Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 May 18

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 17 May	19 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 speedied per Deepakramdaspt's request. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:03, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

College of applied science ihrd thamarassery[edit]

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

Seems like an advert to me. I also notice this (presumably the same article) was previously speedily deleted G11. Adam9007 (talk) 23:40, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - I don't even know if this is the correct name, search turns up only Facebook page (with 4 likes), the WP article, and two sites taken from WP —Мандичка^YO 😜 23:47, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've just noticed this is a repost of this article, also an advert (that makes 3). Adam9007 (talk) 00:06, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unfortunately, the article isn't very intelligible and searches found nothing aside from mentions through other Indian school websites. You would think a college is notable but they aren't any good sources though they may be non-English and offline. Nothing at Books, News and Scholar. SwisterTwister talk 03:35, 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 no consensus. Davewild (talk) 17:35, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

St. Joseph Bank Hostage standoff[edit]

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

A tragic event, but clearly not notable. I have seen no news coverage about it even in the days following the shooting, and it seems to be your average run-of-the-mill failed shooting. Libertarian12111971 (talk) 22:14, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - for some bizarre reason I can't open that article, and only that article. I get the message, "Exception encountered, of type "BadMethodCallException"". Anyway no sources indicate long-term coverage other than a local "one year later" article. —Мандичка^YO 😜 23:12, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - @Wikimandia: I got that same message while trying to open an article about C.J. Pearson. I think it could be Wikipedia servers or something. CookieMonster755 (talk) 23:29, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Hm, really? It works fine for me. Libertarian12111971 (talk) 00:29, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Not sure where you're finding a lack of reliable sources, but Google News turns up articles from USA Today, FOX News, and the Huffington Post, all of which are reliable enough to keep this article. The content itself needs a bit of work, but the article is notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ngeaup (talk • contribs) 15:57, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I meant actual news coverage, not online articles. Libertarian12111971 (talk) 18:23, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:PERSISTENCE. This was just another momentary event where coverage dried up very shortly afterwards; the only coverage I found down the road were 1-year-anniversary articles in the local papers. Nha Trang ^Allons! 16:07, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:56, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:56, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:56, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:PERSISTENCE. Quis separabit? 03:04, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Tragic story worthy of separate article. Few events of this kind happen in small communities. It should be preserved for the historical recod convenient for the readers. Billy Hathorn (talk) 02:37, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There was significant coverage in the USA Today, the Associated Press, and Fox News during the event. The subject has received coverage months after the August 2013 event in this article^WebCite from the Associated Press in March 2014 and this article^WebCite from KARD in August 2014. Both later articles provide substantial coverage which overcomes the WP:PERSISTENCE concerns.
Cunard (talk) 06:11, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Passes WP:GNG and has received WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE as per [1], [2], which serves to establish ongoing notability. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:09, 26 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:15, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

BATCH AI[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG Winner 42 Talk to me! 22:07, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG, can't find anything except youtube video about it —Мандичка^YO 😜 23:48, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The article has few details to help search but I searched anyway and found nothing. SwisterTwister talk 03:47, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:54, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No credible claim of significance. If everyone was allowed to put any random software application they wrote on Wikipedia, we'd be fucked. ― Padenton|✉ 01:13, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Software article of unclear notability, lacking independent references. A search turned up no significant WP:RS coverage. Article was created by an SPA as possibly promotional. Dialectric (talk) 17:29, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for 5 more days no evidence of notability. No references to help establish notability. Recommend deleting in 5 days if no improvement. I'm not dead but I am fat (talk) 22:07, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non notable software - Bit pointless recommending deletion in 5 days when it's better off being deleted now!. –Davey2010^Talk 02:58, 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) 17:34, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Charles, Prince of Wales's visit to the west of Ireland[edit]

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

WP:TOOSOON to determine enduring historical significance or widespread (national or international) impact of this single two-day visit per WP:EVENT. Would support userfying or moving this article to draft space until the significance/impact of this event can be demonstrated. Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 21:27, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom; WP:NOTNEWS; no indications this is anything but a news story, even with the Mountbatten connection —Мандичка^YO 😜 23:24, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article Queen Elizabeth II's state visit to the Republic of Ireland exists and does not appear to have been opposed; the reciprocal state visit by the president of Ireland also has an article. If nothing else, there should be an article about all of Charles's visits to Ireland. I don't think this article should be deleted per WP:NOTNEWS. It is not first-hand reporting and the individual involved is notable. What's arguable is whether this is more than a routine event. "Charles, Prince of Wales's visit to the Royal Ascot, 2015" would be routine; I don't think this visit is. If the article is kept, I think "west of Ireland" should be changed to "the Republic of Ireland," and the year should be included. Roches (talk) 01:09, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Roches: You have to judge them as two separate events. First, Queen Elizabeth's visit in 2011 was no doubt historic, as it was the first visit by a monarch since Ireland's independence and was 100 years after the last visit by a monarch. Charles' visit just doesn't have that same notability. Additionally, the success of the Queen's visit arguably led to the Sinn Féin leader agreeing to meet her the next year, which was called historic and a "most significant event." It's too early to tell if Charles' visit will have any effect on UK-Irish relations. —Мандичка^YO 😜 04:51, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Charles has visited Ireland on a number of occasions, as have his siblings. These visits have become routine and are no longer notable. The visit by his mother, on the other hand, was historic and highly notable: she is a monarch; he is not. It is not a state visit; it is not an official visit; it is just a visit. Charles's visit is news, but not encyclopaedically notable. — O'Dea (talk) 08:08, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Considering the visit is only about to take place I am struck by the amount of coverage there has been in advance. The sources demonstrate that it is unusual for a visit to Northern Ireland to be announced that far in advance, never mind to the Republic. The security arrangements and bomb plot have even been covered in The New York Times (before the visit has taken place). [3] [4] The coverage, even in England, uses words like "historic", not the type of word that tends to be given to a routine visit. [5] Contrary to the statement by the person above me, the English media also call it an "official" visit. [6] Other things which make the visit unusual is his visiting the site where his relative was murdered. There is also a first ever meeting with Gerry Adams, a first for Prince Charles but also the first time Adams will have met any member of the British royal family. [7] [8] --Inother (talk) 09:23, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, when is the last time the royals did something and it didn't receive an intense amount of coverage? Everything that happens is technically historic; even if he visits the place of the bombing it seems something of a footnote. Like O'Dea said, it's not his first visit; he's not the head of state or reigning monarch. If this had happened in 1998, before Wikipedia, would we deem it worthy of an article today? —Мандичка^YO 😜 11:40, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Any time Charles goes anywhere new it is "unusual", but "unusual" is not notable enough for a stand-alone article. It is sufficient to dedciate a few sentences to the visit in the article Charles, Prince of Wales. A whole article about one activity of the son of someone important is overkill. — O'Dea (talk) 19:47, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think this is quite an historic visit, and it's not just a case of x royal visits y country. It's another step forward in the peace process with Charles meeting senior individuals involved in The Troubles. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 06:40, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But Charles is not a head of state, and even if he is meeting with notable individuals, notability of the event is not inherited from the participants. It's WP:TOOSOON to say that this visit will have any impact on the peace process. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 14:35, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTDIARY. Maduwanwela (talk) 14:56, 20 May 2015 (UTC)][reply]
Delete: per TOOSOON, NOTDIARY, you name it. Honestly, the royals go lots of places, and the paparazzi dutifully tags along. This is no more "historic" a visit than any other. Nha Trang ^Allons! 16:11, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per TOOSOON, NOTDIARY. Seriously, we don't need articles about individual royal visits. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 16:46, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:51, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:52, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per TOOSOON and NOTDIARY. Snappy (talk) 16:12, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Once upon a time this would have been a notable event, but visits by British royals to the Republic are now routine. Coverage is the same sort of routine stuff that the UK press comes up with every time Charles steps into public. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 15:10, 26 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 (A7) by Bbb23. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 18:28, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hrishikesh Pandey (director)[edit]

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

Subject of the articles fails WP:NACTOR. I can't find the significant coverages in multiple independent reliable sources to establish the subject notability. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 20:49, 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 18. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:14, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 01:41, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 01:41, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Multiple searches at News, Books, highbeam and thefreelibrary found nothing aside from News providing mostly gossip and such. SwisterTwister talk 04:04, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No indication of notability. Mr RD (talk) 14:18, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-Also a auto bio (which the creator of the article did remove that tag I put for it earlier) Wgolf (talk) 04:21, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Vanity page about person with no claim to significance. Created and speedied a few times under different titles, by different similarly-named accounts. See also [[9]]. --bonadea contributions talk 10:47, 24 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) 21:24, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hongbin (singer)[edit]

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

Non notable singer, see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hyuk (South Korean singer) Wgolf (talk) 20:57, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Random86 (talk) 22:45, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Random86 (talk) 22:45, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no reliable sources to establish subject as notable. CookieMonster755 (talk) 23:31, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with the editors above. The page is actually almost insulting to the person, it's so devoid of content.Peachywink (talk) 17:27, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. He is not notable as a singer outside of VIXX. He had a supporting role in Glorious Day (TV series), and if he continues his acting career he may be notable in the future. For now, it's WP:TOOSOON. Random86 (talk) 01:38, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: not notable outside of being a member of the band VIXX which has an article. Fylbecatulous talk 13:09, 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) 21:23, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ken (South Korean singer)[edit]

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

Non notable singer, see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hyuk (South Korean singer) Wgolf (talk) 20:56, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Random86 (talk) 22:43, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Random86 (talk) 22:43, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable. There is almost nothing on this page, and the two sources do not meet credibility standards. Peachywink (talk) 17:49, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: not notable outside of being a member of the band VIXX which has an article. Fylbecatulous talk 13:10, 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) 21:22, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hyuk (South Korean singer)[edit]

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

Had this as a blp prod but seeing refs were added had to do this now-a non notable singer, see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leo (South Korean singer) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ravi (rapper) Wgolf (talk) 20:56, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Random86 (talk) 22:41, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Random86 (talk) 22:41, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete another non notable group member page with very few and/or bad sources used. Peachywink (talk) 17:54, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: also not notable outside of being a member of the band VIXX which has an article. Fylbecatulous talk 13:08, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A non-notable member of a band does not pass WP:GNG with few sources. Cheers! WordSeventeen (talk) 10:39, 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) 21:22, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tehmeena[edit]

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

This was recently on AfD with no consensus, but having done a copyedit, there's nothing to substantiate anything in it that would meet GNG. It is highly likely that this is a vanity article with COI.

There was no source in the article that talked about her upbringing, family, athletic awards, or company as noted in the article. Much of the "sourcing" on the puffery words ("daring", "sexiest") were pic galleries with no substantiating content - one caption said "sexiest" was the subject's own claim, actually, so I removed that claim entirely. The first three hits on her are her site (not updated since 2012), her Twitter, and her Instagram. The Playboy thing seems to be nothing more than being Playboy's "Miss Social" at one point, but I've left it in there because it's locatable information. She doesn't seem to have been on the cover as many Indian sources claimed she was going to be. I think they may have misunderstood what the social contest was about, as there is nothing that even indicates she has ever even been in the magazine. MSJapan (talk) 20:01, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails GNG - the Hindi article has more sources and information (which is probably where the English version got its info) but it's not sufficient coverage. It seems she got some coverage posing for Playboy but it seems like flash in the pan to me —Мандичка^YO 😜 00:30, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 01:47, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 01:48, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A search turns up a lot more pictures of this starlet's rack on various blogs and porn mirrors than substantive coverage. (Come to that, I didn't find ANY substantive coverage.) Now if silicone queens are your cup of tea -- they aren't mine -- yay for you, but that doesn't qualify for a Wikipedia article. Nha Trang ^Allons! 16:22, 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. The comment by NinjaRobotPirate encapsulates the consensus.--Mojo Hand (talk) 15:09, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Town bully[edit]

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

Original research, a combination of plausible and dubious. Unreferenced since 2009 Staszek Lem (talk) 19:53, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Agree with nom. First sniff makes it seem ORish. NickCT (talk) 20:31, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy - I think this could be developed. There are so many references to people being the town bully in film or reality and references to stock characters in the same article, etc, but nothing to support GNG for it be its own article —Мандичка^YO 😜 23:35, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are many on-topic sources available by Google search. The search "town bully murdered movie" is suggested automatically to me, and yields multiple high-quality sources on In Broad Daylight / Ken McElroy case of 1981. I added a bit to the article, including some references and some text from the Wikipedia Ken McElroy article. I oppose "userfy"ing because only mainspace articles attract other editors, and this simply is a notable topic. --doncram 14:16, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- There are many word and phrase we all know what they mean and may be found by google search in thousands hits, but we can write nothing more than a dictionary definition: country hick, copper weight, to name two from very different areas. (And no, "copper weight" is not a random combination; it is an important parameter in PCB manufacturing, and I can easily write a big article about it, similar in structure to the one we are discussing: a definition plus a bunch of examples). Staszek Lem (talk) 17:10, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Complete OR. If someone wants to write an article using good sources and discussing the subject -- as opposed to refs where the term is name-dropped -- great, but this isn't it. Nha Trang ^Allons! 16:25, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The stock character part is original research, and the real-life example is little more than a tacked-on footnote. It's a common enough phrase, and one could probably identify its use in many reliable source to describe individual characters, but to extrapolate from that to a generalized concept would be synthesis. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:09, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:49, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:49, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 02:59, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ed Bassmaster[edit]

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

"YouTube personality", it doesn't seem to me that there are enough reliable/independent sources out there that cover this guy. The Hollywood Reporter article is not enough. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 19:47, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - I don't know. Quick google search finds lots of mentions, some in higher quality RS and a few that give him direct coverage. (see People Magainze, Variety) I think this guy might make WP:GNG. NickCT (talk) 20:38, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - Yes, he may had some mentions here and there on People and Hollywood, but not enough reliable coverage (as Google showed) to establish him as notable. CookieMonster755 (talk) 23:35, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:33, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:34, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The subject passes WP:BASIC. Source examples include: ^[1], ^[2], ^[3], ^[4], ^[5]. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:43, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "NE Philly man is laughmaster of YouTube pranks". Philly.com.
^ "Ed Bassmaster stuck on YouTube?". The News Record.
^ "Who's The King Of YouTube Pranksters? Jack Vale or Ed Bassmaster?". Adweek.
^ "Local YouTube Star Gets His Own Show On CMT". cbslocal.com.
^ "The true annoying glory of wearing Google Glass to the mall". CNET. CBS Interactive.

Keep – Northamerica1000's links meet GNG —Мандичка^YO 😜 07:33, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It looks like there's enough coverage for a decent article. The Philly.com article has some biographical details, and his developing career seems to be covered by Variety and other trade magazines. If he were famous for one viral video, that'd be different, but this looks like sustained interest by reliable sources. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:27, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:47, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: His YouTube channel has over a million subscribers, and considering there's reliable sources, as well as the fact that he'll star in something upcoming, I'm compelled to say keep. SilverSurfingSerpant (talk) 01:59, 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 speedy deleted by DGG per CSD G11 and G4. (non-admin closure) Everymorning talk 00:23, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delhi Institute of Aeronautical Sciences[edit]

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

No reliable independent refs.Fails WP:GNG. Written like an advertisement. Not enough substance here for a rescue Velella ^{Velella Talk} 19:30, 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) 21:20, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lane Drug Stores[edit]

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

Three non-notable companies. None meets GNG; nor do all three together. Epeefleche (talk) 19:26, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking in depth coverage in independent sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:17, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This article meets notability requirements per WP:CORP in general, and in particular per WP:LISTED being that one of the entities dealt with in the article was listed on the New York Stock Exchange. In fact, all entitities dealt with in the article were large and visible businesses and were certainly notable in their time. But they were long defunct by the time the internet came around, which is why it may be difficult to find online sources. You can see in the article itself numerous citations to the Wall Street Journal. Disclosure: I had done research and worked to significantly improve this article before it was nominated for deletion 205.156.84.229 (talk) 16:42, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Per those, the corp still has to meet GNG. Which this does not. We have many pre-internet older companies that meet GNG. This isn't one of them. Epeefleche (talk) 16:47, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:37, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:38, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. 16:48, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. 16:48, 19 May 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.156.84.229 (talk)

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

Delete: There's just no "there" there. WP:LISTED explicitly says that just being listed on the NYSE isn't an automatic pass, and that subjects still need to pass the GNG. It's not enough to claim that sources ought to exist: you have to demonstrate that they DO exist. Nha Trang ^Allons! 16:29, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails GNG. Also, looks like a lame attempt ar promotionalism. Quis separabit? 03:05, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacking some significant coverage as well as blatantly promotional. SilverSurfingSerpent (talk) 16:40, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete None of these 3 places are notable per WP:GNG and WP:CORP. Possibly could add a line in Rexall and Rite Aid Corporation pages about the relevant companies. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:42, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with the delete !vote rationale. I'm not even sure there is sufficient notability even to encumber the other entries with a like on non-notable companies. Epeefleche (talk) 20:00, 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) 21:19, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

P. T. Brent[edit]

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

While there is a lot of information by the subject, there isn't nearly enough coverage about him to pass WP:BIO. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 19:25, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. Search turns up a ton of stuff about PT Brent, the Indonesian company —Мандичка^YO 😜 23:59, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 09:41, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 09:41, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:45, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:45, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete I did find this [10], although Brent may have been affiliated with the publication, which is limited in notability in any event. I ran a Proquest search and found nothing.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:45, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Overall, Patrick Brent is not notable because there's not much significant and notable coverage about him and my searches found some of the same links currently listed aside from a few here and here/here. SwisterTwister talk 07:16, 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) 21:18, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Brooke de Lench[edit]

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

Possibly notable, but so laudatory a promotional article that it needs to be redone from scratch by someone without COI. DGG ( talk ) 19:23, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now - Seems notable but article would need to be totally cleaned up. CookieMonster755 (talk) 23:37, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:44, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:44, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:44, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:44, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Would User:Worthywords be willing to have it moved into userspace, where it could be edited into a semblance of encyclopedic form? E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:30, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I considered trying to clean this up but there really is nothing to keep even though it's not bad enough for G11. SmartSE (talk) 21:26, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As above, remove the spam and there's basically nothing there, fails WP:PROMO, WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:35, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:PROMO and would require a complete WP:TNT if rewritten.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 02:22, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:PROMO; The way it is written now is like an advertisement. SilverSurfingSerpant (talk) 01:53, 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 redirect to List of minor planets: 1001–2000. Davewild (talk) 21:17, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1557 Roehla[edit]

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

I couldn't establish that this meets WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. I think it should be deleted or (preferably) redirected to List of minor planets: 1001-2000. Boleyn (talk) 19:12, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:47, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per WP:DWMP: Nothing much found on Google Scholar. Praemonitus (talk) 15:45, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. The only thing I found for it was inclusion in a list of possible observation targets, far from enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:23, 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 redirect to Axact. Clear consensus that a separate article is not merited here, but no clear consensus between redirect or delete. Given this and that many of the deletes do not argue against a redirect am closing as redirect. Davewild (talk) 21:30, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Paramount California University[edit]

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

Lack of reliable independent secondary sources per WP:ORG and WP:HOAX. All of the cited sources are self-published, or in the case of the University Herald, not of sufficient reputation for fact-checking. The sole reliable source is a NY Times article including PCU on a long list of universities that are likely fictitious. This is not significant coverage signaling that PCU is a notable hoax. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:09, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - not a pure hoax in the Wikipedia sense, but the university itself is a scam. It's a degree mill; not accredited nationally or regionally. —Мандичка^YO 😜 19:30, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~conditional keep~~, if it is possible to reliably expand description of being a degree mill. People need to know about scams. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:58, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- delete (changed the vote) no independent sources. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:02, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Seems like a scam which is not notable for Wikipedia. CookieMonster755 (talk) 23:41, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - also of note is that this was created by a SPA who contributed an article (now deleted) about another scam school - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Upper State New York University USNYU —Мандичка^YO 😜 00:48, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as a scam university. The Snowager-is awake 02:05, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:28, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:28, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Axact covered only by NYT, and "university"/Axact-controlled websites with the latter being completely untrustworthy even as SPS'es. Abecedare (talk) 18:44, 19 May 2015 (UTC) (minor ce to add "only" and "and" for clarity. Abecedare (talk) 05:04, 20 May 2015 (UTC))[reply]

Found another source: "Even canines can get degrees". Daily Tribune. 8 March 2015. that talks about a dog getting an MBA from Rochville University and a journalist being offered a PhD from Paramount California University for hefty fees (and being harassed by phone calls). But the coverage is still too minor to merit an independent article. Abecedare (talk) 18:49, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good thought. I support the redirect. In fact I'm hitting myself for not coming up with this idea myself, as I could have WP:BLARred and avoided this AfD. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:47, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Abecedare - note that we don't delete things simply for being (real-world) hoaxes. ansh 666 04:22, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete-PCU is registered with the State of California and gives clear addresses to their locations in California which gives some transparency. They also have an ".edu" domain which is only granted after meeting Educause requirements. PCU and Axact could be one in the same or could be just an affiliation. I don't think redirecting the article is appropriate unless there is concrete evidence that they are one and the same. My apologies to the admin. for my earlier edits as it was not my attempt to be disruptive or to derail the article.Kohpatmay (talk) 10:21, 20 May 2015 (UTC) — Kohpatmay (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Speedy delete Hoax university, that clearly isn't notable, and this article is just a advert. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:28, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Axact -- perhaps it's not notable on its own, but readers searching for it will be well served by being directed to the article on the parent company. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:37, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete Non-notable degree mill; and per WP:ADMASQ ukexpat (talk) 12:32, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No solid evidence that PCU is affiliated with this IT company. All the schools that are listed on the NY Times article do not have edu domains. PCU is the only one of all 370 schools that holds a edu through educause which you have to prove that you are a legit university in order to receive an edu. Their Business License is currently active in Irvine California. You can type in Paramount California University in the search field -->https://secure.cityofirvine.org/websearch/

https://secure.cityofirvine.org/webreport/?webReportGridChangePage=393_50

Further, when you search their Domain, it comes up with a physical address. I've searched on Linkedin and there are a lot of alumni's in which some who are in high positions including law enforcement

Although they're not accredited by Chea, It's not a SCAM or Hoax as some have claimed. Please be advised that accreditation is "Voluntary" in the United States and universities have the right to not apply. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Univers1111 (talk • contribs) 15:40, 20 May 2015 (UTC) — Univers1111 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep. Delete. It is a bogus university, and Wikipedia provides a valuable service by making this clear. Which it can effectively do by a redirect to Axact. Maproom (talk) 22:04, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and edit significantly. Being a scam (as opposed to a hoax in the WP sense) is not a reason to delete, much less speedy delete. The NYT article and the Daily Tribune article are enough to make this a notable scam, and there is probably more coverage out there. Facts from those articles should be added, and the purely promotional aspects of the current article removed, but that is just normal editing. DES ^(talk) 22:16, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A Redirect would also be reasonable. DES ^(talk) 22:17, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Daily Tribune? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:45, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See this section I just added for consideration by AFD voters (since the Daily Tribune article is not freely accessible online). Still believe that the Paramount California University is better off redirected to Axact since that section is the only reliably sourced content we have on PCU, which is pretty meager and a reader is better of reading the Axact article. Abecedare (talk) 00:54, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- It may be better off being redirected if there is proof that PCU and Axact are the same. If the decision is being made on these two articles that are less than a week old, then the article should be deleted and maybe re posted at a later date with addendum's.Kohpatmay (talk) 01:10, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- If the Tribune article is not accessible then it shouldn't be used as source of information. Also, this was an opinion by the Tribune to conclude that PCU is a "Diploma Mill" and not hard facts. If the reporter would have paid and received the degree within a month, then that would be hard facts. This is not the case. It may be better if you either delete the article or remove the "Tribune" information as it's not accessible to the reader. Also, quoting an expert is not enough as well. Who is the expert that quoted this information? It doesn't say. The NY Times article just came out 3 days ago and Axact is being investigated. It would be better to monitor this page until real hard facts conclude that PCU is in fact a "Diploma Mill" and affiliated with Axact. Moreover, as you can see things are starting to unfold. We should not jump to conclusions just because it's the NY Times. They can be wrong as well. Here's the most up to date information on the Axact situation ->http://tribune.com.pk/story/889849/axact-gate-probe-foreign-experts-might-be-called-in-for-help-says-nisar/ Univers1111 (talk) 09:43, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:SOURCEACCESS -- a source does not have to be available on line. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:24, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- PCU is also affiliated with California University FCE which is registered with Educause Id#198820 http://cufce.org/affiliatedinstitutions.htm Kohpatmay (talk) 04:16, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"California University FCE" is likely to be another fraudulent accreditation agency run by Axact. Till a couple of weeks back their webpage was a subpage of the Paramount California University website. See here. Abecedare (talk) 04:50, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not in any way reliable. The Dept. of Education removed CUFCE from its "Education Resource Organizations Directory" in 2010 after it was discovered that CUFCE was issuing fake college diplomas for $100. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:22, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep – Received significant coverage, particularly mention in the New York Times for its scam, which indicates notability. SilverSurfingSerpent (talk) 16:51, 25 May 2015 (UTC) Sockpuppet vote struck.[reply]

Please see WP:ORGDEPTH. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:42, 26 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) 21:16, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1883 Rimito[edit]

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

I couldn't establish that this meets WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. I think it should be deleted or (preferably) redirected to List of minor planets: 1001-2000. Boleyn (talk) 19:11, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:48, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per WP:DWMP: insufficient sources found to establish notability. Praemonitus (talk) 15:44, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Very little found on Google scholar. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:25, 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 redirect to List of minor planets: 1001–2000#501. (non-admin closure) Mr. Guye (talk) 23:47, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1577 Reiss[edit]

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

I couldn't establish that this meets WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. I think it should be deleted or (preferably) redirected to List of minor planets: 1001-2000. Boleyn (talk) 19:10, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:48, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Redirect per WP:DWMP: One photometry study found,[11] consisting of a rotation period and amplitude with little other information. There is also a study of multiple inner belt asteroids, but all that had was a data entry.[12] Praemonitus (talk) 15:39, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. My findings match those of Praemonitus. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:05, 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 redirect to List of minor planets: 1001–2000. Davewild (talk) 21:15, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1839 Ragazza[edit]

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

I couldn't establish that this meets WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. I think it should be deleted or (preferably) redirected to List of minor planets: 1001-2000. Boleyn (talk) 19:09, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:48, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per WP:DWMP: insufficient sources available to establish notability. Praemonitus (talk) 15:32, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Nothing of interest found on Google scholar. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:36, 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 keep. Davewild (talk) 21:13, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of Norwegian actors[edit]

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

Random, unsourced list of names. Unsourced lists like this one are one of the worst parts of Wikipedia, as they are normally compiled by fans, selfpromotion and users with a period bias. As the public confidence in Wikipedia is growing, such random lists should be removed. This list is not better nor worse than other lists, but for every name here it is possible to ask "why him/her, and not NN as well or instead." Until a proper source is given, any edits to the list during this deletion discussion will be as random and futile as earlier edits. Orland (talk) 18:52, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

keep. Well-defined subject of the list. I agree they are poorly maintained, but information is verifiable. Wikipedia lists of this kind typically don't require refs, since information is easily verified from articles listed. The list does require cleanup, but this is a weak spot of wikipedians, not of the list itself. For starters, I am removing all red links. The rest of objections based of NPOV-type arguments are baseless: the list is supposed to list all eligible actors, and the question "why not NN as well" is easily answered: "if you are so jealous, if bio passes wikipedia notability criteria, why don't you write an article and list it here" Staszek Lem (talk) 20:07, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- From my point of view, this information is not verifiable. If this list only is ment to duplicate the category, then it is surpluous. The verification you refer to, is the kind of verification that justifies the presence of each name, but it cannot verify the list as such, and whether it is representative and properly balanced. (If it not balanced, then it is merely a WP:INDISCRIMINATE and random list. And yes: it could be expanded or sourced in the future, but it is in the nature of a AfD-debate to consider the article as is). Orland (talk) 21:06, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep IF something more than their names is included, otherwise it's no better than a category with extra maintenance required. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:16, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:49, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:50, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:50, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Qualifies per WP:NOTDUP relative to Category:Norwegian actors and subcategories therein. Easily expandable with descriptions, sources, images, etc. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:52, 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:05, 30 May 2015 (UTC) Expanded to explain the rationale: The clear preponderance of opinion was that this was REDUNDANT and a POV fork. The keep arguments disagreed but didn't, imo, provide a strong enough case that should suggest that the majority opinion should not count. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:59, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of civilian massacres attributed to the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam[edit]

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

WP:POVFORK. All content of this list can be found on List of attacks attributed to the LTTE. obi2canibe^{talk contr} 18:52, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Civilian Massacres of Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka spans over three decades and is a notable subject, which should be covered by a separate page in enwiki. WP:RELART applies here and it is a related article to the List of attacks attributed to the LTTE. A similar situation exists in the wiki pages that covers wolf attacks, List of wolf attacks and List of wolf attacks in North America. ( P. S. Additional similar examples and explanation are given in the bottom of this page.) --LahiruG^talk 03:28, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RELART applies to related articles with significant amount of information in common with one another. That is not the case with List of civilian massacres attributed to the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam where all the information is contained within List of attacks attributed to the LTTE - this is WP:REDUNDANT and WP:POVFORK. The liberal use of "terrorist" (violation of WP:TERRORIST), linking to Sinhalese extremist sites (sinhaya.com and 3rdvoice.wordpress.com) which are the inspiration for this list, and relying almost entirely on Daily News/Sunday Observer, state-owned anti-LTTE newspapers, for sources all point to this list being a POVFORK.

List of wolf attacks and List of wolf attacks in North America are not similar to this case because List of wolf attacks in North America contains several entries that do not appear on List of wolf attacks. Every entry on List of civilian massacres attributed to the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam appears on List of attacks attributed to the LTTE.--obi2canibe^{talk contr} 20:06, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All the sources used in this article are acceptable and reliable sources according to the project page Wikipedia:WikiProject Sri Lanka Reconciliation/Sources. The External links used in this article may be extremist sites in your POV but for a neutral person, it is clear that all the incidents mentioned in those pages are true and can be verified with RS as it is the case with the page we are discussing about. Further, read WP:SPINOFF and WP:SUMMARY to understand why this article is not REDUNDANT or POVFORK, unless you probably have a COI about the LTTE or about the Sri Lankan War. --LahiruG^talk 10:25, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SPINOFF and WP:SUMMARY clearly state that once an article has been split the main/parent article should only contain a brief summary. That is not the case in this instance because every entry on List of civilian massacres attributed to the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam appears on List of attacks attributed to the LTTE.--obi2canibe^{talk contr} 10:10, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keeping lists in Wikipedia is more liberal than the other general articles with application of POVFORK / REDUNDANT policies. I have explain at the bottom of this page how redundant multiple articles on different subjects are used to provide useful information with ease of navigation to the users. Usually a list contains a group of incidents or a group of names and removing a good chunk of a list that is kept in chronological order to keep up with WP:SUMMARY will reduce the value of a list vastly. Hence there is no necessity to remove the civilian massacre incidents in List of Attacks of LTTE page, to keep a list of civillian massacres attributed to LTTE. This list of civilian massacres of Tamil Tigers distinguishes it self being a different subset of the large group of List of Attacks attributed to the LTTE. Though you seems to be very keen on deleting articles which hurts the Tamil Tigers (I have noticed it in many occasions over the last few years), you should not forget that Wikipedia is not censored to cover-up crimes of certain set of terrorist group who has set very very bad examples to the other newer groups which have similar mindsets.

In my view this list passes requirements such as WP:GNG, WP:VERIFY, WP:SYNTH, WP:OR etc. to stay in Wikipedia and it will be highly useful for the people who search for a reliable article to read about civilian massacres of LTTE in the internet. --LahiruG^talk 05:59, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What value, other than serving as propaganda, does having two articles with same information add?--obi2canibe^{talk contr} 11:35, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is not having articles on the same subject, list of civilian massacres and list of attacks of LTTE are different but related topics. The list of civilian massacres does not include incidents where civilians died when the target was a political leader or Military personnel. For an example when LTTE assassinated presidential candidate Gamini Dissanayake by a female suicide bomber when he was in a political rally in 1994, around 50 other people died. But that incident is not included the list of civilian massacres, because the intention of the LTTE was not to massacre civilians. In my view it is not me who is having a propaganda issue here. People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. --LahiruG^talk 10:52, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

They are not different, they are the same. List of attacks attributed to the LTTE contains every entry which appears on List of civilian massacres attributed to the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam. Additional, the former's lede states that it includes massacres.--obi2canibe^{talk contr} 10:57, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If they are not different, then what is the difference you identify between List of massacres in Sri Lanka and List of civilian massacres attributed to Sri Lankan government forces ? Since all the incidents that appear in the second list were happened in Sri Lanka, all of those entries are eligible to appear in the first article. I'm afraid, the argument to delete this page on POVFORK/Redundancy is incorrect. --LahiruG^talk 08:56, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete redundant. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:23, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per WP:RELART. List of attacks attributed to the LTTE includes attacks on security personals, political assassinations, executions of POWs etc. List of civilian massacres is a distinct, at the same time an important topic for a militant group who waged a violent campaign to create a monoethnic independent state. It provides valuable, topic related information without having to go though a very long list in List of attacks attributed to the LTTE . As far as i can see the content is sourced. (didn't check them individually though) In my opinion this is not a POV fork. Thanks. Nishadhi (talk) 12:08, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If List of attacks attributed to the LTTE is too long, which it is by the standards of WP:SPLIT, then it should be split. Once an article is split you don't keep all the information in the original article - that is WP:REDUNDANT and, in this case, WP:POVFORK.--obi2canibe^{talk contr} 20:06, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete redundant. Though there is a justification why it can't be there when List of civilian massacres attributed to Sri Lankan government forces is there; there is no enough justification why it should be there when List of attacks attributed to the LTTE is there.Lapmaster (talk) 07:35, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The difference with List of civilian massacres attributed to Sri Lankan government forces is that there is no other article which contains all information contained in it i.e there is no List of attacks attributed to the Sri Lankan government forces.--obi2canibe^{talk contr} 20:06, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:LISTN and WP:LISTPURP. Qualifies for a Stand-alone list with providing valuable information on a subject that has been discussed as a group. Maduwanwela (talk) 15:26, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Just plain redundant, and honestly, the only reason I can think of for splitting this one off is to provide more lurid titles for propaganda purposes. I'm not impressed by WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS arguments. Nha Trang ^Allons! 16:34, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:33, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:33, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:33, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:33, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:33, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:33, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete redundant. --Kanags (talk) 09:37, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete redundant. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 12:59, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@All the users who voted to delete the page on Redundancy : Redundancy is not a critical reason to delete a list in Wikipedia. While Civilian massacres of LTTE is a notable subject, it is also a subset of List of Attacks of LTTE, which is a larger topic which includes massacres of POW, political assassinations, attacks to the military personnel and suicide bombings etc. Multiple redundant lists are seen as useful aids for navigation and they also provide help with sorting in ways that aids users. There are many cases in Wikipedia, where redundant lists are providing valuable information to the users in different ways. I have given below some examples.

(i) List of French NBA players and List of Croatian NBA players are subsets of larger List of foreign NBA players. But all three lists are useful to the users who navigate Wikipedia to find different information on foreign NBA players.

(ii) List of living centenarians and List of oldest living people are subgroups of Oldest people and List of centenarians. Although there is redundancy, all those lists provide useful information. Additionally there are other related articles such as List of the verified oldest men and List of the verified oldest women which are subsets of List of the verified oldest people.

(iii) For the readers who need information on German poetry there is a List of German poets. Similarly there are List of English poets and List of French poets. All these pages are subgroups of the page List of poets.

Hence, it can be clearly understand that why provision of lists does not depends on redundancy in Wikepedia, while there are other critical policies that decides which lists gets to stay. This list easily passes WP:LIST being a notable, encyclopedic, verifiable, unoriginal and different list. Thank you.--LahiruG^talk 04:49, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(i) List of French NBA players and List of Croatian NBA players each contain entries that do not appear on List of foreign NBA players and are therefore not redundant.

(ii) Oldest people and Lists of centenarians show how articles should be split. They contain brief summaries and provide links to child articles which contain more detail. List of living centenarians is the child article of Lists of centenarians which contains no entries, just links to its child articles. Similarly, List of oldest living people is the child article of Oldest people which only contains brief summaries - it does not contain every entry on the former list. Therefore they are not redundant.

(iii) List of English-language poets, List of French-language poets and List of German-language poets each contain numerous entries that do not appear on List of poets and are therefore not redundant.--obi2canibe^{talk contr} 11:30, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I 'll further explain it to you, when a French basketball player plays in the National Basketball Association, he becomes a French NBA player and his name is eligible to appear in the List of French NBA players. Since he is from a foreign country his name is also eligible to appear in the List of foreign NBA players. For an example if Tony Parker's name is missing in either of the lists, it is a missing entry and it should be added to the relevant place. Similarly if a centenarian named X is still alive, he is eligible to appear in the both lists, List of living centenarians and Lists of centenarians. Since the list of centenarians is divided according to the occupation, X should appear in the relevant list of occupation. Existence of articles such as List of French NBA players or List of living centenarians is not content forking, because those pages are providing information and navigational ease on a subject that is notable and useful. It is the same with List of civilian massacres attributed to the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam too. --LahiruG^talk 10:28, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're deliberately evading the point. Although an entry may be eligible to appear on both parent and child articles, when an article is split, like Lists of centenarians, most entries, if not all entries, do not appear on the parent article. That is not the case in this instance because every entry on the child article (List of civilian massacres attributed to the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam) appears on the parent article (List of attacks attributed to the LTTE). That is redundancy and POVFORK.

Did you bother to even look at Lists of centenarians before you commented? It doesn't have a single entry, just links to its child articles.--obi2canibe^{talk contr} 10:51, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is not me who is deliberately evading the point. I have given enough examples already to understand the principle. No point in discussing the same thing over and over again --LahiruG^talk 10:55, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per obi2canibe and WP:REDUNDANT and WP:POVFORK .The article is already covered in List of attacks attributed to the LTTE.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:24, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry this page is a different, but a related article to the List of attacks attributed to the LTTE. WP:RELART applies here and it is only covering civilian massacres where LTTE targeted the innocent civilians. For an example this list does not include the 1998 Temple of the Tooth attack where some civilians died, because LTTE's target and intention was different. And there is also an existing article in English Wikipedia named List of civilian massacres attributed to Sri Lankan government forces. Wikipedia rules and policies should be universal and consistent to all the human beings. They should not be bended and amended to please the users who have higher edit counts. Thank you. --LahiruG^talk 04:41, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The list is obviously a related one but there is a lack of distinction throughout all these related articles. The List of attacks attributed to the LTTE article is a full chronological list of attacks (which should be spun off as it is too long), while this one lists a certain type of attack. As per suggested above, I'd also defend the creation of a separate list for Assassination attacks, suicide bombings etc. as these are all a notable type of attacks carried out over three decades. List of attacks attributed to the LTTE, as a chronological account would of course have to mention every event, and would inevitably have duplication, however that does not make this list redundant. This issue can be solved with some editing. --Blackknight12 (talk) 15:12, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as redundant. If we really need to categorise different sorts of atrocities, that can be done at List of attacks attributed to the LTTE rather than playing silly nationalism games with sensationalist article titles. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:30, 30 May 2015 (UTC).[reply]

If this is a sensationalist article title, then what about these titles, List of massacres attributed to Sri Lankan government forces, 1958 anti-Tamil pogrom etc. ? Don't forget that Neutral point of view is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia and it is one of Wikipedia's three core content policies. What is the rationale you support to delete this article on redundancy, when there is a List of civilian massacres attributed to Sri Lankan government forces, which has entries that can be covered by List of massacres in Sri Lanka ? In addition to that, the same user who has nominated to delete this article on redundancy/povfork created the article List of the oldest schools in Sri Lanka, when there is already a List of schools in Sri Lanka. Similarly there is difference between civilian massacres with political assassinations, military attacks etc. Wikipedia should not treat two sets of massacres attributed to two sides of a conflict in two different ways. Otherwise Wikipedia will lose it's reputation as a neutral source of information, if the personal POVs of privileged users take precedence over fundamental principles of Wikipedia, specially when it comes to making important decisions such as AFDs. Thank you. --LahiruG^talk 04:38, 30 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 as A10 (deleted by User:Tokygirl79) (non-admin closure). SwisterTwister talk 01:05, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bakugan how to play[edit]

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

WP:NOTHOWTO Amortias (T)(C) 18:34, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not a proper article (topic). — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 18:40, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unencyclopedic topic. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 19:06, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clear violation of WP:NOT per nom. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 20:11, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball Delete Staszek Lem (talk) 21:05, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Clear Delete as a game guide article, contrary to WP:NOT. Looks like snow. DES ^(talk) 21:59, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Not only is it a how-to, but it seems to duplicate this, therefore it meets speedy deletion criterion A10. Adam9007 (talk) 23:19, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, no evidence of notability —Мандичка^YO 😜 23:54, 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. The award win is at best shared and arguably not for him but the album. Given that there is no argument refuting that this BLP currently fails the GNG/N then I feel the award based keep votes cannot prevail against wider consensus the BLPs must be properly sourced. When an SNG is in tension with N it's normally the SNG that gives way. Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:13, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Sullivan[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:NMUSIC. The only claim to notability is that they produced (some of) a grammy-winning record, but that's insufficient to meet NMUSIC. My searches for other sources to meet BIO didn't find anything suitable. SmartSE (talk) 17:42, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unable to find any coverage to establish notability whatsoever. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC. APerson (talk!) 18:09, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - search revealed nothing besides the knowledge there are about 5 million people named Eric Sullivan —Мандичка^YO 😜 05:11, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I just left a note at the article's talkpage -- it's unclear to me at this time whether he won the Grammy or not. It's also unclear by WP:NMUSIC if a producer's Grammy (as opposed to the album artist) makes him notable. — Brianhe (talk) 19:04, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Strong Keep~~Comment:-Subject of the article is a Grammy Award winning producer. He won the Grammy Award for Best New Age Album for the music album Love's River in the 56th Annual Grammy Awards. Producers are notable for the works they produces. He had produced several notable musical albums and songs such as Back to Forever and Love's River, that earn him the Grammy Award for Best New Age Album alongside with is wife, Laura Sullivan per Grammy Awards official website. The subject of the article was credited here for Back to Forever by AllMusic which make him to probably pass WP:COMPOSER#1. In addition to passing WP:NMUSIC, the subject of the article also meet WP:CREATIVE#3 which stipulated that a person is notable if the "The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work". I think a producer of such notable work qualify under this criterion. He also meet WP:COMPOSER#Other criterion 5 which stipulated that a person is notable. If he "Has been a significant musical influence on a musician or composer that meet WP:COMPOSER. He is the manager. And producer of Laura Sullivan, award-winning songs [13], [14]. This influence should satisfied the aforementioned criterion. I think the above two "delete votes" is based on ~~WP:LEADER~~. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 01:11, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Sounds like the above voter's relying heavily on the old standbys of The Criteria Mean What I Want Them To Mean and Notability Is What I Think Is Important. This guy is one of several "producers" listed in the album's article, so claiming that he had a unique and mighty contribution to it's a bit much. (And while we're at it? WP:LEADER? Is it that outrageous that people are voting their minds, and that their opinions differ from yours?) Nha Trang ^Allons! 17:05, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Don't take it personal, I don't mean it as such. Apology to Wikimandia and APerson. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 17:30, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As my comment should indicate, I actually searched. Also, Wikicology, the search you linked to above at grammy.com is for Eric Clapton, not Eric Sullivan. I do see how he is listed as a producer for an album that won a Grammy, but I'm not quite sure if that means he and other people who contributed to it are also considered Grammy winners. If we can confirm that's the case, I'll gladly change my vote. —Мандичка^YO 😜 21:22, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:30, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:30, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:30, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Eric indeed won a Grammy and it can be seen here (although it has "eric+clapton" in the link - do not know why) under year 2013. Laura Sullivan (composer) won it as an artist, while Eric won it as a producer. It's pretty obvious and stated on the official Grammy website. --BiH (talk) 21:03, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Add to previous: "Since 1992 the award has been presented as Best New Age Album. Beginning in 2001, award recipients included the producers, engineers, and/or mixers associated with the nominated work in addition to the recording artists." This fact is referenced on Wikipedia in the second paragraph (last sentence) on this article. --BiH (talk) 16:36, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: failure of notability. SilverSurfingSerpant (talk) 01:57, 25 May 2015 (UTC) struck indef blocked sockpuppet vote. Kraxler (talk) 00:16, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep They've won a Grammy, that's notable enough in itself. Joseph2302 (talk) 02:00, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He won a Grammy as can be seen here. Passes WP:ANYBIO #1. I believe the Grammy is one of the most well-known awards and is considered significant enough under this guideline. Another mention is here. Kraxler (talk) 00:16, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, "won a grammy" is gilding the lily just a little bit. He produced an album which won "Best New Age Album". The album won the grammy, not the subject of this article. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:26, 30 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) 21:11, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bradley Kay[edit]

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

This article purports to be about Bradley Kay but is in fact almost entirely about the company SS+K - and the claims of notability are for that company too. When the coat-rack article about SS+K is stripped out, what remains is a seriously under-referenced biography about a businessman who is apparently successful but fails to meet notability guidelines. RichardOSmith (talk) 17:33, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Agree with nomination. reddogsix (talk) 17:36, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
reddogsix, like you, I agree with the nomination and have voted below to delete this article. However, would it be possible for you to clarify your position on the article per WP:PERNOM, so that the closing admin can see the policy-based consensus more clearly? APerson (talk!) 18:14, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Just edited article to remove SS+K peacocking as noted by RichardOSmith. Skydog10291971 (talk)
Moved below nomination statement; added a bolded "Comment:" at the beginning. APerson (talk!) 18:10, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unable to find any sources which establish notability. Fails WP:GNG. APerson (talk!) 18:13, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clearly a puff piece solely for advertising. PureRED (talk) 18:42, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:29, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:30, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:30, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Absolutely non-notable with searches finding nothing better (and one of the links currently included) aside from this at Books and this Adweek 2008 article. SwisterTwister talk 07:02, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Very non-notable, written like an advertisement. SilverSurfingSerpent (talk) 16:35, 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 redirect to Spikers' Turf 1st Season Open Conference. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 03:02, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of Spikers' Turf teams[edit]

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

unsourced spinoff article of a league that started a month ago Gaijin42 (talk) 17:17, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not notable in any way —Мандичка^YO 😜 23:55, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:26, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:26, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:26, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete link to Spikers' Turf, as content already exists in the mother article (w/c means it can't be merged anymore). I dunno why a league of eight teams in its first season has to have a separate article for a list of teams. As for notability, all games are shown on national TV so it's notable. –H T D 03:48, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Spikers' Turf. The league is very new and none of the teams have any individual notability (the league is though; it's been covered in reliable sources such as newspapers). Still, redirects are cheap, and searching for a list of the league's team is plausible. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 10:39, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Spikers' Turf 1st Season Open Conference as apparently there's also a roster of teams there. As for teams "none of the teams have any individual notability", that's almost certainly false. If there's TV coverage, it's notable enough. This is not your village league, it's shown on TV, albeit delayed. The teams are notable; season (or tournament rosters) are usually not done in this fashion though, but they're usually always in the team season articles and unlike articles for individual teams, articles for individual seasons of teams might be a bit of stretch for this league. They could be added in the season (or tournament) pages though. –H T D 14:44, 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) 21:10, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kolkata Suburban Time Table[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a mass transit information kiosk. Fails WP:GNG. See WP:NOTYELLOW and WP:NOTGUIDE. Jbh ^Talk 16:49, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for the reasons given and as expanded at WP:NOTTIMETABLE. RichardOSmith (talk) 18:18, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not timetable —Мандичка^YO 😜 18:57, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:21, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:21, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:22, 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 redirect to College World Series Most Outstanding Player. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 00:38, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ray VanCleef[edit]

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

Non-notable individual, fails GNG and BASE/N. I would be okay with a redirect to College World Series Most Outstanding Player per the precedent established here and here. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 14:58, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 14:59, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 14:59, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 15:01, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. Now that the precedent has been established you really should just redirect the articles instead of bringing them to AFD if there are other similar ones out there. If someone objects then you can bring it here. Spanneraol (talk) 15:11, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep His body of work and accomplishments make him notable. Alex (talk) 18:08, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And this is why I don't simply redirect these. Alex, could you be a little more specific? Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 18:13, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How many people have been All-Americans twice and won a College World Series Most Valuable Player? Alex (talk) 18:23, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Does that make him notable by any standard other than your personal opinion? Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 18:34, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Guidelines are just guidelines, notability isn't concrete or set in stone. Plus, have you considered actually looking up sources (which, I imagine, you rarely do)? I'm finding plenty just on the abstracts from sites like newspapers.com. Alex (talk) 18:36, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How would you know whether or not I look up sources? Do you work for the NSA? Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 18:39, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Judging by your past AfDs, what you consider "checking for sources" is just looking at the first page of Google returns. Alex (talk) 23:02, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are incorrect. I do not feel any obligation to further defend and/or explain my methods of checking for sources to you, especially since you aren't going to listen anyway. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 04:35, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Guidelines are indeed guidelines, and they're not set in stone. And in order to set them aside, we need to see some frigging seriously compelling arguments. "His body of work and accomplishments make him notable" isn't one. For all you claim that you've got "plenty" from newspapers.com, Alex, I see you posted just one link, routine sports coverage from a small local paper. Where are the rest? Nha Trang ^Allons! 17:33, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Behind a $79 a year Newspapers.com subscription that I'm not going to pay. Alex (talk) 20:34, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - So Alexsautographs, how about we let this and others like it get redirected. I doubt you will get a consensus to keep these without showing some significant sources anyway. A redirect would preseve the history and if (inexpensive) sources do turn up in the future it will be easy enough to reverse the redirect and add the sources. Forcing all of these to come to AfD just wastes time and risks the articles getting deleted altogether, with little chance of a keep. If you want to reverse the redirect and add sources, I don't think anyone will have a problem with that but until then there is little point arguing over them. Rlendog (talk) 21:34, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Great, Alex, but if you don't actually have a newspapers.com subscription, could I ask exactly where you got these links you claim exist are from, and how you managed to review them to ensure they're good cites? Because if you can't actually get at them, I've got to question whether they exist at all. Nha Trang ^Allons! 18:54, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Why delete and not redirect when there is a perfectly appropriate redirect target? Rlendog (talk) 21:35, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to College World Series Most Outstanding Player. If signifciant sources turn up the redirect can always be reversed and the new material added. Rlendog (talk) 21:06, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect if you want. The newspapers.com sources are all very much routine coverage. Only a handful of sources noted him beyond one sentence. Wizardman 15:39, 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. Nomination withdrawn. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 06:27, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oru Second Class Yathra[edit]

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

Subject of the article fails WP:NFILM. I can't find the significant coverages in multiple independent reliable sources to establish the subject notability. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 14:54, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No attempt made to provide references. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 19:44, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:05, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:05, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:INDAFD: Oru Second Class Yathra

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

Keep per meeting WP:NF. The author's failing to expand and source this new article is sad, but it took but a mere 6 minutes to make it more presentable. Per WP:NRVE, WP:SOFIXIT and WP:SEP this meets inclusion criteria, and while it was originally pretty sparse, it needing work is a more reason to encourage improvements than it is to ask for deletion. Who else used WP:BEFORE to find significant coverage before opining? I quickly found Times of India Now Running Internationa Business Times The Hindu Indiaglitz and many, many more. Just how much more WP:SIGCOV is being expected here? Wikicology, RHaworth? Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 12:52, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination withdrawn:- I withdraw my nomination to Keep this article since its notability as been established.Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 06:27, 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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:23, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Satellite rights of SunTV[edit]

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

Unsourced, unencyclopedic, subjective, aside from the fact that nobody really needs something like this. Prose and infobox taken from Sun TV (India). Veera Dheera Sooran (talk) 14:11, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:26, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:26, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - pure promotion —Мандичка^YO 😜 00:00, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Should be titled "List of films aired by SunTV", but considering the voluminous output of Kollywood, it's highly doubtful this can either be concise, complete or well-sourced. Nate • (chatter) 03:56, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Sun TV (India). Sun TV page also needs improvement. Mr RD (talk) 14:20, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:IINFO. Non-encyclopedic subject. Maduwanwela (talk) 15:58, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge with Sun TV (India)- not notable on its own, could improve the Sun TV article though. Joseph2302 (talk) 00:22, 30 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) 21:09, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mashar hamsa[edit]

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

Subject of the article is a non-notable director that fails WP:GNG. I can't find the significant coverages in multiple independent WP:reliable sources to establish the subject notability. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 13:13, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not seem to meet BLP requirements. Notability is very low-key with what is there and I do not see a lot to grow on at this time. Ozzyland 16:37, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Delete - Absolutely not notable with multiple searches not finding one single good source and I should note User:Mashar_hamsa was also deleted. SwisterTwister talk 01:39, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable. Fails WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO and WP:CREATIVE. No sources sufficient to verify and sustain an article. Jbh ^Talk 12:01, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:53, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:53, 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. Consensus is that there is not enough third party coverage to write a dedicated enyclopedia article. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:12, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Video Game Critic[edit]

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

Current article is refbombed with passing mentions and self-published sources. Underneath it, the topic not the subject of significant coverage from multiple reliable, independent sources. (?) The current article's third party refs are a collection of passing mentions and are not about the site/Mrozek at all. (Also our WPVG project itself does not consider the site a reliable source.) I searched multiple databases—including a ProQuest firehose of 50+ databases—for more sources and did not find more than press release-y or passing mentions of the site and Mrozek. – czar 12:14, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The nomination appears to be right on - the sources all seem to be first party, unreliable (Mobygames), or extremely brief passing mentions that aren't really about the subject. If someone can dig up some better sources, I'd reconsider...but I'm not seeing it. (It doesn't help that the generic nature of the name shows up with a ton of false-positives in source searching though.) Sergecross73 msg me 15:34, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- VGC is very much a reliable source. With his vast collection of reviews, including for rare systems like the Arcadia 2001, and he's considered one of the best sources for Atari 2600 reviews, as well as for his comprehensive console reviews. And besides, since when are the Seattle Times and the San Francisco Chronicle not reliable sources?Logan The Master

You are arguing the wrong points. We are not discussing whether or not he's reliable, we're discussing whether or not he's notable. Very different things. If you want to discus whether or not he's a reliable source, you'd discuss that at WP:VG/S's talk page. (He's currently not listed at all there, so its undetermined there.) As for the rest of what you said, yes, the Seattle Times and SF Chronicle would be reliable sources, but they don't offer significant coverage. The SF Chronicle only mentions them very briefly - merely 2 sentences in an article largely about something else, and the Seattle one, I can't really tell, as its showing up as a dead link to him. Let me know if someone can provide a working link to it, but my guess is that with the article title "Computer tools, toys round out wish list", I'm guessing it wasn't an article centered around covering the website in significant detail. Sergecross73 msg me 18:47, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Minor point: "Video Game Critic, The" actually is listed at WP:VG/RS, though we are indeed discussing notability and not reliability. Also I couldn't find a backup of "Computer tools, toys round out wish list" on Internet Archive, ProQuest, or LexisNexis, so I'm removing the ref. – czar 19:03, 18 May 2015 (UTC) [reply]

Oops, I must have done my search with "the" at the beginning of "The Video Game Critic", which didn't come up with any hits since its listed as "Video Game Critic, The". I'd strike my comment, but since he's only on the checklist, and with an "unreliable" x on it, it seems his reliability could use more discussion all the same, but at that venue, of of course, not here. Thanks for pointing this out to me though. Sergecross73 msg me 19:39, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - have to agree with nom Delete - all my search turned up is the generic team to other people Keep - previous AfD establishes notability —Мандичка^YO 😜 23:40, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimandia - I don't know how much stock I'd put into that first AFD. I don't think they looked very closely at the references; much like the searches now, its mostly trivial passing mentions. No one seemed to look close enough to realize that 5 years ago, they just started piling on the keeps when they saw the (passing mention) source list. Sergecross73 msg me 00:27, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sergecross73 Hmm after closer consideration, I think you're right. I was impressed by the SF Chronicle one but it just doesn't count as substantial, and the First Arkansas News is a self-published blog. —Мандичка^YO 😜 00:42, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Whether or not the site is a RS is pretty much irrelevant to this AfD, as being a RS doesn't automatically mean notability. It can make it more likely that there will be coverage, but it's not a guarantee. As far as the sourcing goes, it's fairly light and by large the sources are all primary in that they link to stuff he's written and to sites that host his content. Could they help show that he could possibly now pass as a RS? Sure. Could they show notability? Nope. The citations in academic/scholarly sources don't really do anything either since one is dead (meaning that we cannot verify how usable it was as a source) and the other does not mention him at any length. He seems to be moderately popular but popularity has never been a thing that would give notability. Like being a RS it can make it more likely that there may be coverage, but it's never a guarantee and I've seen gaming personalities and websites with higher fan followings fail notability guidelines. I couldn't find anything via a search that would really prove that Mrozek or his website are ultimately notable enough for an article, so this is a delete on my end. If anyone wants to userfy the content then I have no problem with that, but it might be an extremely long wait before he passes the GNG threshold. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:39, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 14:00, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:00, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Of course, quotes from a subject can't be used to bolster the notability of the subject. What the subject needs to meet the GNG is to receive significant coverage in reliable sources, and that's what's not there. Nha Trang ^Allons! 17:41, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly is the definition of "significant coverage" being used here? It's not at all clear to me what the "delete" group wants to see here, and I'm not particularly inclined to spend my time extensively researching the issue without exact clarity on what will be good enough -- an experience akin to trying to find a restaurant when the other person keeps saying "No, that's not what I want..." For example, The Blade (Toledo) has a June 4, 2013 article on DRM in video games, and has a paragraph-long quote from Mrozek ("David Mrozek, aka The Video Game Critic, founder of the site videogamecritic.com"), who's clearly being consulted for his expertise in the field. That seems more than good enough to me -- or will nothing less than a published, feature article on Mrozek and the site suffice to quell the trigger-happy folks? I apologize if this sounds irritable, but given the number of absolute garbage articles on WP, it's kind of appalling to me that we're spending time and effort on discussing the notability of one of the best-known VG review sites on the Internet. (No doubt I'll get a bunch of acronyms and WP jargon in reply, to which I look forward with great eagerness...) Goldenband (talk) 23:18, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is clearly defined where it was first linked above. You said it yourself—that Blade article would be about "DRM in video games" and not about Mrozek. We don't have a single reliable source to back your claim that the site is "one of the best-known VG review sites on the Internet" without resorting to original research. Newspapers pull quotes from non-notable expertise all the time. The question is whether the coverage is wide and dedicated to the subject, which it is not in this case. The rest of your comment is gratuitously condescending. – czar 04:33, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But that definition (which I most assuredly read before posting) is very clear that the article subject "need not be the main topic of the source material", and yet that seems to be the standard folks are pushing for here. Hence my query: are we requiring "main topic" or not, and if not, what's the objective threshold for a mention to be non-trivial? As for the condescension, it wasn't intended as such -- Nha Trang's description as "sardonic" is closer to the mark -- but I make no secret of the fact that I've always viewed deletionism as a pox on Wikipedia, especially when it defies common sense (anyone who spends any time on video game forums can attest that the site is a primary touchstone for video game reviews) (and yes, I know that's not the standard we use, but at a certain point I get exasperated by the school of thought that seems to prioritize deleting content above creating it). Goldenband (talk) 00:38, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's ironic you're being sardonic about jargon and acronyms, given that video games are among the most acronym and jargon-filled field outside of electrical engineering. That being said, it shouldn't come as a surprise that Wikipedia operates under various policies and guidelines, and rather than type out a couple pages of text, we refer to those guidelines through linked acronyms. Nha Trang ^Allons! 18:53, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, but it's also no surprise that in any organization or field, the heavy use of acronyms, etc. tends to encourage a hermetic and bureaucratic environment -- a criticism of WP that's always been 100% on point -- and is often designed to make the interlocutor feel stupid or excluded. That's a wholly uncontroversial idea and goes back to Orwell, if not further; also see rule 5 on this page [15]. Goldenband (talk) 00:59, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep: Mark it with {{refimprove}} instead. The topic itself seems notable but the article just hasn't been done right, sadly. --☣Anar chyte☣ 10:06, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Anarchyte, what good would marking it with {{refimprove}} do? I said that I searched multiple databases for sources and found no significant coverage. You'd be tagging for sources that don't exist. A topic can't "seem" notable if it isn't covered in depth by reliable sources. – czar 11:09, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with Czar here, unless you can provide some sort of reasoning/proof behind why you feel it "seems notable", this isn't really a valid approach... Sergecross73 msg me 13:49, 26 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) 21:07, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yizhong Chan[edit]

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

No evidence of notability Grahame (talk) 12:08, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 12:10, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are multiple links to external sources including reputable sources from ASX. There is sufficient notability from person's relation to another wikipedia page and position. User:Hyatt12345

Comment. User:Hyatt12345 also created Young-Hee Chan.--Grahame (talk) 01:03, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm not sure about the mother's notability but this one is not notable as all links are pretty much insignificant or primary and searches with News, Books, browser, highbeam and thefreelibrary found nothing useful. Also, to User:Hyatt12345, articles must be supported with third-party significant and preferably in-depth information about the subject, not entirely primary links. SwisterTwister talk 01:47, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:48, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

strong delete suspiciously created by a single purpose editor which suggests to me blatant self promotion. Nothing remarkable about this person to indicate notability. LibStar (talk) 09:22, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: promo page created by someone with COI, IMO. Quis separabit? 03:09, 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 delete. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:09, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Thailand candidates at International pageants[edit]

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

fancruft The Banner talk 11:24, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a mass of unreferenced BLP material. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:54, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:13, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:13, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Esquivalience ^t 01:06, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 00:39, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as fancruft. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 03:52, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per above: undigested pulp product -- bad for the tract and not useful for anyone doing a search. . . for anything. Hithladaeus (talk) 13:40, 26 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) 21:05, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Burntwood Lions Club[edit]

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

Regrettably, this local Lions Club (one of 46,000 worldwide) appears to have no individual notability. RichardOSmith (talk) 10:00, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:26, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:26, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of notability or any reliable sources for this club. Ashbeckjonathan (talk) 17:51, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (and no target for moving elsewhere) - Multiple searches at News, Books, browser, highbeam and thefreelibrary found nothing to suggest this has received significant and notable coverage aside from highbeam and thefreelibrary finding minor mentions. SwisterTwister talk 01:46, 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) 21:04, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Triqstar[edit]

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

Non-notable dance group, fails WP:ENT, no reliable independent sources to establish notability. WWGB (talk) 23:51, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now as they are only best known for Asia's Got Talent with News and browser providing some links but nothing exactly significant. Unfortunately, there's no move target so delete for now. SwisterTwister talk 04:24, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 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 09:45, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not yet asserted any notability Arthistorian1977 (talk) 11:01, 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) 21:03, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ronald Corso[edit]

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

Subject does not meet notability guidelines for WP:BIO. Article only has one citation/resource that describes a new business the subject recently opened. If opening a new business categorizes one as notable, Wikipedia would be a rather busy place Sal Calypso (talk) 19:03, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. per nom. Ormr2014 | Talk

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 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 09:43, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't find anything that suggests the subject meets notability requirements. Edgeweyes (talk) 13:11, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately delete for now - A News search found a few results with a browser search also finding results (mostly local) but nothing that appears significant, notable and in-depth. Highbeam and thefreelibrary also found nothing. SwisterTwister talk 01:54, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Good work SwisterTwister. A lot of editors wouldn't even go as far as to do a search, but rather they would read the scant sources provided and make their decision based on that alone. You found what I found, not much. I must warn future editors planning to do the same. Because Corso's business is funded by Las Vegas' Downtown Project (DTP)[16], we must also be wary of search results that reveal articles written by media companies owned by or partnered with the DTP. DTP has their own media arm now, as they recently partnered with Wendoh Media, who now owns 50% of DTP's music festival[17][18], and also owns DTLV Magazine, Vegas Seven Magazine, Spy on Vegas, and a multitude of other media outlets in Las Vegas that have a direct interest in promoting Corso. Wendoh Media also manages the DTP owned music venue on the same property as Corso's business (The Bunkhouse). Even with the few sources that may be found outside of these "Wendoh owned" magazines, the subject does not pass the notability criteria. And any source with the Wendoh stamp would be a clear violation of WP:IS, as they have a vested interest in the success of Corso and his business. As much as I would love to create or edit another article on a Las Vegas resident, I cannot ignore the subject's failure to meet the proper criteria. Sal Calypso (talk) 04:54, 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:17, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dhanjal[edit]

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

I couldn't establish that this meets any aspect of WP:NOTABILITY. My searches turned up only WP mirror sites and a non-reliable source which confirmed it can be a surname. Boleyn (talk) 18:13, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 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 09:41, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or speedy delete. There isn't even any claim of notability. Edgeweyes (talk) 13:13, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Multiple searches found absolutely nothing aside from results for other things with the name, it's possible sources are offline but I don't see any explanation to keep the article after no improvement since August 2010 and especially after there was a blanking/reverting and although the article had a source at one point with a little information, it has never significantly improved. SwisterTwister talk 02:08, 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 merge to Sea Scouts New Zealand. Davewild (talk) 21:00, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hawke Sea Scout Hall[edit]

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

A building which does not appear to meet reasonable standards of notability. The organisation which owns this building, Hawke Sea Scouts, was merged into Sea Scouts New Zealand in 2008 as insufficiently notable for a standalone article and the merged content was deleted about five years ago by an anon with no one noticing or objecting, possibly because the content was similar to an earlier version of this article created the previous day. That article was prodded by me and subsequently deleted. gadfium 22:36, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. 22:36, 3 May 2015 (UTC)-gadfium 22:36, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:42, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The building is less notable than the Scout Group. The material in Sea Scouts New Zealand on individual Troops is also largely unsourced and not notable, and gives far more detail that is normal for Troops in other countries. --Bduke (Discussion) 04:17, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Sea Scouts New Zealand and rewrite the article. The troops place in NZ Sea Scouting history is not clear and needs more research. I agree that there is insufficient for a stand alone article. NealeFamily (talk) 00:49, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Sea Scouts New Zealand and rewrite the article, per NealeFamily--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 05:39, 7 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) 18:03, 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 09:39, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Sea Scouts New Zealand: saving this from the WP:NPASR purgatory, but no coverage in reliable sources. Esquivalience ^t 01:12, 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. Davewild (talk) 20:57, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Machar Kounyuk United FC[edit]

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

I'm not an expert on the notability of sports teams, but this looks like a local, amateur club, and the article was created as a coatrack to support a now-deleted article on its manager. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:03, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ― Padenton|✉ 21:17, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. ― Padenton|✉ 21:18, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ― Padenton|✉ 21:18, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Assuming the content of the article is accurate and some sources are added, this probably okay. The article claims that the club plays in South Sudan's top division, which is a generally accepted threshold for notability. Of course, the article is unsourced at present, meaning none of its content carries any weight. Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:08, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:08, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - playing in a country's top-level league is usually grounds for 'automatic' notability, but I cannot actually verify this club's existence. The only source is a Facebook page, a Google search brings up nothing, and on Wikipedia they are not listed at either South Sudan Football Championship or List of football clubs in South Sudan. Possible hoax? Giant Snowman 08:26, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt the whole thing is a hoax, there is just some puffery going on in a rather clueless attempt to force content on this team and its manager onto Wikipedia. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:15, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just noting here that I have blocked the user who created this, and another admin did a rangeblock on all the IP addresses they were using to add nonsense to this article and a few others. I'm halfway tempted to just IAR delete this right now as I don't feel we can trust anything it says, but as the nominator I guess I probably shouldn't. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:43, 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 09:38, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can find nothing at all about this club apart from its Wikipedia article, Facebook, and other wikis/mirrors (including searching for "Machar Kunyuk"). It has no sources and there's no evidence that it's in the South Sudan Football Championship, and without that I don't see how it can be kept. Mr Potto (talk) 12:56, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no indication to support the claims in this article being true. Not necessarily a hoax, but I'm not convinced this is a top-flight club. Fenix down (talk) 08:29, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder if @Northamerica1000: could explain why they thought this merited relisting at all. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:38, 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) 17:28, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Priyanka Nayyar[edit]

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

The article about a living person is created with just only 1 role per of that living person per WP:TOOSOON. I don't know why people create such articles. Regards, KunalForYou ^☎️^📝 15:30, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 15:49, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment-Why the heck am I getting a afd notice for this article? I never even edited it! Wgolf (talk) 15:33, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I was wondering the same thing as the editor above. I never touched it either. Si Trew (talk) 15:45, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I put it on the incidents board as well as how the heck this happened. Even odder is that this afd is a couple days old. Now if this article should be deleted or not-I have no clue. Wgolf (talk) 15:47, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No much sources to claim the notability. Agree about WP:TOOSOON. Regards Gurvinder | Talk 13:29, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. BDD (talk) 16:23, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 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 09:36, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It seems this is the only role she has had and multiple searches found nothing good. It seems the article originally went to a 2009 show where a Priyanka Udwhani was credited, not this one. For what it's worth, delete the article as there is not a single piece of solid evidence for notability. SwisterTwister talk 02:03, 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 speedy keep. AFD is not for cleanup. Caparica20 is welcome to use WP:BLP/N instead for these concerns. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 00:02, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Louise Blouin[edit]

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

The part "Contreversy" should in no case be posted on Louise Blouin personal page. It does not concern her private life.

"In 2010, an article in the New York Post noted controversy over payments to freelance writers for the arts publications of Blouin's company. One group, WAAANKAA (Writers Angry At Artinfo Not Kidding Around Anymore), demanded back payments of $18,000.^[1] In December 2013, Artinfo.com abruptly laid off 25 international employees. The New York Observer posted a 1,000-word internal email from Louise Blouin to staff explaining that the move was part of a new direction in which "One person doing all and not good we need less of one but many more."^[2] In February 2014, the New York Post reported that two former executives were suing Blouin for $250,000 in pay and commissions.^[3]"— Caparica20 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 10:56, 18 May 2015‎ (UTC).

References

^ Keith J. Kelly (16 July 2010). Didn’t get paid by Louise Blouin? Get in line. New York Post. Accessed December 2013.
^ Dan Duray (13 December 2013) Blouin Media, Publisher of Art+Auction and Modern Painters, Terminates Most International Freelance Contracts. New York: observer.com. Accessed April 2015.
^ Keith J. Kelly (14 February 2014) Former execs sue Blouin Media. New York Post.

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 18. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:45, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
speedy keep. Misguided nomination by a newbie with an apparent WP:COI. The issue is about content dispute, not notability, and must be resolved in article talk page. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:41, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- P.S I moved the content in question elsewhere. Staszek Lem (talk)
Speedy keep. Afd is not for cleanup concerns. She's been written about in the New York Times and other NYC papers, the Guardian, the Telegraph, the Sunday Times, the Daily Mail (rumored to have had an affair with Prince Andrew), etc. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:03, 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 redirect to List of minor planets: 1001-2000. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 00:44, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1786 Raahe[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. It should be deleted or redirected to List of minor planets: 1001-2000. Boleyn (talk) 08:38, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:26, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per WP:DWMP: Single photometry study found,[19] which does not contain enough information for an article. Praemonitus (talk) 15:44, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. I also found only that one study, and it's not enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:21, 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:23, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mohamad Abdul Tayyab[edit]

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

Multiple searches found simply nothing about the subject not there's much about him to help search but I tried and only found this at Books. A thoughtful search at Google Scholar found nothing and I'm unable to find the ISCI (not sure what this stands for and searches found nothing) magazine reference so it may be offline, so unfortunately there's not much to the article at this time. SwisterTwister talk 04:53, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Found nothing that supports claim of notability Arthistorian1977 (talk) 10:50, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:30, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:30, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:30, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I couldn't find enough evidence that the reference listed for this article, "ISCI Magazine", even exists (e.g. the first hit on Google is this article, there are only 12 hits, and most or all seem to be about unrelated things with the same name). So I think this fails verifiability, let alone notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:45, 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) 17:27, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

National Orchid Day[edit]

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

The "National Day Calendar" is not an official registrant of actual holidays, it is a service where, for a fee, one can "name" a national day (much like the "name a star" services). (See their website.) Paying the fee to name a "National Orchid Day" does not make this an actual notable holiday. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 02:31, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No WP:RS cited. Getting the award of a day is a WP:SPS until and unless other reliable sources publish statements of their recognition of that award. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:06, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:26, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:26, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no WP:RS found, fails WP:GNG. BenLinus 1214^talk 21:37, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Does not meet WP:N. Source searches are only providing passing mentions: [20], [21], [22]. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:26, 26 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. Michig (talk) 08:03, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Hall (molecular biologist)[edit]

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

You may wnat to see the previous AFd at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alan Hall (biologist) but anyway. The problems here are as follows:

I would bet my mortgage on this being an autobiographical vanity page. It contains far too much information that only the subject or someone very close to the subject would know.
He doesn't appear to meet WP:PROF.
It was previously deleted
Until his recent death there is another biologist and oncologist, Alan Hall, who was clearly notable. Confusing the two has been quite common, so for avoidance of doubt by those who might be missing a few brain cells - they are different people and therefore they should be treated as different people.

02:07, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:15, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find anything written about him. The sources in the article are papers he has written and further research in the area. He seems to have been an advancing academic in his field, but his latest published work was in 1996 when he was only 43 years old. What did he do next since no date is given for his death? There is nothing to show that he was notable back then. We don't even know what the level of his academic position was at Cambridge. StarryGrandma (talk) 17:31, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete he wasn't notable last time around, and still isn't. Opabinia regalis (talk) 23:31, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I think the previous deletion was less about notability and more about the mess caused by confusing the two AH's. Regardless, we don't have evidence for passing WP:PROF. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:41, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I did some clean up , but I'm not convinced. Too great emphasis on postdoc positions is a good indication of not yet being ntoable. DGG ( talk ) 02:24, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Very, very, un-notable. SilverSurfingSerpant (talk) 02:05, 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. Wizardman 03:05, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ronnie Deck[edit]

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

Non-notable individiual, fails WP:BASE/N and WP:GNG. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 01:56, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 01:56, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 01:56, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reliable sources to establish notability. Ashbeckjonathan (talk) 03:16, 24 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 02:25, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Academy[edit]

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

Unclear scope, overlapping substantially with other better defined articles: Academia, Academy of science, Learned academy, National academy, Plato's Academy. This article should be a redirect to main topic or a disamb page at most. Talk:Academy is particularly telling about WP:CHIMERA. Fgnievinski (talk) 01:42, 18 May 2015 (UTC) Fgnievinski (talk) 01:42, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:12, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The concept "academy" is distinct from "academia", & the other specific usages listed by the nominator. Interwiki links show that there is a distinct concept behind the word -- enough that simply providing a link to an essay is not a sufficient argument. Just because an article is poorly organized does not mean the subject is not notable. -- llywrch (talk) 03:50, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Would you be able to define the concept that you have in mind? If so, it'd deserve to be split under a more distinctive title, e.g., Academy (concept). Current incoming links are so disparate they'd benefit from a forced WP:FIXDABLINKS. Fgnievinski (talk) 04:19, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I might be able to if I wanted. But that would not help to keep this article. I agree with Andrew below, that the article is valid, while you seem intent on deleting it for some reason you aren't sharing with us. -- llywrch (talk) 17:29, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The current article is so ill defined I'm basically proposing to WP:Blow it up and start over -- WP:NORESCUE! Fgnievinski (talk) 18:17, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to do that, just write your new version in draft space, & when your version is ready replace the current content with it in a single edit. I've done exactly that with several articles over the years. Deleting the article means all of the previous versions -- good, bad, & indifferent -- are lost, maybe for good. Listing the article here at AfD is like trying to kill a fly with a sledgehammer. -- llywrch (talk) 20:12, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Seems to have a stand alone notability as a concept. No good merge target that I see has been proposed, nor justified by sources. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:59, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Again, what concept do you have in mind? If it's any of those defined in Wikt:Academy, they should be split off into their own articles; WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Fgnievinski (talk) 18:17, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The page is valid and helpful per WP:CONCEPTDAB. Andrew D. (talk) 12:29, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree there might be a WP:Broad concept article veiled behind the current article, but it'll grow faster if we WP:Delete the junk, move Academy (disambiguation) over here, and tag it with {{Dabprimary}} if necessary. Fgnievinski (talk) 18:17, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – agree with Andrew (no relation), article is a significant parent. Clean-up is more appropriate than a delete.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 16:12, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If by "significant concept" you mean WP:Primary concept, I beg to differ. As per Wikt:Academy, there are several definitions, at least three of them arguably very common. Fgnievinski (talk) 18:17, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw nomination (I'm the original proposer). I'll follow @Llywrch:'s suggestion and draft a new version from scratch. I didn't realize that blanking & replacing an entire article is preferable to deletion because then the editting history is not lost. Thanks for weighing in. Fgnievinski (talk) 20:53, 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 Speedy Deleted G5 Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 17:23, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mikie Da Poet[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Seem to fail WP:BAND. Not signed to a major or notable indie label. No hit singles or records that charted. Hasn't been covered by anyone of note. His music hasn't appeared in any notable films and doing some engineering work on other people's songs doesn't make you a notable musician. Only one of the provided refs could be considered reliable for purposes of establishing notability, videos of liver performances, imdb, hulu, itunes, amazon, are not reliable, rap music guide is user generated, and the link to the hot dog restaurant is a primary source (he owns the business). The Master ---)Vote Saxon(--- 01:40, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If (when) this is deleted, the page should be salted to prevent re-creation. It was already deleted once at a prior AfD, which was followed up by multiple, apparently improper deletion reviews. There seems to be some self promotion going on here. The Master ---)Vote Saxon(--- 01:42, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - Article has been recreated by blocked sockmaster multiple times and deleted multiple times. Kindzmarauli (talk) 14:32, 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 delete. Davewild (talk) 13:58, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vanessa Vadim[edit]

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

I'm not finding a lot of references on her. I am but there are just mere mentions about her being Jane Fonda's daughter or about her arrest in 1989 but you can't make an article out of that. So fails WP:GNG LADY LOTUS • TALK 12:56, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - The is some coverage out there, but none of it appears to be direct or significant. NickCT (talk) 13:04, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:12, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:12, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:12, 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 01:03, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Neutral~~ Delete - She has some coverage, mentioned here on Oprah Network, and mentioned here on People. Does not seem to be directly about here, but passing mentions here and there.
- CookieMonster755, WP:GNG states "significant coverage is more than a trivial mention" thus why she fails it. LADY LOTUS • TALK 11:44, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Good point Lady Lotus. CookieMonster755 (talk) 14:44, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no-notability except as Jane Fonda's daughter. And we all know that notability is inheritable per se. Quis separabit? 12:45, 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:48, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sollie McSonkid[edit]

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

Non-notable person if he exists; apparently plays basketball for Vaal University, which is not listed as a team participating in the Basketball National League. No g-hits at all apart from this page and a defunct twitter page. Previous similar pages created by same user (Sollie ephraim, Sollie O'shaughnessy, Austin Mikael, Solly Mkhabela, Willie Shremurdd) all speedy deleted for lack of notability. CSD-A7 declined on this page due to assertion of notability. GILO A&E⇑ 08:27, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:05, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:05, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:05, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG. Non notable college player. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 13:43, 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 01:02, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Concur with previous poster: Fails WP:GNG. Self-promotional and non-notable. --Ventric (talk) 02:28, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG. Rikster2 (talk) 04:00, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails basic notability guidelines, may be Self-promotional, and Twitter is not a reliable source (in most cases). CookieMonster755 (talk) 06:52, 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:15, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Abhishek singla[edit]

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

Many unsubstantiated assertions in article, not backed up with any reliable independent sources, fails WP:CREATIVE, appears to be vanity article, contested prod. WWGB (talk) 07:56, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unambiguous promotional article for an individual who does not meet GNG or CREATIVE. No evidence of significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Article creator who wrote this AUTOBIO has been indef banned for being a spam/advertising only account [[23]]. Cowlibob (talk) 07:13, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:04, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:04, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:04, 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 01:02, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Absolutely not notable and this article is entirely promotional with no significant sources and there's not even an IMDb. A few searches made it obvious this one is not notable. SwisterTwister talk 04:19, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG. Lakun.patra (talk) 11:17, 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) 17:27, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kashi Samaddar[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

NOT NEWS. Trivial accomplishment, WP is not Guiness. DGG ( talk ) 07:09, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:BLP1E, an otherwise unknown individual. Tarc (talk) 17:49, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:02, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:02, 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 01:02, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BLP1E. CookieMonster755 (talk) 06:53, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP1E. Wikipedia is not a records book, especially when it comes to non-notable people. BenLinus 1214^talk 21:33, 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:13, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Filmymantra Media[edit]

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

No encyclopediac claim of notability (fixable by adding one), but currently only self-promotion by COI editor (he disputed my {{notability}} tag without addressing the problem). But the website itself seems non-notable tabloid-like (non-fixable problem for WP article by WP:WEB). DMacks (talk) 06:50, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:59, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:59, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:59, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:59, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete It exists but in lacking coverage fails WP:CORP and WP:WEB. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 06:01, 17 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 00:59, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - News, Books and browser results show it is not notable as there are zero good results and only self-generated content. SwisterTwister talk 04:28, 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 merge to Ultraviolet (EP). (non-admin closure) Esquivalience ^t 01:16, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Beautiful Times[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSONG. Only notable mention is the Rolling Stones article. 91st on the Japanese Hot 100 just ain't gonna get it done either. Safiel (talk) 00:57, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:09, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:09, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt. I reverted to the redirect but the editor insisted that there was material. Agree with nominator. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:57, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would also be fine with delete, redirect and salting the redirect, if other users desire that a redirect be kept. Safiel (talk) 02:35, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - Aside from one charting, there's not much and it fits better with the album article. SwisterTwister talk 04:31, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Ultraviolet (EP). bd2412 T 16:43, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
Merge and redirect to Ultraviolet (EP). The song is not notable enough for a standalone article. Random86 (talk) 23:58, 24 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. Michig (talk) 07:57, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shapur Mozaffarian[edit]

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

The author of this article is supposedly the person himself or related. Also, with some notability, article is still looks promotional. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 17:50, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:25, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:25, 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, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:02, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seems to fail WP:GNG, more importantly the WP:PROMO means that even if notable, the article would need to be rewritten from scratch, per WP:TNT. Joseph2302 (talk) 01:17, 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 00:56, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now - It seems he's been around for a while but he's not notable, unfortunately, as searches here found nothing good and Highbeam, thefreelibrary and browser found nothing better. SwisterTwister talk 04:37, 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:10, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yesin Apparel[edit]

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

Fails WP:CORP & WP:GNG - Can't find anything on Google or Korean Google and there website's dead, I'm not even sure if the company's trading today.... –Davey2010^Talk 00:01, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 00:15, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 00:15, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:CORP as no sources can be found about them. Joseph2302 (talk) 01:18, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:21, 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 00:52, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Multiple searches (News, Books, highbeam and thefreelibrary) found nothing significant and notable aside from a few links like blogs (a few from December so maybe the company is still going). SwisterTwister talk 23:38, 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 redirect to By Divine Right. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 00:48, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dylan Hudecki[edit]

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

Non-notable musician, nearly no sources. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 00:40, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:53, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:53, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unfortunately, he's not notable with News providing the best results some of which are the same results at Hamilton Spectator (one of the sources listed in the article) and one link at Highbeam, nothing at Books and thefreelibrary. All passing mentions at best. SwisterTwister talk 04:46, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, I was actually the original creator here, nearly a decade ago when Wikipedia's sourcing and notability rules were a lot looser and more flexible than they are now. I fully agree that under current standards he doesn't have enough notability, independent of the band context, to warrant a standalone WP:BLP — contributing one song to a multi-artist compilation album doesn't satisfy the "independently notable for solo activity" criterion that now resides in WP:NMUSIC. He was a legitimate topic under the standards that applied at the time I started this — but under the standards that apply now, he doesn't clear the bar and I can't easily source him back over it. Delete per nom. Bearcat (talk) 19:18, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't it be better to Redirect to the clearly notable By Divine Right, of which Hudecki was a member? Chubbles (talk) 18:57, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to By Divine Right per Chubbles. This action makes sense. BenLinus 1214^talk 21:30, 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 There is No Consensus to delete the article. -- GB fan 11:14, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Anaconda (film series)[edit]

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

This article is redundant, unnecessary, and messy, and contains no new and little contents which are merely copies of contents from another article. TurokSwe (talk) 17:46, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 00:17, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I never really know what to do with these articles when they show up in New Page Patrol. They're a decent repository for information, but it's frequently difficult to find sources that discus the film series as a whole, especially for these less notable series. Even the Leprechaun film series is easier to source. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:27, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as creator. Clearly notable. I created this stub to provide an overview/umbrella of the series. It can always be improved on. --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:49, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Rename as list I recommend renaming the article into List of Anaconda movies since really that is what this article is. The reason I don't think it is a suitable article topic is per WP:SIGCOV "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content When I do a search for coverage at the Series as a hole and not any individual film I don't come up with anything, I feel like original research would be required from the sources about the individual movies to extract what is about the "series" since it isn't treated directly. I think there is some good work here and that it is more useful to our readers than Category:Anaconda-franchise alone is. Bryce Carmony (talk) 19:11, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's plenty of precedent for the "(film series)" article. Even Rocky (film series), doesn't have much more to offer than this one, and a list article doesn't have to start "List of..." anyway, especially as this is more of a WP:Set index article. I'm not trying to claim WP:OTHERSTUFF, but these series overview articles do provide a unique function. I suspect the nomination to be a little WP:POINTY anyway. --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:08, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say that it would be better to rename it to Anaconda franchise since the series is not limited to films- there have also been two games attributed to the series. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:07, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:NCF, the correct disambiguator would be "(franchise)", however, a couple of promotional tie in web games and a self published book do not satisfy the definition of a franchise. There is already a move discussion in place. --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:02, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:37, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think the real issue here is that it doesn't please YOU. TurokSwe (talk) 09:15, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The real issue is that you don't understand what qualifies as a franchise by our definition, and you have no respect for our guidelines or MOS and you have made a rather WP:POINTY AFD. --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:52, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As with "Lake Placid", of course the film series will have some overlap with the component parts of the franchise, but deleting it on those grounds would be like deleting Car because we have articles on every individual part of the car. bd2412 T 14:55, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

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, 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:05, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

French telemarketing[edit]

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

Not a single reliable source. De-speedied w/o comment by creator. We are not here to promote France's telemarketing sector. I believe its also part of a WP:COATRACK effort to direct traffic/generate search engine results for the company Quebec telemarketing, by the same editor, and also nominated here. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:40, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:41, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:42, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Shawn. i improve this contents by eliminating adverts text. hope it meet wiki policy save from deletion pages. thanks

Delete, fails GNG —Мандичка^YO 😜 19:35, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG, no reliable sources cited in the article or can be found otherwise. BenLinus 1214^talk 21:28, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Does not meet WP:N. Source searches are only providing passing mentions in reliable sources (e.g. [24], [25]). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:32, 26 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 Chinese American. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:17, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Han American[edit]

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

Original research WP:FRINGE POV fork of Chinese American. Nobody on this planet uses the term "Han American" to refer to Han Chinese who live in the United States, and this includes both laypersons (e.g. magazines and newspapers) and specialists (e.g. scientific journals focused on anthropology). In essence, this is a neologism newly invented by the creator of this article.

This term is not used anywhere within English language literature, and this can be verified by queries through journal article databases and a google search; even a google search for the alleged Chinese term "汉裔美国人" produces zero relevant hits, and google even asks "Did you mean: 韩裔美国人?" (Did you mean "Korean American"?) at the very top. In other words, even the Chinese term claimed within the article is a fake, and does not appear within Chinese literature. --benlisquare_T•C•E 16:26, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. Google could not even find matches for this term - it was all for things like "... according to Jane Han. Americans who...." —Мандичка^YO 😜 16:59, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fringe theory: "Fringe theories are ideas which depart significantly from a prevailing or mainstream theory." Please point out in which aspect this article departs 'significantly from a prevailing or mainstream theory'.
POV fork: "POV forks generally arise when contributors disagree about the content of an article or other page." Please indicate how this article disagrees with another. Lysimachi (talk) 17:58, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can you point out to me exactly which academics categorise Han Chinese immigrants to the United States as "Han Americans"? The classification of "Han American" that you've personally invented, as a differing concept to that of Chinese American, is WP:FRINGE in the sense that nobody else within the fields of anthropology uses such classifications. Keep in mind that Wikipedia is not overly concerned with what you may consider to be correct; Wikipedia works on verifiable information that is covered by pre-existing literature. If your "truth" is not already covered within third-party reliable sources, English-language or not, it constitutes original research. Currently, the references you've inserted into the article do not make the same claims as you're making within the article, which means that you're resorting to unpublished synthesis based on marginally-relevant citations. Wikipedia is not the place to invent new things, period. --benlisquare_T•C•E 18:23, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please refer to the references inserted in the article, where there is explicit reference to Han in the US as "Han-US" in their notation. I admit that it is rare to use Han Americans to refer Han people in the US, but the classification of "Han people in the US" is used in academic works. This concept surely differs from Chinese Americans (that's why another page is created), but they are not in conflict. As mentioned in the article some people might be Chinese Americans, but they may not be of Han descent (e.g., John Fugh). Lysimachi (talk) 21:31, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The burden of evidence is on you, not me; you are the one who needs to properly demonstrate that "Han American" is a term used within mainstream and specialist literature. You can do this in many different ways, such as providing book titles, journal articles, ISBN numbers, doi numbers and URLs. I don't need to convince you anything, it doesn't work the other way around. When your article is being scrutinised during AfD, you're the one who needs to convince everyone, with proper literary evidence, that you have citations that adequately prove that your additions are not original research.

I said this before, and I'll say this again. You can be as correct and truthful as you like, however Wikipedia does not chase after "the truth", it chases after verifiability. You could be correct, and everyone else could be wrong, but if you can't demonstrate verifiability, none of this is of any use. You can argue all you want about the technicalities of "Chinese American" and "Han Chinese", and you can even be 100% correct, however none of this will save you from AfD. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines, and no original research is a core policy. --benlisquare_T•C•E 09:52, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The existence of Americans of Han descent can be verified by this PNAS article. The existence of various ethnic groups within China can be verified by references cited in Chinese ethnic groups and the distinction between these ethnic groups in China (e.g., Bai Chinese, Han Chinese, Mongolian Chinese, Tibetan Chinese as mentioned in this article) is important in academic research. The existence of Hans outside of China can be verified by various articles like this Science article. The distinction between Americans descending from different ethnic groups found in China or East Asia can be seen in pages like Tibetan Americans or John Fugh and is not new or original. Lysimachi (talk) 22:01, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Again, you're creating WP:SYNTH from these articles. Your articles state that Han Chinese exist in the United States, however your articles do not affirm that the academia have a specific categorisation for Han Chinese in the United States. How is the Han American article of any usefulness when Chinese American exists? Is there any reason for the distinction at all, apart from your own pedanticness? Before you repeat your usual line of "But there are non-Han Chinese like John Fugh!", I'd like to point out, yet again, that Wikipedia has policies on original research, and what you are attempting to introduce has no basis within academic literature. The term "Chinese American" exists within literature, whereas "Han American" does not. In fact, most mainstream English-language literature simply use "Chinese" as a common synonym for "Han Chinese" given that it's the dominant Chinese ethnicity. Is this scientifically correct and accurate usage? Absolutely not. Do I agree with this usage? Absolutely not. However, it is how the literature puts it forward, and thus, it is how it should be handled on Wikipedia, since Wikipedia only repeats what the literature repeats, and does not introduce new ideas. Until you can justify that "Han American" is a WP:COMMONNAME for Han Chinese in the United States, and that there is a strong distinction within the existing literature between "Chinese" Americans and "Han" Americans, your changes are not inline with Wikipedia policy. --benlisquare_T•C•E 08:46, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify what I mean when I refer to your pedanticness, let me paint you an analogy. We have an article titled Rice production in the United States. However, there are different species of rice, including but not limited to Oryza sativa and Oryza glaberrima. In the United States, the overwhelming majority of rice grown involves Oryza sativa japonica varieties such as Calrose rice. Now, imagine that someone attempted to force an article entitled Oryza sativa japonica production in the United States, and that article served as a content fork of the alternate main article, with very little remarkable independent content that cannot be alternatively placed within a subsection of the other, much larger article. How pedantic would that sound? Now think about our current situation here with Han American and Chinese American. Do you see how pedantic this whole thing seems now? What is the overall worth of this article, apart from being a content fork that exists to prove a point? --benlisquare_T•C•E 09:17, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SYNTH: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." The sources explicitly refer to Han people (a population) in the US, which is not something created by this article. The current title might not be the best it can be, but it adheres to WP:NCET (consistent with Tibetan American) and is concise.

Content fork: "A content fork is the creation of multiple separate articles all treating the same subject." First, Chinese Americans include Uyghur, Manchu and many other people which are not Han; Han people are not restricted to Chinese. Second, Han is a category of ethnicity, rather than country/region of origin. In this respect, it has more in common with Arab Americans than Saudi Americans. Given these two points, Chinese American and this article do not treat the same subject.

The hypothetical rice example is not an analogy to this article, but to some other articles. Oryza sativa ssp. japonica is a subspecies of Oryza sativa, but Han is not a subcategory of Chinese and they even represent different kinds of concepts. The rice example is rather reminiscent of articles on Chinese languages. While there is an article on Chinese language, there is another on Mandarin language (and another on Standard Mandarin), although the latter is a complete subcategory of the former and most mainstream English-language literature simply use "Chinese" as a common synonym for Mandarin. Is it pedantic? Furthermore, there are not only Chinese language, but also Chinese languages, which treat the same project, use the same subdivisions and shows the same figure. That is a real example of content fork.

Regarding 'usefulness', 'very little remarkable independent content' and 'What is the overall worth': if the distinction between Han and other Asian ethnic groups is of little usefulness, there wouldn't be over 9000 Google Scholar results for "Han people" alone in fields ranging from education and culture to genetics and medicine, which are not only related to Han people in China. In addition, I think it's a bit unfair to criticize a newly created article for its very little content. Lysimachi (talk) 23:04, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:11, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:12, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:12, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:12, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Chinese American per WP:CONTENTFORK. The topic has so much overlap with Chinese American that having a separate article is meaningless. Just because some Germans are of Slavic or Turkish descent does not mean we need a separate Germanic German American alongside German American. Similarly, we don't need Slavic Russian American when we already have Russian American. -Zanhe (talk) 05:06, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Chinese American per WP:CONTENTFORK or Delete per failing WP:GNG. As stated within the article the subject false clearly within scope of the Chinese American article. While there maybe different ethnicities within the Chinese American population or different language based populations within the Chinese American population, that doesn't mean that they automatically get an article. Those populations/groups/ethnicities need to meet WP:GNG. Doing a search for "Han American" I did not find any articles that give the population/group significant coverage using that subject name. While I don't disagree with the view that there are different ethnicities within the Chinese American population (like how within Filipino American population there are Tagalog people, Ilocano people, etc.), there are sufficient reliable sources to verify that the subject of this AfD is independently notable for a stand-alone article.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:13, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article is on Han American, not Han Chinese Amercian, which would of course falls within the scope of Chinese American, like the hypothetical Germanic German American within German American or Slavic Russian American within Russian American. Hans, like the Slavs, are an ethno-liguistic group not confined to one country, so the equivalent of Han American is not Slavic Russian American, but Slavic American, which does exist. As such, Han American should not merged into or be a redirect to Chinese American. According to WP:N#General notability guideline, '"Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it need not be the main topic of the source material.' As discussed previously, no OR is needed to extract the information for Han people in USA, which were not mentioned trivially, but multiple times, and were subject to extensive genetic analyses. Also note in WP:AFDP#General notability guideline: "However, there is still a lot of debate on notability." The current article title may not be so 'notable', but it was chosen to conform to Wikipedia policies (WP:AT, WP:TRIBE). Lysimachi (talk) 18:02, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Then prove it. As benlisquare stated, the burden of proof that "Han American" is a notable subject is on those who want it to be kept. Please show us.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:13, 17 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 00:36, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Northamerica1000 I'm surprise to see this relisted; only the article creator believes this exists. I'll change my vote to redirect if it would bring clear consensus. —Мандичка^YO 😜 19:16, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, semi-protect, and expand: Han chauvinism is serious above on this discussion page. It's like arguing that Arab Americans ≡ Saudi Americans, or all British Americans ≡ English Americans. See WP:CSB. 124.217.187.143 (talk) 20:27, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: 124.217.187.143 is a likely sockpuppet of the banned user:Instantnood. See sockpuppet investigation. -Zanhe (talk) 20:34, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/weak redirect Looking very briefly, all six sources in the article, and the additional ones from keepers above, include no titular connection with American contexts (all being "(topic) in China/Han populations/Chinese Tibetan populations/Taiwanese Han/Asia"). Titular only because I don't have access to the full texts, but close enough as any mention could be considered mere passing. 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 08:33, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:N#General notability guideline: "... it need not be the main topic of the source material". If it need not be the main topic, why would a titular reference be necessary? To Мандичка, there is no need to 'believe' the existence. The cited reference sampled a population of Americans of Han descent for their genetic studies. I oppose a redirect to Chinese American, which is like saying Han is equal to Chinese. Lysimachi (talk) 21:29, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sampling a population for genetic study, is not like writing significant coverage of Han Americans. Also It is not saying that Han American = Chinese American, it is saying that Chinese of Han descent in America are one of many ethnicities that make up Chinese Americans (and thus fall within its scope). This is the same as how not all Filipino Americans are Tagalog people, but within the population of Filipinos in the United States there are Tagalog people make up a portion of them, and fall within the scope of the article Filipino American.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 03:07, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Are all Han Americans Chinese Americans? For instance there are Taiwanese who only identify themselves as Hans but not as Chinese. On the other hand by marking Hans as a subgroup of Chinese would be like calling Austrians as a subgroup of the Germans. There are Corinthian Slovenes, Croats and Hungarians under the Austrian identity. These people may not be Germans. 203.145.93.151 (talk) 20:31, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand. The two terms are far from identical or congruent. 203.145.93.151 (talk) 20:31, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: 203.145.93.x is another subnet known to have been used by sockpuppets of the banned user:Instantnood. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Instantnood/Archive. -Zanhe (talk) 17:03, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To RightCowLeftCoast: Please note they are not the same. The main difference is Tagalog people are a major ethnic group only in the Philippines, but Han is a major ethnic group in China, Taiwan, Singapore and Malaysia. You may be able to say all Tagalog people are Filipinos, but not all Hans are from China. Lysimachi (talk) 22:46, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This term simply does not exist in any notable sources. Specific language groups or regions (e.g. Category:American Hakka people or Category:American people of Ningbo descent) are much more relevant to the cultural identity of Han Chinese immigrants than their Han ethnicity. Cobblet (talk) 10:56, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1. Which study shows that specific language groups or regions are much more relevant to the cultural identity than the Han ethnicity? 2. What does the existence of Wikipedia categories of Americans descending from subgroups of Han have to do with this article? There is an article for Slavic American, so there can't be one for European American? 3. Why must all Han Americans identify with this category? The article European American says 74% of Americans fall within that category, but it also says not all of them identify with it. So does the article German American. If well-defined ("Americans who are of German or Alsatian descent", "Americans of Slavic descent", "Americans of Han descent", etc), why must all people within this category identify with it? In the study, which you consider not 'notable', where Han Americans were sampled for genetic analyses, no information was given as to whether they identify with the Han ethnicity, but it could still be judged from linguistic or cultural attributes of the immigration background. Lysimachi (talk) 15:09, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You have not given evidence otherwise. Show me one example of a person quoted in a reliable source saying something along the lines of "I am a Han American". If I google "European American" or "Slavic American" I find plenty of examples of people identifying with this concept. Not so when I search for "Han American" or "汉裔美国人". Cobblet (talk) 22:16, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Other evidence for what? According to which Wikipedia policy must there be google-searchable results showing people identifying with this concept? There are quite some pages (see below) on XXX Americans, Americans of XXX descent, where there is no or only one (the Wikipedia page) result for "I am a XXX American" or even for "XXX American". So does it falsify the references cited that there are Americans of XXX descent? Lysimachi (talk) 20:54, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: there are Google search results for "美国汉人" (American Hans). Lysimachi (talk) 23:09, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. All of the article creator's arguments seem to center on what he or she views as true, rather than what reliable sources say. This term is simply not used in reliable sources.--Danaman5 (talk) 20:59, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RS: "When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources." According to published peer-reviewed scientific literature cited hundreds of times, there are American people of Han descent (and Han American is how the title should be called per WP:TRIBE). Please provide a 'reliable' source saying there are no Americans of Han descent. Lysimachi (talk) 20:54, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Lysimachi: The burden of proof is not on us, it is on those who want to show that the subject that is being discussed in this AfD meets WP:GNG. So far Lysimachi has not done this, nor has anyone who have supported a keep opinion for this subject.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:45, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BURDEN:"The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution." As mentioned several times in the discussion, American people of Han descent were discussed in published peer-reviewed scientific literature, which is the preferable reliable source per WP:RS.

WP:GNG:

'"Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it need not be the main topic of the source material.' Which original research was needed to extract from the literature the information that there exists a population of American people of Han descent?

'"Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media, and in any language. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability.' Per the reliable source guideline (WP:RS), the references cited are among the most reliable ones that can be cited in a Wikipedia article.

'"Sources" should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability.' The literature cited is secondary.

'"Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it.' The authors of the scientific literature are not Han Americans themselves.

Per WP:NC a good Wikipedia article title should have the following characteristics:

"Precision – The title unambiguously identifies the article's subject and distinguishes it from other subjects." The current title (Han American) distinguishes it from other subjects.

"Conciseness – The title is no longer than necessary to identify the article's subject and distinguish it from other subjects." The current title is no longer than necessary to identify the article's subject.

"Consistency – The title is consistent with the pattern of similar articles' titles. Many of these patterns are listed (and linked) as topic-specific naming conventions on article titles, in the box above." The current title is consistent with the pattern of similar articles' titles: Sami American, Silesian American, Rusyn American, Manx American, Tibetan American, Tamil American, Iu Mien American, Bengali American, Kannada American, Punjabi American, Baloch American, etc. It is also consistent with the example African American listed in the naming convention per WP:NCET.

Lysimachi (talk) 10:39, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As stated by other editors, the reliable sources provided by the above editor do not give significant coverage of "Han American" or "Han Americans". Therefore, that argument is invalid. The second argument is invalid because it is basically an WP:OSE argument. "Han American" isn't even a race or ethnic category recognized by the Office of Budget Management, nor have I seen it covered in an Asian American studies literature.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:02, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"As stated by other editors, ... Therefore, that argument is invalid." Which Wikipedia policy is called "As stated by other editors"?

WP:GNG: '"Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content.' Which original research was needed to extract from the literature the information that there exists a population of American people of Han descent, so that this article does not meet 'significant coverage'?

WP:OSE: 'These "other stuff exists" arguments can be valid or invalid.' According to which Wikipedia policy can you say something "is invalid because it is basically an WP:OSE argument"?

Per which policy must this subject be recognized by the Office of Budget Management or covered by Asian American studies literature?

Lysimachi (talk) 23:00, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect – a content fork in the sense of duplication of material that is or reasonably can be dealt with cheaply at "Chinese American" and its siblings.

Both Han and non-Han people make up the various ethnic groups in China; similarly, these groups form sizeable parts of the populations of other south & southeast Asia countries, and of course elsewhere. However, information needs to be organised for readers. Right now, subjects like this aren't organised into standalone articles. This seems better handled briefly in the respective Asian Americans pages which are arranged by geography, such as "Chinese American", rather than articles for each ethno–linguistic group e.g. Han people in America/Han Americans, Zhuang Americans etc. I'll add that I find the way allegations of ties with User:Instantnood are thrown around to be highly questionable. –146.199.151.33 (talk) 02:37, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Under the categories European American (e.g., Sami American, Silesian American, Rusyn American, Manx American) and Asian American (e.g., Tibetan American, Tamil American, Iu Mien American, Bengali American, Kannada American, Punjabi American, Baloch American), there are quite a few articles on Americans descending from an ethno-linguistic group or a region that does not correspond to a country. I don't see why you say "subjects like this aren't organised into standalone articles." Lysimachi (talk) 20:54, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and merge for future expansion. Keep edit history. 203.210.6.65 (talk) 12:07, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:GNG not met. not a single google books hit. Wikipedia is not the frontier for new classification development. Americans are americans unless WP:GNG is met.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 02:11, 30 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:08, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shingo Nakamura[edit]

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

This has been tagged for notability problems since April 2013, and only has one link to it to in the English Wikipedia (there is no Japanese Wikipedia article). None of the existing refs are third-party significant RS's, and searches of the net in both English and Japanese find nothing better. At best, I found this, but it seems to be a blog in the end. Cannot verify any major charting. Fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. Michitaro (talk) 00:25, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Michitaro (talk) 00:28, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:37, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Given the lack of reliable third-party sourcing and in-depth coverage, this does not appear to pass the basic WP:GNG notability criteria. --DAJF (talk) 12:36, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The bottom line seems to be that he's simply not notable with News finding a few results but nothing at the other searches (I found the one lessthan3.com link mentioned above). SwisterTwister talk 04:53, 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.

[1] "NE Philly man is laughmaster of YouTube pranks". Philly.com.

[2] "Ed Bassmaster stuck on YouTube?". The News Record.

[3] "Who's The King Of YouTube Pranksters? Jack Vale or Ed Bassmaster?". Adweek.

[4] "Local YouTube Star Gets His Own Show On CMT". cbslocal.com.

[5] "The true annoying glory of wearing Google Glass to the mall". CNET. CBS Interactive.

[nyp-6] Keith J. Kelly (16 July 2010). Didn’t get paid by Louise Blouin? Get in line. New York Post. Accessed December 2013.

[7] Dan Duray (13 December 2013) Blouin Media, Publisher of Art+Auction and Modern Painters, Terminates Most International Freelance Contracts. New York: observer.com. Accessed April 2015.

[8] Keith J. Kelly (14 February 2014) Former execs sue Blouin Media. New York Post.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[1]

[2]

[3]