Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 May 16

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 15 May	17 May >

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. j⚛e decker ^talk 23:38, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

LookTracker[edit]

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

Business promotion. This is essentially an advertorial, using general information on the technique to support an article on a particular company. DGG ( talk ) 23:12, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:39, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:39, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:39, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Although if Teknicks is notable, maybe it could be mentioned there? Multiple searches found nothing significant and notable here, here, here, here and here (some of the first results in the first search are primary). The article is neat and sourced but not notable at this time. SwisterTwister talk 20:07, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sources cited are about the technology, not this company. Fails WP:GNG. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:44, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Regardless of notability, most of the current article is unsourced and the sources that are on the page are junk sources. Even if they were notable, everything on the current article would warrant deletion. CorporateM (Talk) 16:34, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not for it being promotional, which it is, as articles can always be editing. However, there simply are not any sources that support notability. Without them, WP:GNG isn't satisfied.--TTTommy111 (talk) 05:04, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and references are more general about the technology and not specific to the company. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 06:04, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Fails WP:GNG. Winner 42 Talk to me! 20:30, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 23:37, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Corporate Affiliations[edit]

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

Not notable. The only 3rd party sources here are one that discusses the parent company, LexisNexis, and a one line listing in a report. . DGG ( talk ) 23:08, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:40, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:40, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Nothing significant or notable here, here, here and here to suggest this company is independently notable. SwisterTwister talk 18:48, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:44, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No secondary sources to establish nobility. CookieMonster755 (talk) 07:09, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No attempt made to be in compliance with Wikipedia's inclusion criteria. Fails WP:GNG. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:45, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE The WSJ article does not actually mention Corporate Affiliations. The rest is all primary sources. In order for an article to be kept, we should expect at least some of the content to have strong sources, so there is some content worth keeping. CorporateM (Talk) 16:37, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Beating a dead horse here, but there simply are not any references that support notability. --TTTommy111 (talk) 05:06, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Light-emitting diode. Consensus is clearly against keeping, but rounding to merge since there's enough agreement that there might be useful material to merge and/or the eventual redirect might be appropriate. Obviously consensus at the destination is free to determine how much material, if any, should be integrated, and WP:RFD can be used to delete this as a useless redirect if nothing comes of it. slakr^\ talk / 02:40, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

LED cover[edit]

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

Article previously nominated for Speedy Deletion due to Advertising, edits were made to remove the specific advertising but I am unconvinced as to the utility of the remainder. Most of the text relates specifically to the product the article was advertising for, and I do not feel that the article meets notability requirements. At best, perhaps a line could be added under the Safety and Health section of Light-emitting_diode denoting that products have been created to address some of the health concerns raised by LEDs. JBartus (talk) 22:24, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/merge - per nom. I don't think this topic has gained notability on its own and can be adequately covered on the light-emitting diode article. —Мандичка^YO 😜 22:49, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:41, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The health concerns section seems like selective bunk; a bright LED is more an annoyance during sleep than any kind of health hazard unless you decide to look at it directly for hours on end. These products basically do the same thing a $1 roll of electrical tape can do and are more a sleep product than a commodity that needs an article at this time. Nate • (chatter) 01:15, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to LED. CookieMonster755 (talk) 07:10, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: notability, anyone? The references are articles that say LEDs can damage the retina. I have doubts about their reliability but even if those were papers in Nature acclaimed by the science community and the general press alike, it does not grant notability to alleviating measures such as LED covers. Redirecting to LED is cheap, but frankly I am not a fan of redirecting from a specific, non-notable to general, notable unless there is a suitable subsection (you would not redirect "ice at -12°C" to ice, right?). Tigraan (talk) 10:19, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Refs don't mention LED covers. Only sources I can find are unreliable promotional pieces or catalog entries for LightDims: [1], [2] ~Kvng (talk) 14:30, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - I will gladly do it if no one else volunteers. There is some good information in the article, but does not need to stand alone outside of the LED article. --TTTommy111 (talk) 05:17, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Will userfy on request. --MelanieN (talk) 03:00, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bansh Lal Katiyar[edit]

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

Non-notable political candidate who didn't get elected. Guy Macon (talk) 14:53, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I know him he is well know personality in Kanpur, Uttar Pradesh . Ithink this page deserve to be in wikipedia.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Winner 42 Talk to me! 15:54, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Winner 42 Talk to me! 15:56, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unsourced BLP that fails WP:POLITICIAN. I see no significant press coverage. --Nick—^Contact/_Contribs 21:34, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete The Article tends to be raised to earn publicity. Simply a promotional page.--MahenSingha (Talk) 12:34, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

News coverage Vanshlal Katiyar in hindi news paper...Links added below:

http://m.jagran.com/uttar-pradesh/kanpur-dehat-11888010.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.220.154.3 (talk) 19:24, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

http://upnewslive.com/?p=22311 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Satyamame (talk • contribs) 20:55, 15 May 2015‎ (UTC)[reply]

Google translate of the above URLs:

"Kanpur countryside, Jeanan: three days each booth booth migrant BJP party members will stay on. On Thursday, officials at the various meetings of the strategy. Akbarpur met under the chairmanship of former minister Mahesh Trivedi. He said that on December 19,20 and 21 of the Board will review all the booths themselves. Overseas anywhere booth acted carelessly met the recommendation of the report will be sent to the state organization. District Minister Saurabh Mishra said that most members do to make the party become the world's number one political party side. Board Chairman Vikas Mishra, Guddn Singh, Rama Mishra, Anil Shukla, Shiv Sharan Pandey, Sultan Singh, Gopal Saini, etc are. Saraswati School of Rajpur BJP District President Madan Pandey said at the meeting that each member of the organization was made possible at least one hundred members. Dinesh Mishra, Awadh Bishnoi, Shailesh Soni, former District President Rajesh Sachan, Abhilash Chauhan, Vanshlal Katiyar, Rajaram Kushwaha, Ramvli, relaxation Singh, Hrikant Porwal, DR. Fulchandra are Katheriya etc. Under the leadership of board chairman Govind Dixit booth Derapur rural migrant workers kapaleeshwara meeting held in the temple. Hanif, Ram Vilas, Munna Lal, Ram Prasad, Umakanat, are Pawan Kumar etc. Membership in Pukrayan charge Anil Bajpei said each booth, create more than a hundred members to increase the party's base. At the meeting, former District President Rajesh Tiwari, Vanshlal Katiyar, Rahul Agnihotri, huge Katiyar, Pramod Tripathi, Sachan Kuldeep, Rajesh Dwivedi, etc. Snkwar are true light."

"Rmabainagr (Sikandra) and the election committee of the BJP national vice president Kalraj Mishra said that the people in the state grain-grain is craving, Jho 08 million people is not getting two square meals. The state's chief Mayawati is Mngati Sandl to Mumbai from the ship. The people of the state over the precipice slap. They Ramabai Nagar on Yho victory in Sikandra assembly resolution was addressing the conference. Mr Mishra said that the farmers are committing suicide due to starvation, where people are for medicine Trahi-Trahi, where are you going to pay for everything, is messing with respect to the mother-sisters. Traders are being looted, the deal is to be the head of the money, by the people's representatives are being rape case. He panchayat in Barabanki in front of the molestation incident, saying that the BSP worker attempted suicide after molesting the girl, the woman's a woman minister in the government of respect is not safe. Teachers have ravaged not find jobs for the unemployed, the state of the disease situation is Guujr. He said the government is working as retaliation. Swami Ramdev is being charged. Anna's colleagues are being unfairly persecuted. Congress is creating segregation in the country. Congress religion and caste politics is working to break the country. These evil forces shall be taught a lesson. SP and BSP Our fight will be on the booth. Democracy will decide the winning and losing. Your struggle, your victory led to the shoe. When public anger grows the biggest dictatorship forces are destroyed. U 0 A 0 0 P broke the limits of government corruption. Central and state government warned that retaliation would be very severe consequences if Bwana worked. Mr. Mishra farmer from the city of Raipur railway station, Rnian grand welcome. Thousands of BJP by Yuwamorcha motorcycle procession was taken out from the venue. He said Ahwahn activists vowed to change that is to take the BJP to victory. Vijay Sankalp Conference State Secretary, MLA Prem Lata Katiyar, Kmlrani Varun former MP, Ganga Singh Cahan former legislator Hardoi, Ashok Dubey, former M 0 L 0 C 0, Rajesh Tiwari, District President, Vanshlal Katiyar, Mahavir Tripathi, Arvind Sachan assembly charge, Manoj Shukla, Archana Mishra, Hanuman Mishra, president Jitendra Singh Yuwamorcha etc. Thousands of people were present."

I don't see the words "Bansh Lal Katiyar" in the above translation. Did Google translate translate it as something else? --Guy Macon (talk) 16:36, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Macon, You can find him as (Vanshlal Katiyar) I think I wrote incorrectly.

http://m.jagran.com/uttar-pradesh/kanpur-dehat-12203788.html

(सिकंदरा तहसील में पूर्व जिलाध्यक्ष वंशलाल कटियार की अध्यक्षता में धरना आयोजित किया गया)

Google translate:

(Semaphore tehsil picket was held under the chairmanship of former District President Vanshlal Katiyar.)

Few More Media Coverage Links

News coverage Vanshlal Katiyar in hindi news paper...Links added below:

http://m.jagran.com/uttar-pradesh/kanpur-dehat-11109177.html

http://m.jagran.com/uttar-pradesh/kanpur-dehat-here-heading-in-english-for-story8231500-8231500.html

http://m.jagran.com/uttar-pradesh/kanpur-dehat-10314864.html

Help Is it possible to change the page name as 'Vanslal Katiyar?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Satyamame (talk • contribs) 11:51, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Satyamame (talk • contribs) 21:32, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As you asked above,I have moved the page to the new name as appearing in your poor news sources, yet I say appearing in news does not make a politician notable. There is a general criteria like What position he holds and at what level in the party. More over he lost the only election he fought. Hence he is simply a party member, not a notable politician. Please go through WP:POLITICIAN and WP:BIO.--MahenSingha (Talk) 10:23, 18 May 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 May 16. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:22, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I think the creator has a misunderstanding of how notability works on Wikipedia happens. I find no sources to keep the article or even attempt to clean it up. If they say there are sources, then a possible move to their userspace allowing time for improvement could work; however, I don't even see that as a possibility without any references out there. --TTTommy111 (talk) 05:24, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. --MelanieN (talk) 03:06, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of Serbian exonyms for places in the United States[edit]

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

Exonyms of a language that is not widespread in that country. No educational use. Zoupan 22:21, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - has no notability whatsoever. I would even challenge the claim that these are exonyms at all; it's basically just a list of how some U.S. places are spelled in Serbian —Мандичка^YO 😜 22:28, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:46, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:46, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:46, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:46, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or transwiki to Wiktionary. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. —Granger (talk · contribs) 00:00, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not even appropriate for Wiktionary - these are just spelling variations in a different alphabet. —Мандичка^YO 😜 00:18, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Those are appropriate for Wiktionary, assuming that they are really used in Serbo-Croatian. Actually, some of them already have Wiktionary entries, such as wikt:Аљаска/wikt:Aljaska and wikt:Њујорк/wikt:Njujork. —Granger (talk · contribs) 01:18, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - That's the stupidest thing I've ever seen. It's not a definition or a new word or term - if you notice, the Serbian-Latin article about New York is sh:New York, not Njujork! Njujork is just the phonetic spelling of the Serbian Cyrillic Њујорк, which is just how you spell New York in that alphabet. It's not even a translation of the name (such as New Orleans = Nouvelle-Orléans in French). Phonetic spelling of names or places don't become new words or terms on their own. It's just how it might be spelled in a different alphabet based on pronunciation. —Мандичка^YO 😜 05:03, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:12, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of ceratopsian research[edit]

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

There does not seem to be be an independent "ceratopsian research", so fails WP:GNG. The Banner talk 22:16, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - there is a whole category of these: Category:Paleontology timelines; if these are all inappropriate, WikiProject Dinosaurs should be consulted. The main article would be Ceratopsia —Мандичка^YO 😜 22:22, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- All those articles and the category are from the same editor. The Banner talk 22:53, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't give that much weight, as there's no indication he's anything but a valuable contributor. User has created more than 8,000 pages, mostly related to geology, paleontology, and other life sciences. To me that indicates a possible high level of expertise in the field. I can still see why these timeline articles have encyclopedic merit, and also, these are within the larger category of Category:Science timelines (not created by him), which has similar categories in other fields. Also, they're not stubs or placeholders, but fully detailed articles. Deleting would be a mistake; merging up to their parent article would be more appropriate. Hopefully some people from Wikiproject Dinosaurs can shed more light on if these would be better suited to merging. —Мандичка^YO 😜 00:56, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - This timeline is already more than 90% of the recommended maximum article length so is better suited to being an independent article. Abyssal (talk) 01:15, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      - Abyssal Yes, I agree. —Мандичка^YO 😜 02:04, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:46, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:47, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:47, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:47, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: There are multiple entire books dedicated to the Ceratopsia, like this one or this one. The former discusses the history reasonably extensively. Abyssal (talk) 00:49, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it's a reasonably well-defined area of study, and I think it's consistent with WP:LISTN. And it's a really nice article. Guettarda (talk) 03:41, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Except for some 30+ links to disambiguation pages... The Banner talk 08:53, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - I am going to unlink most of those for now; there is no indication that the cited paleontologists are notable. bd2412 T 14:20, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (though perhpas renamed). A hisotry of the developemtn of a subject is certainly worth having. I am unhappy about the number of redlinks, but that is capable of being cured. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:55, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The creation of timelines and lists are among the WP:OR which Wikipedia encourages. The information in this timeline is backed by WP:RS. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:47, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The GNG is primarily meant to counter the problem of people promoting either themselves or their wacky theories. It is, of course, not intended to counteract the covering of entire fields of established science, which to the contrary is highly desirable. This article is basically a chronological listing of research and can best be judged by the standards of Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Stand-alone lists which make clear that is suffices that the individual items listed are each notable in themselves, which is obviously the case here. Most of the paleontologists mentioned have, as eminent scientists, their own articles but simply have to be linked properly yet, which will solve the disambiguation problem and most of the redlink pseudoproblem.--MWAK (talk) 07:55, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I reluctantly withdraw the nomination. The Banner talk 08:34, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Nakon 19:30, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Valley Electronics[edit]

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

Non-notable company, fails WP:GNG and WP:CORP Joseph2302 (talk) 21:56, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:49, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:49, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:49, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:50, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe redirect to LadyComp - Searches for the company itself found nothing (News, Books, browser, thefreelibrary and highbeam) but searches with "LadyComp" added found results mostly press releases but if this is not enough then delete. There could be good German sources but English would be as likely used so it's very unlikely good German sources exist.SwisterTwister talk 18:55, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - Here are a couple additional sources: [3], [4]. Coverage still mostly about company's products. ~Kvng (talk) 14:24, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE The NYT piece is written by the company's CEO. There is strong consensus at RSN that the Daily Mail is not reliable. The two sources linked to above appear to be the same article; both publications tend to publish thousands of press releases, or articles written from a slightly modified release. For example, the quote used in the article can be found in the press release here. There are no truly independent sources, in the article, or suggested here at the AfD discussion. CorporateM (Talk) 16:41, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:GNG and WP:CORP. Quis separabit? 03:14, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 23:38, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

International Creative Registry[edit]

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

Non-notable company, fails WP:GNG and WP:CORP. This artcle also reads like an advert. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:55, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:51, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:51, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - can't find anything to support GNG —Мандичка^YO 😜 06:10, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Multiple details searches (such as adding "ICR", "Jubin Shabtai" and "California company") found absolutely nothing with News, Books, browser, thefreelibrary and highbeam. Nothing significant or notable for this company. SwisterTwister talk 19:04, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in accordance with attempts to find GNG sources above; the article already incorporates all two of the news items available on the subject. — Brianhe (talk) 17:48, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 under A7, G11 and G12. I'm not sure about different article titles, but Draft:Midas King has previously been created more than once. Super Mario Man ( talk ) 23:33, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, I have salted this title. Super Mario Man ( talk ) 23:42, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Midas king[edit]

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

Non notable recording artist-as a note I swear this article has been deleted under another name. Wgolf (talk) 21:02, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:53, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Willie Cochran[edit]

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

In addition to being an unreferenced BLP, it does not meet WP:NPOL or the GNG. There is a small amount of third party coverage (mostly in relation to his election) but in my opinion it is not a "significant amount." --Non-Dropframe _talk 20:55, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 21:09, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Non-dropframe, define "significant". I just did a quick search of the Chicago Tribune and found 53 articles covering the subject, DNA info has 77 articles, NBC Chicago has over 50 articles covering the subject. Also references will be added per BLP. Thanks. Astuishin ^(talk)

@Astuishin:, you're quite right. I dug a bit deeper and realized I'm mistaken. I've withdrawn my nomination.--Non-Dropframe _talk 22:55, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination based on Astuishin's helpful reply. --Non-Dropframe _talk 22:55, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 14:38, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rymzo[edit]

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

This Article does not meet Wikipedia Guidelines no evidence of Notability on this Article .. --Samat lib (talk) 23:18, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I fixed the nom. ansh 666 09:52, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:17, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:17, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep:- Per Significant coverages in multiple independent reliable sources. I found The Sun News, Naija headlines, Punch News, Latest Nigerian News, Nigeria 70, allAfrica News to mention few. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 00:04, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete:- This very article has multiple issues. ( this is another big problem here ) the statement on this Article about this Person has No citation for verification , Secondly the Article need a 100 percent clean up with reliable sources for verification ,,, and also please remember in mind that ( some of the sources that you provided here ) are not Wikipedia reliable sources , *Delete:- if those problem is not fix fast *Delete:- Kokobenin (talk) 08:36, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean that The Sun Newspaper, The Punch Newspaper, AllAfrica.com, Latest Nigerian News and Naija headlines are not reliable sources? Please familiarize yourself with WP:RS before you comment at AfDs. You probably don't know how things work here. Do you? The fact that an article is poorly written is usually not a valid reason for deletion, especially if the subject of the article is notable like this one. In addition, the maintenance tags such as {{multiple issues}} exist for reasons and could probably be used in any of these cases. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 08:42, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notice .. if you feel that this very article is here relevant , please kindly go ahead and make the clean up on the article ,( first step ) re write the article, adding reliable sources for Wikipedia verifications, then we will see the next step.... (please safe our time ) time is running against us here Kokobenin (talk) 09:22, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is a reason why the preview button exist. Please learn to use the preview button and familiarize yourself with Wikipedia:Indentation. I had just corrected your indent and other mess now. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 09:26, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 20:38, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - sufficient sources to support that he is prominent in Nigeria. —Мандичка^YO 😜 20:49, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Low quality articles are not a reason for deletion, the subject passes WP:BIO. Winner 42 Talk to me! 21:05, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing Admin: User:Samat lib and User: Kokobenin are currently under investigation for possible Sockpuppetry as User: Kokobenin account was specifically created for disruptive purpose probably by User:Samat lib to always support their hilarious nominations and views at AfDs. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Samat lib. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 21:17, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've struck out vote from sockpuppet of nom. -- haminoon (talk) 05:22, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 fails the relevant notability guideline WP:POLITICIAN due to a lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. Davewild (talk) 08:20, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rania Khan[edit]

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

This article is an exercise in Self-promotion and publicity by a former politician and it is very likely to have been written by the subject or a person/s editing on the subject's behalf. The article contains large amounts of self-aggrandizing and spurious content that is in such quantities it distorts the article and is therefore not from a neutral point of view (WP:NPOV); this surplus 'promotional' content is well beyond the basis of the articles previous excuse for notability; that she is a politician and, as such, is excessive and irrelevant.

The basis for the subjects notability were that she was a serving local councillor at a local authority in London. Nevertheless, the subject of this autobiographical article is no longer an elected or active politician and has not been for several years and, as such, any feasible grounds of notability ~~(where the consensus last time was a "weak keep")~~ (where half the commentators in the last deletion nomination discussion considered it to be a "weak keep" or "very weak keep") must surely have diminished even further to the point where this article should be reconsidered for deletion. Aetheling1125 19:14, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Keep The consensus last time was "keep", not "week keep". I am not connected with this person myself. I realize that local councilors are not inherently notable, however I think this persons achievements do make her just about pass notability. Tower Hamlets council has been the subject of a good deal of controversy recently, which actually increases the notability of all those involved. PatGallacher (talk) 20:18, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The sources made the subject pass WP:POLITICIAN in 2012 and they still do today. I see no evidence that this was written by the subject nor that it is in a promotional tone (and this is coming from someone who tends to want to burn undisclosed paid editors at the stake). ~~But the nom's misrepresentation of the previous consensus does concern me.~~ Concerns have been addressed, thank you. Winner 42 Talk to me! 21:27, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Changing !vote in light of new information, see below. Winner 42 Talk to me! 13:53, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Notability is not temporary (see WP:NTEMP) so once somebody has passed notability they do not lose it. PatGallacher (talk) 23:46, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:56, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:56, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:57, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reply But should the reason WHY they are notable be the purpose of the article? What is the reason why Rania Khan is notable? Is it because her second husband is a photographer? Is it because her mum was in the army? Is it because she is a science teacher in Newham? Is it because she likes to go shopping on Wednesday? This article in my view is inflated and contains a lot of biographical self indulgence which makes it aggrandizing. If the reasons for her being notable are that she was - briefly - the youngest elected councillor in the UK then that is all the article should be about. If it was that she kept changing political allegiance (is that notable?), then so be it. It should be brief and functional and focus wholly on these things and not be this great eulogy with an info box as if we are looking at the reign of some monarch! The first thing we need to do is decide why Rania is notable. The second thing we should do is reduce this article simply to that. The un-notable surplus should then be deleted. Aetheling1125 09:35, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
- Sorry, that's nonsense, once somebody is notable we include significant information. Her main claim to notability seems to be having been a cabinet member of an important local authority, although being the youngest councilor in the UK is also significant. See WP:POLOUTCOMES. PatGallacher (talk) 12:10, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I would add that the 32 London boroughs are quite important as local authorities go, with substantial powers and populations, Tower Hamlets has a population of a quarter of a million. Maybe individual councilors are not inherently notable, but senior figures like cabinet members could be notable. PatGallacher (talk) 12:21, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: When it comes to politicians, Wikipedia is not a directory solely of current officeholders, such that we delete articles once a person retires from politics or loses re-election or dies — if a person was ever notable enough for a Wikipedia article, then they retain that status forever, without regard to change in their current circumstances. I have no strong opinion on whether she is notable enough or not — under normal circumstances we do not extend notability under WP:NPOL to borough councillors, but as I don't live in the UK I'm not in a position to adequately assess whether she's more notable than the norm for that role or not. But the fact that she isn't still in office today has nothing to do with the question — "was notable at the time but isn't anymore" isn't a thing Wikipedia does, so the only valid grounds for deletion would be a credible case that she was never notable enough for an article in the first place. Bearcat (talk) 16:20, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Reply Thanks for the feedback. PatGallacher you say that once someone is notable you include "significant" information. That seems sensible but it begs the question: what is "significant" information. I maintain that the article in question contains a lot of insignificant information which is aggrandizing the subject. If this was a normal article I would not see any problem but it is a politician... it is in the interests of the subject to have as much aggrandizing information as possible and for that reason I think we should restrict the content to a minimum so that it is truly significant and not surplus promotion. For example, do we need to know what degree grade she got? Clearly this article is promoting the individual, it is virtually a CV...and it also begs the question - unless the subject was involved with the writing of this page how would the editor who created it know what degree grade she got? Aetheling1125 20:19, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:38, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Aetheling1125: Not every article needs to be a stub, information such as education and personal background can be informative in articles on public people. I suggest looking through the featured articles on politicians such as Barack Obama for examples of what content to include on these types of articles. If this article is promotional, then Obama's should be G11ed asap! Winner 42 Talk to me! 13:10, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But, concerned I may be stating the obvious, Barack Obama is the most powerful man in the world. Rania Khan was a borough councillor for five years and is virtually unknown beyond Tower Hamlets.Aetheling1125 14:43, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Keep – The article is well sourced, subject is notable as it meets WP:GNG as well as WP:POLITICIAN. As per the consensus on the previous AfD and WP:NTEMP, the subject is no less notable now than she was then. As per WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP, any specific problems with the article should be addressed through editing not deletion. Also, I fail to see how any of the information within the article is promotional or biased.

Thank you User:Aetheling1125 for your lack of WP:AGF in falsely accusing me of sock puppetry and/or conflict of interest for the third time in as many years. Initially here in May 2012, however, after another editor refuted this you subsequently apologised for this. But then went on to make a similar accusation again for the Rabina Khan article in April 2013.

In response to your assumption of sock puppetry or conflict of interest, as I have already told you for Rabina Khan here, I have never met Rania Khan either and I have attempted to write this article from a WP:NPOV with the sources available. Considering that you have been editing on Wikipedia for nearly 10 years now and judging by your weak WP:IDONTLIKEIT reasons for deletion as well as your poor/strawman interpretation of WP:NPOV and WP:GNG, it would seem you have a WP:NOTHERE agenda against these particular politicians. In response to your comment here I suggest you AfD that article also, so consensus can finally be established, rather than teasing the issue and letting it linger any longer. Tanbircdq (talk) 11:51, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than getting all ad hominem and "policy bombing" why don't you help us answer some of the questions I posed, principally these:

What precisely is Rania Khan notable for
What is "significant" information which is relevent to the subjects grounds of notability. I maintain that the article in question contains a lot of insignificant information which is aggrandizing the subject.
How do you know she has a 2:1 degree? That is not public information. Did she tell you?Aetheling1125 14:41, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Well as you have been told before "do not accuse someone of sock puppetry or conflict of interest without some evidence". Despite two previous warnings about this you continue to do this therefore I felt the need to get "all ad hominem". Sure, I'll help answer your questions again:

The subject is notable because she meets the WP:POLITICIAN standard of "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage". She also meets WP:GNG standard of significant coverage from independent, reliable sources. If you do not like policy bombing then you are in the wrong place.

If you took the time to check the sources in the article properly you would also know that the subject has a 2:1 degree according to this source. Tanbircdq (talk) 16:40, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You have failed to answer my question about why she is notable. In addition, regarding the surplus information, is her degree level (just one example) locum to her notability? Is she notable because she has a 2:1 or does he degree level (which is unremarkable) add to her notability? No it doesn't - it is just fawning praise and aggrandizement. It is irrelivent and surplus; it is not "significant". Also you quote policy to say that a local politican is notable if they "have received significant press coverage" - well I would argue that she has NOT received "significant" press coverage. Her press coverage was extremely minor, limited and usually self-generated. By your own admission she is not notable.Aetheling1125 18:46, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Completely agree she is not notable. She is a school teacher who was a local councilor for a few years she only received 2426 votes in her last election and the only press coverage relates to her being nominated for an award which she didn't win. --Cantab12 (talk) 19:10, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This person does not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines - there is no significant coverage (i.e. multiple independent secondary sources with more than a trivial mention) of the subject, and it's main claim that she was the youngest councilor is unsourced and untrue there are lots of examples of younger councilors just do a quick search Cantab12 (talk) 22:38, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The attempt to delete her has been tried before and it is clear that it is a political opponent or those who detest her work as a feminist. The page in fact says very little of the hard work and continuous effort she has made to fight injustice not just in London but nationally and internationally. Your wrong and yes people across the country know of her work especially in the Left movements. She has been a prominent figure and notable in Tower Hamlets and Bangladeshi community Judge at Jack Petchey Award. She is regularly asked to participate in TV, radio discussion including BBC alongside MPs and other notable figures. The fact that she was one of the very few female BME politicians who has inspired many and continues to do so should make her notable.Her tireless work to end inequality for women should make her notableUK Feminsta support Fawcett Society and many other notable women's right organisations have valued her hard work. She has also spoken on national and international platforms for climate change Climate change conference fronton 60,000 people. Although not in office she is regularly invited to speak on such issues. -Pinky36 (talk) 09:31, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reply I completely reject your accusation. The only reason I support deletion is that clearly doesn't meet WP:NPOLITICIAN guidelines. I note that you only created your account today and have only edited this page, so if any has to answer questions about their motivations - I would suggest it was you. --Cantab12 (talk) 16:21, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Being a local politician doesn't make them notable enough under WP:NPOLITICIAN, and there is no evidence of significant, independant coverage from reliable sources to pass WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:26, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ReplyWell do you have the same concern regarding other politicians on here let me start with some local ones, Shiria Khatun and Anwara Ali, thereby it is clear that you have a political agenda and your biased, why haven you opposed those two politicians??? clearly you have an agenda. As this matter was bought to my attention on twitter and real Rania Khan is being unfairly targeted as usual, i felt compelled to comment.. --Pinky36 (talk) (UTC)

Delete Being a local politician doesn't make them notable enough under WP:NPOLITICIAN, and there is no evidence of significant, independant coverage from reliable sources to pass WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:26, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete She is a local, not provincial politician. The WP:NPOLITICIAN rule for a local politician is "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage". I live in Tower Hamlets, and promise you that being a cabinet minister under an executive mayor does not make you a major political figure. The onus must surely be on those advocating 'keep' to demonstrate that she has received significant press coverage. Because I've not noticed any press coverage at all, I do not believe she satisfies that criterion. But I'll change my mind in the face of evidence. (Pinky36 may wish to substantiate their claim about being "regularly asked to participate" in media discussions.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drianmcdonald (talk • contribs) 11:13, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Being a local politician is not sufficient for automatic inclusion. However, the subject's media coverage such as BBC, East London Advertiser, Telegraph for her views and achievements as well as being a cabinet member of an important large local authority makes her pass notability. Also, it is not for AfD to determine if she should have received all this press coverage or not. Tanbircdq (talk) 11:44, 20 May 2015 (UTC):[reply]

She was mentioned, briefly, ONCE in the Daily Telegraph and this is hardly "significant press coverage". She wrote one thing which was published once in the Guardian. The East London Advertiser was, I think, merely reporting the local election results and it is not a major or national newspaper. You refer of her "achievements" as if you are a political supporter of hers. What precisely are her achievements and are they "notable". She is not notable just because you say she is notable. She is not notable now and never was according to the guidelines.Aetheling1125 19:53, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Comment – Aetheling1125 you are misinformed, she has been continuously on national and international media whilst a politician, as far as I know from her twitter feeds she is on maternity leave hence not that involved as usual. I live in TowerHamlets and can confirm that she is regular guest speaker on Channel S, Bangla TV, Islam Channel and has appeared several times on BBC news, she was regularly commentator on Vanessa Stealth show on BBC, LBC, Channel 4 News, appeared on the first page of Evening Standard Evening Standard she went head to head with BNP's Nick Griffin on 5 Live, regualary speaks on Stop the War, People's Assembly platform alongside notable speakers Peoples Assembly. A treasurer for Kinglsely Hall. I think those on here are unfairly targeting Rania. Giving birth and taking a break from politics shouldn't be a reason why she should be taken off. Her records speak for herself. Aetheling1125 is one person who clearly doesn't know TowerHamlets as a woman and from the BME community. She has fought long and hard for over 10 years. Wiki page recognises unsung heroes and not those who only fit the stauts quo. Yes she not suited and booted but she has faught hard for our community, and is very notable in my eyes. Before leaving office she worked on the Thomas Rainsborough plaque and there are countless examples of her work in the Borough. :53, 20 May 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pinky36 (talk • contribs)

East London Advertiser is about being nominated for Young Councillor of the Year which provides in-depth coverage about her. There is further elaboration on British Bangladeshi Who's Who about campaigning and speaking on various platforms, specifically a live debate with Nick Griffin on Radio 4. The Daily Telegraph article about her, on the back of being speaker Fem 11 conference and also in reference to her position as cabinet member for culture. Tanbircdq (talk) 14:13, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm changing my mind on this one in light of new information. As an American who has no stake in this person's politics, upon my further examination of the sources she lacks the significant coverage expected of a major politician or to even pass WP:BIO. All of the coverage is either routine coverage by local media or trivial mentions. Wikipedia does not need articles on every councilor and selectman in the world as they lack the coverage expected of them in WP:NPOLITICIAN. In regards to the subject, tweeting stuff like this is how you lose support, not gain it. In general, you should try to avoid calling well respected Wikipedian's "misogynist" for upholding Wikipedia's standards. Winner 42 Talk to me! 13:53, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm casting my vote on the matter. I have never once made a reference to Rania being a woman and I object to being labelled a "mysoginist" by the ex-Councillor. I maintain that she has never reached the criteria for being notable. She is not a "major" political figure and has never enjoyed "significant" press coverage. The article is inflated and is, I maintain, a promotional tool and not an objective or worthy entry on Wikipedia. Aetheling1125 07:34, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. No matter what kind of ware it is, it is deemed notable. Drmies (talk) 18:51, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Flipora[edit]

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

There are very few, if any, reliable references for this article. Most news articles on it are barely rewritten press releases. Googling the product brings up many results calling it malware and asking how to remove it. There doesn't appear to be any tech journalists or academics who have looked into the product to ascertain whether or not it is malware, and whether or not the company's bold claim of having millions of users is likely. There aren't even enough references to ascertain what the product is; one reference says it is a search engine while an IP editor on the talk page says it isn't. -- haminoon (talk) 10:16, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -Two things, -1. WP:NCORP, and 2. Sources -(The Hindu, The Hindu2, The Hindu3, Biz Journals, Venturebeat, Techcrunch, Forbes). Anupmehra -Let's talk! 10:47, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, Flipora was previously known as Infoaxe (source). Anupmehra -Let's talk! 11:07, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 10:47, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 10:47, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 10:47, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 10:48, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 10:48, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Below are recent Flipora references, btw. Flipora is a content discovery website and iphone app.

Forbes: http://www.forbes.com/sites/johnrampton/2015/01/27/five-new-apps-challenging-facebook-and-twitter-for-content-discovery/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/johnrampton/2014/09/12/the-past-present-and-future-of-content-discovery/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/drewhendricks/2014/10/16/are-interest-based-networks-the-way-of-the-future/

Inc Magazine: http://www.inc.com/john-rampton/4-essential-iphone-apps-for-late-2014.html http://www.inc.com/john-boitnott/ai-is-helping-the-internet-know-what-you-want-before-you-want-it.html

Yahoo Finance: http://finance.yahoo.com/news/flipora-announces-next-version-mood-090000328.html http://finance.yahoo.com/news/flipora-mood-aware-content-discovery-090000755.html http://finance.yahoo.com/news/flipora-reads-mind-recommends-websites-090000803.html

Despite these references, I still agree that this page should be deleted since the content is extremely out of date, tends to confuse an old product with a new one, has lot of incorrect grammar and also has too many factual errors in general. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.216.157.52 (talk) 19:26, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, none of the concerns raised by you match any of the valid reasons for deletion. Please see WP:DISCUSSAFD on what does constitute a valid argument and what not. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 19:48, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note that those Yahoo articles are actually press releases. -- haminoon (talk) 01:06, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The reviews in reputable magazines, although brief, indicate that, in 2014-15 at least, the app was notable. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 06:15, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is reason to delete this article on the following grounds:

"The evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition, and that this was not a mere short-term interest". Reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability#Notability_requires_verifiable_evidence

Also: "Wikipedia is a lagging indicator of notability. Just as a lagging economic indicator indicates what the economy was doing in the past, a topic is "notable" in Wikipedia terms only if the outside world has already "taken notice of it". As such, brief bursts of news coverage may not be sufficient signs of notability, while sustained coverage would be" Reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability#Notability_requires_verifiable_evidence

While Flipora has some recent news coverage, this cannot be considered sustained notability. The rules are very clear that "short-term interest" and "brief bursts of news coverage" are inadequate".— Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.184.80.20 (talk) 02:18, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:18, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is clearly not a notable venue. I came here due to a personal technical support incident provided to a relative. I've left a comment on the article's talk page, reproduced below. Searching online clearly yields a plethora of complaints. This appears to be an obscure company in its lag legs, trying to auto-infect machines to keep its last breaths. In short, this is at best an obscure adware, but mostly likely a self-propagating malware by this late stage at the end of its life. It is not worth listing on Wikipedia, unless someone is willing to scour the web for reliable sources that care enough about it to provide in-depth analysis of this malware's operations. Most sites (including Mozilla, Symantec, and others) simply show people how to remove this. Again, I vote to delete this article. Fred Hsu (talk) 02:36, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A relative who relies on me for technical support reported his Firefox home page being switched unbeknownst to him to Facebook (probably due to the Facebook icon shown on the page's tab). Upon closer inspection it was this Flipora site that the home page was set to. I vote for malware status. It's only a personal anecdote. Sorry. Fred Hsu (talk) 01:42, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Upon a closer look, I see that Flipora somehow installed itself as an Extension in Firefox (on a MacBook Pro). It comes up with Firefox, and force-create a separate tab with flashing adds, and a search field, every time Firefox launches. The logo looks like a Facebook log, but instead of a blue background color, it has a red bg color. If this is not a malware, I don't know what a malware is. Fred Hsu (talk) 02:05, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is evaluated on the basis of the coverage of subject in multiple secondary, independent and reliable sources (WP:GNG?). Being a malware, adware, virus or anything else, is not a valid reason for deletion. Wikipedia's deletion policy may be of help. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 20:49, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, slakr^\ talk / 19:02, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The fact that it is malware makes it more notable, not less. Significant coverage exists in the sources provided by Anupmehra. It passes WP:GNG. Winner 42 Talk to me! 21:36, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The malware factor is irrelevant unless it gained further coverage for being discovered to be malware. It has had several paragraphs dedicated to it from Forbes in multiple articles, Huffington Post gave it a reasonably sized paragraph, and The Hindu dedicated a lengthy article to it. Sorry guys, but it clearly satisfies GNG, and you not liking it does not change that. There's also a lengthy piece by PC World, for example. Notability is not temporary, and we have a whole year of it getting coverage from just the sources in the article - one of which was published less than a month ago! Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 00:36, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus is that the article, while needing editing, meets the notability guideline. Davewild (talk) 08:22, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Misha Frid[edit]

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

Promotional autobiography of an artist. At first glance, some of the sources look pretty impressive, but digging deeper reveals that many of them are simply advertisements, closely connected sources and trivial mentions. The article seems to fail WP:ARTIST. - Mr X 01:38, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. - Mr X 01:39, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You can check such links on this webpage like: Russian émigré sculptor committed to premise ‘life is so beautiful’, Feb, 2014 J-Weekly.com Lady of the Lily, Misha Frid, Toronto, Canada, 1991 Gallery at 1000 Van Ness: Misha Frid - Exquisite Harmony, ArtBusiness.com Misha Frid, Orange Coast Magazine, p.56, Dec., 1989 “How a Russian sculptor came to be famous in America?”, New York Magazine, p. 54, Dec., 1989 “How a Russian sculptor came to be famous in America?”, New York Magazine, p. 57, Jul., 1989 “Swan Lake in Bronze”, Movie by Wayne Schotten, Misha Frid “Introducing MISHA”, New York Magazine, p. 92, Apr., 1989 Interview, Misha Frid, NTV, Russian TV channel, Sep., 2012

Because most of publications were in 1980s, 1990s and 2000s it's hard to find a proof on Internet, but we have magazines with articles on paper. This webpage about Misha Frid is not an advertisement. This is about himself and his career and relations. We've sent photos for receiving permission from Wiki and on these photos you'll find many famous people with whom Misha works (for example, Vladimir Spivakov, Mikhail Baryshnikov, Erte) We hope you will write us how to change this article and not delete this. - User: Isergievskii 07:00, 5 May 2015 (PT)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 03:15, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 03:17, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mr.X, thank you for your attention. We are working to make changes in our article. We are increasing the amount of references and we are waiting for the approval of our photos. Best Regards, Ilia Sergievskii - User: Isergievskii 3:40, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:01, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:01, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment ~~Here is a source not in the article Russian émigré sculptor committed to premise ‘life is so beautiful’.~~ If Isergievskii would post the bibliographic information of the paper articles he is talking about I can try to track them down. Based on what is in the article plus what is available on the web I am leaning towards delete but I will hold off my !vote for a bit so the other sources can be introduced. Jbh ^Talk 18:26, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: not showing sufficient notability. Quis separabit? 21:11, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Keep but rewrite/stub - Additional sources provided since nomination show enough to pass WP:GNG and possibly WP:ARTIST (I have not seen enough ARTIST AfDs to have a good grasp of the consensus view on applying it.) The article should be stubbed and/or re-written by a non-COI editor to deal with NPOV and PROMO issues. Full page ads are not RS no matter where they are published! ~~Fails GNG fails CREATIVE.~~ Jbh ^Talk 01:31, 6 May 2015 (UTC) Updated !vote. Jbh ^Talk 00:22, 20 May 2015 (UTC) [reply]
Keep I'll change the whole article and add references for all information! Thank you for your advises and I'll send you soon new information. Best Regards User: Isergievskii 2:12, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

I've made some changes in this article. Please, check these changes with references. 1:55, 19 May 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Isergievskii (talk • contribs)

- Dear sir, we made a lot of changes in this article in biography and references. Also I sent to wikipedia photos. I hope I will hear from you soon. Thank you for attention, Best Regards Ilia Sergievskii—isergievskii

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, slakr^\ talk / 19:00, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/TNT - NTV profile confirms notability; article needs to be rewritten in non-promotional style —Мандичка^YO 😜 21:01, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
How does a profile on the website of a closely connected source establish notability? May I ask what notability guideline you are using?- Mr X 01:35, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

^Wikimandia 01:31, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Dear Wikipedia, I've completed the whole article with references. Tell me, how soon wikipedia reviewed it and I'm waiting for the response. Thank you for your attention User: Isergievskii 0:05, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
Keep Clearly passes WP:GNG. Needs a cleanup from someone less involved, as it's a bit promotional, but clearly notable enough. Joseph2302 (talk) 00:08, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You're only allowed to vote once, so I've struck duplicate votes. Joseph2302 (talk) 00:08, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 23:39, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lollywood villa[edit]

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

Non notable website with no reliable 3rd party sources Wgolf (talk) 18:44, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sourced, what more. Mario Payne (talk) 18:45, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Not sure about the Facebook for source but it is plausible and there is much out there to support its credential. --Hash Tag 444 (talk) 18:47, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Such as? RichardOSmith (talk) 18:52, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete non-notable web content. No indication of notability given or found. RichardOSmith (talk) 18:49, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails on just about everything as far as I'm concerned. --Phil Copperman (talk) 19:19, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No notability, fails [{WP:GNG]]. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:38, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:58, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:59, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:59, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete. It exists yes, but no one has written about it and the site fails WP:WEB. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 01:47, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Multiple searches found nothing to suggest this is notable, it's possible there are non-English sources but this is very unlikely. SwisterTwister talk 19:06, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Founded in May 2014 clearly fails WP:WEB and WP:GNG now .Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 13:07, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is lack of notability. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 11:06, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Nakon 19:29, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Pink Tail Fly[edit]

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

non notable individual episode. Was previously redirected based on the Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Le_Cop_on_Le_Rocks and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pink Pest Control but apparently Padenton thinks this one is a special snowflake. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:03, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I came across nom's attempts to force a redirect of this article based on the 2 above AfDs with no apparent discussion regarding the article. This article is not mentioned at any of the above AfDs and there does not seem to have been any attempt to involve the article in the discussion. So, I reverted it. I have no particular vote on the matter, but I feel claiming an AfD applies to an article that isn't even mentioned in the AfD is inappropriate. ― Padenton|✉ 20:09, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ― Padenton|✉ 20:15, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The entire category was discussed in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pink Pest Control per my comment "Basically every article in this category : Category:Pink_Panther_animated_film_series Gaijin42 (talk) 20:16, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~nominator delete/redirect all such episodes (minus 1)~~ See also recently un-redirected Sherlock Pink and The Pink Pill. delete/redirect all per Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Common_outcomes based on the two previous mass AFDs. The notable exception is The_Pink_Phink which is individually notable as being nominated for an oscar. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:16, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: AfD nomination implies deletion—no need for a separate bullet. – czar 18:40, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:57, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:57, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:35, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support Deletion / RedirectSeems to just be a case of a specific episode that is not notable like some others that deserve their own articles. Suggesting the same as all above. WHOISFANDOM (talk) 01:54, 6 May 2015 (UTC) Editor has been blocked as a sockpuppet. – czar 18:40, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – czar 18:41, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: as cruft. Quis separabit? 12:12, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 23:40, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Camp Poyntelle[edit]

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

Completely non notable summer camp TKK! bark with me! 17:53, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:00, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:00, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails GNG. The article is sourced to primary sources and I can only find two trivial mentions in online news sources. Yoninah (talk) 09:26, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:57, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all of the above. Ashbeckjonathan (talk) 17:53, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 23:40, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sugar Mediaz[edit]

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

Article not satisfying the notability guidelines Ninney (talk) 16:35, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:ORG, no coverage in independent sources, only primary sources found. Nick—^Contact/_Contribs 16:58, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:02, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:02, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacks even one reliable independent secondary source to support notability as required by WP:GNG. And for good reason. Based on my Google searches, I don't believe they exist. Msnicki (talk) 01:22, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete LinkedIn and Zoominfo are the only sources. I would have supported a PROD. CorporateM (Talk) 16:46, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Multiple searches found nothing significant and notable with results here, here and here (a separate search found nothing at thefreelibrary). SwisterTwister talk 06:36, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 08:26, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Field[edit]

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

Completely fails to meet WP:BIO. Current sources do not directly address the subject and a search for '"peter field" hypnotherapy' did not turn up any suitable sources in gnews or gbooks. SmartSE (talk) 15:29, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree, fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:18, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:05, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioral science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:05, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:05, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think there are enough sources to indicate notability for Field. The way the article was written made it seem like a promotional piece, but I think his standing in the field of hypnotherapy at least warrants some inclusion on Wikipedia. I've reduced the article down to a stub for now. I think it can be expanded later, but it needs to use a more neutral, less promotional tone. I feel like it meets the minimum for WP:GNG, based on his standing as a Huffington Post columnist and his appearances on BBC and radio talk shows. gargleafg (talk) 03:54, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Gargleafg: Can you state which sources provide the "significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject" part of WP:BIO? Many people who appear on TV or are mentioned in newspapers are not notable. We need sources directly discussing him. SmartSE (talk) 17:56, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO lacks Significant Coverage the subject has been hypnotherapist for over 30 years but there is little coverage of him for over 29 years .It is only in the last 1 year in 2014 that he writes his first book The Chi of Change now a single book, with excepts from reviews clearly fails WP:AUTHOR and further he has written 9 brief pieces in a newspapers since March 2014 and has appeared in some TV and radio talk shows.But there is nothing which directly discusses the subject except for his website.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:51, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete purely promotional bio, supported by references to press releases. Declared paid editor, which is not reason for deletion, but reason for very careful examination to see if the notability meets our standards and the work is suitable for an encycopedia . DGG ( talk ) 05:38, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (non-admin closure) Snuggums (talk / edits) 03:25, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Life Is Beautiful (Lana Del Rey song)[edit]

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

Both Lana and Interscope didn't share any details about the song. It's not heard in the film itself. We have no details about the album except the title. The info about the video is a complete bogus. So nothing here is actually confirmed, maybe the song will never be released. Wikipedia is about the confirmed facts, not (even beautiful) fantasies. You can create the article again, if we have any trustworthy news Mavoy (talk) 22:10, 27 April 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 April 27. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:25, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Let's not waste time by having an AfD discussion and just redirect to Lana Del Rey or The Age of Adaline. This song has been covered by reliable sources, as evidenced on its talk page, so let's keep the redirect in case someone performs a search for it or we decide to expand in the future. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 02:33, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:12, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:12, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:22, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The "reliable sources" are all secondary: their information comes from the video Lana posted. This page is just speculation. There's no evidence of it being "the lead single", there isn't a release date, the music video is just speculation and rumours do not belong on Wikipedia. This leaves the page with nothing of merit, and so it should be deleted. theeternalstars (talk) 18:48, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Except that the page does have merit as redirect. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 10:41, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – czar 15:11, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Age of Adaline. — Status (talk · contribs) 19:32, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Davewild (talk) 08:28, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ion Buzea[edit]

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

Notability has not been demonstrated through "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" — and no, passing mention in an old number of Billboard doesn't count as "significant coverage". - Biruitorul ^Talk 16:28, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – That he has an entry in the encyclopedia Theaterlexikon der Schweiz should confer sufficient notability. Having sung leading roles at major opera houses satisfies Wikipedia:Notability (music)#Criteria for musicians and ensembles point 6. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:46, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails notability guidelines. Article lede reads "enjoyed a successful international career" but this is just fluff and opinion. Dharahara (talk) 16:21, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nakon 23:49, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:53, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Using the find links above, I could find none that satisfy WP:GNG. http://www.allmusic.com/artist/ion-buzea-mn0000803746/discography is an example: one recording. Naxos lists him, http://www.naxos.com/person/Ion_Buzea/164848.htm, but only two albums, and he is one of several singers in both cases. Neither the Romanian nor German articles offer hope for more information or references on the subject though. Perhaps we should have some input from the Wikipedia:WikiProject Classical music weigh-in. It should be cross-listed there before any decision is made. I tried to list it there. Perhaps someone can fix that mess. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:47, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on the basis of the information in the Rumanian article. I lay particular stress on " Profesor Honoris Causa al Universității „Babes-Bolyai” Cluj-Napoca" Not really an international star, but that amounts to fame, and the standard for notability is much less than famous. DGG ( talk ) 07:02, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder: Theaterlexikon der Schweiz has an entry, which sould be sufficient. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 07:35, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:14, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - only one reference and that merely lists the subject among others in a brief mention of a Cincinnati Summer Opera performance at the zoo. No indication of WP:ENTERTAINER notability.--Rpclod (talk) 16:45, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets GNG, plenty of sources [5], [6]; many, many articles related to various perfomances in different countries, and a French article here in which he is referred to as a "famous Romanian tenor" with a substantial international career. —Мандичка^YO 😜 23:01, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - You say "plenty" but you only show two. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:58, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus is that ANT (network) passes the notability guidelines. There is less discussion on ANT+ and I can't be sure on consensus for that article as some editors look not to be discussing both articles, so would say No Consensus for that article but discussion lean towards merging which any editor could boldly do. Davewild (talk) 08:36, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ANT (network)[edit]

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

This page, along with it's child ANT+ do not appear to have any informative purpose, other than to advertise the ANT company's technology. Of note, the ANT company, nor their owner Dynastream, appear to be important enough to have their own pages. If either of these pages were to exist, this page might be worthy for a merge, with significant content cut out. Evidence points towards these pages being maintained by marketing consultants to promote these products.

This may even be a candidate for speedy deletion, however there might be some relevancy for the technology sector given the ubiquitous nature of some of their partners' products (eg Samsung Galaxy phones). I first heard of this technology when my Galaxy tried to update the ANT Radio software. The only information I could find was these wikipedia pages, the company's own pages, and discussions on forums defending the ANT software, comparing its importance to Bluetooth.^[1] (I can't help but notice the defender is "OneCanuck", and this is a Canadian company, but this is mere speculation.)

Such claims of primacy with Bluetooth might be fit for forums, and probably fits in some wikia or other wiki dedicated to computer science.

What is not speculation is that the article's history^[2], featuring heavy initial edits by a now-deleted User:Steven.keeping. Again, we can't be certain this is the same Stephen Keeping that is named as a reference for my ANT technology articles^[3], or that co-founded Ecritech, who claims "Our strengths address the challenges of producing content for hi-tech product promotion" and goes on how their strengths as journalists can help tech companies get articles, like the opinion OpEd linked earlier in this paragraph which was to a journal that Keeping was employed by at one point in time (or at least worked under an email address to their domain).^[4]

We can also take a look at this User Keeping's first edit: [7]. While the initial creation of the page and minor edits (two users, one of them a bot) might have been well intentioned, we see the marketing vocabulary arrive with this user Keeping.

All of this info (and I've only been searching for references for 2 hours) seem to point to a self-serving expansion of this page. I am hard pressed to see this as anything other than a page to promote the company's product, increase brand recognition.

But most pertinent of all, there is a severe lack of verifiable sources to support this page's content, and I am having a hard time thinking of a reason for its existence.

If this can be rewritten (and if someone takes that on before its deleted) consideration should be made for the only major child I could find, ANT+, which still deserves deletion, and at most, a section on the new & improved ANT (network.

For anyone with such re-writing gusto, I would ask you to consider this: why improve this page, instead of working to create an ANT (company) article (exact name of your choosing) that can cover the company's activities as a whole, with this network information as a small subsection, until such time that ANT technology becomes the household name that Bluetooth has become.WildElf (talk) 23:53, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

^ http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=2483533
^ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=ANT_%28network%29&dir=prev&action=history
^ http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:mFIdx4v3GDAJ:https://www.nordicsemi.com/content/download/53092/898803+&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
^ http://www.ecritech.com/index.php?page=about&style=1

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 April 17. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:09, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:04, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:04, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy as blatant advertising. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 16:04, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ANT (network). Low power wireless protocol quite widely used in the wearable sports and health electronics area, with tens of millions of devices using it. Googling for "ANT radio protocol -colony -colonies -wikipedia -thisisant", i.e. ignoring the Dynastream company pages (and ant colonies) produces lots of results for me, from which there seem to be a plenty of articles either on it, or discussing it in depth (and which aren't adverts or written by Dynastream) to demonstrate its notability - e.g.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:50, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Topics importence is on par with Bluetooth low energy, just the article is not very well written. ANT+ technology is featured in latest smartphones from Samsung and Sony. It is used in heart rate monitors and cycling power meters as only way of data transfer for years, long before BT LE appeared. --Papuass (talk) 13:04, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:53, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep / Merge. This is definitely not a candidate for speedy deletion as there is no consensus and this does not meet the criteria of being a promotion. I don't see where this is written without a neutral point of view and the content is indeed encyclopedic and notable. I do agree that this needs to be written and the two pages, ANT(network) and ANT+ should be merged as ANT+ is not different enough (and does not have enough content) to deserve a separate page. I agree with the examples Papuass gives above and offer recent news references which contributes to this topic's notability. I also offer the [What links here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:WhatLinksHere/ANT_(network)] page which shows a number of other pages linking to ANT.
Speedy. The page is presently little more than product lists and links to one manufacturer's webpages, exactly as proscribed in WP:5P1. ANT is emerging in a similar way to Bluetooth, with one company (Dynastream Innovations) gate-keeping access to the technology details, much as Ericsson did with Bluetooth. It is not the widening adoption of ANT+ to "household name" that will make it fit for a Wikipedia entry or the reduction of marketing language, but the unrestricted availability of the underlying information Dynastream control; ANT+ deserves a Wikipedia entry and I'm sure it will have one when the copyright holders eventually permit it.Jskaife (talk) 14:53, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:13, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is certainly notable per all the references above. PianoDan (talk) 13:50, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Clearly notable as per refs in article and turned up here. We prefer to fix, not delete articles so WP:COI is not usually a valid reason for deleting. ~Kvng (talk) 14:16, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 08:39, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Appropriation of Hip Hop Music[edit]

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

Appears to be original research. reddogsix (talk) 03:05, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 03:40, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:41, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTSOAPBOX, WP:SUBPOV (none of the content in the article is presented neutrally), WP:OR (no reliable source claiming that the African American population and its future descendants own hip hip music). These are WP:DEL-REASON 5, 6, 9, and 14. It does not seem that any potential article by this name could ever meet WP:NPOV. The very idea of this article insists that some population owns Hip Hop Music and that non-members of that population have no right to contribute to it. This is also not a majority opinion held by any in-group or out-group population. The artists (WP:BLP) mentioned in this article are not presented neutrally and with due weight, and I can't see how any future version of this article could meet those requirements. If anywhere, the specific complaints about each artist should be stated only in a controversy-esque section on each of the BLPs (if supported by neutral, reliable sources), where interested editors can come to consensus as to reliable sources, neutral pov, and due weight. Really, the only possible fix I see for this article, if there really must be coverage of this topic is a healthy dose of WP:TNT and a move/merge to a proper name. ― Padenton|✉ 22:19, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:53, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. That seems like a whole lot of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. This article has quite a few citations to reliable sources, and a spot check of them does indicate that they discuss cultural appropriation. I don't know whether they discuss it in a broader context, because I'm not really interested in reading a dozen long articles about the cultural appropriation of hip hop music. I'll alert WikiProject Hip Hop about this, as they'll probably be more interested. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:50, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. OK, I lied; maybe I'm willing to skim through a few articles. I did a Google search, and I came up with explicit support for this: [8] from The Guardian, [9] from Vice.com, [10] from Philly.com, [11] from The Hollywood Reporter, [12] from BET, [13] from Indy Week, etc. There are extensive hits from a simple query on Google News. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:09, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Every one of those is an opinion article or an interview. They're all WP:PRIMARY sources. "Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them." This article presents a minority opinion as if it is fact. There is no WP:IDONTLIKEIT above by me or the nom, but several actual policies listed. Go reread WP:IDONTLIKEIT and show me exactly where a WP:IDONTLIKEIT argument is made. ― Padenton|✉ 17:53, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 08:59, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Given the number of academic studies cited the sources as simply "opinion pieces." There are however issues with taking the appropriation of hip hop by BLPs as objective fact and this has to be reworked. Will try and work on the article a bit later to make it more adherent to NPOV. Bosstopher (talk) 22:10, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTSOAPBOX, every source is an opinion piece by the author aka WP:PRIMARY which does not equate to outside examination on the phenomenon itself which what would be a secondary source. Creator of the article only seems to have contributed to this topic which would make it highly likely to be a WP:SPA to spread a certain viewpoint. GuzzyG (talk) 22:19, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:02, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP is not a platform for essays. Also "appropriation" itself has a negative connotation and suggests a lack of neutral point of view.--Rpclod (talk) 16:51, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - really seems like WP:OR. Some of the sources discuss appropriation of African American culture as a whole, which I think has enough notability to meet GNG. But this one just does not. —Мандичка^YO 😜 23:25, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted by User:Anthony Bradbury per CSD G11 (unambiguous advertising of promotion). (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 22:52, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ex Tropico[edit]

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

Non-notable film. Fails WP:NOTFILM. reddogsix (talk) 13:54, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 14:00, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication from Google results that this film is even in development or was ever planned. It doesn't appear to have been released yet (according to the article). I could not find any reliable source coverage that appeared to refer to this film, so I agree with nominator that it doesn't appear to meet WP:NOTFILM. Everymorning talk 14:02, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No cast, no director, no producer - in the article at least. The poster does say "A Taylor Brown Film" - but it's not mentioned in the TB page at IMDb. No IMDb page of its own. That's a bit like self-publishing a book and not getting it on Amazon. Being there doesn't mean anything. Not being there does... Peridon (talk) 21:11, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for failing WP:NF. Let the speedy proceed. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 05:57, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 08:43, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Björn O. Stenström[edit]

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

fails WP:GNG, found next to nothing about him as far as reliable sources are concerned. LADY LOTUS • TALK 14:36, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as no references —Мандичка^YO 😜 15:19, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no references, notability assertion is insufficient for an encyclopedia, especially without citations. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 15:23, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:11, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:11, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I was actually going to suggest redirect but my searches haven't even found anything good so maybe not. Good Swedish sources are the last and only thing that would save this article but it's unlikely. SwisterTwister talk 06:27, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - Famous artists. J 1982 (talk) 19:45, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~J 1982 any reason why?~~ J 1982 famous does not equal notable. LADY LOTUS • TALK 19:57, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - "Popfakta" (= Pop facts), a datbase run by Svenskt Rockarkiv (The Swedish Archive of Rock) lists the following tracks where Stenström is involved under his nom de plume "Stone Stram". /FredrikT (talk) 16:42, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

PS A search on Discogs gives more hits. /FredrikT (talk) 16:44, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 13:52, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the mere fact that someone wrote for or produced someone notable does not make the writer or producer notable.--Rpclod (talk) 16:56, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Mack Bolan. Davewild (talk) 08:45, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Douglas Wojtowicz[edit]

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

I'm not sure if being a part of the team (ghostwriting team?) behind a couple of characters is sufficient for independent notability. Ricky81682 (talk) 09:05, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep . This is his real profile. --C E (talk) 17:35, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep this may pass WP:AUTHOR#3.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:50, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:16, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:16, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:37, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Re-direct to Don Pendleton This author writes under the name of Don Pendleton, not Douglas Wojtowicz, and his books are covered on that page. LaMona (talk) 22:28, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Re-direct to Mack Bolan OMG this is confusing! OK, Don Pendleton died in 1975. His books, however, continue to be written by other authors (listed at Mack_Bolan -- about a hundred of them!). No reviews of any of these at Booklist, although one other book gets praised for not being as bad as a Mack Bolan book. None of this fellow's books are reviewed at Kirkus reviews which review just about everything. No mention of him beyond social media, that I can find. He also has written some short stories that are in collections, mainly SciFi. LaMona (talk) 00:22, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 12:46, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Esquivalience ^t 13:19, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Esquivalience ^t 13:19, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect per LaMona. I cannot find the subject mentioned in the first reference and the second reference is not authoritative. No reliable sources.--Rpclod (talk) 17:00, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per LaMona. This guy isn't really notable enough for his own entry and is apparently one of dozens upon dozens of ghostwriters for this name. If he were the only ghostwriter (like Andrew Neiderman) or especially noteworthy out of the myriad of authors (Maxine Paetro, for example) then a separate article might make sense but so far he just doesn't seem to have had that much coverage. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:23, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 08:46, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

William Hasler-Cregg[edit]

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

Hasn't made a first team appearance Telfordbuck (talk) 13:14, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 08:24, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 08:24, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 08:34, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per all above. Ashbeckjonathan (talk) 13:21, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. A case of WP:TOOSOON, we do not create articles in anticipation of notability. Fenix down (talk) 08:36, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was procedural close. A discussion already exists at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Keyti, where commentary has occurred. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:19, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keyti[edit]

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

Reason Samat lib (talk) 12:44, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 This article does not meet Wikipedia Notability Guidelines
there is NO Evidence of Notability on this Article   --Samat lib (talk) 12:44, 16 May 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 May 16. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:58, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - please close this - it is a duplicate of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Keyti. -- haminoon (talk) 20:48, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sam Walton (talk) 12:09, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bionic (musician)[edit]

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

I came across this as a speedy deletion WP:A7, but the assertion of having performed with notable performers like Jason Derulo at a music venue does give somewhat of an assertion of notability enough to where he may just barely pass speedy criteria. I couldn't find anything in a search to really back any notability up in a search. I found some routine performance listings like this one, but not anything that would really show notability. The sources on the article are also unusable as far as showing notability goes. As far as I can see this guy fails notability criteria fairly solidly. I'd speedy delete him, but there's just enough here to where AfD may be the best outlet for this. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:46, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I fully agree, I can find no good evidence that this article achieves any of Wikipedia's notability criteria or contains any good references. The article makes numerous claims but has no supporting evidence. I would fully support this articles speedy deletion, please feel free to delete. --Geneticcuckoo (talk) 08:53, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:38, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:39, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I couldn't find any significant coverage in reliable sources under either his stage name or real name. No indication that he meets WP:MUSICBIO. Sarahj2107 (talk) 10:05, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the page there are notability but not enough. However i am capable of adding the required/ more notability seeing as i have studied this musician for a few years and have seen many publishes. I shall be adding more notability within the next few days. 14:55, 5 May 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.218.69.36 (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 delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:37, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jorge Gotor Blas[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was that he [hasn't] played in any professional league. Fails WP:GNG. PROD was contested based on an unsupported claim that the article may meet WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:11, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:12, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Subject has played against Real Madrid in the Copa del Rey and has multiple appearances in Asian Continental Competitions in the 2014 AFC Cup including Scored Here and this ,here and here and here and he is only 28 years now has signed for Mitra Kukar which is in the Indonesia Super League a fully WP:FPL .Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:34, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All of these appearances were for non-fully-pro-league clubs, meaning none of them qualify for WP:NSPORT. He is yet to make his debut in the ISL, and the fact that he is signed to a club in that league is insufficient for notability. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:47, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Passes WP:GNG has received coverage for playing in Iraq and being amongst the first foreign players to play in war torn Iraq when he played he for Erbil SC when it reached 2014 AFC Cup finals he was signed before Borja Rubiato who is the second [14] . Real Murcia qualified for 2010–11 Copa del Rey as part of 21 teams of 2009–10 Segunda División which is WP:FPL ,I agree when they actually played the game against Real Madrid they were division below which is non FPL have added references to the article.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 02:35, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is source is a routine transfer announcement, which, as I've said below, does not amount to significant coverage. Sir Sputnik (talk) 08:18, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 17:50, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets WP:GNG with [15] [16] [17] and other recent Indonesian articles. Nfitz (talk) 00:15, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All three of these are routine transfer announcements which do not amount to significant coverage. Sir Sputnik (talk) 03:00, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

They seem more in depth than just routine mentions of transfers. And there are so many articles mentioning. And what about this, which seems to easily meet WP:GNG - [18]. Nfitz (talk) 01:31, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:00, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:00, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:00, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:00, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:10, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. MbahGondrong (talk) 17:39, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL JMHamo (talk) 22:25, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Have added sources [19] ,[20][21][22] for playing in Iraq for Erbil but could not access local Kurdish coverage but think this along with other references should pass WP:BARE at minimum .Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 02:52, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Walton (talk) 12:05, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment": He has not - yet - played for a fully professional league. As soon as he takes the field for Mitra Kukar in a real match, he will qualify. Apparently, Blas is currently unavailable due to "administrative reasons". So close, but WP:TOOSOON. Perhaps someone who cares can userfy until that glorious date?--Rpclod (talk) 13:41, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:The subject has played at the highest level in Asian continental club Football in the AFC Cup and hence do not agree is Too soon .Further there has been coverage including "La AFE, al rescate en Irak Here is an article on the subject with his photo and his rescue from Iraq along with a trainer after the intervention of the Spanish Embassy and Players association as his passport was detained by the club and this Jorge Gotor y Alberto Martínez, que estaban en la liga iraquí, logran volver a España and This and .Passes WP:GNG has received coverage for playing in Iraq both for Footballing reasons and non footballing reasons and see no point in deleting this now .Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 06:32, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Based on this discussion, it seems that playing in a continental competition doesn't automatically make a person notable and Iraqi league is not listed in FPL list. Second point, the 2015 Indonesia Super League have been forced to be concluded and a new season is planned to start around September, there is no assurance he will still play for Mitra Kukar. Since his awaited glorious debut date is still (probably) months away, better to delete this article as soon as possible. 22:39, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Davewild (talk) 08:48, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Potok[edit]

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

Delete: non-notable flack for controversial organisation, without which Potok would have no notability whatsoever. Quis separabit? 11:55, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:05, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:05, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

comment He is a professional spokesman for a notable organization. Let's try to keep this clean.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:17, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a subject who crosses the verifiability and notability thresholds. Non-NPOV terms like "flack" are neither helpful nor determinative when discussing a subject's notability. The SPLC's notability is unquestioned so any "controversy" is also not remotely relevant to this discussion. - Dravecky (talk) 08:42, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lots of ghits, but in all the ones I clicked on, he serves as a spokesman for the Southern Poverty Law Center, news media quote him, they don't write about him. A spokesman for an NGO certainly could be notable, but the only way to establish that would be for journalists or academics to write articles about him, articles that, as WP:GNG puts it: "addresses the topic directly and in detail". His birth and childhood are sourced to his father's memoir/autobiography. This is not evidence of notability. He is a polarizing figure, political bloggers sometimmes attack/support. but The closest thing I can find to RS that is about him is a source brought in the previous (no consensus) AFD, this phrase: "Potok, a resident of the South for 16 years."[23] It's just not enough.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:26, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No significant sources about him. It would be considered normal for a spokesperson to be speaking, even on things like Democracy Now. LaMona (talk) 04:49, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Walton (talk) 12:01, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Came back for a 2nd look. Only 2 sources are about him. The first is his father's autobiography. The second is a newspaper announcement of a talk he gave in in Vermont, and the only personal detail is the fact that he grew up in Vermont. There is simply not enough material here - or in other RS - to source an article. The outfit he works for is notable; he is not.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:26, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The most compelling guideline and policy-based arguments are the neutral point of view policy, the content forking guideline (apparently mislinked by several editors in the discussion as WP:FORK, which is actually about forking Wikipedia), and undue weight. slakr^\ talk / 03:11, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1915 insurgency in the Ottoman Empire[edit]

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

This article is overall a copy of info from Armenian Genocide, Armenian resistance during the Armenian Genocide, Armenian national liberation movement, Middle Eastern theatre of World War I, Caucasus Campaign, probably more, etc.. The article doesn't add anything except try to portray the Armenian Genocide as a rebellion, a common narrative in Armenian Genocide denial. The article title isn't even correct because the genocide took place from 1915 to 1923.

This article is POV is because it portrays the genocide as some kind of counter-insurgency. There was no insurgency, this what Ottoman propaganda to cover up and justify the genocide, strongly explained in the articles Armenian Genocide and Armenian Genocide denial. This article expands no nothing from the 5 above mentioned articles except adding lot of WP:UNDUE content that isn't allowed on Wikipedia, primarily cited from Armenian Genocide denier Edward J. Erickson. So because the only addition is POV and UNDUE content, any kind of merger would go against Wikipedia guidelines and the only solution is to delete this article.

Delete - As nominator. --Steverci (talk) 15:10, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This article is not a copy from any of the cited articles. The Middle Eastern theatre of World War I and Caucasus Campaign are military articles which are limited with the conflict zone. Insurgency in the Ottoman Empire is explaining the conflicts in the Ottoman controlled lands behind the Russian and Ottoman Armies. Armenian national liberation movement (1860-1922), and Armenian resistance during the Armenian Genocide is from 1915 to 1923. These are wider isses, both in years and content (as not limited with insurgency). Article has a limited scope. "1915 insurgency in the Ottoman Empire" explains a missing events related to unconventional warfare of Ottomans and Ottoman counter-insurgency warfare within specific dates. This content is academic. The article is well sourced. The content is clearly defined. Removing this content would create a gap in the history which is not explained in any other cited Wikipedia sources. --SelimAnkara1993 (talk) 15:27, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a WP:FORK - there was no insurgency in 1915; the WWI was started in 1914 by Germany and followed by the Ottoman Empire on November the 4th, around the Black Sea, against the Russian Empire. The conflict is commonly referred to as the Caucasus Campaign. As it can be seen, it is a word for word copy of a book by E.J. Erickson. Any areas which are not covered in the main article should be covered. --92slim (talk) 18:21, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete POV WP:FORK. This article presents a denialist point of view as fact. This can be easily merged with the Denial of the Armenian Genocide article. Étienne Dolet (talk) 18:29, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep:This article is well written and it is quite well sourced (English books) The nominator claims that it is copied from some other articles. I compared them. The articles although related are not copies of each other. The nominator also claims that it portrays the Armenian Genocide as a rebellion. But since it is documented there is no room for portraying anything and it is not a personal interpretation. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 19:48, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This article is not well sourced, 56 of the 83 references come from Armenian Genocide deniers Erickson and Michael A. Reynolds.[24][25] The remaining are of unproven credibility. If you look again, I said the events are covered in other articles; the only difference here is UNDUE content that violates the guidelines. --Steverci (talk) 20:00, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Both of these authors are well respected and well published authors. You libel these authors. Your libel is not a position in Wikipedia. Rule state "reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective.". They are required to be published. [Reynolds publications, over 200 refereed articles] The | "Shattering Empires: The Clash and Collapse of the Ottoman and Russian Empires 1908–1918]" is cited 59 times. [Erickson publications, over 200 refereed articles] the | Ottomans and Armenians: A Study in Counterinsurgency (published 1913) cited 17 times in the last year and reviewed 4 times in a refereed journals These numbers not the opinion pages per your link. SelimAnkara1993 (talk) 21:00, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

However if the claims made in a published source are so outlandishly different from the consensus of scholarly opinion found in other published sources then that source and its claims can be considered to be fringe material. We can't have an article made entirely out of fringe material because it gives undue weight to opinions expressed by almost nobody. BTW, I don't know if it is due to your rewriting of material in the Erickson source, or it is the "source" itself - but there are many blatant lies expressed in this article that have Erickson as the given source. Such content actually goes far beyond the "cherry-picked incidents and weasel-words" I gave as my reason to delete. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:25, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - it seems there was an insurgency; see this book The Criminal Law of Genocide: International, Comparative and Contextual Aspects; edited by Dr Paul Behrens, Professor Ralph Henham. I don't think these guys are also genocide deniers. In briefly looking at Erickson I don't know why he is labeled a genocide denier, as he seems quite well respected. I have not really researched this though; if the same info is already in other articles, I don't see know it's needed. —Мандичка^YO 😜 21:13, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - User:Wikimandia The only event I see called an insurgency was the Defense of Van (1915), in which case this article is a complete FORK, with UNDUE content. This article tries to include some kind of Sasun and Sivas insurgency as well, yet Sasun is only mentioned once in the template and the only mentions of Sivas are 'reports' of Armenian weapons in the regions.

Interestingly, this is on the Van article:

Historian Erickson concluded that "before the war began, indicators of potentially violent intent accumulated, as the authorities found bombs and weapons hidden in Armenian homes". On the other hand, Nogales witnessed Ottoman army units photographing their own weapons, claiming they had been found in Armenian houses and churches.

So no, he is not quite respectable at all. He labels the Armenian Genocide in quotes. The Defense of Van page provides plenty of sources that plans to slaughter Armenian civilians were made well in advance and were the first actions taken. Erickson tries to paint the Armenian Genocide as a rebellion, thus his work is UNDUE. Take a look at the editorial and customer Amazon reviews, the only people who respect him are Armenian Genocide deniers.

Take a look at this, from the Armenian Genocide denial article:

Turkish sources state: "the measures adopted regarding the Armenians in Eastern Anatolia were merely a replacement in another region within the Empire for security reasons".

Now look at Erickson's book:

The Armenian insurrection was a genuine security imperative requiring an immediate solution, and it was an existential threat to the survival of the empire’s armies.[26] --Steverci (talk) 22:49, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I scrolled through his first few Amazon reviews and they didn't seem whacko (although Amazon reviews mean nothing, since they can be faked pro or against an author). Erickson is published by a very respectable publisher, Palgrave MacMillan, which writes that he is "widely recognized as one of the foremost experts on the Ottoman Army during the First World War." Are they lying? If he's a complete loon denialist who ignores all evidence in order to push an agenda, why is he a professor at Quantico? Putting "Armenian genocide" in quotes doesn't mean much to me when he goes on in the next page to write that the book would not attempt to label it as a genocide or not a genocide. That does not make him a denier in any way. It seems to me the disagreement is over whether or not it was technically a genocide, and I'm thinking that is the point he is making; IMO you can disagree about how to define the massacre so long as you don't attempt to deny it ever took place, because there is plenty of evidence and proof it did, which Erickson clearly supports as far as I can tell.

He goes on to write that it is an enormously charged argument (as evidenced here). I'm not quite sure why it is controversial to say there was an "insurgency" by the Armenians or that they had weapons... I would certainly hope they had partisan fighters attacking/defending themselves from the Ottomans (invaders) in attempts to kick them out!! Insurgency in some cases is justified. I don't see that the quote by Erickson supports the Turkish denial claims; these are two separate things: "The Armenian insurrection was a genuine security imperative requiring an immediate solution, and it was an existential threat to the survival of the empire’s armies" - This is a neutral statement. Of course the Turks saw it this way. They didn't massacre the Armenians because they were bored or because they wanted "racial purity" like the Nazis; they did it because they were posing a very real, very imminent threat to their crumbling empire. He's not saying what they did was right, he just saying why they did it.

Anyway, to sum up, it's troubling that Erickson is being called a denialist, but I agree this appears to be a fork of the Defense of Van (1915) article, so please count my vote as Delete/redirect. It is sufficient to describe the Ottoman's retaliation/counterinsurgency in that article. —Мандичка^YO 😜 00:14, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think anyone (Talat Bey included), anytime (beginning 1915) denied the massacres. The conflict on Erikson is not that he is so called denier. He objectively produced around 100+ pages in detail of day to day activities on what happened in 1915 behind the lines. His summary is so good organized conceptually that produces a challenge. He states in the VOA Armenian presentation "My Iraq deployment gave me unique chance to understand inner workings of this type of warfare." This is history. It is here for us to learn. If Ericson's book was published in 2003 and was part of our experience, would the military planners in Iraq wait three years to develop their counter-insurgency plan? The insurgency creates a responsibility on people who wage insurgency. If you put people's life and well being beyond everything else (revolution (Armenian Revolutionary Party), nation or religion) there is a responsibility. The hars reaction against Erikson in these pages proves it. According to my girlfriend's criticism (new-follower); Insurgency brings sharing of the responsibility. What a "shame-full act" to share. There is no insurgency-there is no responsibility. Erikson's addition to military history is that he united the accounts spread in different sources-inquiries in to a single coherent meaningful line of thought. His arguments are backed by multiple sources, rather than separate concepts and events patched together. I just got shameful-act. I will compare these. If not deleted, I will share with other Wikipedia on this page. This story of "1915 insurgency" is academic. It is at least as meaningful as the wedding dress of Diana. It is not a POV to be deleted. By the way the insurgents in Van is around 1000-1500 from Terminissians account. Musa Dag was 1800-2500 (from the Musa Dag account) and Musa Dag preparations began 1914 August along the Bogus Nubar and scrapped Alexandria Lending. In Sivas, Murad had 800-1200 insurgents. Sasun is another article like Van. Total # of insurgency cells is more than all the fighters in Iraq-Syria in 2014. What a bad story is Iraq-Syria. My point is. In Van the Armenian national movement achieved, so we can keep that article. Ottoman's defeated them in the rest. There is no Article telling what happened in the rest of the country. That is what is in the deletion now. SelimAnkara1993 (talk) 12:50, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"My Iraq deployment" - ahh, now I get it. I was wondering about Erikson's agenda. From a perversion of truth comes more perversions. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:31, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Revision | edits: I would like to thank for every feedback. I corrected the issues in the article as much as possible. This is my summary. Hope it will help you making your final decisions.
First position was WP:UNDUE. The facts in the article by Erickson and Reynolds compared to opposing positions presented by "Akcam, Taner (2007). A Shameful Act: The Armenian Genocide and the Question of Turkish Responsibility." The "information" presented on Erickson and Reynolds were not fringe facts. These cases were also presented by Akcam. Regarding the conclusions of Erickson and Reynolds. That is their conclusion looking at the same events from their own expertise. I do not know how to defend against "genocide denier," which makes analysis irrelevant. I do not believe wikipedia should label people without judicial decision. Another position was on the insurrection. The term 'self defense' is argued. I sympathize with the idea. I looked for specific cases in Akcam that fall into this category and added to the article. You will notice that Erikson already presented them. I also carried Erikson's conclusions regarding ottoman army and civilian life. I also carried Erikson's conclusion on deportee attacks. These are major positions that Erikson clearly points to the guilty party. The concept of 'insurrection' is an active term 1,042 different articles and books used this term in analyzing this concept. It is true the document structure is from Erikson, but even before this nomination, I was using two major sources. The third one is aded. Three WP:FORK ideas presented. (1) Caucasus Campaign (2) Defense of Van (1915). I created a summary section. Summary The table clearly shows conflict regions were beyond these articles. The summary also includes why this is a separate article. In the summer of 1915 %7 combatant activities performed in under the "general counterinsurgency campaign." In 7 campaign middle eastern theater %7 is a major activity. It should have it's page. There is much more information between May-September in Erikson, but article is already had more than 70K (copy edited on 32 pages). If we moved this under (1) and (2) other editors, right fully, delete them. (1) and (2) have clear cut zones that these conflicts are not included. The third WP:FORK idea was to move under Armenian Genocide denial. This idea seems to be what wikipedia is doing on this issue. It looks like Armenian genocide article carried all the “opposing” ideas to denial article. I do not think this article is a "denial article." Crimes are not hidden. Massacres are not falsified. It was argued that military defense justifies things, but there is a limit to military defense idea. It is not a shield for everything. This article does a great job explaining one critical dimension of this period. I do not want this article “to be deleted.” The “major” information in this article is not expressed in any other article as argued. The information is factual, structure of the article fits to publicly available publications and everyone can read and compare the presented information from the publications. Thank you. SelimAnkara1993 (talk) 21:49, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Completely one-sided representation of the events. The use of the term "insurgency" is only promoted by the Turkish government and denialist pseudo-scholars.--Երևանցի ^talk 19:59, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article is a pov fork crafted out of cherry-picked incidents and weasely-worded non-mainstream claims. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 15:08, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If the article lacks sources than we can delete it. But we are not in the position to classify the sources as being bad or good depending on our POV . That's highly unencyclopedic. The sources are OK and the "one-sided representation of the events" accusation is rootless. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 19:30, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We are in a position to classify an opinion in a source as marginal, in this case very marginal. The bulk of the article is derived from claims made in a single source, the terminology used in the article title is derived from just two sources. No other sources use "1915 insurgency in the Ottoman Empire" terminology to describe a theatre of war in WW1, and the author of the main source used, Erickson, has been described as an Armenian Genocide denier in several sources. Wikipedia articles do not exist to act as a platform for extreme marginal views that run contrary to what is widely accepted by academics. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 20:42, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(a) "insurgency" and "Ottoman Empire" and "1915" search in google published sources gives plenty of literature. (b) Tiptoethrutheminefield also not right on his point that the so-called genocide-denier literature is using the "Insurgency" as their term. The correct term is REBELLION. He should try "WW1" and "ARMENIAN" and "REBELLION," "Rebellion" would give what him that part of the literature. Erikson clearly points out that he does not believe in "REBELLION," except the "Van Rebellion." This article presents his postion on rebellion. (c) This article do not include a single sentence that reject any massacres, any crimes, any deportation, etc. The depiction of this article as a genocide-denier is not true. I have not seen any sentence pointed out to me that denies the genocide in this article. (d) The facts in the article also collaborated with Akcam (I guess his credibility is not also on the line) in this area (Akcam uses "gangs" for "Armenian volunteers"; Akcam uses "uprising" for what Erikson uses "Insurgency"). I already carried many of Akcam's positions on this specific period and context. Article has not two (as claimed), but three major scientific sources and couple supporting sources. The # sources can be increased to reach a better quality. There are many articles in Wikipedia that uses single source, but we keep them for other editors to improve. SelimAnkara1993 (talk) 22:49, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is you who are in error. A google search for the specific term "1915 insurgency in the Ottoman Empire" gets 101 hits, and ALL of them are Wikipedia related or Wikipedia clones. "insurgency in the Ottoman Empire" 1915 gets even less, strangely, but again they are all Wikipedia or clones. Google Scholar finds nothing. If you are seriously claiming this as part of the Middle Eastern theatre of World War I (the article has an infobox claiming it as such) then it must be referred to using those words in multiple sources if it is to be considered genuine. It clearly is not a genuine campaign given the lack of sources, but is simply one obscure author's extremist fringe opinion (he himself terms it a "thesis") and so is not deserving of an article. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 23:32, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Tiptoethrutheminefield. The term is published as a book. [27] The term is also "refereed" in a journal. [28]. This article in 'name' quoted "Cited by 15." That is only a year of the original article's existence. Were there other people used the term in their articles and publications? That is also true. insurgency 1915 ottoman. 1040 times. Was this analyzed by important journals and important scholars That is also true, such as VN Dadrian and Journal of Genocide Research were among that list (1040 publications, not web pages). Thank you for your interest. --SelimAnkara1993 (talk) 00:21, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. The term is used in a single book, nowhere else, so it is a term coined by an obscure author holding extreme fringe opinions that do no agree with established academic viewpoints. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 02:16, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Tiptoethrutheminefield. (Please scroll through the 1040 publications insurgency 1915 ottoman at the third and fourth page you will begin to see VN Dadrian and Journal of Genocide Research using the terminology. These are not obscure publications or their remarks on the subject can be called "extreme fringe opinions." The terminology is widely used in the academia. By the way if you help me to locate the rule which demands "be referred to using exactly those words." If an article uses "WWI" rather than 1915, does that make it a different era? Or instead of Ottoman Empire, Empire of Ottomans, or Devleti Aliye. My point is that article in itself clearly proves (including Akcam references) the activities fit to the definition of insurgency. "An insurgency is a armed opposition against a constituted authority." There is also enough reference in the article to the presented facts that this insurgency had an external dimension as Armenians born in Russia, fought along other "Armenian militia" against the Empire. Article also included external financial, and military support to this insurgency. There is a [:Category:Armenian revolutionaries] (revolutionary leaders who were in armed conflict since 1880s) which majority of these people (if not dead by the time) were leaders at this period. The facts presented in the article are collaborated from different sources. You are not challenging them. Your semantic argumentation proves that the material is significant, and adds to the value of the article. I respect your position. You can add your position with an appropriate reference. That is how wikipedia works. Collaboration. Hope you can change your deletion request. Thanks for your remarks.--SelimAnkara1993 (talk) 02:54, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:20, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:21, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:21, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:21, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per SelimAnkara1993. From what I can see, Edward J. Erickson's book received good reviews from scholars and it's very hard to see how we can call him fringe. According to the Middle East Journal, Erickson's book is "an illuminating study... based on Turkish documents and articles often ignored or simply unavailable in this hoary debate..." According to the Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs, Erickson's book "is an ambitious and highly readable study. Acclaimed by senior scholars in the field, and deservedly so, it is well written, immensely learned, convincing in argument, and innovative in approach." Though some Wikipedia users are dismissing him as a "denier", most scholars don't seem to be nearly so dismissive. At any rate, Erickson certainly doesn't deny the atrocities perpetrated by the Ottoman government over the course its counterinsurgency campaign. The information from this Wikipedia article and the sources it cites make it clear to me that SelimAnkara1993 is quite right to call the counterinsurgency operation of 1915 distinct from the Caucasus Campaign and other contemporaneous military operations.CurtisNaito (talk) 05:57, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong. He denied the Armenian Genocide here and was accused of denial by other scholars here. He is the only scholar who calls the Caucasus Campaign of the WWI a "counter-insurgency campaign". --92slim (talk) 13:36, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If it is not fringe, then why do no other suitable sources use the phrase "insurgency in the Ottoman Empire"? They don't because there was no such historical event. Erikson is an Armenian Genocide denier (there are sources that explicitly state this: for example "Erickson categorically dismissed the claims of genocide perpetrated against the Armenians" [29]) and his non-existent "insurgency" is taken straight from the Turkish state's denialist rhetoric ("The Armenian Genocide: A New Brand of Denial by the Turkish General Staff - by Proxy" [30]). Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:05, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, it is both deceptive, and I think rather disgusting, that Taner Akcam is being used in citations as if to support the claims made in this article. Let's be explicit about what Akcam has actually written about this so-called "insurgency". He examines these Turkish allegations on p196-204 of his 2006 book "A shameful Act". He writes that some supposed attacks attributed to Armenians were actually carried out by Kurdish Hamidiye units and later blamed on Armenians in order to provoke reprisal attacks by Muslims. He states that events such as "Armenian uprisings" and "weapon seizures" cited in Turkish sources to justify the deportations "were simply fabrications". He explains that Talat Pasha had issued an order for the deportation of all Armenians from Erzurum on the grounds that "an uprising was in the works", but that Talat Pasha already knew that this was a fiction since the governor of Erzurum had, 4 days before the deportation order was issued, cabled him, saying that no bombs or weapons had been found and an uprising was, in the governor's words, "improbable". Akcam records that during the Yozgat trial, claims of Armenian uprisings were repeated many times by the defendants, but evidence was produced discounting them all. For example, The Lieutenant Governor of Yozgat, when investigating one such "uprising" found out that it consisted of just a few Armenian deserters hiding out in their houses. Another claimed uprising was shown to be false when a telegram sent at the time to the 5th Army HQ in Ankara was produced that stated "there is no evidence of a rebellion in the district of Bogazliyan". Akcam goes on to state "The same is true for all the Armenian 'uprisings' in Anatolia cited in Turkish sources to defend the deportations". He also discounts the Turkish propaganda (repeated verbatim by Erickson) that the deportations were done from military necessity, writing "the critical point is that people were not just deported from military sensitive areas but from the entire empire. This nullifies the argument of military necessity". He then goes on to explain that although this Armenian insurgency and evacuation for a war zone narrative is provably false, "most Turkish work on the subject sticks to the official story", reproducing a paragraph of Uras's 1960s book "Armenian History" as an example of it. Reproducing a paragraph or two of Erickson's book, if it had been around at the time, could also have served as an example of it. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:29, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: Can we please have comments from editors who are not mainly editing about Turkish and/or Armenian issues? Sandstein 11:31, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:31, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per Nedim Erdoga. Justttt (talk) 19:22, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please justify your opinion or it is a pointless opinion. Do you think it is "well written" per Nedim Erdoga? Why? Do you think it is "quite well sourced" per Nedim Erdoga? If so, how do you counter that many other editors have said that it is not well sourced at all - and that, in fact, it is based on a single source and one that, moreover, expresses an opinion that is entirely contrary to all other sources dealing with this this period. Please give me some examples of these sources that you are claiming make the article "well sourced"? Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 20:19, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Justttt has yet to reply, but I'll make a start at going through the "sources" anyway. The article purports to represent an actual campaign that took place during WW1. It has a military conflict infobox that states it was part of the Middle Eastern theatre of WW1, with even a start and end date and "commanders and leaders". Yet there is but a single source in the article for all of this - Edward J. Erickson's 2013 "Ottomans and Armenians: A Study in Counterinsurgency". To contrast this, we have multiple sources that state without equivocation that this whole idea of an Armenian "insurgency" requiring (and excusing) a Turkish "counterinsurgency" response (that, rather than genocide, was a justifiable military action that got a little bit out of hand here and there due to wartime conditions) is simply false Turkish propaganda. Some of that propaganda was produced during WW1, most of it was produced post-WW1, the aim of all of it is to deny the Armenian Genocide. Everything in the article is just standard Armenian-genocide denialist material [31]. So this article is nothing more than a pov fork of Denial of the Armenian Genocide. The article tries to imply that there are other sources that support the "insurgency" claim by citing lots of sources throughout the article (this is a methodology widespread amongst Turkish denialist works) - but a closer look at these sources shows that they are either invalid, misused, misquoted, quoted out of context, or say the exact opposite (like Akcam who, in the quote I reproduced earlier, has written that there were no Armenian "insurgencies" ANYWHERE. For invalid sources, I'll start with the Nicholas A. Warndorf one. This is actually a 2013 student thesis submitted in part for a degree of Master of Arts from the University of Louisville. Guess who its author's thesis advisor was - Justin McCarthy, a recognised and notorious Armenian Genocide denier. It is an unacceptable source for Wikipedia anyway because Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources, states "Masters dissertations and theses are considered reliable only if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence". I'll go through the rest of the "sources" at a later time. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 02:21, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This article is based on fringe scholarship and should be deleted; the author is completely one-sided. --Vitilsky (talk) 18:22, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- May I kindly ask with which authority a source is classified as "fringe" ? Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 18:32, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is not the source we consider to be fringe - it is the opinions expressed in that source. Fringe opinions go against mainstream established scholarly opinions and are opposed by mainstream established scholarly opinions and so should not be presented as if they are accepted and proven opinions. We have an article on the Armenian Genocide, we have an article on Armenian Genocide Denial - this article is a pov fork of the latter. It is a fork because its subject is covered by Armenian Genocide Denial, it is a pov fork because the subject is being incorrectly presented as if it were accepted as correct by mainstream established scholarly opinions. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 01:59, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Pure denialist propaganda. Might as well give an article to the Flat Earth Society. The great problem here is that the article has a strong POV, a POV taught for generations in Turkish schools, i.e., that the Armenians were a rebel insurgency and deserved extermination (which, according to this view, they exaggerate). This is not to deny that there had been some hopes or Armenian independence, or that a tiny number of Armenians were in contact with Russian forces. But the insurgency exists largely in the Turkish imagination, in 1915 and ever since. A comparable article might be written about the Jewish partisans who hid in Polish forests and actually managed to score once or twice against the Nazis. But back to the article at hand. it cites some excellent sources, such as Taner Akçam but it truncates, misquotes, or misstates his work to make it seem that Akçam supports a narrative of Armenian insurgency. No reputable historian outside of Turkey does. Actually , no reputable historian inside Turkey supports such a narrative either. Turkey has some very, very fine historians. They keep their mouths shut or write about other topics. E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:20, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you can't be objective, maybe you should also learn to keep your mouth shut. One of the "finest" Turkish historians, İlber Ortaylı (strangely no-one yet dared accusing him of being a "denialist") wrote very well about how the armed rebellion came before the "tehcir"; try to learn Turkish -if you already don't know- to understand the Turkish affairs. Take care. --176.239.82.139 (talk) 21:52, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

He's clearly a denialist based on the content of your link - probably not the "finest" one though, it's just standard Turkish fare. But anyone who can seriously write "discrimination did not exist in Ottoman-Turkish culture" might be either the "finest" cretin or the "finest" self-delusionist. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 02:13, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Source Addition | edits: I would like to inform that these edits are from | The Russian Origins of the First World War published by Harvard and the author is Sean McMeekin. Sean McMeekin has | 817 publications. In this book, Sean McMeekin used Russian archives [not ottoman archives] for this period. Russian intelligence told the same story. Erikson, Reynolds and Sean produced detailed accounts of this period. The events which they base their analysis is also reported by Taner Akçam. If there is a discrepancy from Akcam's reporting, anyone is free too contribute. If "[Erickson], [Reynolds] and Sean" had false claims, where to reflect on these issues but this article. SelimAnkara1993 (talk) 21:46, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sean McMeekin - Yet another neocon fascist, searching through history's past evils and rewriting those inconvenient evils out of history in order to deny, minimise, disguise, or justify his country's present-day evil actions. If anyone knows of more of these, please let me know. I hadn't realised how widespread these sort of works had become. They justify my longstanding contempt for those Armenians who are constantly going on about 100 year old crimes committed by Turkey while remaining deliberately silent about the ongoing ones committed by America. The main purpose in us recognising and fully understanding past crimes is to help us recognize, oppose, and prevent similar crimes being repeated in the present. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 02:36, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here is an excellent dissection of McMeekin's propaganda work that condemns every aspect of it [[32]], it also covers McMeekin's role as an Armenian Genocide denialist: "McMeekin’s bias on this issue is breathtaking". Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 02:48, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Tiptoethrutheminefield. Do you have any source (as you sufficiently informed us about your POV) which disproves the report (the copy of the archival document presented in the book) by Sean McMeekin [33]. Russian military plan to run Armenian sabotage operations through the Russian subsidized insurgency cells. Another point, the activities of these cells were also reported by Ottomans (Erikson). I'm trying to say, you have to prtesent a source that "disprove" not only the Russian archives but also the Ottoman archives on this ""specific case"". SelimAnkara1993 (talk) 14:36, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The book review I cited dismisses such claims comprehensively - it says there is no evidence of such things actually happening: "...identifying this aspiration is a long way from proving either that the Russians actively fostered uprisings before the war or that the Armenians took part in them". It is all just the standard Turkish genocide denialist propaganda that has been around since 1915: "McMeekin seems to think it necessary to take the official Turkish line on the Armenian genocide". Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 15:06, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The review, an opinion page, did not present any "fact" beyond personal dismissal in dis-proving the Russian military plan to support operations or nearly (~15,000 east ~25,000 south) 40-50,000 insurgents behind the ""Russian-Ottoman war zone"". Also your quote did not produce any facts that I can go and check. You should know, I would be pleased to add such a fact into this article. I guess that is the crack of the problem. If all these sources (a year long events, agreements, arrangements and finally conflicts quoted from multiple sources) were false, you would be introducing these facts (with the sources) and explaining why Erikson, Reynolds and Sean's cited facts are a sham. SelimAnkara1993 (talk) 13:08, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The book review is clear in its condemnation of McMeekin's methodology and aims - it even suggests that McMeekin should not be considered as an historian at all, because his methods are so flawed. It states that McMeekin's book presents no evidence that there were any actual "operations" or "insurgents" - and in this the review's author is in 100% agreement with EVERY source that holds that the Armenian Genocide happened. ONLY sources that seek to deny the existence of the Armenians Genocide propagate this "insurgency" myth. This is why this article is nothing more than a pov fork of Denial of the Armenian Genocide. I am not interested in adding facts to an article grounded on a lie - it is a standard methodology in Turkish-produced or Turkish sponsored Armenian Genocide denialist material to sprinkle accepted facts and acceptable sources amongst the bigger lie in an attempt to disguise the fraud from casual readers. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 19:28, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If your sources could not present "facts" to prove a documented history (Sean) is false, how will we know Sean is false? Or how we know your "informed" vote (based on factual history) to delete this article has a merit. Sean explained one "dimension" of very complex period based on facts. It is published by Harvard University Press. You are also tarnishing Harvard University Press. My last word to you; No one denies that (a) there was a war, (b) there was an insurgency [Armenian independent state/Armenian autonomous something/uprising/rebelling/plain cooperation with Russia/... (summed to armed opposition to Ottoman Military)], (c) there was massacres, (d) there was war crimes, and (e) Most of the historians agree that there was a genocide. You do not have to delete (b) to prove (e). It is evident that you feel that you need to delete (b) to prove (e). But (b) is history. It does not go away, even if this article is deleted. Thanks for your interest. SelimAnkara1993 (talk) 21:11, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are being deceptive. There are no credible sources that state there was an Armenian "insurgency" (or any of your other somethings). The insurgency claim is derived IN ITS ENTIRITY from Turkish denial of the Armenian Genocide. The Armenian Genocide is an accepted fact amongst most historians - so any source alleging an "insurgeny" is by definition an Armenian genocide denialist source and is thus an extreme fringe opinion. I will repeat what I said in bold earlier because it is the irrefutable argument for why this article is a pov fork of Armenian Genocide Denial: only sources that seek to deny the existence of the Armenians Genocide propagate this "insurgency" myth. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 21:22, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article is a fork that covers the events of several other pages, yet is a misrepresentation of history by so-called historians, as well as distortion and nick picking from others. It's not a matter of who edits what kinds of issues, it's a matter of being a flat out violation of several guidelines. --Hyrudagon (talk) 15:29, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A time consuming discussion. I am sure that the proposers are well aware of the Wikipedia:Deletion policy. There are 14 reasons none of which apply to this case. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 13:39, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It could be deleted for reason 3 (patent nonsense intended to disparage a real subject, the Armenian Genocide), or 5 (is a pov fork of Denial of the Armenian Genocide and Defense of Van), or 6 (is a hoax event which all credible sources have dismissed), or 7 (no reliable sources - the sources found are merely repeating the standard Turkish State's genocide denial line), or 13 (misuse of a conflict infobox since this supposed "insurgency" campaign is not mentioned in any military history of WW1), or 14 (an encyclopedia should not have articles in which lies and propaganda propagated by a fringe of extremist sources are presented as if they were accepted and uncontested truth). Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 15:53, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Utter nonsense, per WP:FRINGE and other policies. Turkish propaganda circulated to counter the 100th anniversary of the Armenian Genocide. Snap. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 13:05, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Armenian Genocide. Even if the material is "fringe", which I am not fully convinced it is, it represents a detailed depiction of the Genocide from a modern historian who does not seem to have a political agenda. Dimadick (talk) 10:00, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quotes from [34]: "McMeekin seems to think it necessary to take the official Turkish line on the Armenian genocide"; "McMeekin’s bias on this issue is breathtaking"; "he is far too prone to see conspiracies and plots everywhere, especially where there were none"; "He writes not like a historian but like a prosecutor in a criminal court". Is this what you think a modern historian who does not seem to have a political agenda does? Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 14:56, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment After all that has been cited for this article being built on the sources of pseudo historians that have known Turkish affiliations and openly deny the Armenian Genocide, I do not see how anyone can come to the conclusion they don't have a political agenda. Please elaborate. --Steverci (talk) 16:47, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

These quotes are about McMeekin alone and he is far from the only source on the article. Dimadick (talk) 04:50, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Far from the only source? What do you mean? The article has only two sources: McMeekin and Erickson. All the other sources used are being misrepresented. For example, there are numerous references to Akcam, Taner (2007). A Shameful Act: The Armenian Genocide and the Question of Turkish Responsibility. How can this book be used to justify an article titled "1915 insurgency in the Ottoman Empire" when the content of this book clearly states that there were no insurgencies anywhere, and all claims that there were are "simply fabrications" produced to deny the genocide? This must mean one of two things - either the editors who have written this article have knowingly engaged in OR and Synthesis, or the persons actually citing Akcam are either McMeekin or Erickson, in which case all the Akcam citations should actually be McMeekin or Erickson citations. Same for the rest of the supposed "sources" - how many of these sources accept this "1915 Armenian insurgency" claim? If they do not accept it, then their content is being misused in this article. I chose quotes about McMeekin because Erickson seems even less of an historian than McMeekin. Nobody notable has bothered reviewing his book. Richard Hovannisian defines him as an Armenian Genocide denier here [35] and Dadrian in a Journal of Political and Military Sociology review of an earlier Erickson work [36] criticized his methodological bias, and his inability to read original Ottoman documents and having to rely on translators from the Turkish military to do it and to select the documents. He also mentions Erickson ignoring the many sources that have written about the often inaccurate and ambiguous nature of those original Turkish documents. Erickson responds [37], in an letter that is understandably not published by the journal, in a bizarre and rambling way, alleging libel for Dadrian making the "assumption" that he, Erickson, cannot read Ottoman Turkish, while never actually expelling that "assumption" by stating that he CAN read Ottoman Turkish. Steverci, I believe the political agenda of the authors is not really that of Turkey, it is that of a section of America - the aim of these books is to make American crimes seem acceptable behavior, both recent ones (such as in Iraq) and historical ones (such as in the Philippines), by making even greater historical ones by Turkey seem acceptable behavior. Erickson's connection with the US military establishment is clear, and he was part of the US invasion of Iraq. McMeekin's agenda is to produce rabid anti-Russia propaganda. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 12:46, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No Merge There can only be a merge if this would be an acceptable alternate title, which it is not. Would you describe the Holocaust as "1939 Jew uprising in Nazi Germany"? --Steverci (talk) 02:46, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The Jews were unarmed. The Armenians were armed up to their teeth. No, we wouldn't describe the two tragedies with a same name. --176.239.5.199 (talk) 04:47, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reply see Jewish resistance under Nazi rule --Steverci (talk) 19:42, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the misused / misrepresented referenced content that is not by McMeekin and Erickson might be suitable for inclusion into the AG article - but that does not equate to a merge, and I suspect that much of it might be there already in some form or another. And it could only be added by someone who has access to the actual sources so that we know what is really being said and in what context it is being said. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 12:52, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article is not "be fringe (Revision as of 16:25, 12 May 2015 )" if it is as you say "I suspect that much of it might be there already in some form or another. (Revision as of 12:53, 26 May 2015)" I appreciate your (Tiptoethrutheminefield) change of position regarding the Armenian insurgency. SelimAnkara1993 (talk) 13:52, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That is not what I said, and you know it. McMeekin and Erickson are fringe-viewpoint Armenian Genocide deniers and the article is a fraud, full of fake references. As the article's creator, you can answer my question about where this faking of the sources came from. By faking, I mean the misrepresentation of sources to make them appear to support the article's position when, in reality, those sources are either silent on that position (because the source is about a different subject) or (like the Akcam source) entirely oppose that position. Are all the non McMeekin and Erickson "sources" actually derived from the McMeekin and Erickson's books? Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:19, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is obvious that your are passionate on this subject. Only way to persuade a passionate person like yourself is read them. You can buy (even rent for as much as a McDonald's meal) very cheap. | The Russian Origins of the First World War and | Ottomans and Armenians: A Study in Counterinsurgency. Sean and Erikson!, you should also add Reynolds to your list. There is plenty references from Reynolds in this article. When you buy or rent Shattering Empires look into the section "Square pegs into round holds." You will find another another historian to be passionate about. | Shattering Empires]. You will notice that these books are all complimentary to each other. SelimAnkara1993 (talk) 17:06, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is obvious that your are avoiding answering my question! How can a source like Akcam's "A Shameful Act" be used to support an article titled "1915 insurgency in the Ottoman Empire" when that source states explicitly [38] that these claims of Armenian insurrections were, quote from page 199, "simply fabrications" produced to excuse or deny the Armenian genocide? Is this source being used in the article because it is actually McMeekin or Erickson who have been deceptively using Akcam as a source to support their pov? If it is this, then all the Akcam citations should be changed to McMeekin or Erickson citations because it is their pov interpretations of the Akcam source. Or is it because you have been engaging in OR and have been misusing sources and cherry-picking quotes to suit your OR POV? Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 19:15, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Response I'm not oviding per your claim. Answers to your questions are already in the article. You should read the 1915 insurgency in the Ottoman Empire. I don't think this is Good Faith. It is obvious that you do not have any of these sources (including Akcam), which you object (Erikson, Sean, Reynolds) passionately. All this without any substance (You didn't read any of these sources!). You are free to verify all the information presented in the article. All the information (including Akcam references) has a page number. You are free to go and check. You are free to add sourced information. However, for the positions you presented (A) From your link: "He writes that some supposed attacks attributed to Armenians were actually carried out by Kurdish Hamidiye units and later blamed on Armenians in order to provoke reprisal attacks by Muslims." That "Kurdish Hamidiye units" (a special military cavalry force) is in the article. You present "blamed on Armenians" statement without a page number. But even so this statement is very much false. | Akcam should have known that the Kurdish Hamdiye regiments had been disbanded in 1908 following the Young Turk Revolution agreement between ARF and CUP (put in force 1909), and all units were returned to their tribes by August 17, 1910. (B) From your link: "weapon seizures" cited in Turkish sources to justify the deportations "were simply fabrications"" The capture of these weapons are cited in the article. |However, Russia had a secret budget to arm the Armenian insurgents and smuggled weapons. (weapon seizures!) The article represents all these arguments. Thanks for your interest. SelimAnkara1993 (talk) 21:58, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And thank you for supplying yet more reasons for deletion. I'll take your lack of an answer as an indication that all the Akcam "citations" should be removed as false since it is actually Erikson or McMeekin who are citing him in their books and producing their own interpretations of that source. The same is probably true for all of the other supposed sources. I'm puzzled why you constantly refer to McMeekin as "Sean" - are you on first name terms with him? Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 23:00, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are listing Akcam among the Erikson, Sean, Reynolds who can't contribute "facts" to this article. You are proposing this idea, because you think Akcam was cited by Erikson, Sean, or Reynolds. Let me get it correctly "If Erikson, Sean, or Reynolds cite Akcam, the source (that is Akcam) can not be used in this article." You aligned Akcam among the historians that are "as you put it, fringe" because he reported the same content. If you go with this speed, you will burn out all the historians. SelimAnkara1993 (talk) 23:41, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I will be examining all your editing activities on Wikipedia. Only someone whose editing aims are absolutely corrupt and deceitful could fail to accept that they cannot use sources to support an article titled "1915 insurgency in the Ottoman Empire" when those same sources state explicitly that no such event happened. As well as your deceitful use of Akcam as a source, you are also deceitfully using Donald Bloxham. Here is what Bloxham says about your fake "insurgency" in his 2005 book "The Great Game of Genocide": Bloxham calls it Perpetrator Ideology and writes, on page 18, "It is essential not to further the claims made by apologists for the Ottoman state ever since 1915 that external actions caused upheavals in which the Armenians inevitably perished, that Britain and Russia stimulated Armenian revolt by their interventions and thus left the state no choice but to remove the Armenians for its own security". Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 02:32, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

comment Editors newly come to this topic may be unaware that for close to a century the government of Turkey has sponsored an enormous disinformation campaign. It includes not merely the destruction and falsification of the historical record, and the appointment of faculty at Turkish universities whose life's work it is to falsify not only the genocide, but the history of government-backed the pogroms and ethnic cleanings that preceded it. It also includes courting non-Turkish scholars, whose genocide denial can bring them prizes and grant funding, including funded opportunities to travel in Turkey while researching other projects. Just so you are aware.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:31, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 09:01, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bogoyavlenski-Konoplechenko equation[edit]

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

I propose to delete this article according to the recommendations of WP:TNT. User:Gisling has produced numerous such articles on topics mostly related to nonlinear dynamics, which are essentially devoid of useful content, and more troublingly, often have misleading statements. This article is not unique in that the definition of the equation is copied from an academic paper[39], which would ordinarily be fine, except that in this area the specific formula that defines an equation tends to change from one source to another, in ways that are not obvious to people who are not experts in PDE. I don't have the ability to correct all of them, and at best, they could be reduced to stubs. For this one I would write "The Bogoyavlensky-Konoplechenko equation is an equation related to the KdV equation. math-stub" because that's all I can confidently say at the moment. I'd rather let the title remain as a redlink. Sammy1339 (talk) 00:10, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I mentioned this deletion discussion here. --Sammy1339 (talk) 15:49, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

and here. --Sammy1339 (talk) 16:04, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep It seems like it's cited a lot in sources, this one and this one, but I think this needs to be discussed at the Math project as suggested by the people at the ANB. I cannot make heads or tails of it and I don't know if your average editor will have the skills to look at all these citations and know what is significant and what is not. If I knew how to solve that I would probably have better things to do than hang out at AfD! 😜 😜 😜 —Мандичка^YO 😜 16:38, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The problem here is not so much a lack of sources, as the fact that the sources do not agree with what is written in the article. According to your second source the Bogo-Kono equation is something ostensibly very different from what this article is written about - for one, it's not even a differential equation in the strict sense. But that article also says that the authors were discussing that equation for the first time, and named it the Bogo-Kono equation by analogy with previous such equations. So this is the problem: even the definition is suspect. And the rest of the article is computer-generated garbage and the same list of offline references which have been used for numerous similar articles, where they don't actually apply. --Sammy1339 (talk) 16:59, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TNT. Regardless of the possible notability of this topic, the content of the article is a pointless explosion of formulas and plots that adds no value to the encyclopedia. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:36, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

David Eppstein We have to evaluate the article not on its current state (which I agree is terrible, and this sometimes can be an indicator of its notability), but only whether or not reliable sources exist, somewhere, that support it having an article. —Мандичка^YO 😜 04:25, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're free to evaluate articles as you please, but "AfD is not cleanup" is only relevant when there's something of value to save in the nominated version of the article. I don't see that in this case. However, I will also note that "Bogoyavlenski-Konoplechenko equation" gets absolutely zero hits in Google scholar. So if it's notable, it doesn't seem to be notable under this name. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:55, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:40, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 11:19, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I tend to agree with David Eppstein. There is nothing in the article that is useful to Wikipedia users. It is just a list of equations with some pretty graphics. Nothing says why the equation is important or when it is used. There is not much online and I see no indication of notability.--Rpclod (talk) 14:01, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete I see that the excessive formulae and graphics have been eliminated but this makes it even clearer that it’s unencyclopaedic: no indication of its significance, its application, what the various terms are. Just an equation pulled from a paper.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 20:24, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, but not per TNT. I do not see the evidence of notability. The sources given by Wikimandia (above) use that equation as a test for resolution methods; same for this. It seems to me that this equation is discussed nowhere except as a target for that kind of solving methods.

In my view, this does not amount to "detailed coverage". Of course if that equation was a standard test for an important class of methods it would make it notable on that ground but I do not see it either (and there would be sources, anyways).

However, should it be decided that the article passes the notability threshold, TNT-ing it is the wrong way to go. TNT is used when an article has become so bloated and it would need so many incremental edits to reach a decent state that starting over is less of a headache. The current article is so short it would not be hard to rewrite it "from scratch" without doing a large edit. (Note: the article has probably been edited since the previous comments) Tigraan (talk) 10:05, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Although there's not overwhelming consensus to delete based solely on notability, there's enough agreement on copyright issues. slakr^\ talk / 03:19, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Luseane Halaevalu Mataʻaho[edit]

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

Unsourced orphan that doesn't appear to be notable, assuming it is even real and not a made up thing or a hoax (which it appears to be to me). 3gg5amp1e (talk) 00:52, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This article was written by a longstanding member of to.wiki; I would think it is about a real person. I've asked him/her to comment here.[40] Calliopejen1 (talk) 23:45, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I have added a reference that verifies the content of the article (though I'm now confused about whether "Luseane" is a title or part of her name). There also appears to be content about her in this book though I can't see what based on snippet mode. Given the likely difficulty of finding digitized sources regarding Tongan royalty in the 19th century, I'd err on the side of keeping -- though I'm not totally sure re: notability. Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:15, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:02, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - the added reference shows that the entire article is a copyright violation. Wholesale cut and paste.--Rpclod (talk) 04:49, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's not cut-and-paste. The paraphrase may be on the somewhat close side, but I think it's acceptable. Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:31, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 10:38, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - should have been speedied; cut/paste/copyright violation-ridden article about non-notable individual. Quis separabit? 00:42, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:44, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Panos Armenakas[edit]

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

He has not played a professional senior game at club or international level. Article fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Also fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 12:50, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I recreated the article as I feel that he now more than passes WP:GNG. A quick Google of his name returns thousands of results, showing more than significant coverage from many different independent reliable sources. How does he fail WP:GNG? Perhaps over 8.5 years ago, he failed WP:GNG, but he surely doesn't anymore. - J man708 (talk) 14:20, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 12:50, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 12:50, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 12:50, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Does not yet meet the football notability criteria.--Rpclod (talk) 23:22, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. May fail WP:NFOOTBALL but a simple google search shows how easily he passes WP:GNG. Doctorhawkes (talk) 03:24, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - He has not played in a fully pro league, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and the coverage he has received is routine sport journalism which does not amount to significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:08, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:08, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:08, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - clearly fails WP:NFOOTBALL, the question is whether or not he meets WP:GNG - this is a close one, but I'd be inclined to say the coverage is not significant enough / slightly too WP:ROUTINE to satisfy GNG. Giant Snowman 08:58, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, I can remember being attacked during this kid's first AfD, I can't believe it was nearly NINE YEARS ago..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:58, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ymblanter (talk) 08:33, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - meets WP:GNG with significant coverage over the years [41] [42] [43]. Nfitz (talk) 20:33, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTBALL and does not meet WP:GNG JMHamo (talk) 11:22, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Could someone tell me how he possibly fails WP:GNG? A quick Google search of his name shows that this guy has many, many news articles written about him from his childhood until now. SBS, Inside Sport and the Daily Mail aren't small time news writers. - J man708 (talk) 13:48, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - a good question. There's a group here, who seem to believe that players simply shouldn't have articles until they've got a first-team appearance - heavy media coverage or not. If you look at the delete votes, many of these are the same individuals who were arguing that the Jack Wilshire article should be deleted only hours before he debuted for Arsenal, despite massive international media coverage on 5 continents! Nfitz (talk) 22:41, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Nfitz and J man708 Fails WP:NFOOTBALL but passes WP:GNG has received significant coverage over the years.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 03:11, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes WP:GNG, references show a significant level of coverage for this player over a number of years. This is not a case of a very young player being hyped briefly only to fade away. The references cited above are lengthy discussions on the player, quotes from him and discussion about him by a wider audience. Fenix down (talk) 08:21, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 09:02, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cardiff University Korfball Club[edit]

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

Despite the claims in the opening paragraph, this has to be put in the context of Korfball being an obscure and relatively unknown sport. There is no news coverage at all that I can find online about this university club. A lot of the 'Hall of fame' list seems to be a copyvio of the Pitchero website. All in all this Wikipedia article seems to be a handy webpage for a club that doesn't even have its own website. Fails WP:GNG' Sionk (talk) 20:38, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:11, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:11, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:12, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:12, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 23:19, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable British university sports club team. Subject club team does not satisfy the specific notability guideline for sports team, clubs, companies, and other organizations per WP:ORG, nor the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG for lack of significant coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources. Of the footnoted sources presently included, they are hodge-podge of the university newspaper for the parent university, korfball leagues in which the subject club is a member, the korfball governing bodies, several blogs, and the team webpage. There is not an independent reliable source among them. Which is exactly what I would expect for a British college sports club team (not a varsity team, mind you) for a fairly obscure and minor sport. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:30, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:20, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete fails WP:ORG. Amateur club for a very minor sport in Wales. LibStar (talk) 15:10, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) — Yash! ^(Y) 01:56, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pony Club[edit]

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

The obvious point to make here is there is no such thing as the international Pony Club - it looks like each country has its own organization. I was about to propose a merger with The Pony Club but the latter suggests it is about the (original) English organization (I've now added hatnotes). The "Origins" sections of each article are identical. Considering there is no such international umbrella organization it would be more appropriate to create individual articles about each nation's Pony Club (assuming they meet WP:GNG). There's nothing much here to merge, so deletion seems the best option. Sionk (talk) 21:05, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Like YMCA or 4-H or Boy Scouts or any of countless other organizations that have branches in multiple nations, the overall group may not have an international dictatorial governing body, but that does not mean that the article should be deleted! People are going to search for "Pony Club", whatever nation they are in, and the overview article contains links to the various nations. Article needs improvement, but not deletion. Montanabw ^(talk) 22:51, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Montanabw.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:18, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Though the above examples are different because the YMCA is a global organization and the Boy Scouts has the World Organization of the Scout Movement and other international bodies. The Pony Club doesn't have that. The article in question here is not even about the national groups (e.g. a List of national Pony Clubs), it simply describes something that doesn't exist, largely repeating the article of the UK organisation. Sionk (talk) 18:48, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

YMCA has an international group, but it isn't a dictat. None of these groups' international bodies dictate worldwide policy - any international group is in more of a coordinating role - all of these groups are nationally governed. Likewise, Pony Clubs do have some international coordination, note [44], and [45] as examples. If anything, the US and UK articles could almost be merged into this one! Montanabw ^(talk) 05:21, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:18, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No reliable sources are provided, just the subjects' web sites. Nothing shows notability.--Rpclod (talk) 11:22, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- That's a nonsense reason - Pony Clubs exist workdwide. This is an overview article. What sourcing would change your mind? Montanabw ^(talk) 06:07, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Having independent reliable coverage is the basis of Wikipedia and WP:GNG. Sionk (talk) 09:46, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So what part of nine million hits do you deem "no reliable sources"? Montanabw ^(talk) 19:20, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You quite evidently have no understanding of WP:GNG. Google hits are not 'reliable independent coverage', but just 'stuff on the internet'. If you look cursorily at the 'hits' most of them are about pony clubs, not the Pony Club. Sionk (talk) 20:32, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Pony clubs" ARE Pony Club affiliates, just like Girl Scouts or whatever. What part of "this is an overview article" do you not get? See YMCA, 4-H, Boy Scouts/Scouting, etc... same thing. Have you read nothing of my argument above? I would appreciate if it you would just withdraw this AfD. Montanabw ^(talk) 22:49, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How about [peer-reviewed studies, the full Google search, and so on. Seriously, just admit you are wrong on this and move along. Montanabw ^(talk) 22:53, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Again, if you look at most of those 'peer edited' results, they are published by the Pony Club, therefore not independent. I'm still waiting for some significant coverage in sources that are reliable and independent, so unlikely to withdraw this AfD. Sionk (talk) 23:05, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see your problem: Let's start with the peer-reviewed journals: [46], and -(oh my!) this: "Pony Club is one of the leading junior equestrian organisations in the world." And a mention here, a series of books with wide distribution written by a highly respected equestrian author (Susan Harris). There are also studies sponsored by these organizations, plus a ready field of participants for studies like [47], [48] and this. Yes, the US and UK articles are perhaps a bit stronger, but this is an OVERVIEW article. I fail to see your concerns. I really do. (And spare me your condescension, I have been a WP editor a lot longer than you have...). Montanabw ^(talk) 23:18, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And let's add news coverage: search news,

Strong keep: Not sure I understand the "No reliable sources" logical fallacy "delete" vote, but to each their own I suppose. While Wikipedia:Other stuff exists is a nice little essay, I'd point out a few other pages: High school football, Girl Guides, College baseball, Car club, along with the ones mentioned above by Montanabw, and many other such non-specific pages which describe a general overview of various clubs and groups on our project, and are indeed encyclopedic material. While there is room here to improve and expand the article, I don't see that as a reason to delete. — Ched : ? 15:12, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per an overview article of an International group of clubs and per common sense. Notability is established per each Pony Club. (I grew up with a Pony Club even in my small, not America city as an aside), (Littleolive oil (talk) 17:22, 19 May 2015 (UTC))[reply]

Keep Per sources found, now someone just needs to add them to the article. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:32, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 08:03, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Li Fan (actor)[edit]

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

BLP with almost no accessible info online besides the 1 sentence already in the article. Not an actor as the title claims. The only reason that his page was created was that 1 show he hosted is a Chinese version of Who Wants to Be a Millionaire, which from what I can see online, isn't popular at all in China by any measure. In fact, Guizhou Television that he works for doesn't have a page yet. Timmyshin (talk) 20:46, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I cannot find any sources that support notability. Elgatodegato (talk) 22:34, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - employee of a non-notable organisation, no sources around. Fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:38, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:17, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no references at all, let alone any reliable sources. No indication of notability.--Rpclod (talk) 11:24, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:35, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Artists Anonymous[edit]

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

My first News search found nothing so I dug deeper and found some results from a few notable websites but nothing that seems notable (I scanned through ten pages). Two searches at Books found nothing and searches at British news sources BBC and The Guardian found nothing. I'm not fluent with German so I couldn't help there and a search attempting to find German newspapers walled me. SwisterTwister talk 05:43, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 07:09, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:56, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:56, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:56, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There's enough refs and notable collections cited within the article to pass notability criteria. Alkacenter (talk) 13:37, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 23:52, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article has gone from zero references for notability at nomination to four now: Financial Times, Artforum International, Times (London), and Spiegel Online. It's unfortunate that two are behind paywalls and a third is in German, but they do demonstrate that the subject meets WP:ORG. Now someone needs to rewrite the article based primarily on these independent secondary sources rather than on the group and the galleries where they've exhibited. Worldbruce (talk) 02:25, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:58, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, notability has been demostrated and several RS have been added. Cavarrone 04:21, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 07:47, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Isabel Metcalfe[edit]

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

WP:BLP, with a significant undercurrent of "prosified résumé" writing tone, of a person whose most substantive claims of notability are as a non-winning candidate in federal and municipal elections, and the winning of a couple of not terribly notable awards (the only one of the set that actually has a Wikipedia article to link to was presented to 45,999 other Canadians besides her, and thus cannot make every one of those people notable by itself). And exactly none of the sourcing here is substantively about her — #1 and #2 are elections results tables, #3 is a "candidate positions on the issues" survey of the type that's offered to every candidate in any election and thus fails to make her special, and #4 through #6 all just namecheck her existence in the process of being coverage of something else — so she can't claim WP:GNG either. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 07:17, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 07:24, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 07:24, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - she is quoted a few times, but the article does not demonstrate that WP:ANYBIO criteria are met.--Rpclod (talk) 11:47, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:42, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:42, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - seems like WP:RESUME. CookieMonster755 (talk) 07:18, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 07:46, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lorie Garritty[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a city councillor, in a city not large enough to confer notability on its city councillors under WP:NPOL. A city councillor gets into Wikipedia under one of three conditions: (a) they serve in a major metropolitan global city with a population near or above the millions range, (b) they have held higher office (mayoralty, provincial/state or federal legislatures, etc.) before or after their term on a city council, or (c) you can write and reliably source an article that's detailed and substantive enough to demonstrate that they satisfy WP:NPOL #3. But none of these pertain here — the city's population is just 80K, he's never held any other office, and there's not nearly enough sourcing here to satisfy WP:GNG. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 06:58, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 07:25, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 07:25, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - article does not demonstrate that WP:NPOL or WP:ANYBIO criteria are met.--Rpclod (talk) 11:50, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:40, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per User:Bearcat. And also because search turned up no other sources of notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:36, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 09:04, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lumenis[edit]

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

Routine coverage of stock listing/delisting, catalogs, etc. No real notability per WP:CORP. Brianhe (talk) 06:35, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I will leave it for discussion, but naming this company not notable is a nonsense to me. --BiH (talk) 06:43, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:40, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:40, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:40, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - if the subject is truly the largest medical laser company and if this is a notable acheivement, where are the reliable sources?--Rpclod (talk) 14:09, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/TNT No reliable sources to show it passes WP:GNG. This page is also massively promotional, so even if it is notable, this isn't the article to show it. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:50, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If the company is Notable, why hasn't anybody written about it? BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 08:05, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There is media coverage for the company, and some of it can be found here, here, here, here, and here. The company which has $217 million in revenue has to be notable. Other than that, they are making innovations, according to the above sources. Many other can be found which were published in the past period. --BiH (talk) 21:20, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on comment. 1=Routine hiring notice followed by a press release. 2=Routine trade list of show attendees. 3=Promotional product launch copy. 4=Routine report on quarterly earnings. 5=Routine report on quarterly earnings. I think User:BeenAroundAWhile was looking for something more substantial. — Brianhe (talk) 15:08, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 07:45, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Christine Brown[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a former city councillor in a midsized (pop. 80K) city. Wikipedia does not extend a presumption of notability to city councillors under WP:NPOL, unless (a) they serve in a major metropolitan global city with a population in or near the millions range, or (b) you can write and source a really detailed article about them which credibly demonstrates that they should be considered more notable than the average city councillor. But this does neither — it relies half on primary sources and half on community weekly newspapers that aren't widely distributed enough to satisfy WP:GNG (and are both incomplete/deadlinked references, at that.) So all the referencing here does is verify that she exists — which is not what gets a city councillor into Wikipedia. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 05:45, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom —Мандичка^YO 😜 05:57, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 07:26, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 07:26, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - article does not demonstrate that WP:NPOL or WP:ANYBIO criteria are met.--Rpclod (talk) 11:52, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:37, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:37, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete sources not found.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:33, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 07:45, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bb. Lakan 2015[edit]

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

This year's iteration of an annual event which doesn't even have an overview article to demonstrate that it has enough notability for us to care about this year's version as a topic in its own right, sourced entirely to a single primary source blurb with not a shred of reliable source coverage to be found. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 05:12, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no reliable sources and no indication of notability.--Rpclod (talk) 14:10, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:36, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:36, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - local village event that isn't notable enough in the Philippines, except for those residents of the said village. --- Tito Pao (talk) 15:27, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) — Yash! ^(Y) 01:46, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of Giro d'Italia classification winners[edit]

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

This information can be found on each classification's respective page. The charts at the bottom were taken from the General classification winner page. It doesn't add any real value that their respective page's add. In addition, the only two sources that are used do not even source 80% of what is seen on the page. Disc Wheel (Talk + Tontributions) 04:47, 16 May 2015 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related pages for the aforementioned reason - with the exception of the reference issue for the Tour article:[reply]

Disc Wheel (Talk + Tontributions) 04:51, 16 May 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 May 16. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:00, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per WP:NOTPAPER. These are summary pages of all the classifications of each GT, with more details found in the sub-pages. These are essentially WP:IDONTLIKEIT nominations. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:58, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, and speedy close These are the most useful format of lists we have here, very useful and interesting to see all classifications across all years in one place. There is no problem that I know of with verifiability or maintenance, so the nominator hasn't made a case for deleting them. There are some style problems that the nom mentions, but those can be fixed without an AfD nomination. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 10:04, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cycling-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:24, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:24, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:25, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:26, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:26, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:26, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Davewild (talk) 08:27, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Groundswell group[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Dubious campaign with no lasting depth or reporting. Appears to fail WP:EVENT (if false) and WP:ORGDEPTH (if true). Tgeairn (talk) 04:00, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:54, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:54, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:54, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:55, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:00, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now - Multiple searches found nothing solid and significant, Books found one for an Indian group and News found nothing relevant at all. Browser, highbeam and thefreelibrary also found nothing. If this gets more coverage and is clarified, the article may be start again. SwisterTwister talk 20:16, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - organization has received significant coverage in U.S. News & World Report, in MSNBC, in Politico, in Slate, in Business Insider, in The Week, etc. Therefore, having received significant coverage in multiple non-primary reliable sources subject passes WP:GNG & WP:ORG.

The last time this article was at AfD was December 2013, and it was closed as keep. Very little has changed since then, and the sources linked in my keep rational were available then in the first AfD.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:58, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - The problem is all of the coverage, including all of those links above, are in response to a single publication by Mother Jones and all published within the the span of a few days. WP:GNG requires coverage over time. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:51, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That is not correct, please see WP:N#TEMP:

Notability is not temporary; once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage.

If this was an article about an event, than WP:PERSISTENCE would be required, but this is an article about an organization, and thus WP:GNG & WP:ORG apply.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:30, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in reliable sources found by RightCowLeftCoast (talk · contribs). Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline is met, and Wikipedia:Notability#Notability is not temporary applies. I also agree with RightCowLeftCoast that WP:PERSISTENCE (which redirects to Wikipedia:Notability (events)#Duration of coverage) is inapplicable because the article is about an organization, not an event. Cunard (talk) 03:31, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 07:44, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Viamagus[edit]

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

Next to no notability at all. I couldn't even find any news sources asserting it to be of any significant merit. Blake Gripling (talk) 00:23, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Brief mentions in a few places, but that's about it. https://www.bing.com/news/search?q=viamagus&FORM=HDRSC6. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 07:09, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:46, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:46, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:46, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:56, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Out of all my searches (News, Books, browser, highbeam and thefreelibrary), I found only a few news links. SwisterTwister talk 20:01, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 07:43, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Freedom of action[edit]

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

As seen at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Two-stage model of free will, the article creator, User:Cmsreview, started a bunch of articles on the same general topic area of free will, with no real sources writing about the specific article topic, and the text based on a patchwork of sources to create a synthesis of research unsupported as a whole by reliable sources. Binksternet (talk) 03:48, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom ----Snowded ^TALK 04:35, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nothing that cannot be found elsewhere Peter Damian (talk) 07:51, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:32, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as just another related article with others that are going to be deleted. Noteswork (talk) 12:12, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the WP:GARDEN that needs to be turned over. jps (talk) 13:34, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:46, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Roman Vashchuk[edit]

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

Not enough coverage in reliable sources to verify or sustain an article. Fails general notability and there is no inherent notability for any of his positions. Only material are short bios from the embassy, some notices of appointment and a couple passing mentions none of which has him pass WP:NPOL and WP:ANYBIO. Jbh ^Talk 12:44, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:20, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:20, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:20, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete nothing to prove he meets WP:BIO. no inherent notability from being an ambassador or coming from a "major country". LibStar (talk) 08:18, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
comment He gets coverage in the Ukraine [49]. Looks like he has quite a bit of coverage in Ukranian cyrillic . ths AFD mighe need someone who can look at the Ukranian coverage.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:54, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The linked article is a passing quote in an article about someone else. Do you have any links to Ukrainian language sources? Google Translate should be good enough to see if they are about him or just passing mentions/quotes in relation to his duties. Thanks for the help! Jbh ^Talk 18:08, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - definitely notable. Full profile in Ukrainian Forbes - he's had a long career as a diplomat. Additionally, Canada has a very prominent Ukrainian emigre population (most Ukrainians outside Ukraine/Russia I think) and provides considerable economic and diplomatic aid to Ukraine; ie this is a significant post. LibStar and E.M.Gregory, I will work on it. —Мандичка^YO 😜 20:58, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Wikimandia: Good find! I am a bit concerned about how much notability it demonstrates about him vs his office. The article is part of a series on Ambassadors to the Ukraine so whoever was the Ambassador at the time would have received the same coverage. Are you able to help us find any other Ukrainian sources which talk more about him? Thank you! Jbh ^Talk 21:26, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Jbhunley: Since he's a diplomat of course many of the articles have to do with Canada's general position (ie anyone who held his position might say the same). But as you can tell by the really lengthy answers he gives, he is well qualified to speak freely about very sensitive topics (eg Canada supporting sanctions against Putin). And some ask him things that are definitely unique to him and his background - for example in this article it starts out asking him how he thinks Ukraine has changed since he was working there in the early 1990s. He also seems to have something to do with Serbia and Montenegro, as he pops up in their news also, and in one interview it said he's learning Serbian. Anyway I'll work on improving the article so hopefully it will satisfy the WP:GNG. —Мандичка^YO 😜 22:05, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Wikimandia: OK. The second interview is starting to sway me towards a weak keep. He seems to get a lot more coverage in non-English press, which I suppose is to be expected considering where he does his work. Maybe some of the people at Wikiproject:International Relationscan give some guidance on office vs person with respect to notability since I am unsure and do not want to advocate against someone who it would be proper to include. Jbh ^Talk 22:16, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Wikimandia: I posted this request for input [50] at The IR project. They have surely come across this kind of thing before. Jbh ^Talk 22:28, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Jbhunley: I'm not sure of the general guidelines re: office vs person, but I feel that anyone who is a "real" ambassador is noteworthy (by real, I mean a diplomat who is actively publicly involved in real matters of state, not "thanks for the campaign donations, you can be our ambassador to Jamaica" type). Also he actually spells his name "Roman Waschuk" (usual transliteration based on pronunciation is Vaschuk) which may be why there were fewer English-language articles about him. Here's one about him winning some kind of award in the 1990s. —Мандичка^YO 😜 22:40, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Wikimandia: At this point I think there is enough in the non-English press for me to personally think he should have an article ie he is someone that you would be likely to run across when reading about Ukraine and want to know more about. That, how ever is my personal criteria for inclusion (If we used my personal criteria there would be a lot fewer bands, footballers and random business people with articles) so I would like to see some input from someone who has dealt with notable Ambassadors or a couple of articles about him not related to his position or notable achievements while Ambassador before withdrawing mt nomination. (Or more properly change my vote since there is another delete so speedy close is not possible) Thank you for all the work you have been doing looking in to the subject in the Ukrainian press. Jbh ^Talk 00:44, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 23:39, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:48, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: - The above debate shows it is notable - See Full profile in Ukrainian Forbes. As Мандичка pointed out "he's had a long career as a diplomat. Additionally, Canada has a very prominent Ukrainian emigre population (most Ukrainians outside Ukraine/Russia I think) and provides considerable economic and diplomatic aid to Ukraine; ie this is a significant post." Clarification @ LibStar: I did a Google search and the topic appears notable. I agree with both E.M.Gregory and Мандичка Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:22, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

you've just totally and lazily plagiarized the vote of someone else. how about explaining in your own words how he meets WP:BIO? LibStar (talk) 16:52, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your input. I have tried to clarify my position and hopefully I have made a stronger case for KEEP. Thanks again! Cheers, - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:37, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

simply doing a Google search does not automatically establish notability. See WP:GOOGLEHITS LibStar (talk) 16:50, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 07:43, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dilemma of determinism[edit]

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

As seen at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Two-stage model of free will, the article creator, User:Cmsreview, started a bunch of articles on the same general topic area of free will, with no real sources writing about the specific article topic, and the text based on a patchwork of sources to create a synthesis of research unsupported as a whole by reliable sources. Binksternet (talk) 03:48, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator ----Snowded ^TALK 04:22, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there is such a dilemma but this is a fork of material that should be included in either Free will or Determinism Peter Damian (talk) 07:48, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - just no. —Мандичка^YO 😜 05:06, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:31, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the WP:GARDEN that needs to be turned over. jps (talk) 13:36, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 07:42, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Self-determination (philosophy)[edit]

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

As seen at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Two-stage model of free will, the article creator, User:Cmsreview, started a bunch of articles on the same general topic area of free will, with no real sources writing about the specific article topic, and the text based on a patchwork of sources to create a synthesis of research unsupported as a whole by reliable sources. Binksternet (talk) 03:48, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom ----Snowded ^TALK 04:35, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Peter Damian (talk) 07:51, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:30, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the WP:GARDEN that needs to be turned over. jps (talk) 13:34, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 07:41, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative possibilities[edit]

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

As seen at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Two-stage model of free will, the article creator, User:Cmsreview, started a bunch of articles on the same general topic area of free will, with no real sources writing about the specific article topic, and the text based on a patchwork of sources to create a synthesis of research unsupported as a whole by reliable sources. Binksternet (talk) 03:43, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom ----Snowded ^TALK 04:33, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails GNG —Мандичка^YO 😜 06:20, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails everything. Peter Damian (talk) 07:50, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:26, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - synthesis. VandVictory (talk) 04:46, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the WP:GARDEN that needs to be turned over. jps (talk) 13:35, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 07:41, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do otherwise in the same circumstances[edit]

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

As seen at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Two-stage model of free will, the article creator, User:Cmsreview, started a bunch of articles on the same general topic area of free will, with no real sources writing about the specific article topic, and the text based on a patchwork of sources to create a synthesis of research unsupported as a whole by reliable sources. Binksternet (talk) 03:42, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator ----Snowded ^TALK 04:32, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pure synth. Peter Damian (talk) 07:49, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:24, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the WP:GARDEN that needs to be turned over. jps (talk) 13:36, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete as WP:G11, WP:G12. The text for this was taken from several different websites and is very promotional in tone. However even without that, this looks like it could have also been speedied as WP:A7 since there really isn't much notability to this person per Wikipedia's guidelines and I don't see where this AfD would have closed differently if I had left it up. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:38, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArchieLuxury[edit]

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

Promotional page for a YouTube channel. —Tim Pierce (talk) 02:16, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. and will salt (obviously will unsalt if he wins a grand slam). Davewild (talk) 07:40, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2015 Kei Nishikori tennis season[edit]

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

I declined speedy deletion as inappropriate. I will take this to AfD, as another editor has expressed a concern that this player may not warrant a "season" article under the WikiProject Tennis guidelines. Safiel (talk) 02:13, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I have no idea why this is not speedy deletion worthy. It's been deleted a couple times already I think (last time was May 6). Consensus was established to allow seasonal article only for players who have won a grand Slam tournament. Otherwise these things would be springing up like weeds (and they were). The full guidelines decided upon are at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Tennis/Article_guidelines#Article_types_and_recommended_practices. Remember that after a player's main page has filled up we have a Player career statistics article to add most minor or trivial stats. Nishikori already has that. This seasonal article should be deleted or kept in user space until or if such time that Nishikori ever wins a major tournament. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:03, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:22, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:23, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:23, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree with Fyunck. This has previously been deleted and consensus has been reached that it is not appropriate for an article for the reasons already stated. Fazzo29 (talk) 12:27, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note for closing administrator - This article is a recreation of a previously deleted article. Please salt this title after deleting. Thanks. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:50, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per established consensus of WP:TENNIS. Please also note that this subject also fails to satisfy the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG for a stand-alone article -- rarely do individual "seasons" of tennis players satisfy these requirements with in-depth coverage of the season -- not the individual matches, not the player, not the player's promotional work or personal life, etc. -- for a stand-alone article. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 12:54, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 07:38, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jamie Grant (actress)[edit]

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

Actress with questionable notability. Only ref is to the IMDB (there was another ref but I got rid of it it was just a official site with her name and email and that's it) Wgolf (talk) 23:00, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm finding everyone related named "Jamie Grant" but nothing on her!, She has an article over at the Netherlands 'pedia but there's not one source there .... No evidence of notability, fials GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 02:39, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:44, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the only reference won't load. Even if it did, it would be insufficient to demonstrate notability.--Rpclod (talk) 02:43, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I thought moving to Flikken Maastrich's article would've been good but considering she was only in two seasons and 40 episodes maybe not. Searches found a few links but she's obviously not independently notable at this time. SwisterTwister talk 19:54, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails GNG. CookieMonster755 (talk) 07:21, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. slakr^\ talk / 03:24, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua Hoffman[edit]

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

Non-notable scholar. Fails WP:NACADEMICS. In particular, the impact his work has had on his scholarly discipline (i.e., philosophy and theology) does not seem to be significant, so far. Edcolins (talk) 20:50, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 21:53, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 21:54, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article seems to have an okay number of sources linked. I don't know the bulk of them so I can't say if they're reliable, but if they are, I think seven sources are acceptable at best for a stud. Cheers, Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 18:22, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The number of sources is not really relevant (see WP:LOTSOFSOURCES). And I don't think the sources establish the notability of the subject. The first three are book reviews, the next three apparently relate to relatives of Joshua Hoffman, and the last one is a list of bridge players. --Edcolins (talk) 20:25, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You make a compelling point. Perhaps the creator and/or person who added the sources explain themselves and why selected those particular sources. Furthermore, they should be given the chance to prove the subjects notability which is seemingly apparent to them; I suggest pinging them or something. Best, Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 20:35, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I added the book reviews. Multiple full-length reviews in indepedent sources would represent a common path to notability for authors and academics ("significant critical attention" under WP:AUTHOR). I agree that there are some trivial sources about relatives and bridge, but I don't think they affect the notability established by the reviews. EricEnfermero (Talk) 13:01, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AUTHOR reads: "3. The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the subject (...) of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." The two book reviews alone are not sufficient, the work must also be "a significant or well-known work". Is Substance: Its Nature and Existence a significant or well-known work? --Edcolins (talk) 20:45, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm almost certain that it is. It's easy to locate even more sources than what appears in the article. I can't imagine that all of these sources would discuss Hoffman, the Hoffman-Rosenkrantz theory or the pair's works if they were insignificant. EricEnfermero (Talk) 21:15, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still not convinced. The four requirements you introduced with the words "Hoffman has created four requirements for a Aristotelean theory..." seem to originate from a single source. Google returns two hits for the first criterion "substancehood must be an ontological category", the cited web page and, now, the Wikipedia article. (Furthermore, the source does not seem to use the verb "create" but "defend".) If these four requirements were significant, I would expect the first one to at least appear in more than one source. Just because the person stated or wrote something does not mean that this belongs to Wikipedia, per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. --Edcolins (talk) 20:09, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really arguing for the notability of the individual requirements, but if you google "Hoffman Rosenkrantz theory" I think you'll find some decently in-depth discussion of Hoffman's work. I'll try to add some of those sources later tonight. EricEnfermero (Talk)|

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:33, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I googled "Hoffman Rosenkrantz theory" and found only one occurrence... written by Hoffman himself in a work edited by Tuomas E. Tahko[51], and nothing on Google Scholar[52]. --Edcolins (talk) 19:25, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In regard to "defend", I changed the wording to "has supported". After looking at it more carefully, I noticed that the source first says "attempts to lay down" and then says "defends". I left it as "has supported" but I'm not sure if it's a big deal anyway. EricEnfermero (Talk) 13:35, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The "Hoffman Rosenkrantz theory" does not seem to be well-known, and Substance: Its Nature and Existence does not appear to be a significant or well-known work. To me, WP:AUTHOR is not met. I don't think that being paraphrased or referred to in a few books or papers is sufficient. --Edcolins (talk) 19:43, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:41, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - References 1 and 2 both discuss a 1997 book co-authored by the subject, but not the subject and hence do not demonstrate notability of the subject. Similarly reference 3 discusses a 1994 book from the same co-authors. References 4 - 6 discuss some assertions made in, again, the 1997 book. The 1997 book might enjoy some limited notability in esoteric philosophy circles, but nothing suggests that the subject does.--Rpclod (talk) 02:58, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I appreciate the consideration. The 1997 book is held in 900 libraries per Worldcat. I don't want to belabor the point, but I think it might be a stretch to refer to that as esoterica. EricEnfermero (Talk) 03:12, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to new article - I recommend redirecting to a new article, Hoffman–Rosenkrantz theory of substance, I'm finding coverage about the theory, but not much about Hoffman himself (although this is a somewhat common name). —Мандичка^YO 😜 03:37, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As mentioned above, I couldn't find significant coverage about the theory either. Only one occurrence written by Hoffman himself in a work edited by Tuomas E. Tahko. Setting aside all the copies/forks of the Wikipedia article, can you elaborate on the coverage you found? --Edcolins (talk) 08:52, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—Per observations of Edcolins, notability of the subject has not been established. Arguably, any encyclopedic relevance is limited to the two co-authors' contributions to notably interesting topics such as Omnipotence paradox, in which article there is some justification for citing the contributions and evaluating their worth. Bjenks (talk) 00:51, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Edcolins it fail WP:NACADEMICS and do not think the book Substance: Its Nature and Existence. helps the subject meet WP:AUTHOR.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:03, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:08, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fame city waterworks[edit]

Note: Article was moved during AFD from "Fame city waterworks" to "Fame City Waterworks" by me. --do ncr am 14:21, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

And try also the following (and try adding Houston or Beechnut to the search after starting it may help):

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

--do ncr am 17:07, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not notable. I don't believe CSD:A7 applies to buildings so bringing it here. Pishcal — ♣ 18:07, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator - Upon a review of the sources in the article, the history water park and of the sources and reasons given by User:Doncram, I don't believe that deleting the article is appropriate at this time. Pishcal — ♣ 21:56, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:33, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:33, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:36, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, tentatively. "Not notable" is not a rationale for deletion; it is circular. Has wp:BEFORE been performed. Note there was a New York Times article just about it and its $40 million cost, cited in article. Could someone find a link to an online version of that? Amusement parks and even individual roller-coasters and other rides at amusement parks often/usually are Wikipedia-notable, certainly being related to their being popular and hence also covered in media. It was known as Funplex and then Adventure Bay previously. Rides included tTe "Rio Lento", the "Gulf Stream", the "Master Blaster", and "Pirates Cove". Chados Brothers was an owner. Searching on the previous names and rides will likely provide more hits within on-line coverage. --do ncr am 17:07, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Having just one article, of course, for the amusement park and its successor (the new Fun Plex?) makes sense. Here's one 2013 article: Fun Plex under investigation. That is about the same place; while the waterworks is gone, the FunPlex continues.

this page about Campanile on Eldridge has helpful map and explains that Fame City was an original amusement park(?), and Fame City Waterworks its associated waterpark next door. Fame City eventually became Funplex. Fame City and Fame City Waterworks "eventually split ways, with FCW becoming Adventure Bay." Adventure Bay closed for good after the 2005 season, was demolished, and most of it was redeveloped as low-income (affordable) senior living apartments, known as Campanile on Eldridge. All seem to be on Beechnut Street in Houston. --do ncr am 17:32, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Highbeam news article on Chado Brothers. Fame City "cost $21 million when it opened in July 1986 and drew one million people its first year." Park was mostly Iranian-owned. Related to FunPlex in Colorado and a Fame City since built in Turkey.

An alternative in-between keeping and deleting would be to move the info into a proper list of current and defunct amusement parks in the United States with descriptions (so not List of amusement parks in the Americas#Texas and also not List_of_defunct_amusement_parks#Texas), and redirect to that entry. --do ncr am 17:49, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not notable is a rationale for deletion, see WP:DEL-REASON. Looking through google news I found that most sources that mentioned it were only trivial, mentioning it as a place that some other incident occurred. However, there were a few articles of which had more than a trivial mention, namely this and the one that you also found, this. As for the sources that you've found, I don't think wikimapia is a reliable source. Pishcal — ♣ 21:02, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for putting forward another article, but that is about another FunPlex pretty far away though, here is its location on Q St., unfortunately.

Of course an AFD should be all about notability. What I meant was wp:NOTNOTABLE, the mere assertion with no evidence; that is a listed "argument to avoid". (An equally convincing counter-assertion to "it's not notable!" is "it's NOTABLE!".) I asked whether wp:BEFORE had been performed, and I had concern that any searching done might have only used one of the names of the place (e.g. searching on Fame City Waterworks but not Fame City would be inadequate). I don't suppose there is a notability guideline specifically about visitor attractions, though perhaps there should be one, and a place costing more than $U.S. 10 million or drawing 1 million people in one year would meet that guideline (i would think, if it existed). In general though, as a visitor attraction, I expect that there is plenty of documentation about it under its original and previous names Fame City and Fame City Waterworks and the Adventure Bay, but not necessarily on-line because it has not existed under those names for a long time now...it is out of the news. cheers, --do ncr am 22:26, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:38, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Renaming the article to "Fame City" to more clearly allow coverage of larger attraction is also possible. I "voted" Keep above. --do ncr am 14:21, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Nakon 19:24, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Cw Johnson[edit]

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

Delete: does not meet threshold for notability as actor. Quis separabit? 03:39, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:16, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:16, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:16, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:52, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Power Rangers Lightspeed Rescue as it seems he is best known for that and he is listed as part of the main cast. Searches at News and Books found nothing significant, and News only found results after two searches (last adding Power Rangers). SwisterTwister talk 02:04, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:36, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - "He is best known for his portrayal of Carter Grayson" . . . in only one episode! That in itself underscores non-notability.--Rpclod (talk) 03:05, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 07:38, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kenneth Joshua Mann[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:NCOLLATH at this time. ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 01:33, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 01:54, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - he played on the 3,368th ranked high school basketball program and now in a division 3 program. Does not meet college athlete notability criteria.--Rpclod (talk) 03:10, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:29, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not currently notable, as per Rpclod. DES ^(talk)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:30, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Looks like a probable vanity article. Doesn't meet GNG. Rikster2 (talk) 03:59, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not pass the notability guidelines or WP:BASKETBALL. Ashbeckjonathan (talk) 13:52, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 07:37, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

South Dakota Gold[edit]

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

This is not a notable basketball team. I wasn't able to find sources that would make this team pass WP:ORG, especially to the depth that WP:ORGDEPTH requires. Tavix | Talk 01:08, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Esquivalience ^t 01:16, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Esquivalience ^t 01:16, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Esquivalience ^t 01:17, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Dakota-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:58, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:54, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unsourced article about a minor league basketball team. 204.126.132.231 (talk) 19:16, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:27, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no references at all, let alone any reliable sources. Article does not support WP:ORGDEPTH notability criteria.--Rpclod (talk) 03:13, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I would've suggested moving to IBA, but as the nominator removed that and nominated the article deletion instead, and now considering multiple searches finding nothing significant and notable (News, Books, highbeam and thefreelibrary), there's nothing to support this not to mention the IBA's article is unreferenced as well. SwisterTwister talk 19:49, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. This article clearly fails WP:BASKETBALL and it has no sources at all which does not prove any notability. Ashbeckjonathan (talk) 14:07, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 09:05, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Parametricism[edit]

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

Promotional article that has resisted cleanup. The refs are exclusively from the originators of the style. The article is full of unsourced judgments about how influential it is--even if they were sourced to the works of the originators, they would not be third party references. DGG ( talk ) 02:37, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and cleanup This does appear to have notability in secondary sources Architect Magazine, Architecture and Design, Arch Daily this sources covers the movement extensively, BD Online, if NPOV is an issue userfy, subject does passes GNG though. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 03:52, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: it seems strange that an article on an architectural style offers no mention of any buildings designed in the style - is it a purely theoretical concept? PamD 07:38, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:37, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: this article has been reviewed by other editors. It has been flagged numerous times, and revised accordingly. Those editors were satisfied that this article meets Wikipedia standards, and removed all their flags. Please review history. As a new contributor and someone who has thoroughly revise this article, I do not understand how this cycle can continue every time a new editor reviews the article. It seems that there is no coordinated effort to put an issue to rest once the criteria has been met. There are no grounds for deleting this article at this time. It discusses a factual movement that is spreading globally since the 1990s. Why is it being flagged for deletion instead of revision? Daniela Gh (talk) 02:27, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Because I think it is written in such a way as to promote the movement, and will not be fixed by normal editing. owing to the persistent use of sources only from the originators of the movement remains. If you can find important publication from outsiders talking about it, then it can be rewritten, to make only claims for importance that can be references to 3rd party independent sources. As Deb pointed out, the apparent fact that it is represented in no actual building , much less a notable building, makes it look like it is not yet notable--and claims that it is so represented will need to be sourced by independent sources also. No individual has control over the content of WP: the community decides in discussions such as this one. This does not continue indefinitely--if it is kept at this discussion, our usual practice is that nobody can relist it for deletion for at least another 6 months, and for a year at least if it kept again. One of the standing problems of WP is that there it is inherent in our basic mode of work here that there is no way to have a stable article. Whether this is a good thing can be questioned, but it is a core working principle. DGG ( talk ) 16:35, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:54, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This article is the opinion of a few people and is not grounded in any historical event to give it legitimacy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bakema (talk • contribs) 21:53, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:24, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep – this nomination fails hard; subject meets WP:GNG. Even if the concept was coined and propagated by one guy, there has been more than sufficient coverage in reliable sources, even if it is being simply evaluated or criticized. This is hardly WP:FRINGE. This book [53] alone (not written by the manifesto guy), along with the two-day conference about it [54] with guests speakers from Yale, Columbia and other institutions, attests its notability. Plenty of other coverage - [55], [56], [57], [58], [59], [60], [61], [62], [63] @Daniela Gh: I understand your confusion - AfD attracts a few people who are sadly and tragicly afflicted by a chronic inability to access Google. Hopefully, one day, there will be a cure for this condition. —Мандичка^YO 😜 02:49, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - All references I find indicate that "parametricism" is a neologism invented and evangelized by one Mr. Schumacher. Wikipedia is not a platform for neologisms.--Rpclod (talk) 03:21, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and copy edit – Passes WP:GNG, having received significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources, such as this research paper, this article, this entire book, Architects Journal, Architects Journal, etc. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:16, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 15:48, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Brailsford & Dunlavey[edit]

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

An AfC submission, where the vast major of the sources in this article do not support, or even mention the subject. In 37 different sources, only one 17 year old news article comes close to passing WP:ORG. Most sources don't discuss the subject significantly if they discuss it at all. It is filled with non independent sources as well, either to there corporate website or to sources they are financially connected to. I have no idea how this got through AfC in its current state. I would also support speedily draftifing the article as well if other editors agree. (Note: Though it should not affect anything, the page creator is a disclosed paid editor who is acting within Wikipedia's policies.) Winner 42 Talk to me! 01:30, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:24, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:25, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:28, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and draft, unfortunately - Multiple searches found nothing particularly significant here, here and here. The article is neat and sourced but with closer examination it's not what it seems as the article could use better significant (and actually in-depth) sources for notability. SwisterTwister talk 19:44, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. (I don't know what "draft" means.) This outfit is just not WP:Notable. Nobody is talking about it nowhere. Sincerely, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 08:00, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Despite having 37 some-odd sources, programmanagers.com is not reliable and many are press releases. If they are notable, it would be better-off with a disinterested editor starting from scratch. CorporateM (Talk) 16:50, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Question The article suffers from citation bombardment, but are any of its sources suitable? If so, I would support returning the article to the draft space; if not, then there's nothing worth saving. Specifically:

The nominator suggests that this article in The Washington Post might count as one towards notabilty. Other editors (e.g. "Nobody ... nowhere") appear to disagree.
If this article in Washington Business Journal does not count towards notability, why not?
Is there a specific objection to this article in Sports Business Journal? It's also from publisher American City Business Journals, but seems intellectually independent from the above.
The oddly named programmanagers.com, being B&D's official website, is clearly not third party, cannot count toward notability, and should not be the source of the bulk of the content. But surely it can be a reliable source for certain information about the company, such as headcount and number of offices, no?

Worldbruce (talk) 19:19, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:BOMBARDMENT with citations is just there to make it more notable than it seems. SilverSurfingSerpant (talk) 14:09, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Of note is that the delete !vote stating "this article has no references, let alone any reliable sources" is not a particularly strong argument for deletion. As per WP:NRVE, topic notability is based upon the availability of reliable sources, rather than the state of sourcing in articles. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:52, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Giuseppe Palmas[edit]

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

Unsourced orphan about someone who's only notability seems to be that he took pictures of celebrities. 3gg5amp1e (talk) 00:54, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:03, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this article has no references, let alone any reliable sources.--Rpclod (talk) 04:43, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:14, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - clearly meets WP:GNG - [64], [65], [66], [67]. FYI 3gg5amp1e notability is notability; Annie Leibovitz only "takes pictures of celebrities." —Мандичка^YO 😜 01:35, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, in addition to the points above, the exhibitions of his works, held decades after his death, keep on being covered in the most important Italian newspapers, eg Corriere della Sera [68], La Repubblica [69], La Stampa [70]. Cavarrone 16:24, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per the above two comments which show that the main notability guideline has been met. Davewild (talk) 07:37, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The sources above evidence notability under BASIC. --j⚛e decker ^talk 15:46, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 07:35, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Leave the Light On (album)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NALBUMS spectacularly. Nothing but a tracklist. Drmies (talk) 04:33, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:45, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:45, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:11, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unfortunately as multiple searches (News, Books, thefreelibrary and highbeam) found nothing significant or notable. SwisterTwister talk 19:40, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Many of the other Buckethead album articles deserve the same fate. Just no real coverage on these to be found. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 17:35, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Goh Hock Guan[edit]

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

Not notable. No Reliable sources. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 07:32, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete-per nom. Though you have to love this bias section: Ar. Goh Hock Guan is undeniable one of the most influential character in Malaysia's architecture industry. His prominent career spans 6 decades and numerous notable projects have been spread across the whole ASEAN country as well as Middle East and Central Asia. He also holds the distinction of being appointed as consultant to numerous heads of government including the first 3 Malaysia's Prime Ministers as well as Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew of Singapore. lol. Wgolf (talk) 19:42, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:55, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:55, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:55, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:53, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Simply no significant and in-depth coverage and searches only found this and this (some of the links say he is "highly qualified and "internationally renowned") and a search at Malaysian Star and Malaysian Sun found nothing. SwisterTwister talk 19:32, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Lodz University of Technology. Davewild (talk) 07:33, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Faculty of Material Technologies and Textile Design of Lodz University of Technology[edit]

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

Does not pass WP:GNG on its own. No independent sources in article. ~~Delete~~ or merge with Lodz University of Technology. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Faculty of Chemistry of Lodz University of Technology. Also see related open AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Faculty of Process and Environmental Engineering of Lodz University of Technology. Jbh ^Talk 14:54, 8 May 2015 (UTC) Struck delete Jbh ^Talk 00:57, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with university article. —Мандичка^YO 😜 15:15, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:16, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:16, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Lodz University of Technology- fails WP:GNG as a single entity, but is notable enough for a section (or at least a few lines) in the bigger article. Joseph2302 (talk) 00:14, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:46, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Lodz University of Technology. Davewild (talk) 07:33, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Faculty of Process and Environmental Engineering of Lodz University of Technology[edit]

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

Does not pass WP:GNG on its own. No independent sources in article. ~~Delete~~ or merge with Lodz University of Technology. See closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Faculty of Chemistry of Lodz University of Technology and related open AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Faculty of Material Technologies and Textile Design of Lodz University of Technology. Jbh ^Talk 14:57, 8 May 2015 (UTC) Jbh ^Talk 14:57, 8 May 2015 (UTC) Struck delete Jbh ^Talk 00:58, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with university article. —Мандичка^YO 😜 15:14, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge instead just redirect, as was done for mentioned Faculty of Chemistry (what resulted in the deletion of all information). Chrumps (talk) 19:39, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please note all of the information is available in the page history. When a redirect is made it is just another version of the page. Nothing is lost. Jbh ^Talk 23:03, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:44, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of minor planets: 1001–2000. Davewild (talk) 07:32, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1890 Konoshenkova[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. Should be deleted or redirected to List of minor planets: 1001–2000 per NASTRO. Boleyn (talk) 16:51, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

tentative keep - This article exists in 20+ Wikipedias which makes me quite hesitant to vote delete. I found some that refer about who it was named for and that it goes around the earth every 5 years or so. How much does it need to establish notability? Elgatodegato (talk) 22:07, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
redir to list. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:21, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:19, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:41, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per WP:NASTRO (WP:NASTCRIT) No significant coverage found on this object itself. Everything on google scholar is a paper listing several asteroids (explicitly mentioned in NASTCRIT #3 as not meeting notability) or otherwise failing to provide significant commentary on the object. ― Padenton|✉ 21:53, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect' per WP:DWMP: insufficient sources available to establish notability. Praemonitus (talk) 16:16, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 07:30, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jaime Watt[edit]

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

Full disclosure: I was an early contributor (possibly even the original creator, but I can't verify that under the circumstances) to this article, over a decade ago when Wikipedia's notability and sourcing rules were very different than they are now. But because watchlisting wasn't a thing Wikipedia had at the time, it wasn't an article that I (or many other administrators) stayed on top of actively monitoring or improving — with the result that a lot of other contributors tarted it up over the years with a lot of unsourced WP:BLP violations. (The content in question was actually an accurate assessment of what he's most known for, but of course that still doesn't make it appropriate for inclusion in Wikipedia if it isn't properly sourced.) So last year it got quite rightly pruned back and oversighted, but at least one anonymous IP is now trying to get the unsourced BLP stuff readded, while citing mainly circular references (i.e. sites that are simply mirroring our own pre-oversighted version) rather than reliable source coverage.

But even more importantly than that, Wikipedia's notability rules for politicians have tightened up considerably over the years — while a decade ago being a backroom staffer in a political administration was often accepted as a legitimate claim of notability in and of itself, that doesn't hold true in 2015. You now have to assert a lot more than the person's mere existence to get them into Wikipedia on that basis — and as things stand now, there's just not enough substance here to claim that he's notable on that basis anymore. (Several of his other colleagues in the Mike Harris campaign team also once had Wikipedia articles, all of which have since been redirected or deleted as lacking adequate sourcing and/or a sufficient notability claim — see Deb Hutton and Leslie Noble for other examples. Watt's is the only article out of that bunch still standing today, even though he's no more inherently notable and no more widely sourceable than any of the others.) In reality, under our current standards for the notability of non-elected backroom political figures, any possibility of his actually being notable enough for a Wikipedia article is entirely dependent on being able to properly source up the very stuff that had to get pruned and oversighted — but even that would really just make him a WP:BLP1E.

What little content about him we actually need can be adequately addressed by simply mentioning his name, unlinked, in the other articles where he's relevant — but we don't need a standalone BLP if we have to violate BLP rules to make him notable enough to have a standalone BLP. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 13:02, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 13:30, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 13:30, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 23:11, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:29, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Simply not notable with no significant or notable coverage and searches here, here, here and here found nothing. SwisterTwister talk 19:16, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 07:28, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mihaela Secrieru[edit]

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

No apparent notability per WP:PROF. The article is entirely unsourced, for one: we have a list of references, but these are fairly meaningless without citations. Any other claims in the article can be discounted, since they're uncited. Other than that, I can discern no particular basis for deeming the subject notable. - Biruitorul ^Talk 14:31, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:20, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:20, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 23:34, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article is essentially a CV for the professor. To gain notability there need evidence of achievements above the norm in the field, such as academic awards of significance or holding a special chair in the university. LaMona (talk) 21:45, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:26, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - can't find anything that supports notability. —Мандичка^YO 😜 23:28, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] ttp://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=2483533

[2] ttps://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=ANT_%28network%29&dir=prev&action=history

[3] ttp://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:mFIdx4v3GDAJ:https://www.nordicsemi.com/content/download/53092/898803+&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

[4] ttp://www.ecritech.com/index.php?page=about&style=1

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]