Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 July 4

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 3 July	5 July >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 07:31, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sri Sameer Rao

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

Does not appear to satisfy WP:N. Into The Fray ^T/C 23:13, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:26, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:26, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe delete for now as my searches for "Sameer Rao" found results here, here and here but nothing that appears solid and independently notable. SwisterTwister talk 05:00, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as no evidence of notability, Fails GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 01:33, 11 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 (G3) by Bbb23. Non-admin closure

Vadim Zvyagintsev

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

Totally unsourced blp. No google hits, none at all. Either profoundly non-notable or a hoax (leaning more toward the latter since the name+football yields not even the facebook/twitter/linkedin crud). I tried to BLPprod it but the page creator removed the tag without providing sources, so we have to go around for the whole AfD process. Happy Squirrel (talk) 23:10, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I initially tagged this as a possible hoax, not having found anything online to corroborate the subject's existence. The claim He joined FC Khutoryanin Veydelevka on 1 September 2005 for a fee of 4 bags of cement and concrete mixer but was released a year later is a tip-off. And this [1] is the definition of a photshopped image.2601:188:0:ABE6:99FD:4E02:9E12:4A31 (talk) 23:14, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for all the reason above. Should probably be a speedy delete. Into The Fray ^T/C 23:18, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The author of the article seems very determined to remove all templates from the article. To date they have removed maintenance templates twice, a BLPprod and an AfD template. The AfD template is currently back, courtesy of Cyberbot. I don't want to edit war over this, but I want to mention this to the closing admin. Happy Squirrel (talk) 23:26, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment After viewing a second photoshopped image, I've nominated this for speedy deletion as a blatant hoax. 2601:188:0:ABE6:99FD:4E02:9E12:4A31 (talk) 23:27, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as a hoax. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:32, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note the player didn't appear on the Valencia CF Mestalla squad list until 4 hours ago, when an IP added them here- obvious evidence of a hoax. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:34, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Given that we all agree this is a blatant hoax, is there a way to request a speedy closure? Speedy delete templates don't seem to last long with the page creator. Happy Squirrel (talk) 23:37, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well an admin can just speedy delete it. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:38, 4 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. Davewild (talk) 07:34, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Platinum Rule (Golden Rule variation)

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

Probably a non-notable neologism. Editors were discussing deleting it on the talk page in January. It gets some passing mentions in news articles but apparently nothing in any depth. Sammy1339 (talk) 04:37, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:02, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:02, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge~~ Redirect to Golden Rule. There are a couple sources, but even if there were a few more there's not enough to justify a spin-off. I would also merge Silver Rule. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:50, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Nothing to merge. Already mentioned to the extent it needs to be. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:52, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with Sammy Alec Station (talk) 09:18, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – czar 22:40, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree that this is a non-notable neologism. Sources are not convincing re notability. Agtx (talk) 20:42, 5 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:18, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lucas the Game

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

Fails WP:GNG. Unable to find significant coverage from reliable secondary sources. The1337gamer (talk) 22:26, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) The1337gamer (talk) 22:58, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) It had no meaningful hits in a video game reliable sources custom Google search. There are no worthwhile redirect targets. Please ping me you find more (non-English and offline) sources. – czar 22:51, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As above, not enough reliable sources about it, fails WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:07, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:24, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now and draft/userfy if anyone wants but for a game that was released not even a week ago, searches found nothing to suggest the slightest good third-party coverage. SwisterTwister talk 04:50, 7 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. – czar 21:40, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retired Los Angeles Metro bus fleet

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

Very minor info, all sourced from one site on Angelfire. Trivialist (talk) 21:35, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:22, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:22, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:23, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. About the only notice was when they retired their last diesel buses.[2] Clarityfiend (talk) 22:08, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as simply not needed - Bus companies everywhere get rid of older vehicles so not sure on what makes LA Metro so special ?, Either way not needed. –Davey2010^Talk 02:59, 7 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 keep. SK#1: nom withdrawn, and no other deletion arguments – czar 22:13, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ephraim Curtis Middle School

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

Non-notable elementary school, per WP:WPSCH/AG#N. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:28, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator. Another editor will merge into school district. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:00, 4 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 keep. SK#1: nom withdrawn, and no other deletion arguments – czar 22:13, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Noyes Elementary School

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

Non-notable elementary school, per WP:WPSCH/AG#N. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:27, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator. Another editor will merge article into school district. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:01, 4 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 keep. SK#1: nom withdrawn, and no other deletion arguments – czar 22:13, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

General John Nixon Elementary School

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

Non-notable elementary school, per WP:WPSCH/AG#N. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:26, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator. Another editor will merge article into school district. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:01, 4 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 keep. SK#1: nom withdrawn, and no other deletion arguments – czar 22:13, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Israel Loring Elementary School

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

Not notable elementary school, per WP:WPSCH/AG#N. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:25, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator. Another editor will merge article into school district. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:02, 4 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 keep. SK#1: nom withdrawn, and no other deletion arguments – czar 21:36, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Joanna Rakoff

NOMINATION WITHDRAWN JMHamo (talk) 21:17, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

~~Contested PROD. Non-notable BLP; lack of significant coverage that isn't routine.~~ JMHamo (talk) 20:44, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, on the basis that her latest work, My Salinger Year (I haven't done a search for her other works) has been reviewed by many major news outlets, including theguardian.com and The Telegraph (UK) and the New York Times and Washington Post (USA). As an author of a notable book she meets WP:NAUTHOR criteria. Sionk (talk) 21:01, 4 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. – czar 21:38, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Discworld geography

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

An indiscriminate collection of fiction. It's a little hard to describe this, but this page probably belongs somewhere else on the internet, and what genuinely encyclopedic knowledge discussed in impartial third party sources there is could be easily merged to Discworld (world) or Terry Pratchett instead. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 18:59, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:24, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:24, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete once people have had the chance to transwiki, save, or duplicate the content. A fine work of scholarship but not suitable for Wikipedia. This is excessively detailed content (WP:DISCRIMINATE), original research (WP:OR), almost entirely derived from the fictional works under discussion (WP:NOTPLOT), and unsupported by third-party sources (WP:GNG). Colapeninsula (talk) 10:26, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per preceding arguments. There's already three paragraphs in Discworld (world)#The Disc. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:13, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Ritchie333, Colapeninsula, and Clarityfiend, note that if content was merged, we would indeed need to redirect the article to preserve attribution. But I checked the recent histories of the listed potential articles and didn't observe any merge. – czar 21:37, 11 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) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:02, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nahar Singh

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

Totally unsourced hagiography about a non-notable minor Indian prince who was hanged after the rebellion of 1857. ~~The article was created more than 18 months ago and has never had even a single source, and my attempts to find reliable sources for it have failed~~. Thomas.W ^talk 18:40, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Correction: It's much older than 18 months as it was created in 2006, but it didn't have any reliable sources even when created, only links to Yahoo-groups. The article has been embellished over the years, and received an even more promotional tone than it originally had, but no sources. Thomas.W ^talk 18:50, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - there's strong evidence that this prince existed, for example the petitions he made to the King and one of his letters turning up at auction. As an Indian ruler and someone who was executed after the Indian Rebellion, one would presume the likelihood that he was notable enough for Wikipedia. However, the penultimate section of the current article suggests he's been forgotten and unrecognised (which contradicts the remainder of the article). Being such a bloated, one-sided, unsourced essay, maybe it is an entirely original work and WP:BLOWITUP would be a solution. I've left a message at Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics. Sionk (talk) 22:05, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment He has cricket stadium named after him Nahar Singh Stadium, stadium is major stadium mentioned on ESPN Cricinfo website [3]. If a major stadium is named after him then he is certainly notable. And here is reliable source from official website of Faridabad district [4] mentioning about him. Also official website of Haryana Tourism [5] has mention about him. --Human3015 knock knock • 22:26, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That only supports that he existed, which noone has doubted, but it doesn't support any of the claims in the article. Blowing it up and starting from scratch again would be the best solution, but the lack of reliable sources means that we'd only get a stub article, if even that. Thomas.W ^talk 22:32, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have just read lead and improved it, we can add tags to rest of the article. If any extra-ordinary claim, we can delete it. Otherwise we can keep some logical unsourced things in good faith. --Human3015 knock knock • 22:43, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So article can become stub if we edit it, but it is not case of deletion, I think. His palace Nahar Singh Mahal is just 15km away from south Delhi and looks great in pics I found. So any visitor who is visiting that palace may search on net for getting primary info about Nahar Singh. Or those who visited Nahar Singh Stadium for watching any match can also search for his article. So this article is necessary. --Human3015 knock knock • 23:19, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: As per my above explanation and I also added some references to article, even though those sources are not much explanatory still they are enough to establish notability of Nahar Singh. --Human3015 knock knock • 23:29, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:18, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:18, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. References have now been added. The article needs down to be trimmed, though. Reads like a hagiography. utcursch | talk 01:02, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:51, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Ruler of a sovereign state. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:51, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There is no doubt this article is notable but as @Utcursch: suggested, it should improved . — CutestPenguin^Hangout 15:39, 7 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. Consensus is that the article does not meet the notability guidelines due to a lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. Davewild (talk) 19:46, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Romano

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

I couldn't establish that this is a WP:NOTABLE character. It has been tagged for notability for over 7 years, unresolved. My initial attempt at resolution was to redirect but this was reverted. Cast of ER would probably be the best redirect target. I think it should be deleted or redirected. Boleyn (talk) 17:50, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sending WP:APPNOTE to Lord Opeth and Mikeblas. Boleyn (talk) 17:51, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. We should place the question of this entry's existence into the much larger context of such proposals/essays (both active and inactive) as WP:Notability (fictional characters), WP:Notability (fiction), WP:Notability (fiction)/proposed-12-9-07, WP:Plot-only description of fictional works and the related WikiProject Soap Operas guidelines on character articles. Mindful of arguments set forth under WP:Other stuff exists, we should also note that this 13,291 byte entry was singled out for no discernible reason from among the 25 other character entries at Category:ER (TV series) characters (in April, the nominator had deleted and redirected to List of supporting characters in ER, another singled-out entry, Michael Gallant, which contained 8,118 bytes). It should also be noted that both entries have corresponding articles in Italian Wikipedia, while Robert Romano has an additional interwiki in Swedish Wikipedia. Moreover, List of supporting characters in ER has no character detail for any of its entries, thus depriving Wikipedia readers of all plotline history research contained within the original articles. All WP:PRODs and banners (that one may see appended to entries of numerous fictional characters) proclaim similar "original research", "general notability", "real-world context", "too long or excessively detailed" fault-findings which should be attended with judicious editing, rather than wholesale deletion. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 21:32, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The 'discernible reason' this was examined and then nominated is because I came across it while looking through CAT:NN; but that has nothing to do with the notability or otherwise of this character. It was also not nominated because it needs cleanup; that's irrelevant too. It is also not hugely relevant that the article List of supporting characters in ER (which is not the article I suggested as best redirect) has limited detail. That article (or any) could be expanded, or this article could merge to an article - but not that one as it doesn't mention Robert Romano. All of that is just fluff - does this meet WP:NOTABILITY guidelines? That is what we should be focused on. Boleyn (talk) 22:32, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The "no discernible reason" reference was made in relation to the unexplained singling out for WP:PROD/redirecting of this particular character among the 26 characters listed at Category:ER (TV series) characters. Are we to assume that the other 25 characters are, indeed, notable, or that we have not gotten around to them as yet, or that nominating all 26 at once would be excessively burdensome? The nomination did, indeed, suggest redirecting Robert Romano to Cast of ER, which is another article with extremely limited or non-existent character detail, but the reason for mentioning List of supporting characters in ER was that the previous (over three months ago, on April 1) deletion/redirect of an ER character, Michael Gallant, was to List of supporting characters in ER, not to Cast of ER. It should be noted as a relevant detail that unlike this nomination, which provides opportunity for a discussion, the Michael Gallant article, which had existed since June 2006, consisted of 7,863 bytes (including a detailed infobox), and still has a corresponding article (with photograph) in Italian Wikipedia, was deleted/redirected without a discussion, although it was not tagged for WP:Speedy Deletion. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 00:26, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:16, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:16, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:16, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. You can assume whatever you'd like, Roman. Me, I figure the problem is time. It would be great to delete all of the fan-cruft at once. But we can't. It would be great to apply judicious editing to trim down in-universe, original fan-written essays from every needed article, all at once. But time prevents everything from happening all at once. Further, we're obliged to evaluate each subject and article on its own merits and proceed from there. -- Mikeblas (talk) 02:08, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Each Wikipedian who cares to participate here will make his or her own assumptions, but we can take the nominator's own words at face value, "because I came across it while looking through CAT:NN". It all returns to the ever-present inclusionist/deletionist arguments and the drive-by tagging of all character articles, particularly those from pop culture. The reworked maxim seen at the opening of The Song of Bernadette can be adapted here without the import of its theological significance, "for those who believe, no explanation is necessary, for those who do not, no explanation is possible". For deletionists, no TV character (described within detailed plot outlines which represent the specifics of such character's existence) will satisfy General Notability Guidelines. As for the problem of time, it would take the same measure of days, with the same arguments, to vote upon redirecting (not quite as final as deletion, but for all intents amounting to the same effect) of all 26 ER character articles as it would for this randomly chosen single one. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 08:03, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really see a problem. If I do, really, it's just your own decision framework. You've categorized people into two groups, then you've decided that people each of those groups always behave in a certain way. If you believe people only behave in a certain way, then you're not going to accept any evidence that they don't behave their certain way. That's what you're doing here: denying that someone who you think is in one of your self-declared groups isn't behaving in the way you think that group behaves, and leaving no room for the possibility that your categorization and presumption is simply incorrect. -- Mikeblas (talk) 13:26, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There's no evidence of notability provided in the article, and the subject fails the WP:GNG. -- Mikeblas (talk) 02:08, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete on the basis that there do not appear to be sufficient WP:RS to establish WP:N or WP:GNG.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:47, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We need more than one RS. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 14:42, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article as it is right now is poorly written, but the subject of the article itself surely meets Wikipedia:Notability. The article needs major trimming and real world sections (reception, awards, etc.) --LoЯd ۞pεth 16:44, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Tony the Tiger. Capitalismojo (talk) 18:40, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The keep !voters have not presented any source-based evidence. I personally was unable to find multiple reliable sources which establish the subject's notability. Most simply seem to be passing mentions. Therefore, I've concluded that this article fails WP:GNG, and as a side note a good deal of other fictional character articles likely fail the guideline. --Biblioworm 17:08, 12 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. per CSD G5 and WP:SNOW SpinningSpark 18:43, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2015 Dublin Airport collision

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

Non-notable ground accident between two aircraft, no serious damage, nobody hurt just a bad day at the office, not really worth a mention elsewhere either, contested prod MilborneOne (talk) 17:46, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. MilborneOne (talk) 17:49, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:EVENT, since there isn't widespread news coverage. Conifer (talk) 18:28, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the two above; another case of someone being unable to distinguish between a minor bingle and an event of consequence. Aircraft hit and get hit by things on the ground literally every day somewhere in the world. It's not even unusual for two aircraft to collide on the ground - according to the (unreferenced) section in the Ryanair article it's the third ground collision involving Ryanair aircraft. YSSYguy (talk) 19:20, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable aviation incident....William 20:39, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not significant enough for a separate article. A plane clipping another one has a brief entry at Dublin Airport, but does not warrant a dedicated article on the event. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:33, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We should merge into Dublin Airport since no one was hurt or killed. Eat me, I'm a red bean (take a huge bite) 00:37, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:24, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:24, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a non-notable incident. No need to even mention it in an article, per WP:AIRCRASH guidelines. Mjroots (talk) 08:35, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:08, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Fails WP:EVENT, created by a sockpuppet. RGloucester — ☎ 16:40, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Obviously fails WP:NEWSEVENT. --Jersey92 (talk) 00:47, 6 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 by A7 twice now. (once before AfD and this one) (NAC) SwisterTwister talk 06:55, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Eddie Paloian

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

Not notable, does not pass WP:GNG. The references appear to be anything found on the web that mentions subject, and do not support most of the article. Specifically, the first three references pertain to the subject's father, the fifth and sixth appear to be some legal issue he was involved in, the seventh is the annual report of a charity he supported, and the eighth is a directory listing that doesn't seem to mention him. Only the reference about TicketFace.com supports the subject's notability, and I don't think that's enough. ubiquity (talk) 17:34, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as non-notable individual —Мандичка^YO 😜 20:19, 4 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 Brian McCann (baseball)#Personal life. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 01:34, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Howie McCann

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

Non-notable college baseball coach. The only significant coverage I can find is related to his son, a notable professional baseball player. EricEnfermero (Talk) 17:02, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. EricEnfermero (Talk) 04:29, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:14, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:15, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not inherited. But, there are quite a few sources that discuss Howie McCann, and I can't decide if there's enough detail in them to suffice for him, or if too much of it is about his notable son: [6],[7],[8],[9],[10],[11],[12] – Muboshgu (talk) 22:47, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Brian McCann (baseball)#Personal life - Being a college baseball coach is not enough to show notability other than being notable to his son. Ashbeckjonathan (talk) 00:21, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Brian McCann (baseball)#Personal life, where Howie gets some coverage. Rlendog (talk) 00:50, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Brian McCann (baseball)#Personal life per Rlendog. There's a nice landing spot for a redirect and enough coverage to justify it, but not enough for its own article. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:25, 7 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) JAaron95 ^Talk 14:06, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bloomingdale Regional Public Library

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

Apparently run-of-the-mill library with local papers as references. I accepted this at AFC because I'm not sure it's deletion-worthy, but wanted to bring it here for wider consideration. Calliopejen1 (talk) 16:59, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I added three sources, including one from the Tampa Bay Times, and I believe this article meets WP:GNG. WP:Run-of-the-mill is an essay, and in this case it should defer to the GNG. Altamel (talk) 02:20, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:42, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:42, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:43, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a very borderline case and I'm not impressed with the almost routine coverage in a local paper about the library but I'll defer to the keep argument as the sources seem to make a GNG case albeit very shaky. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:23, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
delete the coverage is very local and covers routine things that a library does. LibStar (talk) 09:59, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep libraries are an important and enduring part of the community, many good sources are listed in the article (meets WP:GNG). Antrocent (♫♬) 21:07, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: meets WP:GNG. It does have a relatively high circulation, at 600,000+ books, so there are probably more sources. Esquivalience ^t 13:58, 11 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) JAaron95 ^Talk 14:03, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Malacca Art Gallery

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

Fails WP:ORG. Another tiny museum with only primary sources. Malay version of this article is Unreferenced LibStar (talk) 16:38, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:44, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:44, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:44, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:44, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Malacca is a historic place with lots of museums. These are notable, being documented in detail in sources such as Melaka History and Heritage in Museums. There may be some scope for merger, especially for those which are housed in the same building complex but, per our policies WP:ATD and WP:PRESERVE, this would not be done by deletion. Andrew D. (talk) 10:35, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

you've recycled this same argument in various afds but fail to show in-depth coverage about this specific museum. WP:PRESERVE does not override if an article is not notable. LibStar (talk) 11:41, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

the book reference you've supplied doesn't even appear to even mention this art gallery , that's what happens when you recycle the same AfD argument over and over again. LibStar (talk) 15:36, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Definition of "tiny" is relative. This is the only art gallery in Malacca, thus this is the most important/famous art gallery in this state. There are 7 references for the English article (not only the primary source). The Malay version of the article has 5 references now. Chongkian (talk) 06:48, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Discussed in the book Building Cultural Nationalism in Malaysia: Identity, Representation, and Citizenship, and combined with the article "Melaka hargai seni lukis", this topic meets WP:GNG. Altamel (talk) 22:37, 10 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. Davewild (talk) 17:26, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Malacca Literature Museum

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

Fails WP:ORG. Tiny museum, only primary sources. The Malay language version of this article is unreferenced LibStar (talk) 16:12, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:48, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:48, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:48, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:48, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Malacca is a historic place with lots of museums. These are notable, being documented in detail in sources such as Melaka History and Heritage in Museums. There may be some scope for merger, especially for those which are housed in the same building complex but, per our policies WP:ATD and WP:PRESERVE, this would not be done by deletion. Andrew D. (talk) 10:34, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

you've recycled this same argument in various afds but fail to show in-depth coverage about this specific museum. WP:PRESERVE does not override if an article is not notable. LibStar (talk) 11:35, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

the book reference you've supplied doesn't even appear to even mention this literature museum, that's what happens when you recycle the same AfD argument over and over again. LibStar (talk) 15:37, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is what happens when you go on a deletion spree — you try our patience. For some detailed coverage of the place online see here. My !vote stands. Andrew D. (talk) 13:11, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

/www.virtualmuseummelaka.com/ is hardly a reliable source looks like a promo site for Malacca museums. That's what happens when you lie about a source in the first instance and barrel scrape in desperation for a genuine source. LibStar (talk) 13:19, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

.I invite others to check the sources provided in this discussion. One of them makes zero reference to this museum the other is a promotional site. LibStar (talk) 13:29, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article has more than 1 source of reference (not only from the primary source). The Malay version of the article also now has source. Tiny or big is really relative. In a gigantic country like China, all of their museums are mostly gigantic as well. In smaller countries/regions like Singapore, Liechtenstein, Macau or Malacca, of course the museums are smaller or "tiny" as per your definition. Chongkian (talk) 06:43, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

if you look at the current 5 sources, virtualmuseummelaka.com and AmazingMelaka.com are tourism promotion websites. this and this merely confirm the existence of the museum and do not establish notability. LibStar (talk) 06:55, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Once we have confirmed the existence of the museum, the rest is then a matter of ordinary editing, not deletion, because AFD is not cleanup. The place is Malaysian and the official language is Malay. The best sources will tend to be in that language such as this. Carping criticism of the English language sources is therefore unimportant. Andrew D. (talk) 12:11, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

no, just because you can prove something exists does not qualify for automatic notability. I do not discount foreign language coverage and of course can be used to establish notability. LibStar (talk) 13:47, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Then if I may know what is your definition of notability? The article has its english name, native name, coordinate, building type, photos (exterior & interior), opening year, city/town location, definition, history of the building, history of the museum itself, architectural info, detail of its exhibition, opening time, wiki common category page, several web references (english & non-english - not any blog website), its facebook page, listed in several wikipedia categories, and yes, it does exist in Malacca. What else it needs to have? .. I have found these 2 articles about museums in the United States: Mai Wah Museum and World Museum of Mining which are far less notable/legit/complete/reliable, yet they do exist without any request for article deletion. Chongkian (talk) 08:07, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

read WP:ORG. opening times and facebook pages do not add to notability, historical signficance does provided it is covered in reliable sources not advertising or blog sites. citing other museum pages has no bearing on this discussion as per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. LibStar (talk) 08:11, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ORG is just a guideline and so tells us that it should be interpreted using common sense. My common sense view is that, as this is a respectable cultural institution of the sort we favour for our GLAM activities, then we should welcome it. As their primary language is not English, we should expect to take time to locate and translate comprehensive coverage. If the page should be stubby in this meantime then it is our clear policy that this is fine. Deletion would disrupt such development and so is not sensible. Andrew D. (talk) 08:52, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

it is not disruptive to delete an article if that's an outcome of an AfD. Next thing you'll be recycling the WP:PRESERVE = KEEP argument. LibStar (talk) 08:58, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

More references (non-Youtube, non-blog, non tourism website) have been added to the article. Chongkian (talk) 09:39, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good work.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:10, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Another reference from Utusan Online newspaper (in Malay language) was added, and add also the reopening date of the museum after its renovation due to the new status of Malacca as world heritage. Chongkian (talk) 09:39, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Significant coverage found in the book Building Cultural Nationalism in Malaysia: Identity, Representation, and Citizenship, add that to the other sources cited in the article and it meets WP:GNG. Altamel (talk) 21:40, 10 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. Davewild (talk) 17:27, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Khalia (singer)

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

Unsigned singer. No real claim to notability beyond YouTube hits for her cover of a Wiz Khalifa song, which got a bit of coverage when it was taken down. I didn't find enough other coverage to satisfy notability guidelines, just a local newspaper article. A7 and PROD have already been tried so time for this to be decided at AfD I think. Michig (talk) 14:11, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can't find anything at all on Google and judging by "sources" like the YouTube vids on the article I'd say no one else can either, Fails NMUSIC + GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 16:27, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:10, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:10, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:11, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Good Prod nominator, Fails WP:BAND & WP:GNG. A cover of a song by Wiz Khalifa does not establish notability. –323MU (talk) 22:27, 6 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. Davewild (talk) 17:29, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of people associated with vaccination

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

Entirely unsourced list with fairly fuzzy inclusion criteria and possible WP:BLP ramifications. Kolbasz (talk) 13:52, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The lack of sourcing and inclusion criteria is certainly problematic; given that this page has been around for four years without appreciable attention, the problem seems unlikely to be repaired. This seems a less-maintained duplication/variation of the related article list of vaccine topics. Maybe a redirect back to that page, with our without a merge?
Honestly, though, it looks like even that page isn't really an article or encyclopedic list so much as an overgrown navbox or halfway attempt at a WP:PORTAL or weird pseudo-category page. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:00, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Vague inclusion criteria make the list meaningless. Presumably anyone who has been vaccinated (which includes the vast majority of the world's population) could plausibly be included in this list. jps (talk) 15:06, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per above —Мандичка^YO 😜 20:21, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Either side you're on, it feels like a bizarre form of an attack page where 'for/against' sides are laid out in a way that seems more appropriate for an RPG game than for an encyclopedia article. Nate • (chatter) 04:46, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:49, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:49, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per all above. If this were useful it would still be redundant with sensible categorisation - David Gerard (talk) 10:33, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The list of people who are pro-vaccination would essentially be a list of all articles on doctors, with a very tiny number of exceptions. The anti-vax lists are already covered in the anti-vax categories. This list is an example of false balance. Guy (Help!) 11:20, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Completely pointless list.Rathfelder (talk) 07:10, 11 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. Davewild (talk) 17:31, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yuna Sugiyama

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

Child actress who seems to fall under too soon-someday she probably will deserve her own page-but not yet. Wgolf (talk) 18:48, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 00:19, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 00:19, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Arguably her greatest claim to fame at this point is that she was the 5th person to host Inai inai baa, NHK's most popular show for very young children (ja:いないいないばあっ!). She hosted it for 4 years and graduated this March[13]. Perhaps someone could make an argument for notability based on that, but I would have to see it. Michitaro (talk) 00:51, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Esquivalience ^t 02:29, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- No references are given, let alone any reliable sources. Nothing suggests notability.--Rpclod (talk) 04:53, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 13:47, 4 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. Davewild (talk) 17:33, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jamie Zubairi

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

Basically a CV for a theatre actor and TV extra. A mention in a theatre review is not sufficient to establish any notability for this guy. Time for the article to go. Sionk (talk) 02:38, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:05, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:05, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:05, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:05, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:06, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and I'm not seeing a good target for moving elsewhere; my searches found nothing outstandingly good aside from this passing mention and other mentions here and here. Even a look at his IMDb sums it so if there's not much at IMDb, there's not much for Wiki in most cases. SwisterTwister talk 18:28, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 13:46, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No claim made about notability. Darx9url (talk) 08:12, 7 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. Davewild (talk) 17:39, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Stanley (violinist)

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

Stanley has performed a lot and been interviewed a lot, but there are no reliable, independent, secondary sources demonstrating notability. The majority of his cited performances were seemingly during a brief period of popularity around 2011. The only argument I can really see for notability is WP:NMUSIC item #12, "has been a featured subject of a substantial broadcast segment across a national radio or TV network.". But I am not sure I would classify his appearances as substantial and they certainly don't meet WP:ENTERTAINER. 217IP (talk) 03:15, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have discussed WP:GNG guidelines with some others and feel I better understand the intentions behind it now. I believe this article should probably be kept because he has been the subject of reliable, independent, secondary sources regardless of whether he meets guidelines for notability in WP:NMUSIC. 217IP (talk) 21:04, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:07, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:07, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, This artist is in the early stages of their career, therefore the article won't be as full, however he is notable and has a single, although I don't know if it has charted or not. Also, the nominator has stated the article should instead be kept. CDRL102 (talk) 22:50, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 13:46, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Subject meets 10 & 12 of WP:BAND. Has significant coverage from independent, secondary sources. Passes WP:GNG. –323MU (talk) 22:44, 6 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. Davewild (talk) 17:41, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Spandau synthpop

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

Does not appear to be a notable genre of music. Google searches are mostly inconclusive: a search for "Spandau synthpop" results in just five hits, none of which appear to be about "spandau synthpop". A search for "spandau synth" results in somewhat more hits (mostly in Polish), but I couldn't find much among them which were about the genre itself. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 03:21, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It will be a genre if Wikipedia will keep it for one week. Please be patient. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IrinaMikhailov (talk • contribs) 03:54, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:07, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I count 21 hits in Google. WP:OR, WP:SOAP, etc. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:08, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 13:46, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of notability or secondary source coverage presented. Agtx (talk) 20:44, 5 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. Davewild (talk) 17:42, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas S. Gressman

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

Fails GNG, no real claim of explanation of importance. Sulfurboy (talk) 17:51, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 23:03, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:26, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:26, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 (Talk) 08:22, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:AUTHOR notability criteria does not appear to be met.--Rpclod (talk) 15:30, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 13:46, 4 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. Davewild (talk) 17:43, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Medina Pullings

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

Non-notable. Google searches show only a few passing mentions - no in-depth coverage. Article fails to establish notability, TBN website confirms only 5 episodes as a host in 2007. GermanJoe (talk) 09:07, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:25, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:25, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:25, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:26, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- Presenting 5 episodes of a long-running Tele-evangelist show does not show notability. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:41, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 13:45, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Trinity Broadcasting Network. Possibly notable enough for a brief mention there but I see nothing to hang a biographical article on. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:03, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as She fails NACTOR & GNG - Starring in 5 episodes of a non notable show is pretty much useless in terms of WP standards, No point redirecting to TBN as she's not even mentioned there, Nothing worth merging and redirect is obviously useless, Deletion IMHO seems the better option in this case. –Davey2010^Talk 01:40, 11 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) 07:42, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Modebeat Digital

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

Fails WP:NCORP with no secondary sources, just a directory entry at ZoomInfo. McGeddon (talk) 10:52, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Zoominfo shows they exist, but no WP:ORGDEPTH. As a result, fails WP:GNG and WP:CORP. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:20, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:30, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:30, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:30, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 13:45, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Google turns up all directory entries and no coverage. No claim to notability. Agtx (talk) 20:45, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Software company 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) 03:44, 7 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. As notability has been established since the nomination. Davewild (talk) 17:45, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A Woman's Liberation

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

Non-notable collection of short stories. Mikeblas (talk) 13:04, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The stories are all award-winning, but I could find no evidence indicating that this particular anthology containing them is independently notable. StarryGrandma (talk) 00:59, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It took me a while and I was surprised to find them, but ultimately there were reviews for this anthology. There aren't a ton, but it's enough for it to pass NBOOK. I also found mentions of it here and there, notably in a journal review for the teaching book Feminist Philosophy and Science Fiction, where the reviewer comments that she is teaching a class on the topic and is also using this anthology to supplement her course. I also found evidence of it being used in a college course at San Diego State University. In any case, it does look like it's enough for this to pass notability guidelines for the most part. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:02, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your help, Tokyogirl! -- Mikeblas (talk) 15:30, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 13:32, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Coverage in reliable secondary sources meets WP:NOTE. Thanks. Safehaven86 (talk) 16:56, 6 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. – czar 22:33, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Terry Brival

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

Doesn't meet WP:GNG and Wikipedia:Notability (music) Angelgirl1992 (talk) 20:53, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment [14], [15] and [16] look pretty good to me, in my opinion they might pass WP:GNG. Although they don't have a French Wiki page, despite the fact all the sources are in French- that's usually a bad sign. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:55, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 02:16, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 02:16, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 02:16, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete On reflection, those sources aren't actually very good. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC, if he is was in the least bit notable then there'd be a French Wiki page (as their inclusion criteria is generally less strict, and all the sources are in French). Joseph2302 (talk) 01:08, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Page got recreated at Terry Brival (French Music Artist)- I redirected it here. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:43, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 13:28, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

'Delete is just WP:PROMO and not encyclopedic. Sources are not enough to show notability for a musician, at this time. Jytdog (talk) 19:10, 4 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. Davewild (talk) 17:48, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Weller

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

I don't think that 2,000,000 subscribers meet the notability guideline. other youtubers have over 10,000,000 subs and have articles. but not this article. Fazbear7891 (talk) 21:33, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 02:06, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 02:06, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. From the video games commentator side, the article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources (?) with no meaningful hits in a video game reliable sources custom Google search. As a YouTube celebrity, there are a few short articles and several British papers refer to him in passing as a "star" or "celebrity". He caused quite an uproar at a charity event. He appears best known for a viral video about WWE finishing moves and related videos about WWE, FIFA, and being a public nuisance. From the reputable, non-tabloids, though, there isn't much coverage apart from that he made popular videos online. When Weller may have YouTube hits, but we can't feasibly write an article about him until he is covered by secondary, reliable sources—otherwise it's all primary sources, as his WP page currently is. There are no worthwhile redirect targets. Please ping me you find more (non-English and offline) sources. – czar 15:23, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 13:28, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete too much wp:primary and self promotion of his clothing sales - Govindaharihari (talk)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Davewild (talk) 17:51, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Arne Næss, Jr.

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

Does not meet notability per WP:ANYBIO - neither his career in the shipping industry nor his mountaineering are part of an enduring historical record in their respective fields. He has obits that discuss his business and personal life, but his notability in those obits mostly seems to do with being tremendously wealthy and previously married to Diana Ross. There is an article discussing his wedding to Diana Ross, but that does not count towards notability in my opinion since it was only due to WP:INHERIT. 217IP (talk) 15:40, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:58, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:58, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:58, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, already failed a Speedy Deletion as it was deemed to have notability, although I do agree there needs to be more content added to this article. CDRL102 (talk) 14:33, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 13:28, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per NY Times Obituary plus all the Norwegian media sources, also all the hits in Google scholar.^[1] ^[2] ^[3] ^[4] Also has won a Laureus World Sports Award for lifetime achievement. GuzzyG (talk) 10:44, 9 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. – czar 22:24, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Imran Anwar

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

Extremely promotional article whose main source is the subject's own website, no longer online. Significant claims of greatness seem to be based solely on an interview with Anwar of rather dubious provenance. The only claim I could check, that of being a board member of Brookhaven Memorial Hospital, is incorrect. Huon (talk) 00:30, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 00:34, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Verification does seem to be a problem. Citation #4 is supposed to be an article at The Nation but goes to "Host Gator." The Nation is fully online, and its archive is robust. The "Columbia 250" has an entry that is entrant-submitted, so that's not proof of anything. It's a mess alright. There is a personality by this name that makes a big stink about itself on YouTube ("thought leader" and "#1 voice on cloud computing"), but that just suggests PRB. I lean toward delete. Hithladaeus (talk) 18:53, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per the above. Open to having my mind changed, but do not see indicia of notability. Epeefleche (talk) 20:54, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:03, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:03, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:03, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:03, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 (Talk) 15:53, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 13:27, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - interviews and self-promotion seem to be the vast majority of the references. Primefac (talk) 13:47, 4 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. WP:SOFTDELETE Davewild (talk) 17:52, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

From the Bottom 2 the Top (8Ball & MJG album)

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

The album appears to be an unofficial bootleg. Fails WP:GNG. Koala15 (talk) 03:14, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Koala15 (talk) 17:46, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Koala15 (talk) 17:48, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 (Talk) 16:03, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 13:27, 4 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. Davewild (talk) 17:53, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Kasozi

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

Lacks reliable independent secondary sources actually discussing the subject to establish notability as required by WP:GNG. Sources offered are all unhelpful for various, most because the publications fail to meet our requirement for reliable sources with reputations for fact-checking and editorial control. A few of them fail because they're primary. Msnicki (talk) 06:33, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:16, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:16, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:17, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I did find one academic journal review, but other than that it's fairly slow going. I found a mention here, but it's in passing and it's not in-depth enough to show notability. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:53, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I also found this, which looked promising until I realized that the website looks like it's the type that is predominantly focused on selling various services, which makes it suspect. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:55, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Other than the one academic review there really isn't anything out there to show that Kasozi is all that notable. There are brief mentions here and there, but never in any form that would show notability. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:56, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 (Talk) 16:03, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 13:27, 4 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. Davewild (talk) 17:55, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Ward

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

Contested PROD. Fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG JMHamo (talk) 13:15, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clearly a different person to the previous AfD in 2004 (comments suggest that person was dead), but fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. Note the IMDb reference (which isn't a reliable source doesn't even mention any of these TV programmes, and the Daily Mail is widely considered an unreliable source. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:24, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly notable. Meets WP:NACTOR #1 as a regular in Coronation Street (the most watched programme on British Television) plus a number of other high profile UK soaps/dramas. (I don't quite know where User:Joseph2302 looked but when I checked IMDb, all of the programmes were included). Meets WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR #2 from the extensive National tabloid interest shown in the first couple of pages of search results from Google - The Daily Mail, The Daily Express, Daily Star (British newspaper) and The Daily Mirror (see e.g. [17]). RichardOSmith (talk) 14:21, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I just read the first few lines of IMDb, which didn't list any of those as his most notable achievements. Also, all those "newspapers" are just tabloids, I wouldn't consider any of them reliable sources. Just being on Coronation Street doesn't make them notable. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:31, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe the reliability (or not) of the tabloids is relevant here - the mere fact that they are talking about him affirms that he is notable. As to whether being on Coronation Street et al makes him notable: WP:NACTOR says that someone who "has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions" is notable, so apparently it does. RichardOSmith (talk) 14:53, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as fails NACTOR & GNG - His roles bar Corrie have all been minor so IMHO he'd only be remembered for Corrie & that's it, As for sources GNews is full of crap on him & Georgia but other than that I can't find anything notability-wise so will have to say Delete. –Davey2010^Talk 16:39, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:11, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:11, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:11, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now although I would've said move to Coronation Street or another related article had he been mentioned but he's not (IMDb suggests he's best know for this). Sure the tabloids may talk about him but there's not much for an article at this time with my searches finding these results here and here (I'm sure there's more with searching at news sources websites). Oftentimes, if there's not much at IMDb, there's not much here at Wiki. SwisterTwister talk 05:03, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A problem for searching for good sources here is the commonness of the name. Bearian (talk) 12:20, 10 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 Blackface. Weak consensus for a selective merge. Davewild (talk) 17:59, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of contemporary comedians using blackface

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

WP:LISTCRUFT of dubious encyclopedic value. Only one entry in the list is referenced. Vrac (talk) 21:38, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 00:07, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Have we not had this discussion before and decided it was staying? It's an extremely useful list and is notable because the presumption would be that contemporary comedians would NOT use blackface. The fact that it's so extensive identifies a cultural trope that could otherwise go unnoticed. DavidFarmbrough (talk) 06:12, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not seeing a record of any prior deletion discussions in the article history, what discussion are you referring to? Vrac (talk) 14:23, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's the 2007 Afd List of contemporary performers using blackface. It's also conceivable the editor was thinking of the June 2015 Racial transformation (individual) AfD. –146.198.28.207 (talk) 06:34, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good find. Vrac (talk) 14:40, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Very selective Merge to Blackface: a lot of the important content here is already in the main article on blackface. Of the stuff not already there, the material about Fred Armisen playing Obama is notable[18][19] and could be merged. Some of the rest is trivial, mentioning people who don't wear blackface, not contemporary (The Goodies episode was broadcast in 1977 while The Black and White Minstrel Show was still on TV, while The Life of Brian was released only a year after The Black and White Minstrel Show finished production), or not normal blackface (e.g. if it's done for satirical comments on past traditions of minstrelsy, then that isn't really the same thing as classical blackface, which is a caricature of blackness), though it can still be mentioned in the article blackface if it gets media coverage). There's also not clear list criteria: the lede mentions 1990s or later, but the Goodies and Monty Python examples are well before that. Colapeninsula (talk) 14:52, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 23:03, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 13:00, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SMERGE per Colapeninsula, though I'd be equally satisfied with outright deletion. There are numerous problems with this list, the first of which is it implies that there are comedians who "use" blackface as a practice, when most of the entries are merely one-off roles and not in any way typical of their bodies of work. Second, "contemporary", as noted above, is meaninglessly vague in this context. Third, this list equivocates the looser meaning of "blackface", which just means someone not black portraying themselves as such in a role, with the historic practice of blackface, which was a very specific kind of performance and costuming by comparison that was based on racial caricature. All of this together makes this collection of examples at best trivia, at worst misleading and indiscriminate WP:SYNTH. postdlf (talk) 17:22, 7 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) Kraxler (talk)

Rodney H. Pardey

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

Not notable. Only source is a tournament results page. That does not establish notability. The majority of this wordy article is completely unsourced. Handpolk ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 22:45, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to clean it up, this article is real bad. Nothing is sourced and it reads like a guy telling stories to his grandkids. I looked for reputable sources to back this stuff up and found nothing. The only thing I can find that we can source is that he won a couple small tournaments over 20 years ago Handpolk ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 02:30, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 June 27. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:02, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Follows WikiPokerProject guideline, person has two World series of Poker championships, as well as a second. Simply needs to have references added. 2005 (talk) 01:01, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There aren't any references on this guy. Which is exactly why he isn't notable. Handpolk ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 02:36, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose Sports Illustrated isn't notable? He's won a World Series of Poker bracelet, that's the automatic criteria of the Project. He's also listed in endless places for his accomplishments. Sure the article reads like it was written by a chatty family member, but that is just style. You might want to again familiarize yourself with guidelines like the sports players one, where virtually all baseball players get an article simply for having played. The PokerProject has a far higher bar. 2005 (talk) 06:26, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I added that source as it backed up him being a professional bowler. However beyond that all it does is identify him as a '7-card stud expert,' and then quote him. That's really thin. Handpolk ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 20:01, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 13:00, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Two WSOP wins and a second place in another (sort of) push him beyond WP:ONEEVENT. Plus he gets part of a Sports Illustrated article, this other article solely about him (preview only)[20] and scattered mentions here and there (the guy's still playing high stakes). Clarityfiend (talk) 22:48, 6 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) 07:37, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dominic Mishio

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

WP:BLP, written as a campaign brochure and relying entirely on a deadlinked primary source with no reliable source coverage in sight, of a person notable only as a municipal councillor in a city not large enough to give its municipal councillors (or, with a population of 25K, even its mayors) a free WP:NPOL pass just because they exist. Also WP:COI, as the original creator was User:Dmishio and the most substantive editor since has been User:DMConsulting. As always, Wikipedia does not grant a presumption of notability to all city councillors in all cities — we do so only for metropolitan global cities on the order of Toronto, New York City or London, while in any smaller city a municipal councillor must pass WP:GNG on the basis of enough sourcing to demonstrate that their notability extends beyond the purely local. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 22:00, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 22:01, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 22:01, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Substantial, independent coverage from reliable coverage was not provided or to be found to demonstrate notability. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 14:31, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 12:59, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article is written using first person of the subject; like from a press secretary account. Billy Hathorn (talk) 03:10, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is far too small a place for members of the council to be default notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:00, 10 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. Anyone can move the other article to this title as a normal editing action. Davewild (talk) 18:03, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Corbin

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

Fails WP:BIO. Sources that discuss this usenet coordinator are all WP:FRINGE and thus we lack the WP:FRIND we need. jps (talk) 12:34, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note See related: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paranet Continuum. jps (talk) 12:35, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:13, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:13, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:13, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:13, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:14, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and move Michael H. Corbin over Sources appear unreliable per op, ostensibly reliable book source ("Cults, Religion, and Violence By David G. Bromley, J. Gordon Melton") does not seem to mention Corbin that I could see. I'd delete the article and move Michael H. Corbin on to the name per WP:INITS. Second Quantization (talk) 21:49, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:JOURNALIST and other categories related to his work as a "researcher" and talk show host. I agree with the recommendations to move Michael H. Corbin over to Michael Corbin once it is vacated. - Location (talk) 20:57, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and WP:JOURNALIST. Ogress _smash! 03:02, 11 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. Davewild (talk) 18:04, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vineeth Raj Menon

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

Subject of the article fails WP:GNG andWP:COMPOSER. The timesofidia source are passing mention. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 10:25, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:09, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:09, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-Falls under too soon. Wgolf (talk) 22:48, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now with now reluctance for draft/userfy as there's not much and it's vulnerable to BLP issues; it's worth noting a user recently removed some information here claiming the subject did not want to reveal information but I don't know why. Either way, there's not much for solid independent notability at this time. SwisterTwister talk 04:27, 7 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) 08:28, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Wedding & Disaster of Felona Mabel

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

Subject of the article fails WP:NBOOK. I also see it as an attempt to promote its non-notable author, Kenn Bivins. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 10:12, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete 1) Self-published (Invisible Ennk Press is owned by Kenn Bivins, the author of this book) 2) Came out in June, 2015, so not enough time to achieve notability 3) not held in any libraries in WorldCat 4) author not in Booklist. LaMona (talk) 19:56, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:18, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:18, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, does not meet WP:NBOOK, have been unable to find any reviews from reliable sources. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:57, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unfortunately, as my searches found not even the slightest good sources and instead mostly websites such as kickstarter campaign, amazon, primary links, etc. SwisterTwister talk 04:38, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't really find anything to show that this book is ultimately notable enough for an article. It exists and can be purchased, but that's not something that would show notability. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:57, 7 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. Davewild (talk) 18:05, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ebn-e tahere baghdadi

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

Badly translated to the point where the subject is not at all clear Jac16888 ^Talk 09:19, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Patently awful translation with no context. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Naypta (talk • contribs) 09:45, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT. --Michig (talk) 12:07, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:08, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:08, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:08, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- the one source that I can read is wikifegh.ir . Is this the Farsi wikipedia? If so, it is not WP:RS. Peterkingiron (talk) 09:11, 11 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) 08:26, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammad- ebne ebrahime naamani

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

Badly translated to the point this is basically nonsense, and I would be willing to bet it is a machine translated copyvio Jac16888 ^Talk 09:18, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree with Jac16888, I can't make head nor tail of this article. | Naypta^talk opened his mouth at 09:21, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:G7 or WP:A3. --Anar chyte 09:44, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Jac16888 - Not one part of this article makes any sense!, Not much point in it being rewritten. –Davey2010^Talk 16:44, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:07, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:07, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:07, 5 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. Davewild (talk) 18:06, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Even Greater

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

Non-notable worship band album, discog shows they churn them out in no time at all. No independent sources, no evidence of notability. Doesn't even try to assert notability other than by inheritance. Guy (Help!) 09:15, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:03, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:03, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not even an effort to provide evidence of notability, and no sign that subject is notable. No secondary source coverage. Agtx (talk) 20:48, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
delete clearly fails WP:NALBUMS. no sourcing to suggest notability is met. LibStar (talk) 07:21, 11 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. – czar 22:23, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Lorin Reed

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

Non notable dermatologist. A small number of minor publications--none cited by more than17 papers, which is trivial in this subject. Appearing on TV programs merely shows his efforts at self-promotion. DGG ( talk ) 14:17, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:04, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:04, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:04, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 20:55, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

More inclined to delete as my searches found no considerable coverage and searches (News, Books, highbeam, thefreelibrary and Scholar) found nothing aside from two links at Books. I'm not an expert of academia so I don't usually comment but I will if I outstandingly see something. SwisterTwister talk 04:57, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ymblanter (talk) 08:56, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Note that a good chunk of the text here is from http://www.michaellorinreed.com/about_dr_reed.html. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:32, 4 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) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:02, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Neko Atsume

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

Barely translated, and little to indicate notability Jac16888 ^Talk 08:53, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep but strong WP:TNT before anything for the horrid machine-translation-like prose. The app attracted some attention from Japanese press as a fad sort of like Flappy Bird did. 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 10:56, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No relevance to any other entry or current need or topic of interest. Please delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amaedel (talk • contribs) 16:13, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 12:00, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:00, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:00, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have added some sources, I agree that a rewrite may be appropriate. Artw (talk) 13:33, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Substantial coverage in English and Japanese, easily to indicate notability, and some improvements have been made already. —innotata 06:38, 7 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 no consensus. Just about every type of outcome has been suggested in this discussion. Most of the !votes are guideline/policy based. There is significant disagreement about whether or not source coverage about the subject fall into WP:BLP1E territory; some state this is so, others state that the subject has received coverage for additional matters, and some state that this is a borderline case. Many have suggested merging, along with several combinations of such (e.g. delete/merge, merge or delete, Keep or Merge and redirect, etc.). Ultimately, there is no consensus for any one particular action for the article. Further discussion can continue on its talk page. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:44, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Victoria Taylor

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

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

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

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

Falls neatly under WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTNEWS, as the overwhelming majority of the RS coverage 1) is about the recent controversy over Taylor's dismissal from Reddit and 2) came about in the past few days. It's very likely that the controversy as a whole is notable, and Taylor is only notable in relation to said controversy. A Google search for articles prior to June 30, 2015 comes up with this Adweek.com article, but not much else. A merge to Reddit#Controversies involving reddit, where the event is currently discussed, ~~is my second preference to deletion~~. Mz7 (talk) 07:03, 4 July 2015 (UTC) Since this nomination began, the article has seen significant expansion with material that focuses mainly on Reddit. Given that, as well as the substance of the comments below, I now believe it makes a lot of sense to merge to Reddit rather than delete. For procedural reasons, this can be construed as a nomination withdrawal to join the merge camp. Since there are still outstanding "delete" !votes, this article shouldn't be speedily kept for this reason. Mz7 (talk) 04:21, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom. I am tempted to keep this around for now and wait a while to see if the chain of events escalates further, but I don't consider it likely that Taylor would ever meet the criteria for her own article. Richard Ye^talk 09:14, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - changed to delete - off-site dox of wikipedia user - this is nasty and I didn't intend for that to happen. -- Callinus (talk) 07:11, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Merge -- Clearly the subject is notable only for one event. And I support User:Mz7's decision to merge -- Chamith (talk) 14:04, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — per comments by Aronzak. -Mardus (talk) 18:10, 4 July 2015 (UTC):[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a news archive, it's an encyclopedia. Her life up to the firing is absolutely not notable, and the firing itself is not notable. One could easily say "After an administrator was fired..." and it would make no difference to the understanding of the event. -- Sparkzilla talk! 03:34, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sparkzilla, there is an Examiner.com article that goes into some detail about Taylor's work on Wikipedia on behalf of ID public relations prior to her hire by Reddit, but I understand that Examiner is not permitted as a reliable source, except in very specific circumstances. - 50.144.1.17 (talk) 12:04, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, if not redirect - New York Times, BBC and Forbes have reported about this person. Over 40 sources from BEFORE and after the firing. She was the go to person for the media and reddit and was it's public face. As for BLP1E that might apply but there's no event article and she's not low profile due to her being interviewed by the media. Only thing i can see is a merge to the Reddit article, the sources don't justify deletion, i'd prefer a keep but redirect comes next. GuzzyG (talk) 04:18, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Everything notable about the event should be merged to Reddit#IAmA and AMA. She didn't warrant a separate article when she ran Reddit AMA's so I'm not sure how suddenly not running them makes her notable. A simple test: does her replacement that was named warrant her own bio article, too? I am presuming no. --DHeyward (talk) 08:26, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, when the new york times, bbc and forbes report on you, it's not a leap as to why people would think you're notable. I wouldn't know the last bit, forbes didn't name a successor if they even have one yet. GuzzyG (talk) 08:32, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fifteen minutes is not a reason for something as invasive a biographical article especially for something that is generally considered negative such as being fired and the likelihood that the article would long outlive its use as a vehicle for protest. Fifteen years from now, Google's replacement will return her name and the associated firing. It's not fair to her to invade her privacy like this over a single event. Either reditt will be a commercial success (remembering will be that this was a good decision) or failure (there is no memory, ask any former Digg director of Communication). This is a close cousin to doxxing and while news will fade, WP articles stay. We don't even know why she was fired. And yes, a person has been named her interim replacement. It's the event and the reaction by Redittors that is notable, not the person. --DHeyward (talk) 12:45, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notability has been beyond established.MeropeRiddle (talk) 11:30, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Notability alone is not the only affair here. While the subject is clearly cited/mentioned in many reliable sources it's all regarding a one notable event. -- Chamith (talk) 15:45, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete article appears to be more about Reddit, entry appears to read like an advertisement about how the person was dismissed from the company. If she is notable, why wasn't there an entry about her before the incident. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Givenunion (talk • contribs) 11:47, 5 July 2015‎

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:57, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:57, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:57, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:58, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Please note that canvassing is taking place on Reddit to attempt to skew this discussion toward Keep. (Redditors probably don't realize that having a Wikipedia biography can be like a millstone around your career's neck.) - 50.144.1.17 (talk) 11:56, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for notifying about this. Here on Wikipedia we do not arrive at a final conclusion by counting votes in favor or something like that. Purpose of these discussions is to arrive at a consensus. Thus editors must provide a valid reasoning on their behalf to justify their opinion. -- Chamith (talk) 15:37, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Not independently notable. Edwardx (talk) 12:37, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Reddit. The sources in which she's speaking on behalf of Reddit do not speak to her notability as they aren't about her. She's speaking as the corporate entity that is Reddit. As I don't think the recent events are notable as events, it seems like those too merit merging into the main Reddit article. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 12:47, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Reddit#Controversies involving reddit. I'm a redditor, and as much as I'd like to see her become positively notable enough for an article she's not there yet. She's certainly notable enough to be mentioned in the Riddit article, but WP:BLP1E applies here. The Google appearances of her name before the controversy that I find all mention her as the spokesperson forwarding them information and nothing more. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 13:29, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for another month or so. If she's never heard of again, merge to Reddit Deku-shrub (talk) 15:23, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I came here looking for this article, so not sure why not have it? Merge later if she fades into obscurity. Nesnad (talk) 15:35, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Prevaricate This article should be kept as long as it is interesting. Then a decision can be made. She may become famous for the thing she did which caused her to get the sack and is being kept a secret. QuentinUK (talk) 16:35, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On what policy, guideline, or precedent is this !vote based on? We don't keep articles on the hope that they will become sufficiently notable in the future--see WP:CRYSTAL and WP:TOOSOON. Also see WP:ITSINTERESTING. Mz7 (talk) 17:56, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Reddit. If and when she becomes notable for something other than her work (and exit) from reddit, we can recreate the article.--Jorm (talk) 17:40, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I think the merge camp makes a lot of sense. Carrite (talk) 18:17, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: She was basically the interface between the world of famous people and the people using /r/IAmA and helped organizing thousands of these interviews. Notability is clearly giving by both that and by news coverage of her. That might not be normal for PR people and I understand that, but it's different in this case. Once again, she helped organize a new form of interview / star-citizen communication that millions used. A removal would be an ignorant, subjective and consensus-neglecting decision. --Fixuture (talk) 21:05, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Three conditions have to be met for WP:BLP1E but it seems that this is not a low-profile individual and that their role is quite central to the stories now running. So, BLP1E does not apply. And there is international coverage by mainstream media - I was reading about this in The Guardian myself the other day - and so the topic is quite notable. Andrew D. (talk) 22:26, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or delete. The sourcing is sketchy. Cla68 (talk) 22:35, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sketchy? The page currently has 42 sources which is comparable with say, Björn Borg's 45 - a famous person I just picked off the main page. Please justify this claim. Andrew D. (talk) 22:52, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to Reddit#Controversies involving reddit, as the vast majority of the reliable, non-trivial (i.e. not one sentence with "reddit spokesperson Victoria Taylor said this") sources are about the recent incident, thus making her fall under WP:BLP1E. ansh 666 23:16, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/delete Borderline notable for one event Chris Arnesen 23:55, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but has no problems with merging it into Reddit#Controversies involving reddit. The incident of which happened recently generated enough reliable sources (as shown on the article) to warrant a keep. Ana r chyte 01:47, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (alternatively merge) I see the incident as being notable and the article as being well-written (if, indeed, AfD bait). ResMar 04:11, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect To Reddit, as per everyone else. There simply isn't enough material here to create a bio based on WP:GNG or WP:BASIC. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 04:41, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Reddit I think WP:BLP1E applies here. — regards, Revi 10:16, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, redirect to Reddit Notable, but not enough for an independent article Rhoark (talk) 11:34, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
delete Another week, another Reddit Sheisssturm; WP:BLP1E was made for this. For the same reason, I oppose the redirect. Mangoe (talk) 12:29, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Reddit#Controversies involving reddit 59.97.17.46 (talk) 13:38, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Reddit. 98.186.178.228 (talk) 21:34, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Yes, there are many citations, but independent notability is not established. Jonathunder (talk) 00:33, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Reddit for now Apart from some of the current information, it's mostly for Reddit specifically the controversy and attention is imaginably received because of the media and social media expanding word of it. The article is neat and sourced but there's not much for solid independent notability at this time. It's worth noting I was almost going to be bold and redirect this myself based on the votes above. SwisterTwister talk 04:09, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into the reddit controversies section if it exists. Also, Im sure there has been stealth canvassing going on at reddit, because they sure enjoy discussing these talk pages as they did here. It's a cause for concern because such an extensive website can influence the outcome of this poll. Buffaboy ^talk 05:39, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're absolutely right. There may be other stealth canvassing going on, but this Reddit post was noted earlier and in the {{not a ballot}} template. Mz7 (talk) 04:34, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but merge much of the content into Reddit. Most of the material in this article is about Reddit in general rather than Taylor specifically. However, looking closely at the sources, I think there is enough here to justify a Wikipedia biography, even if we exclude the coverage related to the recent controversy. Taylor should have a brief, perhaps stub-sized article here, while the content about the AMAs etc. belongs in the main Reddit article. (Disclosure: for what it's worth, I am not a redditor. Well, I have an account but I've only used it about twice.) Robofish (talk) 23:43, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — perhaps a borderline notability case before the recent events, but what's happened in the last week or so puts this article safely within the realm of notability, I think. It's true that Wikipedia is not a newspaper, but this article isn't about an event and discusses more than just the recent firing. WP:BLP1E might apply if the article were solely about Victoria in light of her being fired, but it also describes the important role she held at Reddit prior to that happening. More content about her time at Reddit before being fired would definitely be a welcome addition, that said. dalahäst ^{(let's talk!)} 03:56, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if a majority of the content and the sources are truly about the role she held at Reddit more than they're about Reddit, with Taylor speaking in her role as a spokesperson. The latter case speaks to rather questionable independent notability, in my opinion. Mz7 (talk) 04:27, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — Someone like her will probably get another high profile job, allowing this article to continue having readers and editors. I, for one, will certainly keep checking it until Victoria or someone else reveals what really happened when she was fired. Connor Behan (talk) 01:39, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - her paid editing is only recently coming to light, which is quite likely to be another incident. And she'd be notable as the person who helps--whoops, helped--put on AMAs, anyway. Red Slash 02:05, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Tentatively keep and see if this forms into a substantial, interesting article over the months ahead. No need to start rushing to judgement and nuking things from orbit before they have a chance to grow. This whole affair could turn into something interesting, but it might not. Let's just wait and see. Vranak (talk) 02:28, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Conversely, there's no rush to create an article either. A lot of nominations come through AfD where the subject could potentially become notable in the future, but at the moment, it's too soon. One thing we sometimes do as an alternative to deletion for those articles is to incubate the articles in the Drafts namespace. However, I have never seen any policy, guideline, or past precedent in which an article was kept solely on the grounds that the subject "could turn into something" notable. It's not our job to predict the future—see WP:ATA#CRYSTAL. If and when Taylor becomes sufficiently independently notable for a standalone article in the future, I would support recreating the article. Mz7 (talk) 04:28, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good points. I would counter them to say that in borderline cases, as this seems to be, it's a little mean, almost vindictive, to be destroying people's work if it happens to be well-researched, well-written, and reasonably interesting to a normal Wikipedia reader who doesn't have a vested interest in the matter. Again, this is a borderline case. The article as it stands isn't exactly the most riveting read, its big-picture importance does not jump out at you, but then again it isn't absurdly irrelevant to contemporary life either. In any event I would want to err on the side of not rudely deleting people's good faith efforts, that turns people off the entire project and may leave them a little bitter, or even a lot. Of course obvious contraventions of core Wikipedia policy must overrule this Carebear desire to protect people's esteem, I do understand that. But this is not an obvious case. Vranak (talk) 05:57, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I totally get where you're coming from. As a matter of fact, current Wikipedia deletion policy states that we do and should err on the side of "keep" in cases where there is a doubtful consensus to delete, and it also states that alternatives to deletion, like improving or merging, are preferable to deletion itself. I too hate to see time and effort go all the way down the drain—it's certainly not helpful for editor retention. (But it's important to remember that it's sometimes unavoidable if our goal is to create an encyclopedia.) And all of this is part of the reason why I changed my stance from delete to merge. By merging the article, we're not completely eliminating all of the content that took effort to create—we're just moving the content to somewhere where it's more suitable at the moment. The former page will still be accessible through the page history, so all authors will be credited properly. Mz7 (talk) 20:29, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: There are several sources discussing the subject before the particular incident. Esquivalience ^t 04:13, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

merge to the incident list on Reddit per WP:BLP1E (even if strictly not 100% applicable here). While there are some sources discussing her before this incident, not enough to pass WP:GNG. Because of this, merging for now seems the best option - the article can always be recreated later if/when new sources emerge about her and not Reddit. Mdann52 (talk) 07:28, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge and redirect: The content is notable and has many sources, but this may be a case of WP:BLP1E. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 07:33, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
'Keep, too important of an event in Reddit's history that nearly 100% hinged on Victoria Taylor's persona in the unfolding of events of the AMAgeddon. Note: I do have a conflict of interest as an active participant ('Redditor') on the reddit site. 90.2.141.89 (talk) 12:33, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Like it says on top of this page this is not a general vote. You must provide a valid argument that abides with Wikipedia's core content policies. As you said yourself that you have a conflict of interest I'm afraid your reasoning might not be considered as a valid a point when arriving at a consensus. -- Chamith (talk) 19:50, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/merge For the reasons given by the nominator. She is primary known for her role in the recent Reddit event. The only sources I could find were her in relation to Reddit. And most(if not all) of the references before July 2nd are not primarily about her, they only mention her or involve talking to her... about Reddit. And her involvement in those sources is expected of her job position. That's why I believe she is only notable for that one event. She's just an average employee of Reddit, it's not like her former co-workers of the same level also have articles.

Side note - If her article get's keep'd I think some things should be taken out that aren't necessary, and have the one of the founders of Reddit, Steve Huffman's, article expanded. Her article is longer than his puny eight sentence article, and something about that doesn't feel right to me. I might expand it in the future so if anyone wants to help me out let me know. Rainbow unicorn (talk) 02:11, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, and a word about quality. There is a line in there which cites five articles claiming that Reddit mods closed shop in protest after her firing... each of which is a shining example of clickbait synthesis. I respect that we are working with what the media is reporting, but that's not even remotely accurate; any redditor-Wikipedian will be able to point to a number of threads in which moderators explain that, in the aftermath of Taylor's firing, they were forced to close for logistical reasons. So-called journalists have made it out to be a protest because people click titles like, "Reddit is tearing itself apart." If these are the "sources" we're citing now, I don't want to live on this planet anymore. --Moralis (talk) 22:15, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well that wouldn't explain why the other subs shut themselves down as well though. Also note that there's no need to set a subreddit to private when AMAs can't work for logistical reasons: the mods could have just left it open as usual, simply suspending the AMAs. A more correct way to describe it would probably be "in protest and because they relied on Taylor for their functioning". If possible please edit these parts of the articles appropriately. --Fixuture (talk) 22:52, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As per notable coverage of the event. CaffeinAddict (talk) 22:48, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - Obvious BLP1E but the sources on her article can help expand Reddit so IMHO merging is better than deletion –Davey2010^Talk 01:49, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Deleteper nom, and reasoning of others who have recommended delete -- Courtyarder (talk) 01:59, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Reddit doen't catch my interest at all, but when sober news outlets are flooded with stories about the unexplained firing of a very depended-upon employee and the aftermath, I wanted to find out who she was and what were her particular attributes and skills that made her stand out from others in her position. Questions about notability might well have attached to Ellen Pao, actually. No Wikipedia article appeared for her until she filed the discrimination lawsuit which she lost. Given the reports of Taylor's talents and interpersonal skills, she is quite likely to appear in other roles before too long. NoOneAsked (talk) 16:27, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, or merge and redirect. This article is borderline BLP1E, but the reason why I veer towards keep is the content is worth keeping and it would be both awkward and impossible to keep it all in the Reddit article, so let's use our common sense here. I have no dog in this fight - although I'm a reddit moderator I regarded the whole imbroglio with amused aloofness.--greenrd (talk) 21:00, 11 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) 07:31, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Feeding India

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

One year old student-founded charity that comprehensively fails the criteria at WP:ORG. This has been the subject of multiple speedy deletions for copyvio, blatant advertising, etc. in both draft and article space [21], [22]. It has been created yet again with no change except shortening and close-paraphrasing the copyvio. (I have removed the "Missions" and "Principles" sections). Note that the references are to general articles about hunger and food waste in India, not this organization. The only mentions appear to be in student newspapers and a self-written blurb on social.yourstory.com. I can find nothing better. It needs an AfD result to prevent further attempts at recreation. Given the utter failure of the article's creator to understand or engage with the issues and their determination to continue recreating this article, I also recommend salting this. Voceditenore (talk) 06:26, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note re the copyvio. The text pasted into this article and its previous versions is double copyvio. When checking for copyright infringement in the previous versions, I discovered that virtually all the text on their website (feedingindia.net) is actually copied verbatim from other websites for food banks in the US (affiliated to Feeding America) and the website of the Delhi NCR FoodBank. This includes their "Mission" and "Principles" and their exposition on food wastage in India. Just one example of many, compare Feeding India and Blue Ridge Area Food Bank. Voceditenore (talk) 06:02, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Voceditenore (talk) 07:00, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Voceditenore (talk) 07:00, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt (both titles, ie. "I" and "i") per nominator. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 07:21, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt per nominator.4meter4 (talk) 08:09, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt per nom. I speedied the draft, so I'll leave it to another admin to close here Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:12, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt both titles - Obviously here to promote so delete & salt –Davey2010^Talk 16:52, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt as per nom and all above. I looked at the previously deleted versions, there seems to be nothing notable here, unless there are sources unlisted and that my web search did not find. Time to think about a WP:SNOW close? DES ^(talk) 01:25, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:33, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm not so sure about the salt as it's only been restarted twice now so unless there's intent to start again (there have been more blatant articles), I'll go soft on a salt for now. As for good notability, I found nothing good aside from the current Indian news links currently in the article. SwisterTwister talk 04:19, 7 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) 06:59, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jamie Hall

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

Notability completely escapes me Midas02 (talk) 04:50, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No third-party RS that I can find. Book is self-published (iUniverse publishing). If anything, he's a master at self-promotion. I note that there are lots of SPA accounts among the editors of the page, who make a few edits then disappear -- I'm thinking "socks". LaMona (talk) 20:09, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:31, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:31, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:31, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:32, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:32, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:32, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I did not find substantial coverage from independent reliable sources to demonstrate notability. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 19:11, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - also consider Club Life (TV series), the only other article edited by the creator (a sellf-confessed 'fan') of the bio of Hall, the show's host.
Delete - Nothing outstandingly notable for an article here at this time. SwisterTwister talk 03:58, 7 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 per WP:CSD#G5 by Bbb23. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 05:06, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bluegrass-Companies

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Bluegrass Companies

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

Company that does not appear to meet the notability guidelines for corporations or the general notability guidelines. Provided sources are either not independent (e.g., press releases or corporate records) or does not cover company in depth.

There also appears to be WP:COI editing going on with the article and a previous iteration of the article. See old AFD and SPI case. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 04:11, 4 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. While this does not appear to be a hoax, there insufficient verifiability for an article. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 23:19, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gani, The Emperor

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

I could not find any references when using Google. Probable hoax. The Snowager-is awake 02:01, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I nominated this article for speedy deletion under G3, but someone else removed the tag. I guess the hoax isn't as blatant... Gparyani (talk) 17:10, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Might not be a hoax: The "Emperor Gani" that this article is about may have actually existed. In a book by Laurence Waddell, someone known as "Emperor Gani" and someone known as "Gani" are mentioned many times, see here. They might be related. Check out page 708 of a PDF version to see an example. Also check out the "Indus-Valley seals" section of Waddell's article, I believe that is what this article may be referring to.

Thoughts? Rainbow unicorn (talk) 17:17, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now per Rainbow unicorn's good find. I don't believe it is a hoax. If you look at Waddell's chronology, it appears he may also be called Guni. But we need some experts to weigh in. —Мандичка^YO 😜 08:00, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:22, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:22, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:22, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- The article on Waddell makes it clear that his views have not been accepted by reputable later scholars. The Guni in his chonology is the same person as Sargon, whom he identifies with the Vedic Sagara. It is conceivable that he had picked up some proper sources, but if he had, I would have expected his work to have been followed up by later scholars; and apparently, it has not been. He boldly tried to make links between different civilisations, but their non-acceptable means that we must treat his work as WP:FRINGE. What somewhat surprises me is that some of his work is apparently being kept in print. Perhaps I am being too pessimistic about his work. Peterkingiron (talk) 09:07, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the article does not properly identify the subject, there are no sources. We can't be left to guess that this is abaout a person mentioned somewhere by a questionable reference, and maybe had a different name (Gani?, Guni?). Kraxler (talk) 15:56, 12 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 snow close/speedy delete as A7. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:21, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Conch Shell

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

Unremarkable fan-fiction podcast. I believe the article qualifies for speedy under WP:A7 but an IP conveniently removed the speedy tag after the author had done the same and was warned not to. --Non-Dropframe _talk 01:29, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; nonnotable, WP:MADEUP. Trivialist (talk) 01:51, 4 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 as G3 (NAC) SwisterTwister talk 20:17, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Library of Amartya

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

I cannot find anything other than Wikipedia mirrors. A search here also comes up with nothing. You'd think they'd have a telephone number if nothing else. The only other mention I've come across is this slide show (slide 26). Could they have simply taken that from this article? Also suspicious is the original revision, which makes unlikely assertions; delivery of any book you may want? Adam9007 (talk) 00:39, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It is pretty suspicious that there's no mention of this anywhere except in Wikipedia mirrors. I agree that the slide show was likely based on information pulled from Wikipedia. Also, if I'm not mistaken, Amartya is a person's name and not a location so this article may just be referring to someone's private library. A search for "Amartya library" brings up nothing and a search for Amartya South Delhi (without quotation marks) predominantly brings up information for Amartya Sen, an individual person. Further searches for Amartya South Delhi library also brings up nothing to substantiate that this library exists. I'm leaning towards this being a hoax in that I don't see where this is a library in the traditional, non-personal sense. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:29, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is a chance that there are foreign language sources, but I largely doubt it since we'd get something with an English language search to back up that there's a library by this name and I'm finding nothing. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:30, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah... the original version of the page gives off the strong impression that it's either about a personal library or it's a joke page. I'll go ahead and delete this as A7 and G3 if you want, for the above reasons. If anyone really contests it or can show that it actually exists outside of someone's private library I'll re-open this, but at best this looks like a joke page someone made for themselves or a friend. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:39, 4 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.

^ http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/16/world/arne-naess-jr-norwegian-shipping-tycoon-66.html
^ http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/obituaries/1451651/Arne-Naess.html
^ http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3395831.stm
^ http://articles.latimes.com/2004/jan/14/local/me-naess14

[1] ttp://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/16/world/arne-naess-jr-norwegian-shipping-tycoon-66.html

[2] ttp://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/obituaries/1451651/Arne-Naess.html

[3] ttp://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3395831.stm

[4] ttp://articles.latimes.com/2004/jan/14/local/me-naess14

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]