Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 July 29

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 28 July 30 July >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. j⚛e deckertalk 17:38, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Very Good Friends[edit]

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

Might be CSD, but I'm not sure, so I came here after the article creator removed PROD. Fails WP:GNG. Obviously WP:TOOSOON, no references and as the article creator says, it's not even certain if it will air or not. Sulfurboy (talk) 23:49, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I can't find any reliable, independent sources about this cartoon, even when I searched, for example, "Olivia Colman Very Good Friends"...also, "It is unknown whether or not it will air." makes it far too soon to have an article. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 00:49, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:40, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:40, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:40, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:40, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- Until it is accepted for broadcast or other publication, I cannot beleive that it could be notable. For the moment this is an ADVERT. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:34, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Too soon. Szzuk (talk) 20:56, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. j⚛e deckertalk 17:38, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hugh Bruce Cunningham[edit]

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

Article from June 2007 with absolutely zero sources aside from mirrors and the closest thing I found was for a 1950s Arizona pastor here. The author's name suggests a family connection and I'm not sure if this man ever existed (no evidence to suggest he's part of the James Cunningham genealogy) but I'm not anything to suggest keeping. @Calamondin12 and Edison: are welcome to comment. SwisterTwister talk 23:41, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's unclear whether or not a person with this name existed, but the information in the article appears to be a partial or total hoax. A few examples:

  • It is virtually unthinkable that the rejection of a knighthood in the 18th century would not have a vast number of references in multiple sources.
  • Absolutely no evidence exists that George III ever compelled the name change of Cunningham to Conyngham in England; to this day, the former spelling is by far the most common.
  • Since the subject is clearly claimed to be a Protestant, the statement "excommunicated by order of the Pope for heresy" makes no sense (such an action could only apply to an individual within the Catholic Church).
  • No supporting evidence whatsoever is found for the coat of arms and supposed Cunningham motto ("No Quarter").

All of this points to a quite long-lived hoax, on Wikipedia for more than eight years now. Calamondin12 (talk) 02:22, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:39, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:39, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:39, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:39, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Hoax. No entry in the DNB, which would be unthinkable for someone supposedly so prominent. And lots of dubious rubbish in the article. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:23, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete due to lack of evidence. I note the initial version had "cursed by the Pope" and offer of a knighthood coming from William III. StAnselm (talk) 20:02, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:TNT and all of the above. Even if it's not a hoax, it's so badly written that it might was well be WP:BOLLOCKS. Bearian (talk) 20:10, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as fairly obvious hoax (I did search, anyone with a bio like that, in this period, in Scoltland would leave a trail) and am not sure whether to laugh or weep, but certainly, it merits deletion.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:30, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- There is an alleged source cited, a 1916 genealogical work, to which I have no access. However, the whole thing wreaks of family anecdotal tradition. Some of the statements made do not seem historically credible, such as about the English spelling of the surname. My experience is that traditions handed down orally in families in Britain tend to gain in the telling and are thus historically not reliable. This does not necessarily apply elsewhere or where there is an intervening written source. Even if this were right, there is a strong case for saying the subject was NN. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:01, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete - fails WP:V and is quite certainly a hoax, wriiten by a really cunning user. Kraxler (talk) 16:52, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. j⚛e deckertalk 17:38, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Frank McParland[edit]

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

Was deleted previously and redirected but that was undone recently and the article recreated. This then putched up at DRV but the discussion really needs to be at AFD. So here we are. I'm procedurally listing as I closed the DRV, so am neutral. Spartaz Humbug! 22:45, 29 July 2015 (UTC) Spartaz Humbug! 22:45, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. — CutestPenguinHangout 16:05, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — CutestPenguinHangout 16:05, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — CutestPenguinHangout 16:05, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:35, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:36, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The article sources include the Daily Mail, the Guardian and the Liverpool Echo, none of which would be regarded as unreliable? AllyD (talk) 06:30, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • the daily mail most certainly is not a reiable source. Spartaz Humbug! 06:53, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- The problem is not with reliability but with notability. I do not think he has held a high enough position in footbasll management for that. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:42, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ...and then selectively restore original redirect. j⚛e deckertalk 17:34, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mark St. James[edit]

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

This blogger doesn't appear to meet WP:GNG with only passing mentions in reliable sources (refs 3-6) or primary sources (1-2). SmartSE (talk) 22:08, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — CutestPenguinHangout 16:07, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:33, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:33, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:33, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:33, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that prior to this article being created, the title existed as a redirect to Marc St. James, a notable television character whose first name runs a high risk of being misspelled by users since "Mark" is more common a spelling than "Marc" in many English-speaking countries. I agree that the blogger does not have sufficient coverage in reliable sources to qualify for an article, but the title should be reverted back to a redirect rather than simply becoming a redlink. Revision delete the edits that have taken place since July 18, but keep the original redirect. Bearcat (talk) 18:23, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (keeping the old redirect). Subject is a fashion blogger with a real following (13,000 on twitter) but no evidence I can find of significant coverage in reliable sources. Sources on page are article he wrote and a couple of shout-outs to his blog.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:21, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the edits of the current article, and restore the previous redirect. It's pure self-promo of a person with no claim to notability. Kraxler (talk) 16:51, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Sun#Solar space missions. (non-admin closure) Kraxler (talk) 13:24, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Exploration of the Sun[edit]

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

Without sources, this is simply an essay. ubiquity (talk) 21:18, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Sun#Solar space missions covers this topic already, and does it much better too. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 00:52, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment these two topics are not equivalents though. Exploration of the Sun does not necessarily require spacecraft. We can and do explore the Sun with telescopes (usually optical and radio). -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 07:03, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete - Unsourced, unencyclopediac essay covering information better presented elsewhere. 13:50, 30 July 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by PianoDan (talk • contribs)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:31, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Sun#Solar space missions. 2602:306:3653:8A10:B5C0:69FE:7856:8D8D (talk) 21:39, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - this subject is notable and follows the naming convention of other astronomy articles on Wikipedia. E.g. Exploration of Mars, Exploration of Pluto, Exploration of Jupiter, Exploration of the Moon, etc. This article was recently created on July 29, 2015, so it has not had time to be properly written. Redirect to Sun#Solar space missions if the decision is to delete the article. Waters.Justin (talk) 21:36, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- unsourced, essayish article about a subject that's already covered properly elsewhere. Reyk YO! 21:59, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect nothing much more to add than the previous comments, though redirection is a good idea until the subsection in the Sun article can be properly forked. Primefac (talk) 22:21, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to the Sun without pointing to any particular section, since exploration is not the same as space missions, you can explore the Sun without any spacecraft at all. The redirect can be later converted into another article, per the examples of exploration articles of other Solar System bodies, if we have enough material to build such an article (or someone drafts a much larger article than what currently is sitting at this name) -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 07:03, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Sun#Solar space missions but please come back and write a better version of this article. If it is created again, it should be allowed time to develop.
This seems to be the editor's first article, so don't bite the newbies applies here.(My first article 9 years ago was distinctly essayish, and unsourced, yet it is still here as it was improved by others. I like to think that my contributions have improved since then.) Verifiability is required, but sources are often not required.
The article is a natural companion of the members of {{Planetary exploration}} (which, despite its name, is a template about solar system exploration). It makes one important point, which is enough to expect of a beginner: that observation by instruments in Earth's orbit of the Sun complements observation from other trajectories in a way that makes the concept of 'exploration' difficult to cover well. Though a subject is difficult to explain, it shouldn't stop Wikipedians trying.
I disagree with 67.70.32.190 that observation without a space mission counts as 'exploration': by distinction it is 'solar astronomy', which is a wider topic than 'solar exploration'.
--Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 09:33, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There is little difference in the action, when observing with a telescope from Earth, or Earth orbit, or some other Solar orbit. Unless you land a probe on the Sun, or skim its atmosphere/photosphere/corona, then all you're doing is remote observation. Solar astronomy involves modeling the Sun through theory and Earthly experimentation, which isn't just exploration, but a greater topic. That's my take of the situation. -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 06:04, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. Consensus appears clear among the participating editors. I would have to agree with editors that its "difficult to establish notability for a scholar who wrote in French a generation ago" but we often achieve this through diligent WP:BEFORE. Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 07:03, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jean Vernette[edit]

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

Article does not really assert any notability. In a life of 73 years a couple of incidents are picked out (separated by 27 years) and a list of his books is given. No secondary sources are provided. Borock (talk) 20:40, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per WP:NACADEMICS criterion #1. This is a tricky one, and just barely crosses the notability threshold, but per these links ([1][2]) he was an expert in his field, as noted by reliable, independent sources. North of Eden (talk) 01:04, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:30, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:30, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:30, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:30, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:30, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per North of Eden. It is difficult to establish notability for a scholar who wrote in French a generation ago, but his impact is real. You can catch a glimpse of the extent to which his work is still used by scholars in this search [3].E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:33, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I see no real problems, certainly not after EMG's link, and I give considerable respect to the frWP on topics within the Francophone area. DGG ( talk ) 19:52, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note If the article is kept I will add material from the sources provided. That will at least make it more fair and objective. Borock (talk) 15:47, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- As I read the article, he was for 27 years the French Cstholic expert on cults. That is certainly a notable contribution to scholarship, or at least potentially one. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:50, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The list of his books also shows that he also defended Catholicism against atheism and New Age beliefs including reincarnation and "new therapies". One of the new sources points out that he objected to some of the French government's anti-cult measures as being a potential threat to Catholic groups. He was not just an anti-cultist as the article seems to imply.Borock (talk) 16:19, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. and moved to Robert H. Jackson Center. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010Talk 19:31, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Robert H Jackson Center[edit]

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

Non-notable museum. Could not find any sources. Happy Squirrel (talk) 20:30, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. The article as drafted lacks sources and moreover the creator's account name suggests a possible conflict of interest. Nevertheless the Center's notability is clear-cut, as evident in the varied search results produced by the "find sources" links above. For example: [4][5][6][7][8][9][10] --Arxiloxos (talk) 21:25, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:37, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:38, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:38, 30 July 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 g11, advertising. Mr. Saeed probably predicted this would happen. NawlinWiki (talk) 20:27, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Syd Saeed[edit]

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

Unreliable sourcing, can't find any other good sources. Dubious claim to being a psychic and 'one of the best' Sulfurboy (talk) 20:26, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was procedural close. This should be taken to RfD (non-admin closure) Kharkiv07 (T) 20:17, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1,000,000,000,000,000[edit]

Delete. This is not a name of a large number. It is a numeral. Marsbar8 (talk) 20:04, 29 July 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. j⚛e deckertalk 17:33, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mulatka[edit]

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

Non-notable person. It has zero importance to be present in the English Wikipedia or in any kind of encyclopedia as such so I suggest we delete it. It was AfD'd in the past by User:Tabercil and it surprised me how it was even kept. Jaqeli 20:28, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Not seeing any indication of significant coverage (no pun intended) in either English or Georgian sources. Furthermore, not sure if WP:PORNBIO applies here, but if it does, she doesn't meet criterion #1 and fails #2 (not a participant in "iconic" programming). She might come close to meeting criterion #3, multiple mentions in "notable" mainstream media. But even here, I think a case can be made that her media appearances are not exactly "notable" or indicative of significant discussion. North of Eden (talk) 01:24, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:15, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:16, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:16, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable, meager sources, doesn't pass WP:PORNBIO -- fdewaele, 30 July 2015, 12:45 CET.
  • Delete - Fails WP:GNG, Huesofcolor (talk) 09:00, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Not sure at this stage if she fails PORNBIO but she certainly fails GNG. –Davey2010Talk 19:14, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. There is a clear consensus among established editors here that the article does not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. After reading this entire discussion almost none of the contributions arguing against deletion provide arguments based on wikipedia's notability guidelines. Unless and until those guidelines are changed by consensus they are what a closing admin has to consider when judging the consensus of a discussion. As such the consensus, based on wikipedia's policies and guidelines, is for deletion. Davewild (talk) 18:47, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Andersen[edit]

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

Non-notable person. Jaqeli 20:17, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Do not delete! I wonder what are the criteria of "non-notability" here? That person is a well-known academic who wrote a number of books and articles published, not to mention that Wikipedia is litterally filled with his unique historical maps of the Caucasus. See absolutely no reason to delete this page. Wikipedia has pages devoted to way less "notable" persons that are not deleted. Alexanderkurov 00:19, 29 July 2015 (UTC)— Alexanderkurov (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Alexanderkurov, the criteria is here: WP:N and here: WP:ACADEMIC. Please also read arguments to avoid. freshacconci talk to me 17:12, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment? Teimuraz Toumanishvili /GCSSI/: Probably some gentlemen, too used to delete all .. We delete and destroy the works and informations about each other and each other's works. Encyclopedia (including electronic) exists for the full replenishment of information baggage (we like it or not) and not to create a gap, - this is its (Encyclopedia) deeper meaning. Delete information the easiest. But that does not prove anything and does no credit honor to anyone. Such a step may be regarded (and probably will) as a clear weakness of the one who achieves this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.74.82.225 (talk) 23:15, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please avoid attacking other editors and assume good faith. freshacconci talk to me 17:12, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Does not meet wp:academics or wp:GNG. The books listed as published by "Asteroid Publishing" cannot be found in Amazon or in libraries. One of the books only is listed on the publisher's page. The book "Abkhazia and Sochi: the Roots of the Conflict 1918-1921" is listed on Amazon as being self-published via CreateSpace. None of the articles appear to be in major journals. The majority are articles in newspapers, but that only attests to his being sometimes a journalist (e.g. "Mājas Viesis"). Nothing here elevates the subject to notability. LaMona (talk) 02:34, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't delete it! Andrew Andersen is a well known specialist in the subjects he writes about. There is probably some personal or even corporate motivation from Mr. Jaqeli part to delete his page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.25.214.106 (talk) 07:13, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please avoid attacking other editors and assume good faith. freshacconci talk to me 17:12, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not delete! It is difficult to understand why there is an effort to delete this article on Doctor Andersen. Importantly, as an author and historian he concentrates on issues that are not very extensively covered in history works, yet. To put it mildly, that is. History of the Caucasus deserves to be told, and really too few historians make an effort to do so. Andrew Andersen is one of them. He has completed important works on the subject and is in the process of completing more. It is clear that he deserves an article here. Pirveli (talk) 09:10, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Pirveli, none of what you mention is a proper rationale for inclusion. Please read WP:N and WP:ACADEMIC for notability requirements.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:28, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:28, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:28, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:28, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:28, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:28, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:28, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:28, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There are a great deal of editors with few edits appearing here, all using "comment" with a question mark, and a few using similar language patterns. I would like to remind editors coming here that there are notability requirements for Wikipedia and an article needs to conform to those. Please also see arguments to avoid as there are some clear indicators that some editors are not familiar with this process. Also, please to not attack the nominator and please assume good faith. freshacconci talk to me 17:01, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • not to delete In my opinion, Dr. Andersen's work is very important. He studies geopolitical conflicts and wars general public (and many academics and policy experts as well) is not familiar with. Frequently, the subject of his studies is very politicized and heavily influenced by propaganda from the conflicting sides in mass media. Sorting out and overcoming the mountains of propaganda and bias surrounding historical events in Transcaucasia is a Herculean task. Any future researcher on the subject would be wise to consult Dr. Andersen (even if to disagree with his conclusions). And this is exactly the reason to keep this article in the Wiki: to inform people interested in Transcaucasia about the very existence of Dr. Anderson, so they could benefit from his expertise. Before you decide to delete the article about Dr. Andersen, I dare you to name 3 researchers, who truly contributed more than him in the subject, and are less biased.Ikhulor (talk) 17:44, 30 July 2015 (UTC) — Ikhulor (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Notability on Wikipedia is defined by being the subject of coverage in reliable sources, and not by unverified assertions that the guy's research is important in its field. If his work is really as important and influential as you claim, then it shouldn't be difficult to find reliable sources which verify that fact — but he doesn't get to keep an article just because you say he's important, if reliable source coverage isn't there to support it. Bearcat (talk) 18:29, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And why exactly is Revue historique des armées is not a good reliable source? It is "a quarterly academic journal and is the historical review of the French Defence ministry, as well as the communications vector of the Service historique de la Défense (SHD). Founded in 1945, it won prizes from the Académie française in 1954"... Can you explain why Wiki should contain an article on Drena De Niro, and not on Dr. Andersen? Why exactly a few roles in mostly 3rd rate movies are more important than the excellent review of the sovietization of Georgia? Because you said so? HAve you heard the story of Évariste Galois?Ikhulor (talk) 20:26, 30 July 2015 (UTC)— Ikhulor (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Revue historique des armées seems to be a journal that published something Mr. Anderson wrote. What is required for notability on Wikipedia is that a reliable source publish something about Mr. Anderson. No one has yet shown that anyone has published anything about him rather than simply by him. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 22:40, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the Article! I do believe that an article in the reputable journal is reviewed by the editors and peers, and that constitutes the implied endorsement of the author as a notable figure. If it's not enough, then there is citation index - if other researchers cite your work - it's notable. The criteria that "somebody" has to wright "something" about the researcher to make him/her notable - are utter nonsense. How many times did even NY Times and Oprah endorse something that was completely bogus? The existing rule only appears reasonable, but in some cases (like this one) make notability criteria extremely subjective and can be used for manipulation and suppression of information. How many times have we observed recently the attempts to distort the information by the "independent" media? The existing notability rules pave the way for inconsequential "entertainers" to fill Wiki with there pathetic bios and "accomplishments", because they somehow weaseled their way into "independent" media. While Dr. Anderson is being subjected to censure due to "rules". The enforcement of these rules is bordering on complete idiocy or hidden agenda. Dr. Andersen should not be suppressed because some glamour magazine did not do a piece on him, or because "academics" endorsed by Wiki administration don't care about the subject of his research.Ikhulor (talk) 00:30, 31 July 2015 (UTC)— Ikhulor (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • While there's a possibility here that he might qualify for a Wikipedia article, this — completely unsourced, and tonally dancing right on the edge of a public relations advertisement — is not that article. The mere fact that a person exists does not give him a notability freebie; it's reliable sourcing or bust. Delete, without prejudice against recreation in the future if it can be properly written and sourced. Bearcat (talk) 18:29, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Once again Revue historique des armées is a reliable source, fully fitting Wiki definition. Sometimes a few pages in the reputable journal are more important that the tons of garbage produced by propaganda machines (like it was in USSR, like it is in Russia now)Ikhulor (talk) 20:31, 30 July 2015 (UTC)— Ikhulor (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • WHy deleting?With all good faith and respect, the arguments by edotor LaMona seem to be both unfounded and maybe even prejudiced:
  1. The books listed as published by "Asteroid Publishing" can be found in Amazon or in libraries simply because they are sold through Amazon and are in a major libraries.
  2. The book "Abkhazia and Sochi: the Roots of the Conflict 1918-1921" was published by Asteroid as well.
  3. The articles of the person inquestion have been published in various journals including the major ones. E.g., la Revue historique des armées

In fact, it seems to me that this discussion itself is an indirect proof of the person's "notability" :) providing that there are thousands of way less "notable" persons included in Wikipedia and nobody bothers to delete them.
I am also surprised that editor Bearcat found the entry "unsourced". One should simply check the links to find out that it is "quite sourced" comment added by Baltvilks (talk • Baltvilks (talk) 19:28, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment::It would be "quite sourced" where, exactly? There's not a single reference to a reliable source anywhere in the entire article — all it's got is a list of offsite external links to primary source profiles (e.g. his books' sales pages on Amazon and his staff profiles on the websites of organizations or institutions that he's directly involved with), which isn't even remotely the same thing as reliable source coverage. Bearcat (talk) 19:35, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And are the links to his books sold on Amazon not reliable sources? Sorry, I do not get it. Baltvilks (talk) 12:53, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A reliable source is when a media outlet with which he is not affiliated gives him coverage. It cannot be met by his staff profile on the website of his own employer (if it could, we'd have to keep an article about almost every single person on the planet who has any job at all), or by a commercial/PR blurb on a product sales website (a writer does not, for example, get into Wikipedia just because their books are available on Amazon, nor does a band get into Wikipedia just because they have an album on iTunes, if independent sources haven't given them coverage.) Our notability and sourcing rules can be met only by newspaper or magazine articles about him, books (or book chapters) which are at least partially about him, and on and so forth: independent media applying independent editorial judgement in its decision to give him coverage. Bearcat (talk) 21:41, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • But it does not make any sense whatsoever! Publishing a few books and articles in reputable journals, having the research cited by others means less than an "independent" review in the "independent" media? What purpose does this approach serve? In my opinion, it helps to advance somebody's agenda masked by "independent" nature of the media.Ikhulor (talk) 22:13, 30 July 2015 (UTC)— Ikhulor (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Wikipedia's inclusion rules are governed by the principle that we need to prevent this site from devolving into nothing more than a public relations database. If we didn't base our notability rules on reliable source coverage, then every person who exists at all would be able to demand that we keep a promotionally-toned repost of their own résumés, and then we'd just be LinkedIn and not an encyclopedia anymore. Bearcat (talk) 22:19, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The problem with the existing notability rules are that they (rules) appoint a journalist/editor, whose motives for reviewing/not reviewing something are not transparent and may be heavily influenced by outsiders, as an ultimate arbiter of notability. If you had a threshold for researchers based on citation index, I would not have any problems. But "media judgement". Gimme a break.Ikhulor (talk) 22:29, 30 July 2015 (UTC)— Ikhulor (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Well, I'm sorry, but that's just tough beans then. The rules are what they are, and they're not changing just because you don't like them. I sure hope you didn't think that "but my pet topic is special, and should be given a special exemption from the standard rules that apply to everybody else" was some kind of new and compelling argument that we've never seen around here before — because trust me, it's not. Bearcat (talk) 22:38, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The existence of the rules or laws does not make them right. Otherwise, slavery still would be legal in some parts, and gay couples would be lawfully discriminated. If nobody has pointed before that the existing rules are nonsense, that does not make the existing rules right either. I'd like to do what's right, but it seems to me you just want to defend the existing rules. Tough beans, indeed Ikhulor (talk) 22:54, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia's rules are not discriminating against anybody, so slavery and LGBT rights have no validity as a metaphor for what's going on here. It's reliable source coverage or bust, for everybody, period. Bearcat (talk) 00:31, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, Wiki rules in the form they are now are discriminatory against independent researchers, whose topic of research are ignored or supressed by "independent" media and academia as they defined in Wiki rules. The existing notability rules pave the way for inconsequential "entertainers" to fill Wiki with there pathetic bios and "accomplishments", because they somehow weaseled their way into "independent" media. While Dr. Anderson is being subjected to censure due to "rules". The enforcement of these rules is bordering on complete idiocy or hidden agenda. Dr. Andersen should not be suppressed because some glamour magazine did not do a piece on him, or because "academics" endorsed by Wiki administration don't care about the subject of his research. Don't you see that under YOUR rules Dr. Andersen is treated differently? IT IS PURE DISCRIMINATION.Ikhulor (talk) 00:51, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not only do our rules explicitly deprecate sources of the type you're claiming we allow, they actaully explicitly permit and in fact give strong preference to many, many sources — academic and political science and literary and diplomatic journals, serious magazines and newspapers like The Economist or Le Monde, and on and so forth — of the type that would be reasonably expected to cover a notable writer of political science and diplomacy books. Just one good article in a source of that class, in fact, would count for as much toward getting him over GNG as five articles in some "lesser" publications. So if Andrew Andersen doesn't have the coverage needed to reference the article properly, then whatever that fact reveals it most certainly isn't that there's anything wrong with our inclusion rules. Bearcat (talk) 01:07, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, then explain me why Drena De Niro should be a part of WIKI? Based on what qualifications? If there are fair criteria for inclusion of Ms. De Niro and exclusion of Dr. Andersen, I will gladly support the deletion of the contested article.Ikhulor (talk) 01:19, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notability is not a competition. The fact that somebody else has an article has no bearing on whether Andrew Andersen qualifies for one or not — especially when you're trying to set up an apples and oranges comparison between a political scientist and an actress, because the reasons why either of them might or might not qualify for a Wikipedia article have nothing to do with each other. It doesn't matter, for our purposes, whether anybody likes or dislikes the reasons why a person might qualify for a Wikipedia article. Either reliable source coverage exists or it doesn't — if it does, they can get in here for playing tiddlywinks, and if it doesn't, they could actually be the Jewish messiah for all the difference that claim would make in the absence of reliable source verification. But the fact that some other completely unrelated article about some other completely unrelated person in some other completely unrelated field of human endeavour has an article, whether she should or not, is absolutely irrelevant to the question of whether Andrew Andersen has the necessary level of reliable source coverage or not. Kindly also read our WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS rule if you need additional clarification. Bearcat (talk) 05:45, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • You just confirmed my point: WIKI created a tilted field, favoring the certain groups of people. In my opinion, it amounts to discrimination. If you follow the letter of your law - it appears that deleting Dr. Anderson article is legit, but it will be based on the discriminatory rule nevertheless. Actually, I quite enjoyed our little discussion: where else one can get a free in depth lesson on how to create and enforce double standards and discriminatory rules? IKHULOR — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.136.135.156 (talk) 11:35, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Favouring" people who have been covered in reliable sources which properly verify the accuracy of the information in our article, over people who have not been covered in reliable sources and are trying to use Wikipedia as a venue for commercial promotion of their work, does not constitute "discrimination". It constitutes being an encyclopedia. It's not our role to make subjective judgements about who should be more important or famous than who else; our job and mandate is to reflect and summarize media coverage that already exists. No matter how unjustified you may think a person's lack of media coverage is, it is not our role to help create a media profile for them by hosting unsourced promotional profiles, because we are not a public relations database. If the media coverage needed to support an article on here does not already exist, then that simply isn't our problem. Bearcat (talk) 16:38, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • But of course your approach make WIKI a public relation database: scored a point for media coverage - Got an article, no matter how insignificant the coverage is. Just look at Ms. De Niro sources:))) It is much easier for an entertainer to get this sort of coverage, thus, researchers are discriminated by your policy, because it' much harder for them to meet your criteriaIkhulor (talk) 00:31, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, the existence of media coverage is what prevents this from being a public relations database, because independent coverage which verifies the factual content of the article is the thing that prevents a person from simply being able to make stuff up (which plenty of people have tried, believe me), or to claim an automatic inclusion freebie just because they exist. And no, researchers aren't "discriminated" against by our policy, because there are plenty of very solid sources out there which do cover political scientists and diplomatic affairs writers and such. The world does not lack for academic journals and diplomatic affairs magazines and serious intellectual newspapers and high-end newsmagazines and documentary films that cover writers of academic literature — there are thousands upon thousands of excellent sources out there covering academic writers and researchers.
    It's not an under-covered occupation which lacks for adequate sourcing as a matter of course; exactly like any other occupation, some people do have the necessary degree of source coverage and some don't. But that doesn't constitute discrimination against the occupation — many actors and actresses don't have the necessary level of coverage to get articles on here either, and many writers of political science books do have the necessary level of coverage. Neither occupation has any systemic advantage or disadvantage in the "getting into Wikipedia" sweepstakes compared to the other one, because neither occupation inherently lacks for coverage — but both occupations have some practitioners who get enough coverage to clear the bar and some practitioners who don't. Bearcat (talk) 21:14, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unfortunately, you claims about fair rules, not offering any advantages to any groups of people for WIKI entry, are absolutely unsubstantiated and unverifiable. I offer you concrete example (Ms. Drena De Niro) and can find dozens if not hundreds more, you keep feeding the discussion with unproved "rebuttals". You got any factual counterarguments - I am willing to listen. Your claim that the researchers in obscure fields have thousands upon thousands of sources to cover them is laughable. Are you offering me to take your word on it or asking me to prove the negative? In both cases, it's a major blunder against common sense and rules of logic. Ikhulor (talk) 23:45, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the meantime, a source appeared in the disputed article. "Interview with Dr. Andrew Andersen by Teimuraz Toumanishvilli". IndraStra Global. Retrieved 1 August 2015. Is it a solid source or not? Ikhulor (talk) 00:10, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do NOT delete: I am 100% sure that Andrew Andersen MUST be on Wikipedia simply because he is one of those who enlightens this still dark world filled ignorance and insinuations. I think it is more than enough that almost all western on-line services and media are filled with Russian and pro-Russian propaganda poisoning the world with lies and twisting reality! WHat I have just said is already being confirmed by may intellectuals in the EU, USA, Canada, Australia, Malaisia... Now here somebody wants to silence down one more voice of truth? I am sorry but maybe those who want this article to be deleted are on Putin's payroll? Then let them create their own Putinist, and Kremlinist online encyclopedia and fill it with fake articles written by those who are already under quite fair sanctions imposed by the free world! All those good f riends of Putin - aggresors and invaders who are n ow destroying peaceful Ukrainian towns and shoot down passenger airplanes.
  • An article about Andrew Andersen MUST be on Wikipedia. Otherwise this encyclopedia can be viewed as prejudiced! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bergmann M (talk • contribs) 20:04, 30 July 2015 (UTC) — Bergmann M (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Delete Does not meet WP:Academic or WP:GNG. Reliable sources refers to articles about the subject - a publication by the subject in a journal (not matter how notable that journal is) does not confer notability. Claims of prejudice without any attempt to address the underlying notability issues does not impress.Peter Rehse (talk) 20:45, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • If we follow this kind of logic, any episodic role in the 3rd rate Hollywood movie if mentioned in mass media confers notabilty. Drena de Niro obviously deserves a Wiki article, Dr. Andersen dose not. Smells of prejudice to me, given touchy subject of Dr. Andersen research.Ikhulor (talk) 20:57, 30 July 2015 (UTC)— Ikhulor (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Dr. Andersen works were cited by many scholars in their articles: easily verifiable through Google scholar search.Ikhulor (talk) 21:09, 30 July 2015 (UTC)— Ikhulor (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Delete What's with the coat of arms? This is the 21st century, not the 17th. The article does not cite any sources, even if some publications are listed. Are there any reliable sources about Andersen? It also needs help in basic grammar. Curiocurio 22:15, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Why deleting?Wow!!! "Delete for having the coat of arms"?! :) :) :) My dear friend, coats of arms belong to our European culture, just like kimonos belong to the Japanese culture, etc.! Today, in the 21st century, people are still applying for coats of arms to be granted to them! Didn't you know that? Too bad... So sad... I am shocked to discover how incompetent are some of us here!

As for the "reliable sources" - feel free to google him. And as for the grammar... what language are you going to offer help with? :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Baltvilks (talk • contribs) 22:26, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't make every person's individual coat of arms appropriate for inclusion in an encyclopedia. Bearcat (talk) 22:39, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've made some changes to the page that I think helps with the grammar issues, but it could still use some improvement Curiocurio 00:38, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Really??? My dear Bearcat, please do me a massive favor and please-please-please enlighten me whether there are any rules on Wikipedia about whose arms are appropriate for inclusion in an encyclopedia?? :) :) :) Baltvilks (talkBaltvilks (talk) 23:01, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Royalty. Bearcat (talk) 00:28, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, that makes no sense to me. I would recommend that you read a bit more about heraldry, in general, to get more understanding about this element of European culture. And where can one read that rule on Wikipedia? BaltvilksBaltvilks (talk) 04:39, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]


  • Do not delete! What a mess! You guys fighting for the closure of this site are funny, do you know that? Do you know that Wiki contains thousands of pages about way less notable persons than that guy?! And nobody cares about launching closure campaigns! The fact that this ugly discussion is here has already amply proven that the person is at least worth attention. Also, the clearly biased comments of LL these 'deleters' give a clear impression of double standards. And you know what? I've been a regular financial contributor to Wiki for years, and from now on I will donate no single penny to this resource, NO MATTER whether you delete that little page or not. Hate saying that but I am now disgusted by the whole project. Please accept my apology for being honest here Normannsdottir (talk) 22:52, 30 July 2015 (UTC) — Normannsdottir (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
You've been a regular financial contributor for years, yet this comment is your first contribution as an editor, ever? Go ahead and just guess how much I don't believe you. Bearcat (talk) 00:35, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I heard somewhere that dishonest people have problem with believing others. Maybe you do not know, my dear Bearcat, that you do not need to have an account with Wikipedia to contribute financially? Let me add to the above that I was also a regular financial contributor to this on-line "encyclopedia", and I will never give a single dime after having watched what is going on here. Nothing personal. Baltvilks(talk) 18:56, 3) July 2015
And I heard somewhere that people who engage in personal attacks, such as calling other editors "dishonest" without evidence, are at risk of getting editblocked. Thin ice ahead. Skate carefully. Bearcat (talk) 05:47, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And who dared getting engaged in personal attacks su ch as calling other editors "dishonest"??!!! That is disgusting!Baltvilks
  • Delete. Despite the apparent sock party, we have no evidence that he passes WP:PROF. In particular Google scholar gives at best single-digit citation counts for any relevant publications by Andrew Andersen, nothing found by this Andreas Anderson (hard to tell because there are many pubs by other people with similar names but I looked through all the ones with nonzero citations without finding any), and single digits again for both А Андерсен and Э Андерсен, so he appears not to pass WP:PROF#C1. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:39, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As this page is becoming a mess, I think it's important to note that obvious sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry is occurring. In addition to similar arguments with similar uses of English being added, Baltvilks has changed other supposedly separate editors' comments to read as ""Do not delete!", changed from "Comment?". Since most of the "keep" comments are from single purpose accounts, there is clearly a campaign at work to flood this page with support. A sockpuppet investigation will need to started. Frankly, given the hostile comments being thrown around, trying to explain Wiki policy and guidelines appears to be futile. freshacconci talk to me 00:45, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whatever As this discussions goes nowhere and a few "editors" are clearly biased I am unilaterally quitting this discussion. This small group of "experts" can delete whatever they wish. I am out of here. Cheers. comment added by Baltvilks (talk Baltvilks (talk) 01:51, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment/leaning delete I am not sure I know which way to go here. I am just wondering if being "a national fellow at the Centre for Military and Strategic Studies of the University of Calgary" as stated on [12], which I am not sure is reliable enough to use, would fulfill the named endowed chair academic requirement. My gut feeling is that it would not, but I think that is the only angle that is likely to get him to pass notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:55, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete Possibly merely WP:TOOSOON, and I admit that I did not read the shouting going on above. What I did do was to search for his books, his name, even searched for him in smallwarsjournal.com, where a guy like this ought to be referenced if he's making much of a splash in this field.[13] He's just not.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:53, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • why keeping??!? DO NOT KEEP!!!!. We can also play that game. A sock party sounds fun. Le petit fromage (talk) 16:11, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would say "Do not delete!" but that would be useless I'm really enjoying this "intellectual discussion". Thanks to Wikipedia I know now that I am a sock-puppet (kept asking myself: "Who am I?"- now I know). Let me take the liberty in all my good faith to advise the respected "experts" and "professors" to straight-forward and use a simple and convincing argument:"Delete him! He should not be on Wiki because he is an a%%hole!" Alexanderkurov 00:19, 29 July 2015 (UTC)— Alexanderkurov (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
What makes you a "sockpuppet" is the fact that you have no prior history of contributing to this site, but are a brand new editor who registered specifically because somebody asked you to come help overwhelm the discussion with arguments that have nothing to do with Wikipedia's established policies. That's not what saves an article that's up for deletion — improving the article is what might save it. Bearcat (talk) 18:55, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Diese Seite darf nicht geschlossen werden! (Do NOT delete!). Ph.D. in Geschichte Andrew Andersen verfasst Texte und Sachbücher, die sich mit bisher noch unbekannten Gebieten unserer Geschichte beschäftigen. Dabei greift Doctor Andersen auf sein umfangreiches Wissen als ausgebildeter Fachhistoriker. Schließlich gilt es zu sagen, dass seine Werke von höchster Qualität sind und dementsprechend sehr interessant sind. WaltherGeo (talk) 09:40, 1 August 2015 (UTC) — WaltherGeo (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Keep He was a national doctoral fellow at the Center for Military and Strategic Studies at the University of Calgary, so he passes #5 and 6 for WP:ACADEMIC. Meeting just one requirement justifies notability. --Steverci (talk) 20:03, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Serious?? The national Fellow is neither a Chair or the Highest elected position. According to the web site it is one step above postdoc and is not a faculty postition.Peter Rehse (talk) 20:09, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Notability rules are not satisfied by asserting that the subject passes them; they're satisfied by reliably sourcing that the subject has gotten coverage for passing them. Bearcat (talk) 20:46, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: all the talk about sock- and meat-parties is a load of bs. Obviously, everybody starts from the first time, nobody starts from ten edits on a hundred topics. And of course everybody starts from the topic one finds the most important to him/her at this time. Also, one might feel that one is not the expert enough to comment on the content of the article, but anybody can spot a discriminatory rule, preventing an entry from appearing in WIKI. At last, when English is your third or fourth language, one may feel reluctant to edit the body of the article, but confident enough to comment on it.Ikhulor (talk) 00:47, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • The sockpuppet investigation did find that Baltvilks and Normannsdottir were the same person (i.e. sockpuppets). I've struck out their comments, although you should still be able to read them through the strikeouts. David Eppstein (talk) 01:04, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can't argue. This kind of policy is absolutely fair.Ikhulor (talk) 01:10, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • THE ABOVE STATEMENT BY DAVID EPPSTEIN IS AN EXAMPLE OF PURE LIE.Baltvilks (talk) 02:18, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not a sock puppet either! I left this discussion a few days ago but was informed by one of the participants personally known to me that someone here claimed that me and Normannsdottir are clones. Not true. The administration has my email, and I hereby volunteer for a phone or Skype session that can unequivocally confirm that I am not a clone. Those who would like to check whether I am a clone or not feel free to call me at 1-250-532-1063. This insinuation one more time confirms the absence of "good faith" and prejudice that dominates this discussion. Those who claimed that we are one person should be ashamed (if they know what that word means, of course).BaltvilksBaltvilks (talk) 20:09, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is pure lie! I am NOT a sockpuppet!! Whoever believes that I am a sock puppet please feel free to call my phone at +1 250 5891212 and talk to me. I can also graciously donate 2 minutes of my expensive time for a Skype session where you can see my face. This "investigation" is another example of incompetence and "good faith" of those who started this low-class mess!
    INormannsdottir ([User talk:Normannsdottir|talk]]) 11:14, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't delete it! Andrew Andersen is a well known scholar of the Caucasus region with numerous scholarly publications on the region. Iberieli (talk) 11:14, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And the reliable sources covering him in that context would be...where? Bearcat (talk) 21:14, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Despite the raging and utterly unhelpful torrent of arguments in favor of keeping the article, he hasn't received sufficient coverage in independent, reliable sources to pass our notability standards. North of Eden (talk) 23:09, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • NEWS: "Interview with Dr. Andrew Andersen by Teimuraz Toumanishvilli". IndraStra Global. Retrieved 1 August 2015. Is it a reliable source or not?Ikhulor (talk) 00:01, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ops-s! I have just received the below message from LaMona claiming that I am also a sockpuppet :)

--- LaMona mentioned you on Wikipedia [2:20:17 PM] Alexander I. Kurov: LaMona mentioned you on the Sockpuppet investigations/Marianwolfe86 talk page in "Comments by other users". [2:20:32 PM] Alexander I. Kurov: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Marianwolfe86--- And what should I do to prove that I am not a camel? :) I love this comedy! It all amply proves how prejudiced are all those people are. That also means that Andrew Andersen is doing right things. Otherwise this disgusting "discussion" would not take place at all. And, BTW, what is the problem about that article? Does it occupy to much space?

Alexanderkurov — Preceding undated comment added 21:32, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Only two of the books are in WorldCat "Abkhazia and Sochi : The Roots of the Conflict 1918-1921." is listed , but the only library to own it is the library of one Azerbaijan library; "Small arms trade and proliferation in East Asia" is not really a book, but a 59-page working paper of which he is one of the 3 authors; World Cat shows only 3 library holdings. This is not enough to be notable as a scholar, nor are the journal articles nearly enough. He has never held a professorial position anywhere. TThe argument asserts he is "a well-known scholar" ; the evidence in the article shows otherwise. This is not a matter of under-coveerage of the subject by English language libraries--There are at least 6 books on the modern history of Abkhazia with over 200 holdings in WorldCat libraries. DGG ( talk ) 00:05, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am against deleting but I'm out of this discussion Just within the frameworks of fact-finding process, the above statement by DDG sounds strange to me as I know that a few libraries in the USA, Canada, UK and Spain own one of his books. Are you from Azerbaijan? If yes then I assure you that other libraries outside the limits of Azerbaijan also own the chap's books. And would you please name the existing "6 books on Abkhazian history"? Thank you in advance Baltvilks (talk)Baltvilks (talk) 02:07, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Alexanderkurov, Ikhulor, Normannsdottir, and Baltvilks: Comment. Folks, I respect your opinions on the article and on Dr. Andersen as a researcher. That said, Wikipedia is not a battleground, and your comments on this page are veering in that direction. No one is suggesting that Dr. Andersen is not a valid researcher, no one is questioning his competence or authority, and absolutely no one is acting out of pro-Russian or anti-Georgian bias. But, at least in my view, and to experienced and respected Wikipedians who have commented here (such as User:DGG), Dr. Andersen doesn't meet our notability guidelines. This says nothing about Dr. Andersen as a person or as a researcher. It is not a personal judgment. It merely states that Wikipedia articles have to meet a certain standard of significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. Someone's own writings, or writings related to that someone, don't cut it. Now, those who have commented here are clearly passionate about this subject. This isn't a bad thing. I understand there's a sockpuppet investigation ongoing. That could be serious, but for those who aren't sockpuppets, please put your passion and talents to use editing articles related to the Caucasus and its intricate geopolitics. Please seek out advice from seasoned contributors, instead of exhausting your passion in this debate, resorting to arguments that don't reference site policies. For an example of how a good, concise AFD !vote in favor of keeping this article should look, consider User:Steverci's above. I'm sorry for the length of this comment, but I think it's imperative that this message is conveyed. Thanks, North of Eden (talk) 01:58, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, North of Eden, I also respect your opinion and the effort you invested in writing the above comment. It would sound absolutely reasonable if... if the Wikipedia had not been filled with articles on way less notable persons than the person under attack (and let us be honest, Andrew Andersen is under attack here and so are his vocal supporters including "yours truly") PS.: I am still awaiting phone calls from the "investigators" who claim that I am - Normannsdottir but nobody has called me so far... I wonder why? :) Baltvilks (talk)Baltvilks (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 02:19, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

we will be very glad to consider for deletion any that you think are particularly outrageous. In past years, tens of thousands of promotional articles on non-notable people made their way into WP that would nowadays not meet our standard. It is a slow process removing them all, tho I hope we eventually manage to complete it. But at least we do not want to add to them. DGG ( talk ) 04:15, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I would not waste my time on reporting such Wiki articles for deletion as I find that counterproductive. Unless they are really "outrageous", of course. :) By the way, do you really find outrageous the article we are discussing here? :)))) Baltvilks (talk)Baltvilks (talk) 04:31, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

* Comment/question I would consider the above comments (DGG, North of Eden) valid if 3 conditions are met: 1. I mentioned the article on Drena De Niro three times - nobody cared to explain me how she is more notable then Dr. Andersen, and, if she is non-notable, nobody from the cohort clamoring for Dr. Andersen entry removal marked her entry for removal. I'd like to hear a comment on that. 2. If "old" articles on non-notable people (those, not meeting current criteria on notability) are being purged, can I see a list of those articles removed, say, in July 2015? 3. If somebody (DGG) claims that there are 6 books on modern Abkhazia history are widely available in the world libraries, I would like to know more about these books: the topic is highly controversial and contested - the propaganda pieces funded by opposing sides are common. Just want to make sure that the rules for WIKI entry are non-discriminatory, and the field is not tilted toward certain group of people. Is it too much to ask the commenters to provide examples, or WIKI rules dictate that I have to settle for unverified claims of those who happen to edit or author WIKI entries in the past? Ikhulor (talk) 11:29, 4 August 2015 (UTC)— Ikhulor (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  • For (1) Non-answer. I asked about specific example. The statement in WP:WAX that the argument can not be made on the basis of existence/nonexistence of something similar is faulty. If applied to society, it voids all civil right struggle summarily. (2) Reviewed. Found the article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deborah_R._Brock. Compared with the entry on Dr. Andersen. I am not saying that the entry on Dr. Brock should be deleted. I am asking for explanation why the verdict was to "keep". What in the article about Ms Brock makes her notable as opposed to Dr. Andersen? Obviously, I can not see the deleted articles, so can not appreciate the arguments. (3) Thanks. I am not a career researcher, and was not familiar with this database.

Actually, combining #1 and #2, I feel that my impression on subjective and somehow discriminatory standards of WIKI is being confirmed. People has written the whole essays in this discussion, how difficult can it be to sort out my examples in 2-3 sentences Ikhulor (talk) 20:18, 4 August 2015 (UTC)— Ikhulor (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  • Ok, a longer answer to (1): comparing the notability of celebrities like De Niro to the notability of academics is a mistake. Celebrities become notable through having multiple in-depth stories about them published in the popular press. Academics become notable either directly by having high-impact publications or indirectly by being publicly recognized by their peers (through major awards, distinguished professorships, etc). So there is no point in trying to seek a deeper answer in this specific case. Additionally, it may well be that De Niro is not actually notable, and that we just haven't tested that through an in-depth discussion of her notability yet. So again, trying to compare her case to this one doesn't accomplish much in either direction. Re (2): look at the keep comments in the AfD. In particular, they mention multiple publications with hundreds of citations each, and multiple published reviews of her books. Compare that to my comment in this AfD re the citation counts for Andersen. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:03, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1. People spent a lot of time on Andersen notability. Yet nobody got 1 minute to check out Drena De Niro entry? It was mentioned by me 3 days ago. I would expect more diligence from WIKI purists. 2. I never saw any quantitative criteria for notability: no fixed number of publications, no fixed citation index, no lists of specific awards or positions qualifying for notability. Or I missed it? I apologize, if I did. If not, subjectivity and personal bias is not eliminated from the process of establishing notability. If there is no effort to eliminate bias - it amounts to discrimination. I say no modern mathematician is notable without receiving Fields Award (joke)Ikhulor (talk) 22:04, 4 August 2015 (UTC)— Ikhulor (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Delete per DGG, who is active in Wikipedia, and a well-respected librarian. So his word counts with a lot with us regulars. If there's few cites there, then he's not a notable professor. Lots of professors are well-beloved, myself included, and are making significant bodies of work, such as my sister, but we're not (yet) notable. Bearian (talk) 20:44, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another great argument: "Lots of professors are well-beloved, myself included":))) Man, you made my day!!! You should have written: "Beloved and modest like myself":))) I wonder though why would a beloved professor like Bearian or Eppstein waste their valuable time on Wiki discussions? Baltvilks (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 22:44, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Jesus Christ! Where did you manage to find any personal attacks here?! I wrote that you made my day because I REALLY LOVED your comment! I am so confused... [User:Baltvilks|Baltvilks]] (talk)
Oh, it wasn't directed at you, Baltvilks, just at the others above. Bearian (talk) 23:42, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Took me about three clicks of the mouse to find Eppstein listed as Faculty at UCI. The myself included was an injection of humour - much easier on the ear than your attempts.Peter Rehse (talk) 22:58, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Er, no, I disagree, they are not on par with those two. But they don't have to be, to be good enough for an article here. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:48, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dear Professor, you are way too modest, so I respectfully reserve the right to disagree with your humble self-assessment. Ikhulor (talk) 11:08, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, that was my attempt at college teacher humour. Again, FWIW, see I can prove that my former students love me. Bearian (talk) 23:01, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see only one failure here: failure to create strict quantitative criteria for notability. Results are creatively exploited by various editing bodies, occasionally for the purpose of practicing "college teacher humor" and advance of librarians as a part-time WIKI messiahs Ikhulor (talk) 00:55, 5 August 2015 (UTC)— Ikhulor (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Feel free to propose improvements to the process at WT:N or WT:PROF. Personally, I feel the system is working exceptionally well at preventing canvassed editors from exploiting Wikipedia as will be evidenced by the close of this AfD. Winner 42 Talk to me! 01:02, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't feel qualified to propose any specific WIKI rule change. I leave it for professors and librarians - let them figure out quantitative criteria for notability for various arts and sciences. BUT I will keep pointing out that the existing rules on notability are fuzzy at best, can be used for discrimination at worst. Also, I started to suspect that the "old" editors might be prone to tried and true MEATPUPPET tactics. KEEP THE ARTICLE, until new quantitative criteria for notability developed! And if they are fair and the current article does not fit, I'll be the first to vote for deletion.Ikhulor (talk) 01:18, 5 August 2015 (UTC)— Ikhulor (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Okay this is getting very silly. You are accusing me of meatpuppetry while engaging in meatpuppetry yourself? Sorry your stalling technique isn't going to convince anyone. You can't just ask others to change the criteria to get your way. Winner 42 Talk to me! 01:40, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Right. A whole bunch of respected editors almost simultaneously discovered this article and poured their holy wrath on it. Sure, Andersen made quite a splash:) Everybody was holding their breath, and now, whet the entry appeared, there was a big collective sigh from the body of WIKI editors. I doubt, Albert Einstein enjoyed such an attention. And yes, I can not ask anybody to make the rules according to my whims, but I can and I will demand the rules to be fair, applied equally, and quantitative (in the sense of having a defined threshold for notability). To the effect that anybody can read the rules, then open the article and immediately point out criteria the person met to be mentioned in WIKI. Otherwise, we are arguing on what constitutes a pile of potatoes: 3 potatoes, 5 potatoes or 123 potatoes. I have hard time finding a benign explanation how the esteemed editors-professors-libriarians fail to see it.Ikhulor (talk) 02:05, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ikhulor, if you look at about a third of the way down, you will notice some smaller text that reads, for example: "Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions." These are links to deletion discussions on various topics. That's how different editors will "simultaneously" discover an article. Personally, I'm interested in visual arts topics and I check the visual arts deletion page regularly. If you look at the editing histories of most of the editors not arguing for keep, you will see that none have any connection. They edit in vastly different areas and geographically live in many different places. Many editors disclose their location on their user page. So, there is no connection other than being a Wikipedia editor. freshacconci talk to me 11:27, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • That very well may be true, and again, it may be not. Am I supposed to believe you words, while you reserve the right not to believe my words and accuse me of being a meatpuppet without any actual proof? I learned about this discussion not from the author or the subject of the entry. People who knows my interest in public policy (and WIKI is not a private enterprise, as far as I know), notified me of the discussion, and I felt that I had to comment. Now, I am not an expert to review Dr. Andersen work. The only thing I can do is to review the rules and see if they are fair, or applied fairly. My conclusion: the rules of notability as they are now, are fuzzy and do not define a quantified threshold for WIKI entry. Thus, they can and are applied subjectively, which, in my opinion, amounts to discrimination. Lets see: Dr Anderson wrote a few books, a few articles published in respectable journals which where cited by a few other researchers, and had some independent media coverage. Unless you have a rule that his book should be available in X number of libraries, or his work must be published in certain journals, or it must be cited Y number of times, or he must have Z number of pieces about him in certain media outlets - you can not claim that he is not notable, while the person B is notable, without prejudice.

Now, let me address (again) the question of my limited (first) contribution to WIKI. The reasons are following: firstly, my area of expertise, in my opinion, covered in WIKI extremely poorly, most articles need to be re-written. But it would be futile, because a FREE and highly respectable source of the information in the field exists in the web - all articles are written by the known and verified entities specializing in the subject of the article, referenced up to wazoo, updated regularly, and reviewed by the editorial board. Why waste my time on a futile task? Particularly, given the fact that English is my 3rd language? secondly, I don't feel like writing of something I am not an expert in. I do use WIKI occasionally, mostly to read on historical events and figures when I dont have time to research them on my own by using multiple sources. Recently, I've read an article on Borgia. It's a disgrace. Yet, to improve it, one either need to sepecialize in the subject, or spend a lot of time putting together a coherent report as a hobby. Sorry, I can not afford spending time on Borgias for the purpose of WIKI entry, I can look up a good book and read it at my leisure. thirdly, I am interested in public policies and human rights. But, as far as know, WIKI is not a debate site, and if it is, I have no way of knowing where, what and when something of interest to me is being debated. When I accidentally learn about the occasion, nobody can find me wanting. In summary, my opinion of this case: the article qualifies for the entry under the existing notability rules, you want to delete it - you have to modify the rules first. Ikhulor (talk) 15:31, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Ikhulor: As you say, "[...] WIKI is not a debate site." Please consider that in your future posts. North of Eden (talk) 01:46, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did you have a chance to read a boxed header on this page?Ikhulor (talk) 11:25, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete, speedy deleted as A10

Chapel of the Boim family[edit]

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

Duplicates subject of another article, Boim Chapel. Danrok (talk) 19:54, 29 July 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  21:23, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nigeria vs. United States at the 2012 Summer Olympics[edit]

Nigeria vs. United States at the 2012 Summer Olympics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A single game of a tournament that is already covered with two paragraphs at 2012 United States men's Olympic basketball team#Nigeria. Lacks the enduring notability to meet WP:SPORTSEVENT, with mostly WP:ROUTINE coverage. Moreover per WP:N: "This is not a guarantee that a topic will necessarily be handled as a separate, stand-alone page. Editors may use their discretion to merge or group two or more related topics into a single article." —Bagumba (talk) 17:09, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. —Bagumba (talk) 17:25, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Basketball is a very popular sport at the Summer Olympics, which is arguably the #1 sporting event in the world, and this was one of the most notable basketball games to ever be played at the event. Countless records were broken, most notably for most points in a single Olympics basketball game (meets WP:ROUTINE). It was covered by hundreds of different reliable websites and newspapers, including The Huffington Post and The Guardian (meets WP:SPORTSEVENT). Additionally, the YouTube video of this game has received almost 9 million views, and it was primarily because of this game that the 2012 USA team drew comparisons to the 1992 Dream Team. If this article should be deleted, you should see Category:College basketball games in the United States, because many of the pages there are not nearly as notable as this one. TempleM (talk) 17:41, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
For individual games, one question to ask is whether it meets WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE. I don't think this game has or will get non-WP:ROUTINE coverage other than at best a passing mention of the record. As for college basketball, I don't doubt that there might be non-notable games articles there, but WP:OTHERSTUFF is not generally a strong reason to keep a non-notable article.—Bagumba (talk) 17:51, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Another point to consider is the editing guideline WP:AVOIDSPLIT: "Instead, editors are encouraged to work on further developing the main article first, locating coverage that applies to both the main topic and the subtopic. Through this process, it may become evident that subtopics or groups of subtopics can demonstrate their own notability, and thus can be split off into their own article."—Bagumba (talk) 17:58, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is a two or three line stub with no extra info than what is contained in the main article. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 18:16, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to the Olympic teamw article. The game seems fairly important, but perhaps not enough for a standalone article. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 18:51, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Olympic team article already covers the game more extensively than this stubbish standalone article. Please reconsider your merge !vote.—Bagumba (talk) 18:55, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Everything's already covered in the US team's article, so why repeat it? Clarityfiend (talk) 22:29, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:07, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:07, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:07, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:07, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete content, then redirect to 2012 Team USA article where it is more extensively covered. I would be in favor of keeping the categories on the redirect though. Jrcla2 (talk) 20:12, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Jrcla2: Given that no articles currently link here, and I'm not even sure if there is a naming convention for specific games in a tournament, is this even a plausible redirect, or would it be subject to CSD A10? At any rate, I guess there are worse things than questionable redirects.—Bagumba (talk) 21:52, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • I wouldn't oppose a full-on delete. Jrcla2 (talk) 13:12, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unnecessary WP:CONTENTFORK, this is not a plausible search item to warrant leaving a redirect. Kraxler (talk) 13:43, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Deleted as CSD A7. (non-admin closure) JAaron95 Talk 10:49, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sumaya el deeb[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO. No claim of notability by independence reliable sources about the subject of the article. The only claim of notability in the references given (reference 1) is that she memorized the Quran and won a Quran memorizing contest from Institute of Qira'at of the Holy Quran which we rightly don't have an article about. Reference 2 is a link to a YouTube video with merely 10k views. Reference 3 is a link to a forum. References 4 and 5 are links to Facebook. Googling her name in Arabic gives nothing. (3 Youtube links, 4 Facebook links and 2 forum links.) Meno25 (talk) 15:36, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:05, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:05, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:05, 30 July 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. j⚛e deckertalk 17:32, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mong Manith[edit]

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

Notability is not shown, bare, one-source references. Garchy (talk) 15:23, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete ..... I don't think I'll ever understand why his parents named him "Mong", Out of all the names in the world!, Anyway back on topic this is full of nothing but red links and over-promotional crap, No evidence of notability Fails NMUSIC & GNG. –Davey2010Talk 00:17, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:03, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:03, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cambodia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:03, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Clearly non-notable. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 21:33, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete it's WP:FANCRUFT and contains much WP:OR I would say, no newspaper would print this type of detailed info. According to this blogpost Manith had "2,000+ iTunes playbacks" of his songs in 2013. That doesn't seem to be that much, or is It? Kraxler (talk) 13:55, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (I've proposed this AfD, so I'm obviously for delete). Additionally, most of the edits on this page are by a user named "Mong Manith", which violates username policy as well as posing a problem with WP:COI.Garchy (talk) 14:01, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. per SK1 & all that shizz (non-admin closure) –Davey2010Talk 19:33, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proxecto Trasno[edit]

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

Probably non-notable software team. All references are self-published and repository links. Goggle search shows no significant English-language links (just some passing mentions and self-published announcements). Despite their interesting projects, this team seems to be too small to be notable, unless reliable Galician language sources with significant in-depth coverage can be found. I checked the connected gl-Wiki article too, this version also includes only self-published links. GermanJoe (talk) 15:10, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator - Galician-language sources provided, meets WP:GNG on coverage (see below for more details). GermanJoe (talk) 20:20, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've started correcting the main point you highlight: lack of external references. I hope that the "Open source observatory: Galician NGO challenges gvt support for proprietary software" article make you reconsider the proposal. Other references are written in Galician language, but you can make use of google translator to understand what they talk about. Those links are from Mancomun.org, which is a governmental organization created in 2008 and that did supported Proxecto Trasno activities, and the some of the most relevant galician digital journals Codigocero.com, Praza.com and Vieiros.com (that closed in 2010). I'll go on improving the article. Miguel Branco (talk) 19:09, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:01, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:01, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - that was quick work, thanks @Mgl.branco: for providing those Galician sources. With ref #1 from an IT journalist and quickly skimming through the refs #2 - #5 in Galician (Google translated) with some additional coverage, the topic meets WP:GNG. The other refs are mostly repository links, but nothing wrong with that in a software-related article. GermanJoe (talk) 20:20, 30 July 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) –Davey2010Talk 19:34, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Amit Gupta[edit]

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

notability. subject played 1 first class match and then career seems to have ended. Rayman60 (talk) 14:52, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:00, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:00, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:00, 30 July 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. j⚛e deckertalk 17:32, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Butcher[edit]

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

Subject does not seem notable enough to warrant an article. Page created and majority of edits made by SPA/one-off editor with no other contributions. Formatting and content is poor/unencyclopaedic, too much irrelevant and unreferenced info and feels like a vanity page. Rayman60 (talk) 15:02, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:59, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:59, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:59, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:59, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I don't think FRSC is selective enough to count for WP:PROF#C3 (it appears to be open to anyone with five years' working experience and two friends to vouch for them, rather than being limited to a small percentage of membership as most highly selective "fellow" statuses are). His photography books don't seem to have attracted any independent reviews that would help him pass WP:CREATIVE. And I don't see anything else in the article that could indicate notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:32, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- Unless his patents for holograms are key ones in the field, I see nothing notable in the biography, which was apparently largely written by someone who has made no other contributiuon to WP in the 5 years sicne he wrote it. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:40, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Looks just like a self employed person. SPA must return and fix refs/article or expect delete. Szzuk (talk) 21:02, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. I'm the best person to close this in the way that I'm closing this, since no one hates our irrepressible need to get our articles from the news and blog cycle than me. In this case, rightly or wrongly, there is no way in which this discussion is ever going to come to a consensus to delete, since that is what Wikipedia is, and no one wants this to run for seven days.

In short, while Cecil may well be a case of BLP1E (he didn't have to be, since apparently he was an attraction before the dentist plugged him), he is so widely covered that his death is big enough for this AfD to fail. And who knows, something may come out of it. Something good. Drmies (talk) 01:00, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Killing of Cecil the lion[edit]

Killing of Cecil the lion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
  • I'm normally an inclusionist, but this seems more like a news issue than an encyclopedic topic, since Cecil didn't have his own article prior to his killing and all of the hits at Duckduckgo for "Cecil the Lion" appear to be either about his killing or unrelated to him. PCHS-NJROTC (Messages) Jesus Christ loves you! 13:06, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • If this article is kept, it should be titled Cecil the lion, and info on the killing should be added to the article. I'm not sure of the notability of the subject, however media reports suggest that he was famed and recognised widely, which may warrant an article. Not being aware of the lion myself or its standing with regards to other lions, I wouldn't want to suggest either way whether he is worthy of an article.Rayman60 (talk) 13:12, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I agree with Rayman60. I'm undecided on whether an article about the lion's killing warrants a separate Wikipedia article, but it seems to me that the lion himself may be notable enough for one. Beyond the killing, which has obviously attracted worldwide attention, my understanding is he was star a attraction at Hwange National Park, and was being studied/tracked by Oxford University. This Guardian article, for example, described him as "one of Africa’s most famous lions," referring to his fame before the killing. Perhaps the author of this article, StAnselm (talk · contribs), can take a shot at recasting it as an entry about Cecil himself? — Hunter Kahn 13:14, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm struggling to find any reliable sources before this month. He wasn't mentioned on the Hwange National Park page. StAnselm (talk) 13:27, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – this is a major news story, in which all news articles seem to suggest that Cecil was well known locally, which combined with the global attention surely makes the lion more than notable. Frankie Roberto (talk) 13:16, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: As article creator, I am very close to voting "delete" on this one. The main reason I created the article was that it much better than having an article at Walter Palmer (hunter). I'd be happy with a move to Cecil the lion. StAnselm (talk) 13:17, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename Cecil (Lion) We should ping some editors from Zimbabwe or Wikiproject Zimbabwe to give their input. As far as animal articles go, Cecil is definitely notable in that domain of Wikipedia. --Tobias1984 (talk) 13:21, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete WP:NOTNEWS, no coverage of the animal outside his death. no evidence his death has any lasting impact. The article is also rife with WP:BLP issues. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:26, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename Cecil (Lion) The animal was noteworthy. --Swift (talk) 13:48, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have failed to find any coverage of the "famous" lion before the news events of his death. Did I miss some? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:44, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the world-wide coverage in high-quality sources is easily more than enough for meeting our notability standards. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:08, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep I'm not sure if the Oxford study establishes notability, but it seems to be that Cecil was locally famous before his death. Maybe someone with some Google-fu can sort through the flood of recent news stories to find some older references? Do we have WP:Notability (animals)? shoy (reactions) 15:13, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Seems like a fairly cut and dried Wikipedia:N/CA to me. Raindog469 (talk) 15:24, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
seems pretty WP:ROUTINE media news cycle coverage with no indication of any lasting impact/import. (while there is a potential for impact, none has yet occurred and many events which might have had lasting impact, instead are merely dust flecks in history. in 6 months or a year if his death is widely noted as having sparked a widespread increase in protection for lions, then we can reconsider. if, as is more likely, in six months people have forgotten this outrage and are twitting about the next outrage....) -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:49, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. There is nothing in the sources to indicate this warrants an encyclopedia article. Muscat Hoe (talk) 15:59, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is another flash-in-the-pan news story that will not have any long-term impact. If that changes, then a page for the Lion itself would be the right thing. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 17:06, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but rename to Cecil (Lion) and style as a celebrity. Cecil is a celebrity lion and deserves a Wiki page just like any other human or animal celebrity. See Bo (dog).
  • Keep or merge Received worldwide coverage and sparked a debate on animal killing. Seems noteworthy enough to have an article on. But perhaps it might be better merging it with another article that deals with animal hunting (a subtitle 'scandals' or something like that). L E X commons (talk) 17:17, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep and rename Cecil (Lion) What is Wikipedia coming to. This is probably one of the most widely discussed and reported stories. Touches on various issues including Animal Rights, Game Hunting and Internet Activism. --Natkeeran (talk) 17:32, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hopefully Wikipedia is not coming to be the place where every activist incident is treated as if it were encyclopedic material just because it currently is part of the 24 hour news cycle rather than having actually established that it has lasting impact and import. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:52, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Rather arbitrary chopping off of excessive chatter. Drmies (talk)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Wikipedia was an activist project to start with. Do we really need the Britannica standards to be employed in the 21th century. What is not high literature and culture is not knowledge. Deletionism attitude is slowly stiffing Wikipedia. To the point: The killing of Cecil re-ignites the debate over trophy hunting--Natkeeran (talk) 18:32, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There are well over 4 million articles, i think it will be hard for you to actually justify your claims of "stiffing". And we shall see if Cecil has more power to impact trophy hunting than the absolute assurances people proclaimed that Sandyhook would impact national American gun laws. If it does, hooray. But it actually needs to happen first, and it cannot be using Wikipedia to attempt to make it happen. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:37, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, lets remove all the articles about Middle East, because there is no result, there is no peace yet. Outrage, debate, international media coverage, who cares, because Wikipedia needs elite standards for articles. Do New York Times, National Post, BBC have standards; na, they are just writing reports on a slow news day. I want to keep all the articles in this category: Category:Cricketers by nationality and this one. --Natkeeran (talk) 19:08, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You have quite proven my very position - the events in the Middle East typically have long lasting, wide ranging impacts on many real life events ranging from product embargoes to policy creation - not merely passing twitter trending. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:27, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Your reasoning is inherently flawed. The reason why we consider events encyclopaedical is not dependent on the question whether or not they actually have a profound and long-lasting impact, but rather, the question if people view it as such. There are countless historical events that have had a big impact on human life (e.g. the invention of some sort of metal alloy that could then be used for some industrial process etc) yet people wouldn't care two cents about, and there are events that in retrospect lead to nothing but held millions of people in its grip. You act as if it is up to you to decide what is worthy of this encyclopaedia and what is not, but frankly, it is not the decision of an individual, but rather the masses. This is not a 19th century encyclopaedia, this is Wikipedia. Welcome. L E X commons (talk) 20:35, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Notability_(events)#The_event you are wrong. There must be Lasting effects and Duration of coverage neither of which has been established. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:40, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Instead of going full blown inflexible and citing some arbitrarily defined rules, you should ask yourself what the purpose of an encyclopaedia is: to inform people in a neutral way about important events. If you leave this matter to news sites, you will not get a neutral point of view, as the matter will devolve into something either pro-hunting or contra-hunting. The people clearly want to know more about this lion. So make it possible to share information. Jeez. The people on this website sometimes.. L E X commons (talk) 20:46, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for telling me what I have and haven't thought about! Did you know that I HAVE thought about this WP:IINFO ? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:50, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yawn. Stop hiding behind hyperlinks. Nobody cares.L E X commons (talk) 20:52, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You may not care that my positions are based on policies, but the closing admin will. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:57, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Was that supposed to be a witty comeback? Jeez. The people on this website sometimes...L E X commons (talk) 21:12, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It was merely a statement of fact. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:13, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm about to bring out the trouts... stop this bickering please. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:14, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Zimbabwe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:53, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:53, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:53, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:53, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Victor the Giraffe doesn't have a specific page but his demise in 1977 was considered sufficiently important that he still appears in multiple locations in Wikipedia including as a subsection: Colden Common#Victor_the_Giraffe; I submit that Cecil was of greater importance in that he was not only the subject of scientific studies but was also the victim of an alleged crime (protected animal lured off-site and then killed to obtain a trophy). AncientBrit (talk) 17:41, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep, though a debate can continue on any name change needed. story is high profile, covered by all the major news networks, and thus easily qualifies for notability. Should not be merged with an article on poaching, etc. we arent creating recentism here, the worldwide media, if anyone, is responsible, but we are not gatekeepers for what is covered by media.(mercurywoodrose)50.193.19.66 (talk) 17:55, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The lion is noteworthy. The lion was part of a multi-year Oxford University research study prior to being killed [1]. The publicity garnered by recent news coverage may not be lasting, but the lion's contribution to science (via the university study) and to the broader cultural conversation about poaching and sport hunting of rare animals is undeniable. Neil Besner (talk) 18:34, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ http://www.ox.ac.uk/news/science-blog/life-lions-revisited
  • gajillions of animals are part of scientific studies. we do not have articles on Rabbit #232012A that was part of the study that helped develop develop insulin for diabetes. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:40, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • True, although an article on Rabbit #232012A might be worth including if there was significant detailed information about it, its cultural significance nationally and globally, and a detailed account of its final movements before death -- as there is for Cecil the Lion.Neil Besner (talk) 19:10, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge to "List of cats"- While it is too soon to tell whether or not this incident will have lasting coverage, it should at least be merged to either List of cats or some other article about which Cecil can be included. --Jax 0677 (talk) 18:39, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep with rename to Cecil (lion) Other examples of animals becoming (very) famous only after their death include Marius (giraffe), numerous leopards and Champawat Tiger.DrChrissy (talk) 18:55, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thats a pretty classic WP:WAX. and it falls short in that for Marius we have wide range of relevant voices like zoo organization who at least made comments (if not any actual changes to policies) - for Cecil all we have is cyberstalkers. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:38, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:NOTNEWS. There is nothing more than news sources. If there is still coverage in sources in one month... delete--Müdigkeit (talk) 19:07, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge, doesn't have an article about Cecil himself and is just news, this will be forgotten about in a few months probably. Maybe merge into something about it, like Wildlife of Zimbabwe or Crime in Zimbabwe though.  Seagull123  Φ  19:09, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename Cecil (Lion) It would be a shame to remove the article entirely. The new article should focus primarily on the life of the animal with a minor note about his untimely death. --JordanLeBlanc (talk) 19:28, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep or move to draft - Death seems notable enough to keep an article on it, though honestly if nothing more comes of it I might be persuaded to delete it. Putting it in draft for now to see if it emerges beyond the point of NOTNEWS seems like an okay idea. I will say, I agree with TRPoD that the lion was not notable prior to its death. I can find nothing about it before the recent news. I say this as someone who honestly loves pages for famous animals and plants... EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:59, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as Cecil (lion). Widely covered, and multiple reliable sources state that the lion was well-known and a tourist attraction before its death, so passes GNG. --Arxiloxos (talk) 20:08, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • there being no actual evidence of the lion being "well known" before his death, this seems to be a case reliable sources falling down on the job, the only actual coverage is the WP:NOTNEWS story of his death. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:26, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. There's no WP:RS provided yet that show the lion itself is notable. Only its death. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:50, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename to Cecil (lion) - well known before death. Well covered death story.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:58, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@BabbaQ: Do you know of any sources about the lion prior to its death? I really can't find any and we'd need some if we were to rename the article. Hoping you can help. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:00, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment 'For those concerned about whether Cecil was famous, please look at this RS.[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by DrChrissy (talk • contribs)

References

  1. ^ "Statement in first 10 secs of the video news report - Cecil the lion: US hunter 'regrets' killing". BBC. July 29, 2015. Retrieved July 29, 2015.

DrChrissy (talk) 21:34, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That gives us no info... I don't see a video if there's supposed to be one... EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:08, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh. When I click on the link there is a video in the top left corner - the image is a male lion with fore-legs outstretched and his mouth open.DrChrissy (talk) 21:33, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@DrChrissy: Would you mind briefly summarizing how the video supports that Cecil is famous enough for his own article? EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 22:28, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I posted the BBC news report as an RS verifying that Cecil was already famous/well known in the locality before his death - this was being questioned. Whether he is famous enough, or his death is infamous enough, for a stand-alone article is something that will be decided by community consensus.DrChrissy (talk) 22:36, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: WP:CRIME: "A person who is known only in connection with a criminal event or trial should not normally be the subject of a separate Wikipedia article if there is an existing article that could incorporate the available encyclopedic material relating to that person." This is also applicable if the victim is an animal. => Keep the article that way. Relevance is almost assured by WP:N/CA. This is more comparable to the Black Dahlia case: Short would not have gotten an article (just about her), but the killing became notable. 2A02:8108:9BC0:18D4:7D63:A17A:F180:6CB7 (talk) 21:13, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as Cecil (lion). There's been quite a reaction, and the circumstances of Cecil's death deserve an article. Pkeets (talk) 21:27, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for all the reasons given above. Stroller (talk) 22:16, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snow keep and move to Cecil (lion). I have nominated that redirect for speedy deletion to facilitate a speedy page move. Safiel (talk) 22:17, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename to Cecil (lion). For reasons already explained by editors that are in favor of keeping the article. Cecil was already notable to the Zimbabwean and scientific community; the lion's death and resulting reaction furthers that nobility. ~ Jedi94 (Want to tell me something?) 22:21, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Patently passes GNG. Not sure about renaming it though. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:28, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename Cecil (lion) People traveled to Africa just to see him, according to NPR radio.http://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2015/07/29/427451836/one-point-of-view-on-how-lions-can-earn-money-for-africa — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bialosz (talk • contribs) 22:44, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - a perfect example of the worst excesses of blindly reprinting every news story and social media share that appears on the internet. We're not really building an encyclopedia any more, merely a blogospherical buzzfeed redelivery system. WP:NOTNEWS --ℕ ℱ 22:53, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is not blogosphere" and "worst excesses" (though I would change the title) No need for harsh words. The lion was very notable in Zimbabwe, kind of animal face for animal conservation, and a major tourist attraction, he was an animal celebrity, drew tourists from other countries and continents.. We have pages for ex. about Uggie the animal actor, and Soviet space dogs, related to science, why disparge an article about animal celebrity from Africa, tied to animal conservation? Why should be an article about him less important than an article about animal actor form USA or Europe? I think we are trying to have some balance here, even though animal conservation issues seem less popular than for ex. movies with animal actors, still worth of attention. Bialosz (talk) 23:49, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
while the papers keep repeating the phrase that he is "famous", there does not actually appear to be any evidence of such "fame". One would, for example expect at least one of the travel guides like Frommers or Bradt or Let's Go! to be dropping a plug "And while you are at Hwange, be sure to check out Cecil the lion and his unique black mane!" but I didnt find any. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:43, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your concern, but travel guides are not neccesary a very detailed examples of measuring fame, specially if it is an animal, or a living person.Travel guides fluctuate, and can omit quite a lot.It would be unusual to single out one animal for the guide, given the fact that an animal may die (from natural causes for ex. or become sick etc. Travel guides focus on things more solid, and therefor are not good sources for judging fame of a wild animal.Bialosz (talk) 01:00, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Rename to Cecil the Lion - Wikipedia is not news, but the lion was already notable before its death, as sources such as the Conservation Genetics journal (which pre-date the killing) indicate. --Joshua Issac (talk) 23:06, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename Cecil (lion) or Cecil the lion. We have other articles about notable animals. Cecil seems to have been notable before his death and certainly is now. Sarah (talk) 23:12, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename to Cecil (lion) as per other editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:16, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't see how this animal is notable, and the rest is WP:NOTNEWS. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 23:18, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the Article. This is a newsworthy event. The article is neutral and does not take sides. Cecil was the oldest lion in Africa and the focus of an Oxford University Project. The hierarchy is now upset in the pride and the eventual developments in the pride, should be documented here.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tristan teGroen (talk • contribs)
  • Keep - the notability and news coverage have passed any threshold stage by now, and although 'not the news' arguments are used, the issue of game hunting of species that are defenceless by paying hunters is an issue with this as a notable example JarrahTree 23:40, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The story is getting huge coverage. I came to Wikipedia first, to get the details and find some links. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:52, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename as Cecil (lion). The lion was known before its death as part of an academic study. Its death has been reported and editorialised in media around the world. The circumstances are similar to Marius (giraffe), also killed in controversial circumstances. WWGB (talk) 23:53, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename as Cecil (lion) - The lion was known prior to his death and I'd imagine he was very well known in Zimbabwe, Lion's death has received tons upon tons of worldwide coverage. –Davey2010Talk 00:23, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:NOTNEWS Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 00:38, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Cecil was a celebrity lion before this, and this killing of a celebrity lion is not news that will fade away like a random person being hit by a subway train. This is a signal event that will remain part of future discussion of gun laws, sport hunting, conservation, endangered animals and other topics. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:44, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename Cecil (lion) - The event is receiving extensive coverage for a reason, Cecil was a famous lion before he was killed. If he wasn't a famous lion there wouldn't be so much, um, uproar about his death. Per WP:GNG. -- GreenC 00:48, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (in some form). Above, TheRedPenOfDoom alleges that this (non-)news item "is filling the 24 hour news cycle during a slow summer news period". Actually, no. There are plenty of celeb Twitter-spats (and at least one presidential candidate) for that; and anyway for the US (a key news/infotainment generating nation) it's not a particularly slow summer news period (what with Syria, Iraq, Iran, etc). That there is plenty of excited/silly talk (and snarky meta-stories, such as this one) about Cecil and his demise does not devalue the encyclopediaworthiness: editors should ignore the silliness (except if this itself becomes notable) and concentrate on what's important. I'm uncertain about which is the best direction for the article; and yes of course there are BLP concerns, but these are not good reason to delete. -- Hoary (talk) 00:53, 30 July 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. j⚛e deckertalk 17:32, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Marare[edit]

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

The only source of the article is a primary source. This article fails WP:GNG. sovereign°sentinel (contribs) 09:50, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Show on a national broadcasting channel. Notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:06, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • If kept, this should be moved to the correct name, Marae, with a suitable disambiguation term.-gadfium 22:27, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Article already exists at Marae (TV series). Show is definitely notable. No need for a redirect. -- haminoon (talk) 09:26, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Article already exists at Marae (TV series). No need for a redirect, as the 2nd "r" in "Marare" is just a typo, the "r" key being next to the "e" key. Nurg (talk) 10:25, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:49, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:49, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:49, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - was just about to speedy this (A10) when I noticed the AFD tag at the top. Grutness...wha? 12:53, 31 July 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. j⚛e deckertalk 17:31, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mont Allen[edit]

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

Article fails WP:GNG. sovereign°sentinel (contribs) 09:37, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:48, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:48, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:48, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:48, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- An assistant professor who has produced nothing but a dissertation is surely NN. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:11, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This professor, or rather assistant professor, appears to be very ordinary and not outstanding in any manner, thereby failing WP:PROF. It could also be rather firmly argued that he fails to meet WP:GNG, since there seems to be very little, if any, unique coverage of him outside the SIU page. (Don't be fooled by numbers; one result I found via Google was simply an exact copy of the SIU bio.) --Biblioworm 19:43, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Classic(al) case of WP:TOOSOON. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:24, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. He actually has published a couple things beyond his dissertation, but there's no indication that the scholarship is widely-read enough or has got enough attention to give him notability yet. Fyddlestix (talk) 16:24, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as WP:TOOSOON, with all good wishes for a successful career.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:54, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • DElete -- In 20 years since he graduated he has produced very little, as shown by his [14]]. He now has two articles in the press, making a total of about 4. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:13, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. j⚛e deckertalk 17:31, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ME-Mydoc[edit]

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

Unsourced. Fails WP:GNG. sovereign°sentinel (contribs) 09:31, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:45, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I can't find even a shred of independent coverage in reliable sources. Huon (talk) 16:37, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Software article of unclear notability, lacking independent references. A search turned up no significant WP:RS coverage. Article was created by an SPA as possibly promotional. Dialectric (talk) 02:50, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No coverage whatsoever in secondary sources. ~ RobTalk 11:57, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. j⚛e deckertalk 17:31, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rob Wright (writer)[edit]

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

Wholly unreferenced. Fails WP:GNG. Attempts to engage with author to improve have been fruitless  Velella  Velella Talk   08:13, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - non-notable. And as a general note, that kind of information is usually already better provided via IMDB as specialist website. No need to duplicate it (unless there is additional notable encyclopedic information of course). GermanJoe (talk) 08:41, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment for clarity - older versions of the article contained a few references, but all of them minor and not establishing notability. Such details should be mentioned in the nomination statement (just saying). GermanJoe (talk) 08:47, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails all parts of WP:AUTHOR--Savonneux (talk) 09:30, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:44, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:44, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:44, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:44, 30 July 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. j⚛e deckertalk 17:30, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

M'un'gwu[edit]

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

Possible hoax. I'm far from familiar with Aboriginal culture, but a Google search came up empty and this deity is not listed on two lists of Noongar words ([15], [16]). Conifer (talk) 07:42, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DeleteFails WP:GNG and WP:Verifiability. Could be a WP:HOAX. --Müdigkeit (talk) 09:01, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:43, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:43, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Absent evidence of verifiability, and also given the fact that the author also created Double Trouble Twins, which appears to be a likely hoax, it is highly likely this may be a hoax as well. Even if it could be proved that this subject exists, we are still far from any indication of notability. Mz7 (talk) 04:10, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. j⚛e deckertalk 17:29, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Couponstan[edit]

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

Company that fails WP:WEB by lacking any significant independent sources. Conifer (talk) 07:06, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep it this article is what indians what to read about its not the case of new or old how significant this website is going up is amazing with in 1 month its jump 4,219,591 in top websites in world, specially in india its growing like anything and most of all its content is usefull for viewers trusted deals and coupons, i really think this is my first hot topic in journey of india although i am from russia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nikuwiku (talk • contribs) 09:22, 30 July 2015 (UTC) — Nikuwik (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:35, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:35, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:35, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

First indian website to cross 10 lakh website in just one month amazing.and very helpful though in finding deal, offers, we have so many ecommerce websites in india more than 600 there must be something to show their deals, coupons , offfers and couponstan really set it up by giving relevant deals and offers what people want to know and they are keep on searching. good one. and off course i as a user finding is very informatic when we people are searching about india no 1 coupon website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.76.161.59 (talk) 15:44, 30 July 2015 (UTC) — 106.76.161.59 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  • keep everything is promotional if you think like this, Wikipedia is world biggest information network and how come wikipedia can not feature something that is coming very notable nowadays in india , even india best news channels featuring couponstan on their website, like TIMES OF INDIA having topic on — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.67.88.219 (talk) 21:06, 4 August 2015 (UTC) — 106.67.88.219 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Nerve agent#V-series. j⚛e deckertalk 17:29, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

VP (nerve agent)[edit]

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

A search of SciFinder turns up only one report of this chemical compund in the scientific and patent literature. This is the most comprehensive chemical database in existence, and if this is the only hit that turns up, then there is nothing else publicly reported about it. The one hit is US patent 3903098 in which this chemical is just one of many related chemical compounds reported. There is nothing special about it. As the article itself says, "Little is known about it other than its chemical formula." Per WP:N (all chemical compounds must meet the general notability guideline to be included in Wikipedia) and WP:V, this article should be deleted. ChemNerd (talk) 20:20, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep "Little is known about it" is a problem for us, but I don't think it's insurmountable. It's a V agent, with a recognised member name as VP. That is notable. Can we source this to meet WP:V, whilst still limited to the public sources? Well it's in the rubber-suit bible, which is probably the most authoritative public source for such things. I think this is thin, but given the domain, it's enough. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:28, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 Talk 15:30, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to CB military symbol. Covered sufficiently there, and not much sourcing or other information to be found about it. Having a stand alone article doesn't really add any information. I'd suggest redirecting it to Nerve agent, but it's not covered there, it is covered at CB military symbol.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 00:36, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 06:39, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to CB military symbol#Nerve AgentsDoes not appear anywhere else than in a reliable database, and there is little information about it. Not enough for an article, enough to mention it somewhere in a list or something like that.--Müdigkeit (talk) 07:34, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Nerve_agent#V-series. Like others have said, I could not find any extra information beyond that which is already in the stub. "CB military symbol" seems to be more like a list article. It does not mention that VP is related to VX. (I am prepared to accept that the reference Handbook of Chemical and Biological Warfare Agents supports the statement about the relationship.) I don't think that information about this relationship should be added to the "CB military symbol" list article. Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:04, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Nerve_agent#V-series per Axl. Anotherclown (talk) 00:31, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Nerve agent#V-series. A note about VP already exists at CB military symbol, and it doesn't make sense to redirect to a list that then links to the main article. ~ RobTalk 12:01, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Due to low participation, this is closed with no prejudice against speedy renomination. (non-admin closure) Mz7 (talk) 00:26, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Westmoreland (railcar)[edit]

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

No reliable sources verify WP:V the notability WP:GNG of this railcar. The sources so far also do not prove WP:SIGCOV significant coverage. AadaamS (talk) 20:31, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Frick has an entire family archive, including coverage of this. Even though the nominator managed to cite a winning hand of no less than three links to ALLCAPS pages, there is still no merit to this nomination. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:56, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • A family archive would verify the existence of this railcar, not its notability independent from said notable family. AadaamS (talk) 08:28, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:16, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:16, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 Talk 15:30, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 06:37, 29 July 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 Railway Museum of Greater Cincinnati#Rolling stock. Been up 3 weeks & as always redirect is preferred over deletion, No point dragging this on. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010Talk 19:36, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Juliet (PRR)[edit]

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

No reliable sources verify WP:V the notability WP:GNG of this railcar. The sources so far also do not prove WP:SIGCOV significant coverage. It is therefore likely this is not a suitable subject for a standalone article. AadaamS (talk) 20:39, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:17, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:17, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:17, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 Talk 15:30, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 06:37, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 10:07, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sesh[edit]

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

This is at best a dictionary definition--the article is nothing but a set of meanings ascribed to the term, which doesn't appear, from the sourcing, to be an important one. Note also the original research, particularly, of course, in a note explaining the results from Google searches in 2008, which can't even be accurate since the internet hadn't been invented. I think. Drmies (talk) 04:38, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oh come on. This article is this guy's life work [17]. I wouldn't want to see that go down the drain. That seems a bit ... vish. -- Softlavender (talk) 06:20, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete. The term isn't really of particular importance to any of the groups identified to be using it within the the article. This slang should really go, as it's just a dictionary definition, even though it's well sourced (hence the weak).—Godsy(TALKCONT) 07:20, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It is a contraction rather than a discrete topic. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:29, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:32, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 07:36, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Colin Keay[edit]

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

Non notable. No evidence he passes WP:PROF. His claim to maps of Jupiter is based on his own web page only, and would need evaluation by some third party source. Such work would be expected to be very highly cited, but I don't see that in Google Scholar, which shows his highest citations to be 62 and 42, on acoustics of meteors. h=7, which is below the standard in any subject. DGG ( talk ) 04:23, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:30, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:30, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:30, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fringe subjects need better mainstream sourcing than this one has (solely a letter to the editor?) in order to provide a neutral viewpoint on this subject. In addition the sources presented in the article aren't enough for WP:GNG, and he doesn't appear to pass WP:PROF. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:26, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As the author of this page, I agree that in hindsight, the subject of this page is not sufficiently notable. --Danimations (talk) 06:24, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable fringe, as everyone including page's creator now agrees.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:34, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Kraxler (talk) 15:48, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

David Noonan (environmentalist)[edit]

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

no evidence for notability. Refs are to his own columns. DGG ( talk ) 04:16, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong keep Prominent Australian environmental spokesman on nuclear issues, Jill Hudson award winner. Contrary to what User:DGG states ("Refs are to his own columns"), the refs show Noonan as being quoted in Australian national media (The Age, Sydney Morning Herald, ABC). Bahudhara (talk) 06:59, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Positive Keep,good amount of hits in major news sources if you just search with his name and add other key words like nuclear or environment. Well known as a prominent activist in both anti-nuclear and environmental issues. Mr Bill Truth (talk) 08:59, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America1000 14:39, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. North America1000 14:39, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. North America1000 14:39, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Question. Any sources actually writing about him? The only way to show the Jill Hudson awards to be notable is to try to write an article on it. Being quoted in newspapers is not evidence of notability. DGG ( talk ) 02:00, 31 July 2015 (UTC) .[reply]
Comment: Noonan is also quoted in the international press - see for example,
The New Zealand Herald, 16 March 2011: Tide turns against nuclear industry
China - People's Daily Online, November 12, 2010, Australia-Russia nuclear cooperation agreement sparks controversies
The Christian Science Monitor - March 29, 2005, Proposed uranium deal to China raises weapons concerns
India - Deccan Herald - 13 March, 2011, Nuclear energy foes see warning in Japan crisis
Norway/Russia - Bellona Foundation, 11/11-2008, Australian against exporting uranium, poll says, which could have consequences for Russia
  • Keep. A wealth of sources to meet WP:GNG. Doctorhawkes (talk) 02:45, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I've searched without success for biographical interviews with the subject and can only assume that he is a private person. Surely this should not detract from his prominent public presence established through his work? Since this notice went up, the article has been improved and now contains references supporting Noonan's notability spanning the 1990s to present. --Danimations (talk) 08:49, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment A prominent public presence" acquired through writing minor articles in magazine is not notability. Nor a mentions, nor press releases. I see I'll be bringin g this up again later. DGG ( talk ) 15:52, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, he's well known in both the environment preservation and anti-nuclear movements. Mr Bill Truth (talk) 09:38, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. Consensus appears clear and of course Commander of the British Empire is considered notable as it apparently meet WP:ANYBIO#1. Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 07:23, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Timothy Stone[edit]

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

COBE is usually considered notable, but this article is an example of WP:COATRACK that is so wrongly oriented that it would need to be started over. More specifically, a bio that doesn't include the name and place of birth for a subject where it should be easily available is usually a quick promotional write-up, and a bio that places the education at the end and gives the career in reverse chronological order is almost always a press release. If that's all that's wrong it can be rewritten, but when the bulk of the article is links to the persons own presentations, and makes unprovable assertions (e.g. "along with others") it's not worth it. DGG ( talk ) 04:13, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Recipient of the CBE, which is always held to satisfy WP:ANYBIO #1. The article isn't that bad that it needs to be deleted. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:09, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:29, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:29, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:29, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:29, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- I agree this is a far from satifactory article, but not bad enough for deletion. The subject is clearly notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:44, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- I agree with Peter above, the subject is clearly notable. The article has been improved today, with year of birth added from a reliably sourced biographical article published in The Independent. --Danimations (talk) 06:18, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. j⚛e deckertalk 17:23, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Warmolts[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested without a reason being provided. Sir Sputnik (talk) 04:08, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 04:08, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:27, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:27, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:27, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Los Angeles Times. (non-admin closure) Kharkiv07 (T) 20:50, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Los Angeles Times in the 21st century[edit]

Los Angeles Times in the 21st century (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not a notable subject in and of itself. Should we have Los Angeles Times in the 20th and 19th century as well? Should be deleted. Étienne Dolet (talk) 04:06, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Looks like it was split reasonably from the parent article because of its size per WP:SPLIT. Needs to be cleaned up and could be sourced better but looking at the articles for other newspapers it seems to be a reasonable level of detail. If parts of it can't be sourced they should be removed. This is AfD though, not WP:CLEAN --Savonneux (talk) 09:46, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It would be more normal to split the entire History of the Los Angeles Times to a separate article, but this isn't a terrible solution. Colapeninsula (talk) 14:10, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep as is. Level of detail here is encyclopedic considering the massive changes in newspapering during the early 21st century, and this article can easily be kept up to date by anybody who is interested in doing so and who has access to good sources. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 00:02, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Remerge.' A truly absurd split if there ever was one, especially considering that most of its history is in the 20th century. Even a separation of "History" would seem unnecessary--the articles is not all that large in the first place. (65K if combined) DGG ( talk ) 05:13, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America1000 14:44, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America1000 14:44, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge back into Los Angeles Times; unnecessary, non-notable split article. I suspect, however, that a split and expansion of the history of the paper could be acceptable. --torri2(talk/contribs) 20:14, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge back. I have no objection now to its going back where it came from, as long as we make sure it doesn't overwhelm the parent article. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 22:33, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into a History of the Los Angeles Times article, consisting of an expansion of the History section of Los Angeles Times and this article in its current form. It is clear that there is enough here to warrant a split should the older history be expanded, and I'm interested in assisting with such an expansion. Also, simply plopping this back into the main article would lend undue weight to recent events. ~ RobTalk 12:09, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge back or, as a second choice, into History per Rob just above. --j⚛e deckertalk 17:22, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 07:32, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Integrated Freight Corp.[edit]

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

no indication of notability. Routine notices only. There's soz little to say that some of it is said three times over-- sections 2 and 3 merely repeat the introduction, DGG ( talk ) 03:15, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I tagged it for notability mainly because I didn't have time to submit the nom myself. Lack of significant coverage by reliable third party sources. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:21, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:59, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:59, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:59, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:59, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unfortunately as my searches found nothing good with the best being this and one Reuters PR at Books followed by more PR at browser. SwisterTwister talk 05:19, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to List of members of the British Free Corps. Interested readers may go from there to British Free Corps. (non-admin closure) Kraxler (talk) 15:33, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

John Leister (British Free Corps)[edit]

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

Known only for one thing: being a Brit who fought for the Germans in WW2 and was tried and served 3 years for it. Does not satisfy guidelines for biographies. Wikipedia is not a directory of every soldier or every turncoat. Edison (talk) 03:08, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to British Free Corps. This guy falls short of WP:CRIME. Surely he could be redirected to the article about the British Free Corps, as his conduct wasn't independently noteworthy? North of Eden (talk) 03:17, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:58, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:58, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:58, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:58, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Weale, Adrian (2014-11-12). Renegades (Kindle Location 2373). Random House. Kindle Edition.
  2. ^ "SS-Standarte Kurt Eggers". Axis History Factbook. Marcus Wendel. Retrieved 2014-12-27.
  • REdirect - probably to the list article. Unfortunately that is constructed as a table in a way that does not make it easy to read. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:49, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The list article, like many other lists on Wikipedia, tries to convey multiple pieces of information (e.g. British rank, German rank, postwar sentence) about multiple people.Alekksandr (talk) 22:39, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect: G'day, I think that it would probably be best just to deal with the subject briefly (being careful not to breach WP:UNDUE) in the British Free Corps article, IMO. Equally, I'm a bit concerned that currently the article too closely paraphrases the Weale source: [18] If kept, it probably needs to be rewritten in Wikipedia's own words with only sparing use of quotes (with proper attribution). Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:10, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect: per nom, but especially in light of the close paraphrase issue highlighted by AustralianRupert. Anotherclown (talk) 11:48, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedily deleted as a hoax by User:JamesBWatson (non-admin close). shoy (reactions) 15:19, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alonso Nava[edit]

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

Most of this article's content is just a copy-and-paste from this one. The person who started it only published it under another name and made a few changes in the opening sentence. I cannot find any information on a Mexican footballer named Alonso Nava. - Lancini87 (talk) 01:34, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete: hoax. Vrac (talk) 02:27, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:52, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:52, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:52, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:52, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy deleted as G12 (NAC) I'll notice this with articles including temples but I never searched to see if it was a copyvio (a majority of what I nominate is never a copyvio so I missed this one). SwisterTwister talk 17:07, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ravirandal Mataji[edit]

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

Temples seem to be considered notable but this is a goddess, not temple and my searches aren't finding anything good to suggest improvement, aside from some seemingly unreliable or not useful links (in a browser search). The article is quite detailed which may be accurate but needs serious work if thought to be kept. SwisterTwister talk 05:57, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:24, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:24, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 00:41, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 10:03, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OfficeMA Timesheet[edit]

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

Unable to find significant coverage in reliable sources. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 00:25, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 00:25, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 00:25, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 00:40, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Couldn't find a mention in anything resembling a WP:RS. Vrac (talk) 02:58, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Software article of unclear notability, lacking independent RS references. Only ref provided is a single-author blog, and a search turned up no significant WP:RS coverage.Dialectric (talk) 02:43, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | Talk 00:48, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Henessy[edit]

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

Fails GNG & PORNBIO. Scene related awards don't count and she isn't the first if our article on Vicca is to be believed. The two sources don't pass muster. KP is an interview and therefore primary and the other (Lifenews) is an interview of her husband that lacks a byline and therefore appears dubious. Spartaz Humbug! 00:22, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - won - AVN Award, meets of WP:PORNBIO. And also - notable, in general. Subtropical-man talk
    (en-2)     08:34, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Won award, meets WP:PORNBIO. removed per Snowsuit Wearer --Savonneux (talk) 09:54, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - http://www.kp.ru/daily/26341.4/3224253/ - interview, http://www.kp.ru/daily/26335.4/3217938/ - article covering award, http://www.sovsport.ru/gazeta/article-item/793778 - not super classy but coverage --Savonneux (talk) 10:17, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • The daily mail is coverage too but we wouldn't rely on that as coverage for a BLP. KP is a tabloid and very much yellow press. I wouldn't give it more priority then the mail. Sovsport seems very tabloid too (and yes, I did read the sources (as best I can - my Russian is quite rusty) but they are not reliable sources for the GNG in my mind. WP:TABLOID#2 applies. Spartaz Humbug! 10:10, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • WP:TABLOID is about articles or article content that are about an event, as in "wikipedia is not a newspaper." This article is not about an event or an item of news coverage, it's a bio. I was just pointing to them as general notoriety.--Savonneux (talk) 19:22, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • Notoriety is not what we judge a BLP by and I have actually examined the sources and commented about why they are not RS in my opinion. KP is a tabloid and we don't source BLPs from tabloids. Spartaz Humbug! 22:38, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
            • Im not denying that that they're fluff pieces but you seem to have a strange view of what constitutes WP:RS. It's published, it's been around since 1925 and it's used as a source on many other wikipedia articles. Indeed WP:BLP has no specific guidance on secondary sources.--Savonneux (talk) 08:02, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
              • But the WP:GNG Does and KP is no more a reliable source now its a tabloid then when it was a mouthpiece for the Soviet government. Spartaz Humbug! 08:54, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:PORNBIO since the AVN "Best Sex Scene in a Foreign-Shot Production" which she won meets the criterium "Awards in scene-related and ensemble categories are excluded from consideration." Snowsuit Wearer (talk|contribs) 18:14, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010Talk 00:42, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, because I forgot that I had written this article. This was stupid from me. Also, I don't want to contribute to English Wikipedia.--Waylesange (talk) 06:18, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per sources given by Savonneux along with [19][20][21][22][23]. I don't disqualify sources simply because they publish in the tabloid format nor if they choose to cover fluffier topics. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:29, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1 is on a news agregator that can be edited by the public - see "If you find a mistake in the text, select it with the mouse and press Ctrl + Enter /Если вы нашли ошибку в тексте, выделите её мышью и нажмите Ctrl+Enter" and the author is not staff "Группа: Посетители - Group - sudience or customers"
  • 2 Internet "paper" and primary source/puff piece. No byline of the author
  • 3 Ditto 3, routine reporting of a scene award and spends a lot of time attacking Americans for blocking Russian porn actresses. Still no byline and clearly not a RS
  • 4 Reads like a reprinted press relwase (language similar to 2) and no byline and another unreliable online news aggregator
  • 5 Tabloid tittle tattle and certainly not anything we can base an article on. The content is just bleh... Spartaz Humbug! 08:54, 5 August 2015 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep - per Morbidthoughts.--Hillary Scott`love (talk) 11:27, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Scene awards do not satisfy WP:PORNBIO, tabloids do not satisfy WP:RS. Tarc (talk) 01:02, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Doesn't satisfy WP:PORNBIO. The sources that have been provided are not reliable, as per Spartaz, so does not meet WP:GNG. ~ RobTalk 12:14, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I won't discount sources merely because they are published in a tabloid format, but I won't credit them toward notability when they carry headlines like "Porn star offers soccer stud 16-hour sex romp for scoring spree". The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 21:50, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. j⚛e deckertalk 17:20, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vicca[edit]

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

Fails GNG & PORNBIO. The AVN award is scene related in performing in a film that won awards does not confer notability. Other sources all appear primary Spartaz Humbug! 00:19, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:PORNBIO, WP:BIO, and WP:GNG. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 02:38, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - notable: Penthouse Pet, she also modeled for Playboy, won - AVN Award, Hot d'Or and other. Meets of WP:PORNBIO, WP:BIO and also - notable, in general. Subtropical-man talk
    (en-2)     08:32, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • actually, she has only won a scene award van. The other awards are films she performed in that were added to puff out her article.Spartaz Humbug! 08:45, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as she won the 1997 AVN Award for "Best Solo Sex Scene" (which is an individual award) and was a penthouse pet she passes WP:PORN. Plus she seems to have a parallel career in mainstream B movies. -- fdewaele, 29 July 2015, 11:22 CET.
  • 1) awards are not a criteria that satisfies WP:PORNBIO, as it plainly says at that link; rubbing one out by oneself is still la "scene". 2) Penthouse Pets are not inherently notable, they must still pass WP:N. 3) As for the parallel career in mainstream B movies, what in this rich filmography qualifies, exactly? Once we weed out the "Sodomania Slop Shots 3", "Cumback Pussy 2 " and so on, then we're left with Secret Agent 420, where "Ivanka" is billed in the "rest of cast listed alphabetically" section. Tarc (talk) 13:32, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The "Best Solo Sex Scene" award win is scene-related and does not count for passing WP:PORNBIO. Being a Penthouse Pet does not establish notability either. Lacks significant reliable source coverage to pass WP:GNG. Brief mentions in Adult Video News are not enough. • Gene93k (talk) 12:26, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as Gene93k said. Snowsuit Wearer (talk|contribs) 18:19, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010Talk 00:42, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Scene awards are explicitly excluded from WP:PORNBIO. Subject's "movie career", such as it is, consists of all porn, softcore, and bit parts in 1-2 quasi-legit films. Tarc (talk) 13:32, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails PORNBIO, there are quite a few other little bits like the two awards, Playboy and Penthouse appearances and some B movies, but it all looks more like attention seeking than attention getting. Web searches indicate that the mainstream media continue to ignore her. Kraxler (talk) 15:11, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Concur with Tarc. Finnegas (talk) 23:45, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 09:56, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Erika Bella[edit]

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

Fails PORNBIO & GNG. Scene awards no longer count towards notability Spartaz Humbug! 00:03, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • That award win is scene-related, which does not count for notability for WP:PORNBIO. Reliable source coverage establishes notability, not presence in other Wikipedias. • Gene93k (talk) 10:14, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010Talk 00:43, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete PORNBIO #2 is for trend-setters, however my search of reference #2 does not support the statement that she "helped build the Italian pornographic movie industry". If that fact can indeed be verified/corroborated, then the article would definitely stand a better chance, but at the moment I'm not convinced. Primefac (talk) 20:28, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete She does not meet the guidelines for notability for pornographic film actors, she has not recieved awards of the type that make such people notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:41, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Scene awards no longer count towards the pornbio guide, does not meet WP:N in any way otherwise. Tarc (talk) 01:07, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 07:29, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Monica Roccaforte[edit]

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

Fails PORNBIO & GNG Spartaz Humbug! 00:01, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2015_July_29&oldid=1142625620"