WP:NOTDIRECTORY In all the years that this website has been posted and re-posted, here and in Portugal, there has never been any meaningful associated content. There is nothing to say here other than post directory info like membership numbers and Alexa rating. 97.99.101.135 (talk) 12:09, 13 December 2015 (UTC) — 97.99.101.135 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Membership numbers have no relevancy to an article if it isn't notable. I don't think WP:NOTDIRECTORY applies in this case as well. The sources uncovered help to create the base of what could be a good article. Buffaboy ^talk 19:21, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your advocacy for this website is noted - both in authoring the article and your six comments on this page. 97.99.101.135 (talk) 00:06, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I could care less if this article is given another chance or is deleted. I re-created it because I thought I could find sources to improve it, and it turns out they exist. On a separate matter, I'm concerned your mere presence here is for a WP:SPA. Buffaboy ^talk 00:30, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete we have given it time to develop substantive coverage in multiple independent reliable sources, and the best we get are mere mentions (like this and this touted by dsprc above), and comments blogged on the site getting repeated. Altough it is referenced by other high quality websites, they do not provide coverage of it. Is Wikipedia better off with or without the article? My answer is "without"; forum sites in general are not notable, to rise above that requires secondary sources that actually discuss the particular site in detail. As the general notability guidelines specifically say: Significant coverage addresses the topic directly and in detail. --Bejnar (talk) 22:11, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:14, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:04, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now at best as I also see why and how we could simply keep this and there are surely better articles for deleting but, also, this article could be better and the past histories are noticeable and of concern. In this case, delete until perhaps a better article is available and I suggest using someone restart by draft and userfy or also AfC. Notifying the only still active AfDer Whpq. SwisterTwister talk 06:02, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fairly Strong Keep The sources aren't great - as we've established above - although I think that as there are enough to warrant a keep. The article is pretty bad at athe moment, although with work and proper refernecing it could become a good article. An article's stsate is no reason for it top be delted, and there is no reason to userfy that couldn't be replaced with "work on in the main namespace and let others help". Not a great article, and one with shaky sources, but one that is just about good enough to survive and so shouldn't be deleted. RailwayScientist (talk) 09:39, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So you want to keep it despite it being a terrible article with cruddy sourcing even after multiple previous deletions. Um, right. Guy (Help!) 09:57, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of significant coverage. A great deal of effort has been put in to try to justify cursory links to this subject in other places, but they can't override the guideline that coverage in reputable secondary sources needs to be significant, and primarily related to the subject of the article. Photos and comments that exist somewhere on this site may be proven as notable, but they do not in themselves transfer their notability to the site if no reputable source outside of Wikipedia has judged it worthy of significant attention. Combined with the questionable decision of the article creators to continuously re-create this page after multiple deletions, admins should strongly consider salting it as well. If, at some point in the future, this website becomes notable it can go through a normal process for recreation in a correct manner. In the meantime, it is not Wikipedia's function to MAKE the website notable. -Markeer 17:58, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:WEB, which requires more than brief descriptions of web sites and the services that they provide, which is all that this is. There's the software that the forum runs on, the number of users it hosts, some descriptions of content which has been included, and an achivement by one user of the site which itself is not really notable, but no evidence of encyclopedic notability for the website itself, and very little detailed coverage in reliable sources. We're in 2016 now, that's fourteen years for this website to have made some kind of impact and be written about in reliable sources, but that coverage isn't there. It's just built up a fan base of interested users, and it provides some utility for architects so it gets name-dropped by architects from time to time, in the same way that I occasionally mention the QuickBooks users' forum, but volume of trivial mentions does not mean notability. WP:SALT this so that this fourth time being deleted is the last. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 18:39, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:36, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Power Glove (band)[edit]

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

Fails notability for music articles. Entirely self-released output through Bandcamp. Semitransgenic _talk. 14:28, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Semitransgenic _talk. 14:57, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Could match the criteria "Has performed music for a work of media that is notable", with the OST of Far Cry 3: Blood Dragon. --Dereckson (talk) 00:34, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Sources to write about that: Publications about video games. [61] Publications about music. [62] [63]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 00:47, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Just make the article better. Garagepunk66 (talk) 04:01, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- That's not useful unless you're actually doing the work in question, or at the very least have RSes. Do you have sources that pass WP:RS? - David Gerard (talk) 14:21, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:03, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes WP:NMUSIC #10. A redirect to the game would be WP:UNDUE in its article, so as this is passed it's appropriate for this article to remain. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:03, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Agree with the Bushranger: it passes wp:nmusic.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 03:38, 30 December 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:44, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sexy Sushi[edit]

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

Fails notability for music articles. Entirely self-released output through Bandcamp. Semitransgenic _talk. 14:25, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Semitransgenic _talk. 14:56, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Matches the criteria Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself, as shown in [64] (Libération), [65] (L'Express) or [66] (Les Inrockuptibles). --Dereckson (talk) 00:29, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:02, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:15, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Dereckson's sources. --Rubbish computer (Merry Christmas!: ...And a Happy New Year!) 07:54, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Extensive coverage by the Francophone press speaks in favour of notablility. More examples: [67][68][69][70][71][72] -- 山村貞子 (talk) 04:24, 28 December 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 result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:50, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The result of this discussion was Delete. The actual discussion has been hidden from view but can still be accessed by following the "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Stephen_Barchan&action=history" link at the top of the page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:03, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Websites and phone numbers in Year Zero[edit]

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

WP:Fancruft spilling over into WP:GAMEGUIDE. Other articles may need to be merged or deleted if there is nothing worth saving. See the sidebar in the article.

Also Wikipedia's Conflict of Interest policy requires that I disclose that I am employed by Cedocore, manufacturer of Parepin. Any votes other than "delete" will be interpreted as a sign of willful non-compliance and aggression. Thank you for your understanding. God bless America. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 10:42, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 19:37, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 19:37, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 19:37, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The alternate reality game itself is notable: [73], [74], [75]. But, like the nomination says, this is a game guide. For the sake of people like me who lost interest in Trent Reznor sometime in mid-1990s, Parepin is apparently a fictional drug in the game. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:14, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:00, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOT. The game is notable, there's no question about that — but there's no need for us to maintain a separate spinoff article about every individual bit of WP:FANCRUFT that happens to exist inside it. Bearcat (talk) 01:03, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTGAMEGUIDE. --Rubbish computer (Merry Christmas!: ...And a Happy New Year!) 07:55, 27 December 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 (WP:NPASR). (non-admin closure) Esquivalience ^t 00:22, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Irène Major[edit]

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

I have tidied this page up and it has left nothing. There are no references, and whatever claims remain do not confer notability. Article and associated pages (newly created French reality TV show page and now deleted band page) have been created and maintained by SPA/COI editors and are of generally poor quality. The only time I've encountered her is on one of those Channel 5 shows about the super-rich. Very limited press. Examples of coverage in mainstream media are trivial and not enough to show notability: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2850927/As-Holland-Barrett-come-fire-selling-controversial-skin-lightening-cream-women-wholl-whiter-skin.html and http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/mortgageshome/article-3131594/Home-cinema-gold-leaf-plasterwork-hair-salon-X-Factor-star-s-Principal-House-goes-sale.html Her biggest achievement seems to be the X Factor performance and performance there falls far short of one where it can be considered worthy of an article. Rayman60 (talk) 21:35, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:53, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:59, 27 December 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. NOTCLEANUP applies for the nomination. In absence of any argument supporting deletion, closing this as keep. (non-admin closure) Ya sh ! 02:30, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mogul lamp[edit]

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

Article has been tagged for not having any references for the past 6 years. I was able to find a couple of uses of "mogul lamp" in this context:

http://www.automaticwasher.org/cgi-bin/TD/TD-VIEWTHREAD.cgi?38271
http://www.paxtonhardware.com/product/fixing-reflector-floorlamps/floor-lamp-facts

The first one is a blog, and thus completely unworthy of WP:RS. The second one (paxton hardware) seems a bit more reliable, but still not what I'd like to see for a well-sourced article. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:52, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:53, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:58, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep AFD is not an article improvement service. The mogul base is a size of Edison standard light fitting and so this style of lamp is presumably a typical usage in the USA. Sources such as Applied Illumination Engineering seem easy to find. Andrew D. (talk) 12:04, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As Andrew Davidson points out, this is a standard sort of thing and AfD is not for cleanup of surmountable problems. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:05, 27 December 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. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:18, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Robin Haley[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Robin Haley

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

Little to nothing in the search engines on this individual. Being trained by someone slightly notable does not help as notability is not inherited.ALongStay (talk) 02:00, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Subject lacks notability and only mentioned in one book. Meatsgains (talk) 02:48, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this passes notability. Added info.

Was a champion of a second tier MMA organization.
Was ranked in the top 10 of a weight class or top pound for pound list.
Fought at least two (2) professional fights for top tier MMA organizations

Thus it passes WP:NSPORTS. --MurderByDeletionism^"bang!" 03:11, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I used MMA as a guideline since this is related to martial arts. Sorry for being unclear about that. Women have fewer sports organizations with less opportunities for them so sometimes info is a bit sparse. Two US national championships silver medals is significant. --MurderByDeletionism^"bang!" 22:52, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why not use WP:MANOTE, which would apply to judo? Clearly she doesn't pass MMA guidelines since she was never a pro MMA fighter. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:41, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - MurderByDeadcopy care to give an actually reason as to why the article is notable? Your vote, to be honest, does not amount to much if it is just a baseless statement.ALongStay (talk) 03:28, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The subject has nothing to do with MMA and hence the statements listed by User:MurderByDeadcopy are false.Peter Rehse (talk) 12:40, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:44, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:44, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:44, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

keep or userfy Easily Passes WP:MANOTE as it states "Repeated medalist (as an adult black belt, i.e. 1st dan equivalent or higher rank) in another significant event; - (e.g. competitors from multiple nations or significant national tournament, not an internal school champion)" She won two silver medals in a significant national tournament " US NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIPS CHICAGO" and " US NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIPS ST. LOUIS MO" [76] CrazyAces489 (talk) 15:44, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per nom. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:41, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:55, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per CrazyAces489 as this appears to pass WP:MANOTE. --Rubbish computer (Merry Christmas!: ...And a Happy New Year!) 08:07, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:PERX and WP:VAGUEWAVE. Simply stating it meets x policy or per this person arguments are all arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. Mkdw ^talk 02:24, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete MANOTE is merely an essay on notability. I do not see any arguments in the keep camp that this individual meets WP:SIGCOV. Without demonstrating this individual does, there is no policy based argument -- only essay based arguments which do not supersede notability policy. Mkdw ^talk 00:15, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - article could use expansion and clean-up (not deletion) per WP:ATD policy. Hmlarson (talk) 02:03, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Notability essays should provide guidance on minimum criteria which a person would likely need to achieve in order to attract significant coverage of their accomplishments. I've criticized MANOTE before for being overly generous in this regard; my experience with these discussions has been that MANOTE does not reflect the availability of coverage, it reflects what members of WikiProject Martial Arts have decided should be their own criteria for inclusion, and that's not how Wikipedia works. We're not an indiscriminate collection of information, we reflect what reliable sources determine are notable subjects. Here's what this means here: this person clearly meets MANOTE criteria: although poorly sourced to a site with user-submitted content, there are independent sources (i.e. [77]) which state clearly that she did compete and medal in national-level competition, as CrazyAces489 pointed out. But so what? Where is the significant coverage of her win? Haley is mentioned in a bullet point in that reference, as are everyone else who medalled in that tournament, names like Frances Tomlinson, Skip Watkins, Ann Maria Waddell, Delores Brodie, Maureen Braziel and Mary Theriot, a few I chose randomly from the same source. Braziel is a pioneer of the sport and has significant coverage of her career beyond this; the others are the same as Haley: bullet point mentions in tournament results, and no substantive content at all, not even in Black Belt, ostensibly the martial arts magazine from the time. So, is a repeated medalist in a significant event likely to meet GNG? It seems not. tl;dr: WP:MANOTE is flawed; Haley and others of her caliber fail WP:GNG. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 19:10, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:21, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Brian R. Banks[edit]

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

Limited notability, an internet search mainly pulls up web pages run by the author himself, or pages selling his books. smileguy91^{talk - contribs} 19:26, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Lousy, promo of an article. A total mess. However, a quick search on JSTOR shows that his book The Image of Huysmans was widely reviewed, albeit waaay back before Al Gore invented the internet. He easily passes WP:AUTHOR. User talk:Smileguy91, you probaly want to withdraw this AFD and just tag the article. E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:57, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are sources on the page (pretty clear form the visible footnote numbers). Creator apparently did not know how to create refs. Page needs someone ot fix the notes.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:23, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:33, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:51, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now and draft and userfy instead as my searches simply found nothing better than that one JSTOR link and that only suggests instead that the book is notable but perhaps not him (??). I would've also said keep only if the article was actually going to be improved though. SwisterTwister talk 08:15, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sources
Antosh, R. B.. (1992). [Review of The Image of Huysmans]. Nineteenth-century French Studies, 21(1/2), 239–240. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/23533410
Cevasco, G. A.. (1992). [Review of The Image of Huysmans]. The Modern Language Review, 87(3), 756–757. http://doi.org/10.2307/3733003
Knapp, Bettina L.. 1993. Review of The Image of Huysmans. The French Review 66 (3). American Association of Teachers of French: 510–10. http://www.jstor.org/stable/397460.

There are more reviews of this book.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:45, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete/merge/rewrite into the book's article. One of his books got several academic reviews. This probably means that the book is notable, but I don't see why this would extend to him (notability is not inherited). Yes, there's CREATIVE 4c: ""The person's work (c) has won significant critical attention". Are several reviews in academic press sufficient? Perhaps. It's very borderline. I'd rather suggest this is rewritten into an article about a book, which could have a section about its otherwise unnotable author. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:33, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:19, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:23, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I would say this meets CREATIVE 4c as mentioned above with the multiple academic reviews. RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:18, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete His book The Image of Huysmans is notable under #1 of WP:NBOOKS. I see no real coverage of him, especially in those academic reviews. Four reviews of one book do not create "significant critical attention". Continued discussion in reliable sources of the ideas presented and citation may. (GoogleScholar shows a whopping twelve citations to the book.) He has not had that kind of impact and has not won significant critical attention and thus fails 4c of WP:CREATIVE. --Bejnar (talk) 07:19, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:47, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- My impression was of very limited notability. However this is not my field of expertise, so I am not formally voting. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:12, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are sources, but they are clearly inadequate to provide verifiability for the content of the article. For example, cite [1] fails to verify the biographical information the precedes it. [2] is a reference to his book, which should not be a reference but in a bibliography section [3] is a review of his book, but possibly not about him [4] points to a symposium he spoke at, not a third-party source [5] presumably is a link to another book of his but it's unclear, in any case, not RS [6] is to liner notes that he wrote, not RS. So we've really got nothing about him. The book itself is cited all of 12 times in G-Scholar, held in about 250 libraries in Worldcat. Not an entirely bad showing, but nothing that would save this article. LaMona (talk) 20:37, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not seeing enough independent coverage of the author to show that he passes WP:GNG, and doesn't qualify under WP:NAUTHOR either. LaMona's and Bejnar's analyses, in particular, are pretty spot on. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:24, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now. If the book is notable then write an article about it and redirect this there; authors do not inherit notability from their notable books. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 19:19, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. This results in the article being kept by default. Sandstein 06:27, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Maryam Hashemi[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Biography of an artist. This article was previously deleted at AfD, and this recreation was speedily deleted as promotional. Discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2015 December 10 determined that it should be listed here, presumably because of promotionalism and notability concerns. This is a procedural nomination, I am neutral. Sandstein 10:37, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per previous AfD (which closed as Delete). The article was re-created by the subject, who was aware of the previous deletion debate. This is a promotional autobiography of no compelling notability. Guy (Help!) 10:56, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 11:05, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 11:05, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are enough sources to pass GNG. If we are worried about autobiography, we should remove any text without citation. The editor of the article should be brought up to speed on wiki process if they don't know the ropes, but that's getting outside the scope of AfD. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 13:18, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The fact that a different version of the article was deleted more than eight years ago has absolutely zero relevance to this discussion. Subsequent BBC TV coverage, multiple exhibitions, and other sources provided show that the subject satisfies the GNG and relevant SNG. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 14:20, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is relevant, in that the subject edited that article, was aware of its deletion, and re-created it herself. She is also responsible for most edits and pretty much all substantive content. Which is why it reads like a PR bio, I guess. Guy (Help!) 20:13, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:45, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No assertion of notability. Exhibitions not in significant venues, one tv interview doesn't make you notable. Johnbod (talk) 19:07, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not all articles with autobiographical material are automatically cases for deletion. While the current sources do not seem all that impressive, there are no particularly promotional concerns here. There are no claims of extraordinary talent or press attention, just a matter-of-fact description of her style. The main concern is notability, as there seem to be no printed sources. The search term "Maryam Hashemi" gets about 28,100 results on a google search, and some of them are about other people with the same name. Does anyone have any idea about some reliable sources on British artists from the 21st century? Dimadick (talk) 22:10, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources as in required by both the general notability guideline and WP:BLPNOTE. No basis for a claim under WP:ARTIST, in fact no claim of notability is stated in the lead or in the article. "Maryam Hashemi" is apparently a common name with news stories about the wushu athlete, volleyball coach, and professor of food biotechnology, but not about this artist. Otherwise she gets passing or directory mention even in non-independent sources such as Edinburgh Iranian Festival (archived) and Hackney Wicked Art Festival (2012). (These are not from the article where the citations to these two are, respectively, a deadlink and an updated version that does not mention her.) Simply being on a television show (BBC-2) about the artistic process does not constitute significant coverage. --Bejnar (talk) 23:42, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Adequate indicia of notability; enough sources to meet GNG. Sometimes for these people originally from the third world, and especially women, they can be quite significant in their field. The BBC coverage is actually pretty extensive. The UNHCR has followed her work, and this list of her exhibitions seems to establish notability as well. Montanabw ^(talk) 04:36, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:46, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there appears to be insufficient coverage of this individual. --Rubbish computer (Merry Christmas!: ...And a Happy New Year!) 08:06, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, User:Montanabw has it right. Pandeist (talk) 03:45, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The BLP subject sought advice here [78]. Legacypac (talk) 10:25, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per sources which provides notability. per WP:GNG.--BabbaQ (talk) 11:27, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the significant coverage of Maryam Hashemi here^WebCite in the BBC and here^WebCite in Payvand Iran News, and Montanabw (talk · contribs)'s arguments for retention. Cunard (talk) 05:57, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

[AllMusic_(Eder)-1] "Bruce Eder: Biography". AllMusic. All Media Network, LLC. Retrieved December 18, 2015.

[SSCmiami-2] Spangler, Nicholas (April 11, 2007). "Engineer photographing city on the fly". Miami Herald.

[1]

[1]