Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 November 11

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 10 November	12 November >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. joe decker ^talk 06:47, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lipog[edit]

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

I'm not much into Java, but this seems pretty obscure. I don't see much out there about it, mostly mirrors of this article. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:36, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 23:57, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 23:57, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I see nothing convincingly better. SwisterTwister talk 21:00, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - software article of unclear notability, lacking significant independent refs. The theserverside.com link in the article is too brief to be considered significant coverage. A search turned up no significant WP:RS coverage of this software. Dialectric (talk) 05:45, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. sufficient consensus DGG ( talk ) 18:14, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Aileen Celeste[edit]

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

Seemingly non-notable and questionably improve as it seems she's not a major or otherwise active actress and the best I found was only this. At best, this could be moved to her one best known work but with seemingly only a few episodes, I question why and it seems deleting is best. SwisterTwister talk 22:52, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 22:52, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Venezuela-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 22:52, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 23:57, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete References consisting of a personal biography page and an IMDB entry do not constitute notability. I found nothing substantive that would do this (at least, not in English— if she is notable in the Spanish-speaking world, someone who speaks Spanish would need to provide evidence of this in the article). KDS4444^Talk 19:31, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also: I checked the Spanish Wikipedia for her and she does have an article but its references consist only of a link to IMDB and another link to a biography page— nothing independent. KDS4444^Talk 02:49, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom and above editor. Nothing in English search engines to show notability. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:50, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 people arguing to keep failed to provide any policy-based arguments. In particular, I can find no policy which says that Wikipedia is a gazetteer. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:33, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Matakana War Memorial[edit]

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

NN. One of thousands of war memorials across New Zealand, and far from being a notable one - its main claims to fame listed here are that it is significant in its (relatively small) district, has been vandalised a few times, and has its own facebook page. Its sculptor is not notable enough to have his own article; neither are any of the names inscribed on it. A smaller article on the same subject by the same editor was recently merged into the Matakana article, which is where it properly belongs. Grutness...wha? 23:10, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Thousands" of war memorials in New Zealand? What's your source on that? According to the New Zealand Ministry for Culture and Heritage, there are only 453. [1]--Oakshade (talk) 19:47, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Read that again. According to the Ministry for Culture and Heritage, the original register contained 453 First World War memorials. Since then, "many more memorials have been added". What's more, "At this stage it mainly includes civic First World War memorials and memorials from the New Zealand Wars and South African War" and "There are gaps in the records. We invite you to check your local memorials to see if they are on the register." So a list that initially included 453 items from one, albeit major, conflict, which has been significantly added to, is still incomplete, and does not yet include much from the years post WWI. As it stands, this massively incomplete register "over 900 memorials throughout the country" [2]. "Thousands" may be an exaggeration, but over 1000 is more likely than not - especially since a quick glance at the map for my local area shows several missing. Grutness...wha? 23:30, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So it's not "thousands" as in over 2,000 but maybe just over 1,000.--Oakshade (talk) 23:53, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, "thousands" may have been an exaggeration on my part, but given what information is there, and what information is missing, I'd say that the total figure could well be somewhere around 1500. FWIW, I've done a more detailed check on the memorials listed for the city I live in - it lists 20 memorials close to the city, but I spotted at least nine missing. If that is consistent across the country, then there would be 45% more than the 900 currently listed - and that's assuming I haven't missed any, which is unlikely. Grutness...wha? 07:13, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Make that 11 missing locally. Grutness...wha? 07:24, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't even think 'thousands' is that much of an exaggeration. War memorials take many forms: most schools, churches, clubs etc. which were in existence during the first few decades of the last century would have plaques or honour boards for those who served; some public buildings are themselves war memorials; one famous war memorial is even a bottle of beer. Daveosaurus (talk) 04:55, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep on the basis that Wikipedia is a gazetteer. I believe it passes WP:GEOFEAT, bullet 1 Fiddle Faddle 23:20, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- No, it doesn't. It's not on the NZHPT register of historic places, which would be the criterion for bullet 1 of GEOFEAT. As to being a gazetteer, as it says in WP:NGEO's lede - "[...] geographical features meeting Wikipedia's General notability guideline (GNG) are presumed, but not guaranteed, to be notable. Therefore, the notability of some geographical features (places, roadways, objects, etc.) may be called into question." Grutness...wha? 23:30, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seriously, marking this page for deletion on Remembrance Day?! This page is new and needs further work. It was absorbed into the Matakana page and then created as a stand alone page. There are several people throughout New Zealand who wish to contribute to its development. It is intended that this page will be part of a series of pages about significant monuments, war memorials, and their sculptors. It would be appreciated that, instead of deleting the page, that referencing and formatting continue to improve the page. Regarding the NZHPT, the classification of the monument is pending.--TheBlackandSilver (talk) 05:20, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The day has little relevance to whether an article is notable or not. And I have no objection to articles about significant monuments. This one, though, is utterly non-significant. Is there one single thing about it which makes it notable? Certainly nothing which I've been able to find brings it close to passing WP:GEOFEAT. I'm an inclusionist, but there are limits to what should be included. If the monument passes NZHPT classification, then it can always be re-created, but a large number of structures get nominated, with only a relatively small proportion of them being accepted. Look at it this way - at the moment, there are articles for New Zealand war memorials in Auckland, Wellington, Christchurch, and Matakana. That is, the country's three biggest centres, and one which would not fall in the country's largest 500. The Matakana monument has nothing which makes it any more significant than those in any of those other 500 centres, and indeed it is far less notable than many - possibly most - of them. A lot of these monuments are perfectly acceptably covered as sections of articles relating to their locations. As is this monument, adequately covered in the Matakana article. The subject simply doesn't meet WP's notability criteria enough to have a stand-alone article.

I realise that you have put some work into the article (indeed six of your 14 Wikipedia edits are related to it in some way - including re-creating the page after it had been declined at AfC... which should have been a hint about whether it should be here), but even so, sadly it seems unlikely to meet WP's notablity standards. It doesn't matter how much extra tidying and formatting is done to an article if it doesn't reach those standards. I would suggest that, in the interests of improving articles on New Zealand war memorials, work be done on some that are clearly notable - there are a substantial number of them which would be useful here (like the one for Dunedin Cenotaph, which I just created). Grutness...wha? 08:30, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Nick-D (talk) 06:02, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Nick-D (talk) 06:02, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This seems to be a run of the mill community war memorial, and no more significant than the thousands of similar memorials in Australian and NZ towns and suburbs. The article's sourcing rests heavily on minor local news sources which I don't think are sufficient to establish notability. The article can be recreated if the memorial is listed as a historically significant place in the future and/or high quality sources become available. Nick-D (talk) 21:47, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:55, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and Merge to Matakana, teh small section there is truly all that the sourcing can support. And to User:TheBlackandSilver, thank you for doing all of this work. It can take time to find you sea-legs, to figure out what makes a good article, find topics that we need your help to improve. Welcome; I do hope that you will stick around and help. There is lots of work to do. Perhaps you could offer to use the material you have brought to this page to improve the War Memorial seciton on the Matakana page. Cheers.17:39, 18 November 2015 (UTC)E.M.Gregory (talk)

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

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

The result was keep. Per the improvements made since being nominated. Any merger or such discussion can be held on the talk page. (non-admin closure) Ya sh ! 00:38, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Boasting[edit]

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

Ivanvector suggestion is this is a three sentence dictionary definition. There are more words in hatnotes than in the article. Delete along with the 117 Neelix Redirects at RfD. [3] Legacypac (talk) 22:24, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is a good example of "Wikipedia is not a dictionary". Sundayclose (talk)
Redirect to hubris - yes, I did suggest deletion, however I then realized that this has numerous incoming links (not counting the redirects) since "boasting" is possibly one name for a serious wrong in many mainstream religions. However, this tiny article is not helpful to readers. I've asked WikiProject Psychology to weigh in as perhaps there is a better target than what I've suggested. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 22:51, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the incoming wikilinks can be broken easily? Legacypac (talk) 22:57, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes that's true, they can. But I have concerns about just deleting a page which currently gets 40-60 hits per day without leaving something (a redirect? a dab page?) in its place. Even if it's a soft redirect to wiktionary, but I personally don't like those. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 23:03, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Clearly more than a dictionary definition - it does have six cites. Shortage of text is not in itself a reason for deletion, maybe there is room for expansion anyway. I don't agree with redirecting somewhere else. Hubris for example is a fairly broad conceptual attitude akin to narcissism, approximately being overconfident, but that could just mean for example making rash decisions. Boasting is a more narrow word relating to individual incidents of showing off.--Penbat (talk) 23:08, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've moved some of the stuff in the See also section into the main body of the article. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:22, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Both of you are probably right. I'm here on the premise that boasting can't be expanded into a proper article beyond the dictionary definition because it would duplicate an existing topic, but I'll be happy to be proven wrong on that point. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 01:38, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Millon's Handbook of Psychology, Personality and Social Psychology discuses Boasting as one component of self-presentation. We have an article on self-presentation entitled Impression management. Placed in this context, the term has meaning beyond a that of the dictionary. Merging Boasting with Impression management is another possible option. It could be added to: Impression_management#Motives_and_strategies - Wiki-psyc (talk) 12:18, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note - many (72) of the incoming links are related to Template:Narcissism and will drop if the template in modified - Wiki-psyc (talk) 12:40, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I cant think of any suitable merges or redirects, impression management is a mile away from boasting which could well be spontaneous.--Penbat (talk) 15:34, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Whether we merge of not (I don't have strong feeling either way), the context of self-presentation and "Boasting" are encyclopedic. Self-presentation is largely subconscious and spontaneous. Million discusses how we try to optimize our self presentation by balancing between boasting and discrediting ourselves (via excessive self promotion or being caught and being proven wrong). He also speaks to our often limited ability to perceive how our efforts impact our acceptance and likeability by others. - Wiki-psyc (talk) 16:57, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment we can all find 10 cites for any dictionary word. I like that redirect idea. Better to send people to an article where they can learn something rather then give a dictionary definition any english speaking 6 year old knows. Legacypac (talk) 12:35, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I had already covered that point. It has six cites and has expansion potential.--Penbat (talk) 15:34, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:46, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a bit concerned that right now it reads as a bit of WP:COAT to attack Trump, who is the only living person cited to have been notably boastful. (oh, and BTW, he's notably litigious, too). Though of course that in itself is not a reason to delete. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:49, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I just added that in an attempt to expand the article per above. Saw the list of fiction characters and the Donald popped into mind as the best example of a real person. Maybe others will add more to the article, cause beyond the dictionary definition you pretty much need to go to examples. Legacypac (talk) 18:57, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do not redirect to hubris I for one wouldn't support a redirect to hubris, as suggested above. They're not quite the same, imo. One is a state of mind -- "extreme pride or self-confidence" -- with its roots in classical tragedy. The other, boasting, is a ~~verbal~~ behaviour (striking thru verbal as one can boast in print). One can suffer from hubris and not feel the need to boast. And I think one could outwardly boast as a means to cover for insecurity, and so not suffer from extreme self-confidence. Anyway, that particular redirect would not work, far as I can see. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:16, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Merge if convenient, or improve, or just leave it alone. The "issues" named in the submission have been addressed, and it was a matter of a few minutes' work, it would actually have been easier for the submitter to fix the article than to propose it for deletion. --dab (𒁳) 20:11, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Article updated The consensus appears to be KEEP but IMPROVE. I added some basic structure to this article and to Impression_management article to help with this. I'm not sure the Donald Trump reference should be in this article, but I'll defer that decision to the active editors on this article. Wiki-psyc (talk) 22:16, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Which also gives me a way to add a psychology category. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:28, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Looks like the improvements since nomination have fixed any WP:DICDEF issues. It needs work, but considerably better now and certainly meets WP:GNG. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 04:41, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - thank you all for entertaining the discussion and helping to improve the article. As expanded, the article doesn't resolve my concern that this is not a distinct encyclopedic topic rather than simply a list of examples supporting a dictionary definition, but there doesn't seem to be anything better to do with it than what's been done, and the intricate technicalities distinguishing psychology concepts are well outside my area of expertise. I've struck my !vote above but I'm leaving this one as a neutral statement. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 20:53, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Penbat's reasoning. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 23:16, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We have lots of articles about concepts of human feelings and behaviors, and the nominator has not enunciated a good reason for deleting this one. Bearian (talk) 17:42, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. joe decker ^talk 06:46, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Crown House Business Centre[edit]

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

No real sources for a bog-standard office building. Not an article, a commercial real estate listing. Calton | Talk 21:53, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - article seems to be mostly talking about the Palestinian Return Centre, not the building which hosts it. Not clear why the building needs a page. JMWt (talk) 22:31, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete U.K: version of Google News archive finds only one article mentioning this building. Fails to meet WP:Notable. ViperFace (talk) 04:00, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's in Leeds, the article's about a building in London. Peter James (talk) 23:51, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence of notability; coatrack article. Peter James (talk) 22:27, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:59, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

3:16 Game[edit]

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

Per WP:SPORTSEVENT, individual games are generally better "in an existing article on a broader topic instead of creating a new standalone page." This overlaps with 2011–12 NFL playoffs, 2011 Denver Broncos season, and 2011 Pittsburgh Steelers season. Years after this game, it's clear there has been little WP:LASTING impact or WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE after the season. Even if this game were deemed notable, Wikipedia:Notability states: "This is not a guarantee that a topic will necessarily be handled as a separate, stand-alone page. Editors may use their discretion to merge or group two or more related topics into a single article." As an aside, the name "3:16 Game" itself shows little use of the term in sources on search engines. The 3:16 references are more relevant to Tim Tebow than the game, and its details from the game are already covered in his bio. 3:16 Game itself is puffed with overly-detailed (and unsourced) play-by-play.—Bagumba (talk) 21:13, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. —Bagumba (talk) 21:16, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge (and Redirect perhaps to 2011–12 NFL playoffs?). I agree that this topic doesn't merit an article and that this article is overstuffed with unwarranted detail. As such, after ensuring that anything perceived as truly notable/relevant is covered in one (or more) of the articles noted above by Bagumba, I would support deletion. — DeeJayK (talk) 16:48, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment re: merge There seems little opportunity to merge here. Without CONTINUEDCOVERAGE of the coinkydink of 3-1-6's, it seems WP:UNDUE to merge much more of it. 3-1-6 is more relevant to Tebow than the game, and Tim Tebow#2011 already has his key stats and mention that it evoked John 3:16; not much more needs to be said unless people really believe the divine intervention theme is still underrepresented there. The "Background" section is predominantly a background of Tebow's career, not the game itself, which is again already covered by his extensive bio. Otherwise, the game recap itself is all unsourced, so little opportunity to merge without verification, in which case we may as well use actual RSs, not this article.—Bagumba (talk) 20:26, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. After taking a closer look at the articles, it seems to me that the 3:16 coincidences are given sufficient coverage in the other articles listed without further merging from this article. Thus, I've abandoned my suggestion to merge. — DeeJayK (talk) 21:42, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Tim Tebow – in reference to Bagumba's last comment, I think there is some useful content about the relationship between Tebow's prominent Christianity and the divine intervention theme which could be transferred to Tebow's article, and I think it would be reasonable to redirect the page to that section of Tebow's article. As Bagumba rightly points out, almost all of the rest of the article is the sort of contextual padding we so often see in articles about games which derive their notability from a single feature which can be described in a single paragraph. Aspirex (talk) 04:02, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator's rationale and the relevant event notability guidelines cited therein. Speaking as a practicing Christian, University of Florida graduate, and a fan of Tim Tebow and the Florida Gators, I find such pseudo-numerology to be embarrassing. It certainly has no place in a serious encyclopedia, even less so in the absence of significant and continuing coverage of the event. Everything about the "John 3:16" aspects of this game that needs to be covered is already included in the Tim Tebow article, and the 2011 season article treats all other aspects adequately. Tebow has great faith and personal character, and I really wish some folks would quit trying to make something weird out of an admirable young man. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:51, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. joe decker ^talk 15:34, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Hellberg[edit]

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

The one citation is the only reference I could find in any of the search engines. Nothing else on News, Newspapers, Books, Scholar, or Highbeam. Doesn't meet WP:GNG, and nothing in the article shows them meeting WP:NMUSIC. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:43, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've found more refs: this mag interview (does not appear to be the same one as cited on the page) also this review and this article. Possibly more if I look a bit harder. JMWt (talk) 21:16, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Hi JMWt - the first and third are interviews, and being primary sources are invalid for determining notability (in addition, the third is from a blog). The second is definitely interesting, but the site doesn't give it's editorial policy (can you find it anywhere, perhaps I missed it?), and it appears to be a post from ... somebody. Their "staff" page doesn't exist. So not sure that passes WP:RS.

It seems to me that the relevant policy is WP:GNG - and that there is a difference between sources to establish notability and the sources needed to prove any statements about the subject. It seems to me that the above references all meet the criteria listed in WP:GNG in that they're reliable (although I don't know how one would prove unreliability of a music magazine or website) and independent of the subject. I don't see anything suggesting that an edited interview on a journalistic site is, actually, a primary source. Even if it is, surely many different magazines and blogs carrying interviews would suggest that they think the artist is of interest - and is notable - even if it is later determined that the facts in the interview are unreliable. JMWt (talk) 10:30, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All of the above said, I'm not sure whether the artist is really notable enough to be included. However, there are clearly more refs which should be considered than were offered initially. JMWt (talk) 10:33, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:54, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article appears unfinished and I don't see this article going anywhere soon. Jd02022092 (talk) 22:17, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: WP:RUBBISH and WP:NOEFFORT. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 11:18, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I fail to find significant coverage in independent, reliable sources sufficient to meet WP:BASIC or WP:CREATIVE. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 11:23, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 11:23, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as he's not clearly notable and improvable yet. SwisterTwister talk 05:24, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 23:54, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shadorma[edit]

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

No references, has been ref tagged since 2013. No expansion in that time. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 19:24, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't understand the detail, but reliable sources exist for this poetic form. For example this book.JMWt (talk) 21:56, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't know how notable poetic forms are but it seems to have some merit. [4] [5]. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 21:57, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Clear Keep Though its mini-essay (now removed) was not sourced, the fact of the form's existence is well-known and easily sourced. Collect (talk) 15:28, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:27, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:18, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus is keep, especially after citation work done by Sam Sailor. (non-admin closure) Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:53, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Christoph Köler[edit]

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

Article with only one reference, and that from a page in a book written in German. I find nothing that establishes notability per Wikipedia guidelines. Article subject appears to fail WP:GNG. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 19:12, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The German Wikipedia article is better sourced. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:49, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:50, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:51, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:51, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep major figure in early modern German literature. English sources usually use his Latin name.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:06, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While I am not particularly convinced that the subject was a major figure in early modern German literature, he was certainly important enough to have a 250-page book written in the early 20th century on his life and work (this as a whole seems to be the one reference currently in the article, not just a page from it). The fact that the book was written in German does not damage its reliability. And while we generally require more than one reference to establish notability, there are definitely others - even excepting this one, which mainly mentions the subject to distinguish him from three other people with very similar names from much the same period. He is, for instance, mentioned or quoted repeatedly in this biography of Christian Hoffmann von Hoffmannswaldau and this book on German baroque rhetoric, and to lesser but still significant degrees here and here. PWilkinson (talk) 22:20, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Having a biography published on the subject that is independent of the subject and not just a book of memorial is enough to make them notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:51, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there's actually not much at first but a historical subject such as this will almost certainly have some archived information thus needed familiar attention. SwisterTwister talk 08:46, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@SwisterTwister: It sounds as if you actually intended to !vote Keep. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 11:02, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Easily sourced, I have added a handful of {{Cite book}}s and there's plenty more to pick from. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 11:00, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:52, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 23:54, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

George Hindori[edit]

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

This stub does not contain enough information to determine whether this individual is WP:NOTABLE. Also, the author of this article may have a close connection to the subject of the article. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:04, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

keep (if i understand the source correctly) if I read this right, [6] Hindori was a politician of the national parliament of Suriname and thus merits inclusion under WP:NPOL. he also merited a biographical entry here [7] (although in the snippet view, its hard to see anything particularly notable) but google translate says this source [https://books.google.com/books?id=fD5KAAAAYAAJ&q=George+Hindori+suriname&dq=George+Hindori+suriname&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CE0Q6AEwB2oVChMI_YfnjpOJyQIVyz4mCh2aUQS7 says "What is hard is the fact that in the history of the independent genesis of Suriname, the breakthrough came when the one Hindustani, George Hindori, with the Creole block came along. And the history of the independent" -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:00, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unless someone can rewrite the article to make sense (as well as to establish his notability). There are several mentions of his "change of position", but no explanation of what it was before, when he changed it, and what it was afterwards. Maproom (talk) 21:45, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Info on his change of position was removed with this dif. —teb728 t c 22:34, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

along with the incorrect claim that "widely considered the driving force behind the independence " when in fact the sources all state he was a latecomer and his intentions are defined all over the map. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:49, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He was a member of the parliament of Suriname, and also held a cabinet level position as Secretary of Agriculture. Accordingly, he meets WP:NPOL. In 1975, he was right hand man to Jagernath Lachmon, head of the primarily Hindu political party opposing immediate independence from the Netherlands. Hindori's defection from the anti-independence movement and switch to support for immediate independence was a decisive event in Suriname's political history. I do not think that there should be any doubt that he was notable. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:28, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Cullen328's cogent analysis. —GrammarFascist _contribs ^talk 10:12, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - there appears to be very little discussion of this person in published sources (at least those available online), so I initially doubted that he met the general notability guideline. Even if he doesn't, however, he does meet the additional criteria for politicians at WP:PEOPLE]. Thanks for Cullen328 for the analysis. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:50, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, I must have misremembered how much coverage I found when searching about this person yesterday - there is in fact a fair amount of coverage in Dutch sources. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:53, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. joe decker ^talk 06:45, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Marcella Humphrey[edit]

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

The subject of this article fails to meet the standards of WP:N due to lack of multiple, non-trivial references in reliable, third-party sources. There's no Wikipedia policy or consensus that states that the oldest anything is automatically notable by the encyclopedia's standards; numerous recent AfDs on the "oldest" individuals have been kept or deleted based on their individual merits. Thus we default to the general notability guidelines and any material of encyclopedic merit can be included on the many longevity-related lists on Wikipedia. Canadian Paul 19:02, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete One obit and one birthday article suggesting oatmeal as a key to longevity do not notability make. Fails WP:GNG. Fails WP:SIGCOV. Fails to even assert, let alone establish notability. Has been tagged thusly since 2009. More than half a decade is quite enough time to resolve the notability issue. Please delete. David in DC (talk) 22:11, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Subject does not satisfy the general notability guidelines with significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources per WP:GNG. What coverage there is, is local in nature and trivial in content. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:58, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above and per WP:NOPAGE, even if notable. ~ Rob^Talk 18:37, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to List of people who eat oatmeal. EEng (talk) 19:17, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect There are few sources and she was not "old enough" to be among the oldest. Did not do anything to warrant notability for other reasons than her long life. Could be redirected with a mini-bio to a proper page. 930310 (talk) 19:15, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - old, but no cookie. Bearian (talk) 17:26, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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~~. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:20, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Upon enquiry and further reflection, I am changing this to No Consensus. After discounting all the WP:SPA input, NC seems like a better summation of the arguments. It's all somewhat moot, since a NC close results in the article being kept anyway. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:52, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ramona Trinidad Iglesias-Jordan[edit]

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

The subject of this article fails to meet the standards of WP:N due to lack of multiple, non-trivial references in reliable, third-party sources - all I could find were obituaries, which do not satisfy the requirement. There's no Wikipedia policy or consensus that states that the oldest anything is automatically notable by the encyclopedia's standards; numerous recent AfDs on the "oldest" individuals have been kept or deleted based on their individual merits. Thus we default to the general notability guidelines and any material of encyclopedic merit can be included on the many longevity-related lists on Wikipedia. Canadian Paul 18:56, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She was the world record holder. the previous AfD of similar record holder (1, 2, 3, 4, 5) result was keep, in the same way as this article should be keep. also, I gave an improvement in the problems of this article.[8] --Inception2010 (talk) 20:28, 11 November 2015 (UTC)— Inception2010 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete per WP:NOPAGE. Almost half of the article is about the mechanics and trivia of verification, plus the fascinating fact that she and her husband were interviewed together for the 1920 census. Wow! The rest is pedestrian details of everyone's life: born, married, worked, died. EEng (talk) 16:14, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to List of the oldest verified people. Nothing here justifies a stand-alone article. WP:NOPAGE. David in DC (talk) 18:37, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep World's oldest human is good enough. also record holders of world's oldest living person usually have an article.----153.151.83.197 (talk) 02:15, 14 November 2015 (UTC) — 153.151.83.197 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete and redirect per EEng and David in DC's rationales above. I might also suggest that we add one or two-sentence descriptions of the listed persons to the "List of the oldest verified people", thus obviating the perceived need for many of these "oldest person" articles for non-notable subjects. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:04, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong and Obvious Keep Was the oldest living human in the world as well as the oldest person ever from Puerto Rico at the time of her death. 930310 (talk) 19:08, 15 November 2015 (UTC) — 930310 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Not obvious unless you can show us something that would go in the article to counter the NOPAGE argument. EEng (talk) 20:26, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep World's oldest person who was covered extensively in world-wide media press. Fiskje88 (talk) 20:05, 15 November 2015 (UTC) — Fiskje88 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep Ramona Trinidad Iglesias-Jordan has been a notable person not only as the oldest ever verified woman from Puerto Rico, but also as the GWR-verified world's oldest person. The amount of press coverage is here thus not a surprise. Keep beyond reasonable doubt.White Eaglet (talk) 22:50, 15 November 2015 (UTC) This editor has made few or no other edits outside this topic.[reply]
Comment and Request - @White Eaglet, Fiskje88, 930310, and Inception2010: Please note that there is no such specific notability guideline for "oldest person," and any reliance on such a non-existent guideline or precedent is misplaced. All such "oldest persons" must satisfy the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG, as well as other suitability guidelines such as WP:NOPAGE, in order to have a stand-alone article on Wikipedia. You are respectfully requested to provide links to what each you believe are the three best examples of significant coverage of the subject in independent, reliable sources per GNG, so other editors may evaluate whether such persons are notable. Thank you. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:40, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The individual was documented as the "oldest documented person in the world" in an article with the reliable and verifiable sources needed to support the claim of notability. Alansohn (talk) 04:35, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to think this is WP:A7. AfD isn't about verifiability of "a claim"; it's about SIGCOV, plus justification of a standalone article escaping NOPAGE. Can you speak to that? EEng (talk) 08:11, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article has ample coverage and detail about the subject in an article that is the length, size and scope of most of our five million articles. Let me know if you have any further mind-reading regarding my intent or if you have any more acronyms and abbreviations to toss out. Alansohn (talk) 01:27, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mind-reading wouldn't be necessary if you would express yourself intelligibly. First you talked about "support [for] the claim of notability", which isn't part of the criteria at AfD‍—‌actual notability, not a claim of notability, is what matters here, and that's the SIGCOV issue to which you still haven't spoken. Now you've shifted to talking about "length", "size" (which I guess you distinguish from "length") and "scope", which might be persuasive if the content of this article wasn't largely, as it is, fluff such as

according to documents compiled in March 2004... after the death of Mitoyo Kawate, although German American Charlotte Benkner, who was about 3½ months younger, had been given recognition in the meantime... They were interviewed together in the 1920 United States Census when she was 30... In 1948, her birth certificate was signed at Utuado, certifying that she was born at 7:00 AM on September 1, 1889. However, a baptismal certificate of April 1890 (found in 1992), revealed that she was actually born the day before, on August 31, 1889. The 1910 United States Census recorded her aged 20. Her marriage to Alfonso Soler on December 26, 1912, aged 23 is recorded by certificate on December 28, 1912... The Guinness World Records accepted her claim, documentation meeting their standards, and on March 29, 2004, she received a document from them, declaring her the world's oldest living woman. She joined José Miguel Agrelot, Wilfred Benítez and a handful of others as the only Puerto Ricans to enter that book.

-- none of which tells us anything about her. EEng (talk) 02:05, 18 November 2015 (UTC

EEng, feel free to cut out your patronizing crap. I've read the article and I've reviewed Wikipedia policy at length over the past decade. This article makes a rather clear claim of notability, is supported by reliable and verifiable sources and provides significant coverage of the article's subject. Cutting-and-pasting portions of the text does nothing to convince me otherwise, mainly because I've already read the article. Here and elsewhere, turning your levels of dripping arrogance down from 11 will be helpful. Alansohn (talk) 03:47, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Temper, temper! You keep saying you've read the article, understand policies and guidelines, and so on, but you never actually express any opinion matched to those policies/guidelines. In cases like this I hold little hope of converting you to my point of view, rather my posts are directed at helping others not be confused by what you say. You're still arguing as if notability is the only test for a subject's having a standalone page, and that's just not right, as mentioned over and over: the NOPAGE issue needs to be addressed as well. Showing how much of the article is irrelevant fluff, by quoting it as above, helps others to see that. EEng (talk) 03:54, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@EEng: Your reply here further solidifies the image of you that I have in my head as Q. Temper temper mon capitan! Canadian Paul 23:02, 18 November 2015 (UTC) [reply]

Sorry, I'm still back at Capt. Kirk and Mr. Spock, but I surmise this is a compliment. EEng (talk) 23:28, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

EEng, repeating the same nonsense over and over again doesn't it make it any more valid. Simply ignoring the fact that the article makes a clear claim of notability, backs up that claim with reliable and verifiable sources in a comprehensive article does not make an argument for deletion. It merely constitutes an ignorance of reality. Alansohn (talk) 02:44, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reality? Dammit, Jim! I'm a doctor, not an epistomologist! EEng (talk) 06:01, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Alansohn: For purposes of stand-alone articles on Wikipedia, "notability" has nothing to do with "a clear claim of ~~ntoability~~ notability," and everything to do with multiple examples of significant coverage of the subject in independent, reliable sources per WP:GNG. That's not nonsense -- that's what the guideline says. Furthermore, when notability is established, that creates a presumption, not a guaranty of a stand-alone article. Discussion participants may still decide that a given subject may be better covered as part of another article or list. This is all explicitly laid out in GNG. You may want to review it again. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 04:46, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"multiple examples of significant coverage of the subject" Let's give significant a numerical value, shall we! I'm recommending TEN reliable sources anything less and it's toast!!! --MurderByDeadcopy^"bang!" 21:50, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dirtlawyer1, I admire your persistence, and that of EEng, in simply ignoring, misinterpreting and misrepresenting what I've said. You can repeat the same crap over and over again, but you haven't convinced me or anyone else. This is an article that meets every aspect of the standard of Wikipedia notability (or what you call "ntoability"). Alansohn (talk) 04:58, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You admire our persistence in ignoring, misinterpreting and misrepresenting? You certainly have odd objects of admiration! EEng (talk) 06:01, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Alansohn: I've participated in over 600 AfDs, and I have a pretty good grasp of the concepts of notability. I also recognize deflection and ad hominem arguments when I read them. As a lawyer, I recognize the rhetorical tactics -- and so would any parent of an 8-year-old. On several occasions in the recent AfDs related to this topic, you have protested your 10 years of Wikipedia experience in interpreting relevant Wikipedia "policy" (guidelines, actually). Okay, fair enough. How about you take up the challenge I issued above?

Please link to the three best examples of significant coverage in independent, reliable sources per WP:GNG.

My mind can be changed by evidence, and unlike other participants in these discussions, my only interest is in seeing the general notability guidelines properly applied in each instance. Some of these "oldest persons" articles will survive because they have significant coverage; others will not survive because they don't have significant coverage. Can your mind be changed? Are you willing to present actual evidence of notability in the form of significant coverage? Can you? That's how this exercise is supposed to be played -- it's not a shouting match where participants trade insults. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 05:24, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Surely you'll admit that in pointing out that you mistyped notability as ntoability, he well and truly vitiated all your fancy reasoning and logic. EEng (talk) 08:02, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dirtlawyer1, we don't work based on demands; We work on consensus. Your shouting-match demands that I must "link to the three best examples of significant coverage..." will be ignored because they have no more relevance than a demand that we mud wrestle, best two out of three pins, with the winner getting to choose if the article is retained. Consensus here is that your arguments (and those of EEng) simply don't fly, no matter how often you have repeated them or tried to raise the stakes. The article makes a strong claim of notability, the claim is covered by multiple reliable and verifiable sources in article that provides significant coverage of the subject. That's what counts. Accept it. Move on. Fight other battles, where you might have a better case. Alansohn (talk) 21:11, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alan, I'm not "shouting," but when an AfD participant declines to provide evidence of significant coverage that usually means they can't. The burden is on "keep" voters to provide such evidence. Plenty of AfDs are wrongly decided when folks with a vested interested show up and vote in disproportionate numbers. Requesting that "keep" voters provide their best evidence of significant coverage in independent reliable sources is pretty much standard operating procedure in properly conducted AfDs -- but I assume you know that, based on your 10 years of experience, right? Simply repeating that such coverage exists is not evidence that it does, but I suspect you know that, too, right? I strongly urge you to re-read WP:GNG, because if you really know it and understand it, then you're ignoring it. BTW, grouping me with EEng is a mistake; I've never participated in these "oldest persons" discussions before two days ago, and my only interest in these discussions is seeing that GNG is properly enforced. I'm sorry if you cannot accept that in good faith. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:25, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, Alansohn, don't group Dirtlawyer with me. That's a really low blow. EEng (talk) 18:23, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep . I thought we've been through this before. The oldest person ever is notable, period. Consensus can change but not that fast. Bearian (talk) 17:19, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You keep linking to WP:OUTCOMES. Where in there is anything about oldest people? EEng (talk) 19:57, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Bearian: If ever this consensus you keep referring to existed at WP:OUTCOMES, or anywhere else, it has most definitely changed, or at least challenged, per the results of numerous recent AfDs. I don't mind legitimate disagreements about notability of course, but unless you clarify further, this just seems disingenuous and/or non-sensical to those nominating the article and does little to convince us to rethink our positions. Canadian Paul 23:02, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is such a no-brainer; there are sources, the subject is such an outstanding superlative (#1 in the world). I think we can even cite norules here, it's just obvious this is a useful extension of the encyclopedia. Jacona (talk) 19:20, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But you haven't explained why this useful extension can't be presented just as well in the appropriate list. EEng (talk) 20:20, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I feel your pain, EEng, I think many subjects would be better served that way, but a "world superlative" is going to be considered worth of a stand-alone article. Jacona (talk) 21:38, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But the question isn't whether the subject is "worthy" of a standalone article, just whether that's the best way to present the subject. As NOPAGE says, "A decision to cover a notable topic only as part of a broader page does not in any way disparage the importance of the topic." EEng (talk) 18:23, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Agree with the user above. Coverage in sources, oldest person in the world... meets WP:GNG. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 19:36, 19 November 2015 (UTC) This editor has made few or no other edits outside this topic.[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:49, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Being the oldest whatever is something that just happens by chance. And NOPAGE applies abundantly, there is absolutely nothing of encyclopedic value in this article. Perhaps there's a wikia for trivia that might be interested in this stuff... --Randykitty (talk) 14:32, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets WP:GNG. This source, for example, addresses the subject directly and in detail. Just Chilling (talk) 17:47, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. joe decker ^talk 06:42, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Shevon[edit]

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

Fails PORNBIO and the GNG. No qualifying awards, just nominations. No independent, reliable sourcing. No nontrivial biographical content. Tendentiously deprodded without explanation or article improvement by the usual suspect. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 17:07, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:10, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:11, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:11, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:11, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Nothing to suggest better. SwisterTwister talk 08:40, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as no evidence of notability, fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010Talk 01:09, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. WP:CORP joe decker ^talk 06:41, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kuttlefish[edit]

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

Nonnotable Web business, only marginal coverage. See WP:CORP and WP:V. NawlinWiki (talk) 15:28, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• There are 15+ indepedent and international sources that support this entry, however the majority are considered "blogs" and therefore have not been included. The company also has a Facebook following of 140k, which is notable for a web business and indicates that it is "attracting notice".Erothkopf (talk) 16:03, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 18:27, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 18:27, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 18:27, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now - Nothing to suggest better yet. SwisterTwister talk 23:23, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Additional notable source added. Erothkopf (talk) 15:35, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. the additional source added [9] is a very short PR blurb. The model of an unreliable source. DGG ( talk ) 02:13, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Added an additional notable, international source (notable for it's following, e.g. 62,000 Facebook followers).Erothkopf (talk) 16:25, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Never close on one !vote but as noted below High/Secondary schools are always kept per SCHOOLOUTCOMES, I would've closed this much sooner had I been aware. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:56, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Aoba-Japan International School[edit]

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

Fails WP:ORG. Edited/maintained by several single-purpose accounts with Japanese IP addresses, possible spam WP:CONFLICT. Unsourced (created in 2010). Wiki-psyc (talk) 11:18, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:09, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:10, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. It is a degree awarding high school institution and is independently accredited, as described in the Accreditation section of the article. If there is a concern with spam or conflict editing, the article can be reduced and rebuilt with whatever sources are available. But it is not so bad that it needs to be deleted. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 01:48, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 g7, see below. NawlinWiki (talk) 15:30, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ninebot one[edit]

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

Unsourced Steve Lux, Jr. (talk) 13:55, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the creator of the article and I'm actually OK for its deletion. I created the article after reading about the device somewhere I forgot, but with hindsight this device does not seem to notable enough for Wikipedia. Again,

with deletion.--Grondilu (talk) 14:48, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have a lot of respect for you after saying that! Steve Lux, Jr. (talk) 15:11, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Note plausible G12 claim, I haven't investigated it throughly enough to verify that the text isn't PD, but that should be carefully considered in the unlikely case that restoration is requested. joe decker ^talk 06:39, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rmit flexible and e-learning[edit]

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

I think this page has something to do with developmental psychology, but I do not understand exactly what. KDS4444^Talk 13:51, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE This is probably vandalism. This appears to be a course description / course outline from RMIT University, an Australian public university of technology and design based in Melbourne, Victoria. This is the course: rmit.edu.au/courses/005446 Wiki-psyc (talk) 16:29, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as copyvio G12. No indication of importance. Cowlibob (talk) 20:41, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. KTC (talk) 00:34, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Austin Lee[edit]

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

Subject of the article fails WP:GNG. I can't find any No evidence of notability. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 16:38, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Subject of the article passes WP:GNG as they have been written about in newspapers and magazines which are cited in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edward8686 (talk • contribs) 17:30, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:23, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:24, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:24, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 13:46, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 13:52, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete There's no real reason or sources for the article. I'm usually a keepatarian but I don't see anything here to warrant that. Yossiea ^(talk) 19:50, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree with the nom and Yossiea. Not enough in-depth coverage to show notability. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:19, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WP:CSD#G3 (hoax) by User:Tokyogirl79. (non-admin closure) ansh 666 20:41, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Asiope's Next Top Model (cycle 1)[edit]

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

I think this is for a television model competition, but am not 100% certain of even that. Article doesn't provide much context for the reader to understand what it's about, and has no citations to help the reader figure out. I can't find references for a subject I can't grasp from the article's contents. Suggesting deletion unless someone has a better idea of what to do with this. KDS4444^Talk 13:44, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 14:11, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television -related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 14:12, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I would suggest merge to Asiope's Next Top Model but that article is completely unreferenced, and probably ought to be included in this AFD too. if it is, I would say delete on that too as they are both poor, unreferenced, non-contextualised articles created by an editor who has made many problematic edits in the past and whose user name might possibly imply conflict of interest/shared usage. (I see someone else is already on that ball.) Mabalu (talk) 10:30, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Ya sh ! 00:31, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stuart M. Brooks[edit]

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

Created by SPA who appears to be related (he changed his username: [10]). Fails WP:BIO and WP:ACADEMIC. Article does claim he discovered a somewhat obscure syndrome known as RADS, but it is cited to his own website. Even if this is true, I've found no coverage of him with which to create an article, and I'm not sure that would qualify him as notable. FuriouslySerene (talk) 16:03, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:15, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:15, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:15, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tentative keep. The paper to which the article sources the subject's discovery of Reactive airways dysfunction syndrome (and of which he is the lead author) shows up with nearly 700 citations on the standard GScholar search - overall, GScholar shows the subject's h-index as a bit over 30. In many academic fields, the h-index would be quite enough to assume notability under WP:ACADEMIC#1. In fields like medicine, with heavily multiply-authored articles, it probably isn't quite enough by itself, but I am regard that heavily-cited article (and, to a lesser extent, a number of others with three-figure citations) as enough for notability. Pinging User:David Eppstein, as having rather more expertise with this kind of evidence than I have. PWilkinson (talk) 18:04, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm not much of an expert on medical notability, but with 8 papers having over 100 citations each in Google scholar including nearly 700 for the RADS paper I think this is a pass of WP:PROF#C1. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:13, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 13:42, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Yossiea ^(talk) 19:52, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mojo Hand (talk) 14:40, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Avisekh Rath[edit]

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

Subject of the article fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. No evidence of notability perhaps WP:TOOSOON. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 16:02, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 16:04, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 16:04, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 16:04, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I see no better improvement at this time. SwisterTwister talk 04:08, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:08, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 13:41, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - with a single acting credit, clearly does not meet WP:NACTOR. Searches did not show them to pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:12, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. KTC (talk) 00:35, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Philosothon[edit]

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

This source appears to be the only substantial, independent coverage of this competition in reliable sources. As such the 'multiple' sources requirement of WP:GNG is not met. SmartSE (talk) 13:25, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 13:56, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 13:56, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The following independent and substantial sources have been added today (Also some dead references have been removed);

Dr Ellerton, Peter "University Of Queenland Philosothon" Source- University of Queensland. Retrieved 11 November 2015. http://www.ctp.uq.edu.au/content/qld-state-philosothon

Mc Donald, Gaye. "Bournemouth Echo Today".http://www.bournemouthecho.co.uk/news/11155830.display/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sydney59 (talk • contribs) 04:03, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Higgert, David "Independent Education Today"-http://ie-today.co.uk/Article/young_philosophers_have_winning_thoughts

Dr D'Olympio, Laura. "The Conversation" http://theconversation.com/philosophy-in-schools-promoting-critical-creative-and-caring-thinking-44578

Flood, Gary & (2014). "A Marathon for the Mind". Retrieved 10 November 2014. https://www.pdcnet.org/pdc/bvdb.nsf/purchase?openform&fp=tpm&id=tpm_2014_0067_0010_0015 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sydney59 (talk • contribs) 23:08, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As well as these reliable independent sources there are multiple ABC Radio National Programs about this competition. There are also many other substantial references on independent school websites and educational networks such as the Philosophy Foundation and SAPARE in the UK, FAPSA, APIS and VAPS in Australasia. These are independent networks of teachers in the UK Sydney59 (talk) 06:12, 15 November 2015 (UTC) and each Australian state. Some but not all are included in the reference section on the Philosothon article. More can be added if necessary.[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is not a means of promotion. duffbeerforme (talk) 13:17, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. Silly nomination. Notability is not an issue and there is no evidence of promotional material provided by Duffbeerforme ....and if this were the case the article could be improved. Why would you delete. Sydney59 (talk) 23:26, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No notability, reads like and advertisement, and almost looks to be pushing an agenda. As Duffbeerforme (talk · contribs) observed, Wikipedia is not a means of promotion. TomStar81 (Talk) 07:09, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. joe decker ^talk 06:37, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Business Control Layer[edit]

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

Per WP:NEO and likely WP:SPAM. No credible claim to notability, only source is a press release. My own searches turn up nothing better. FuriouslySerene (talk) 16:09, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. FuriouslySerene (talk) 17:09, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. FuriouslySerene (talk) 17:09, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:05, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Software term article of unclear notability, lacking independent references. Per nom, this article promotes a neologism which lacks significant WP:RS coverage. Article was created by an SPA as possibly promotional.Dialectric (talk) 18:46, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Couldn't find any independent coverage of what appears to be a neologism. ~Kvng (talk) 14:21, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:01, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

10 Janpath[edit]

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

Not a Notable Place. Not any official residence of Government Official . Residence of Leader of Political Party is a Notable Place KCVelaga _{☚╣✉╠☛} 15:18, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, seems to meet WP:GNG based on a quick google search. Why would the residence of a political party leader be inherently non-notable?--Prisencolin (talk) 16:01, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:06, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:06, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, notable location in Indian national politics. Article could be expanded with detail on past history of the building. See several book hits, such as https://books.google.com/books?id=ItQF4g08KbwC&pg=PA272 and https://books.google.com/books?id=R6LrBAAAQBAJ&pg=PT84 . https://books.google.com/books?id=VeXGhORkNaQC provides more on the history of the compound, it's usage by Sanjay Gandhi. https://books.google.com/books?id=zFyMKROi46kC&pg=PA43 say it used to function as Lal Bahadur Shastri's office in the 1960s. "Compare: 10 Janpath Road: n. residence of Ms. Sonia Gandhi, Italian wife of former Prime Minister of India Rajiv Gandhi. 10 Janpath was the official residence of Rajiv Gandhi when he was the PM. The house was given to his widow and" (https://books.google.com/books?id=wDQyBwAAQBAJ&pg=PA16), "Thousands of Congress(I) workers waving black flags staged demonstrations outside the AIIMS, at Rajiv Gandhi's official residence at 10, Janpath and at Teen Murti House to protest against the assassination." (https://books.google.com/books?id=SAZVQqntxY0C&pg=PA70) "The most poignant moment came when the body reached 10 Janpath: Mrs Lalita Shastri collapsed as she touched her husband's body." (https://books.google.com/books?id=nTRuAAAAMAAJ p. 8) "He preferred to shift to 10 Janpath instead of to Teenmurti House, again due to the same complex, because he drew a parallel between his 10 Janpath house and the famous 10 Downing Street residence of the Prime Ministers of our former" (https://books.google.com/books?id=kX8dAAAAMAAJ p. 159) "The number 10, Janpath also has a strange history. The house has claimed many casualties. After he ceased to be the Prime Minister, Rajiv Gandhi moved into the house and was assassinated within 18 months. His widow and Congress president Sonia Gandhi continues to live there. It is said that since the house has already claimed a victim, its negative influence stands countered.

Ten Janpath was the office of the Indian Youth Congress during the emergency when Ambika Soni was its president and Sanjay Gandhi, a National Council member. The IYC was virtually wound up within 18 months from there and had to be resuscitated back subsequently after its ejection in 1977. The story is that even the Press Council of India had its office for 18 months and it had to move out. K.K.Tewari, a senior Congress leader who stayed there and moved out after Rajiv was allotted the house is in political wilderness.

Lal Bahadur Shastri as the Prime Minister also lived in the complex whose part the present 10, Janpath was. He died within 18 months of being in office." (http://blogs.hindustantimes.com/capital-closeup/2010/06/30/the-most-charmed-house-and-other-tales/) --Soman (talk) 02:44, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:05, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Agreed with nomination to the extent that residence must not be regarded as notable for article, however, we usually create articles about residences if they are already enough covered by media. Capitals00 (talk) 15:51, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. This was closed as borderline no consensus as many of the keep !votes simply pointed to a policy which merely assumes notability but does not directly infer it upon the subject. WP:SIGCOV is required and while this was not a clearcut case of GNG, there did appear to be enough material in the improved version for a claim against it. Mkdw ^talk 23:20, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nazario Fiakaifonu[edit]

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

Delete: as insufficiently accomplished and thus non-notable athlete. Quis separabit? 14:50, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @SwisterTwister -- any opinions?? It's lonely here! Quis separabit? 05:56, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:00, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:00, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Likely delete for now (or redirect to one of the Olympic articles which currently mention him?) as News and browser found some links but nothing convincingly better and it seems there's not much else especially recent. Thanks for the ping BTW, haha. SwisterTwister talk 06:17, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Olympic athletes are presumed notable.Peter Rehse (talk) 09:14, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Yes, Olympic athletes are presumptively notable, but that doesn't give them a free pass around WP:NOPAGE. I suggest that the redirect target be Judo at the 2012 Summer Olympics – Qualification. NewYorkActuary (talk) 22:02, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ~~or Redirect~~ I believe being an Olympic competitor is enough to prevent outright deletion. Normally I would vote automatically to keep the article, but there is less in the article than can be found at Judo at the 2012 Summer Olympics – Men's +100 kg, which I believe may be the best target of a redirect. Papaursa (talk) 19:36, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been improved enough to make me cross out my redirect option. I think keeping the article is the best choice since it provides the easier option of adding sources (there must be more out there). I do think NewYorkActuary makes a good point about WP:NOPAGE. I also found it interesting that he was ranked 138th in 2012, but got into the Olympics because Oceania was allocated two spots in his division. Papaursa (talk) 05:11, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:05, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. An Olympic judo competitor from tiny Vanuatu? Sounds interesting, likely to have coverage. Indeed it does: quick search in Google news yields 5 hits, including:

asserted by The Irish Independent to have a genuine medal hope (though with no support for that assertion and no additional detail about him)
quoted extensively (several sentences), partly as one of [the Vanautu] athletes who [may have] travelled farthest to get to London (~~1,731 miles?~~ [1,731 miles further than 8,362 mile (13,457 kilometer) trip of a Marshall Islander to London, if the Vanauatu trip went to the Marshall Islands first] ), and about Vanautu, and about his medal chances (which he discounted) within this Bloomberg news article (amended by [bracketed info] --do ncr am 18:40, 13 November 2015 (UTC))[reply]
quoted about about training in Vanautu (i wonder what equipment matters in judo training?)

Also Youtube search has films with him, including

"Vanautu Pride" interview in London (from ~0:50 to end at 2:32) , he speaks of his hopes for judo & other sports training for youth in Vanautu, and their facilities (around 1:40), and wanting to give back to his country].
performing 50 speed presses (oh, so maybe the equipment is about weight-lifting and the like)

Many non-controversial details provided in the above can be used in article. It is convenient that he is English-speaking.

Also, contrary to a claim above, there is no more information about him at Judo at the 2012 Summer Olympics – Men's +100 kg, and any personal details at all would not be appropriate for that article.

Also, among several Wikipedia articles linking to him, no one is an obvious redirect target. Better not to repeat personal details in each of them; keep as one article linked from Vanuatu at the 2012 Summer Olympics, Judo at the 2012 Summer Olympics – Qualification, 2011 World Judo Championships – Men's +100 kg, Judo at the 2012 Summer Olympics – Men's +100 kg, 2012 Summer Olympics closing ceremony flag bearers, and one or two more.

From those link's sources, additional details can be mentioned: His serving as flag-bearer, and 2011 World performance

He is very friendly, too. :)

--do ncr am 17:04, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NOLYMPICS. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 21:53, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Olympic athletes are always considered notable.Mdtemp (talk) 18:58, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. User:doncram, thank you for finding and providing the extra citations. But the written citations give us nothing encyclopedic. It is the rare Olympic athlete who hasn't travelled a great distance to the competition, and all of them engage in training and discuss their prospects with the press. None of this has encyclopedic value. Perhaps others will disagree, but I don't think one can evade WP:NOPAGE simply by padding an article with these unencyclopedic details. However, I do agree that the redirect target proposed by Papaursa isn't much better than the one proposed by Schmidt. The better redirect target is one of the ones mentioned by you -- Vanuatu at the 2012 Summer Olympics#Judo. As for not being able to place personal details in the redirect target, why do we need to provide personal details? Consider the article on the guy who defeated Fiakaifonu, Marius Paškevičius. This article has virtually no personal details. And yet no one here would consider deleting it, because it identifies several top-level medals that he has won over the years. And that's what's missing here. Fiakaifonu's entry at InsideJudo.com shows that he only competed in three matches in his career, losing all three of them. His appearance at the 2012 Olympics was truly the only thing that rises to our notion of notability, and it isn't enough to get around WP:NOPAGE. NewYorkActuary (talk) 21:02, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your thoughtful comment.

I see your wp:NOPAGE point, and agree several facts I mention are not very "encyclopedic", although facts like them routinely appear in BIOs about models and actors. But height, weight, birthdate and mention that his sister is also competing (added by another editor) are examples of acceptable, "encyclopedic" personal details that have now been added, and they are appropriate only for an individual article.
The Vanuatu at the 2012 Summer Olympics#Judo article cannot receive any personal details, as it does not now and is consistent with (presumably all) others like Canada at the 2012 Summer Olympics. So again, because he is appropriately mentioned in several Wikipedia articles, there is no place for personal details except at an individual page.
wp:NOLYMPICS says there can be an article, though it is not required; wp:NOPAGE suggests considering coverage in a list-article or elsewhere, which we have done. All modern Olympians are mentioned in two or more Wikipedia articles (their sport & their nation). IMO, the general rule for bios of Olympic athletes should be something like: An editor may create a separate article if there exists any Wikipedia-covered other-competition information about the athlete OR if there are any "encyclopedic" personal details which can be mentioned, that an editor wants to add. If there is not any info beyond the bare facts of Olympic participation, I would prefer their mentions be left as redlinks or be de-linked. The pre-AFD article included birth-date and birth-location, so barely met this standard.
Another kind of personal detail is news of their participation in judo competitions subsequent to 2012 Olympic games. I just mentioned two 2015 competitions in the Marius Paškevičius article, including that he won a round in Abu Dhabi by ippon (which I hope and believe I handled correctly, using Dutch and French sources). And in Fiakaifonu's article, I added mention of his competing in 2014. It is relevant and useful in an article about these athletes to indicate that they are still competing at later dates. (For one thing, IMO, this may indirectly suggest they are hanging in to compete in the 2016 Olympics, for readers interested in speculating.) --do ncr am 18:40, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:doncram Thanks for the response. Although we are advocating different positions, we're not all that far apart -- neither one of us is proposing an outright deletion. I acknowledge that Olympic participation earns an athlete an entry on Wikipedia. Our debate is only over whether that entry should be a stand-alone article or a redirect. It might be helpful to consider the opinions of the good folks over at the Martial Arts project. Their project page has a section on the notability of martial artists, Wikipedia:WikiProject_Martial_arts/Notability#Martial_artists, the first paragraph of which echoes the provisions of WP:NOPAGE -- it explicitly recognizes that some martial artists might be notable, but still not merit a stand-alone article. The question then becomes whether statistics such as date of birth and weight are, in themselves, sufficient to meet their standards for stand-alone articles. I don't think they do, but perhaps you feel differently.

As for your proposed standards, they are far too broad. What Olympic athlete doesn't have personal details such as date of birth and weight? And with only rare exception, all of them have competed at some other point in their careers. Your standards would grant stand-alone articles to every Olympic athlete and would effectively render moot WP:NOPAGE, as well as the specific standards expressed by the Martial Arts project.

A few comments about sources. First, I garbled the name of the judo web site (and I regret any inconvenience that error might have caused). Fiakaifonu's data can be found at http://judoinside.com/judoka/79877/Nazario_Fiakaifonu/judo-matches. Second, I assume that you have the subject article on your watchlist, and are already aware that I deleted the statement that Nazario's sister competed at the Glasgow games. The source specifically says that she didn't participate. But of far more substance is that same source's statement that Nazario intended to participate in those games. Perhaps so, but the JudoInside site doesn't corroborate this. You can see a list of more than 200 head-to-head matches (at those games) at JudoInside.com (once at the site, search for "Commonwealth Games Glasgow"). Fiakaifonu doesn't appear on that list. Perhaps he failed to qualify; perhaps he didn't compete for some other reason. But either way, he didn't compete. Later today, I'll amble back to the subject article and place a 'dubious' tag on that statement (with a fuller discussion on its talk page). But for now, I simply note that we still don't have anything substantive about the subject other than his participation in the 2012 Olympics. A redirect is still the appropriate treatment of this article. NewYorkActuary (talk) 20:59, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

NewYorkActuary, I also appreciate the discussion and feel that we are not very far apart, though we land on opposite sides of a line. We're willing to discuss this minor article at length because this is somehow an important test case, I sense.

You advocate a redirect, but a redirect to what? To a mere mention of his name in one of the other Wikipedia articles? That is no help to readers. To a passage about him in any of the other Wikipedia articles? No passage would be allowed. Honestly I think the only solution is a short article. This reminds me of a past AFD about an architect for which not very much was known, but who(whom?) had designed multiple historic notable buildings, which had or could have articles that naturally should mention him. The only reasonable resolution was to keep the architect article to hold the minimal bio-type details about him, as well as to provide navigation amongst the articles where he was mentioned.
Your finding "Notability#Martial_artists" is very relevant, but a) it is one wikiproject's guideline that does not govern (per wp:LocalConsensus?) and b) it does not envision or address the situation of a person being linked from multiple Wikipedia articles. If, as that assumes implicitly, the situation is that a person is mentioned in just one article (perhaps a list-article) and can be covered there. You and I will agree it is then not necessary (and probably not desirable) to split out the info to a separate article, when the info is minimal. That's not the situation here.
One very important category of personal details we and the Wikiproject have not mentioned is photos and videos and links thereto. Many Wikipedia editors, including me, believe that having articles on persons and places encourages the public to take pictures and contribute them, and/or to provide useful external links. I find no photos of him at Commons, but I have added external links to Fiakaifonu's Youtube videos. These links to images/films are actually quite substantial in providing the reader with significant information about the subject.
I also added bits about his preliminary matches, which all Olympic athletes also have, like height and weight. What's different for his article vs. the Olympians not having articles includes: such info is available about him in reliable sources, and an editor has chosen to create the article.
Thank you for corrected link to his JudoInside information. Yes, his 0-3 record in matches covered by JudoInside is not great, but he did get to those multiple competitions and must not have been laughed off the mat. I wonder if he could be notable for going to the Olympics while never having won a match, anywhere, perhaps? That would be very unusual and perhaps aggravating to jealous others.
JudoInside's tabulation of Glasgow 2014 results which I found, by the way, does not name him. But it only names the top eight competitors in every division, and I don't believe there were 8 and only 8 competitors in each one. For the World Cup in Apia, Samoa in November 2012, his name also does not appear, while I really believe he was there: regarding which there is coverage of his travel thereto (I think, but I am not positive that the World Cup event in Samoa that he was going to is the same one, as there is no date in the article and I don't trust an "last edited in 20XX" stray note).
Note the JudoInside page gives him an 8 out of 10 for "Popularity"...there must be a story to be told, right? :)

Seriously I think having a very brief article is the proper resolution. --do ncr am 02:34, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think we have both stated our positions rather clearly. I also think that neither one of us wants to set an Olympic record for the longest AfD discussion, so I'll address your points without too much repetition of my previous postings. Before I do that, I note that the problem you ran into at the JudoInside site was in not clicking on the "Head to Head" tabs. Those tabs contain the complete listings of matches, which is far more extensive than the brief list of names under the "Results" tab. I've already corrected the subject article for this.

You argue quite eloquently for a guideline that would (in effect) permit stand-alone articles for just about every Olympic competitor. But the good folks at the Olympics project have never suggested such a result. Indeed, I get the impression that they pretty much defer to the Sports project when it comes to the notability of individuals. And the folks at the Martial Arts project have an explicit guideline against such a result. That guideline says that notable martial artists don't always get a stand-alone article, and it makes no exceptions for Olympic competitors. Perhaps you could get them to change that guideline. And if you succeeded in doing that, I would not feel any sense of moral outrage. Indeed, I would applaud the effort that it took you to achieve that result. But as things stand right now, the folks at the Martial Arts project are telling us (in effect) that merely appearing in the Olympics does not guarantee a place to host a photograph of the athlete, nor a place to host personal details about the athlete, nor a place to host video links. And here at this AfD debate, we should be basing our positions on the guidelines that currently exist. The nominator started this discussion by describing the subject as "insufficiently accomplished". Appearing in only three world-class matches, and being eliminated in the first round of all three of them? I think the nominator got it right.

Despite our different positions, I do acknowledge that the article now looks better than it did a week ago. As for whether that's enough to get past WP:NOPAGE, I guess we'll find out soon enough. NewYorkActuary (talk) 21:11, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. joe decker ^talk 06:37, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

PJ DeLuca[edit]

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

Non-notable assistant coach. No 3rd party reliable sources showing notability, fails WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO. Deprodded with no reason given. Tassedethe (talk) 14:46, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 14:24, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:04, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD needs input from knowledgeable hockey editors. He was also a player as reflected in this link. Cbl62 (talk) 16:36, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Cbl62 (talk) 16:36, 11 November 2015 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Cbl62 (talk) 16:36, 11 November 2015 (UTC) [reply]

Delete: But not a professional player, not at any level, and had no particular distinction as an amateur -- this certainly fails WP:NHOCKEY going away. Honestly, I'd support an A7 speedy deletion for failure to assert notability of any kind. (I'd also support a sound trout-slapping for the deprodder, an anon IP whose sole Wikipedia activity seems to have been to deprod articles with no reasons proffered, on October 28th.) Ravenswing 19:09, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. My searches did not turn up the type of significant we need to satisfy WP:GNG. With Ravenswing now weighing in that the playing career doesn't meet a special notability threshold under WP:NHOCKEY, it appears this should be deleted. Cbl62 (talk) 19:40, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Doesn't he pass WP:NHOCKEY as a coach in the NHL. [11] [12] WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 21:30, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: He has never been a head coach. NHOCKEY doesn't accord presumptive notability to the flurry of assistants and technical positions teams fill. In any event, over at the Hockey WikiProject, we feel fairly strongly that while our guideline is useful as a subordinate notability guide, any hockey figure must still be able to meet the GNG's requirements. Ravenswing 10:15, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Plus, DeLuca's "coaching" position is as a video coordinator.Was NHOCKEY's presumption of notability intended to reach such positions? Not likely. Cbl62 (talk) 15:19, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, pretty much just head coach. -DJSasso (talk) 18:48, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He fails both WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG. Deadman137 (talk) 23:56, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. joe decker ^talk 06:36, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Colegiul Pacientilor[edit]

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

Subject of the article fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG. No evidence of notability. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 14:41, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 14:24, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:03, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 22:13, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as searches found nothing better and it's not surprising considering this started this year. SwisterTwister talk 08:28, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
delete no article in Romanian. Unlikely to be extensive coverage for brand new organisation. LibStar (talk) 13:07, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:55, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lucien Dante[edit]

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

Subject of the article fails WP:GNG. I can't find any evidence of notability Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 14:35, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 14:36, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 14:36, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 14:23, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

JohnatDegRecords (talk) 23:58, 6 November 2015 (UTC) Lucien Dante has performed as a featured musician in 2014 at a very notable event called the Teddy Awards, Germany's biggest LGBT film festival and awards show.^[1][reply]

References

^ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tNlI5RINwdI

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:03, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. joe decker ^talk 06:36, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Radio Salaam Shalom[edit]

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

Non notable radio station, fails GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 15:03, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. sst✈^discuss 15:48, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. sst✈^discuss 15:48, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No refs or assertion of notability in the article. A community station is all. Szzuk (talk) 15:26, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:58, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:03, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - appears to be a previous project of a charitable organisation which has now moved onto other things (if the link in the article is for the correct org).

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. joe decker ^talk 06:35, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Diverse FM[edit]

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

Non notable radio station, fails GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 15:00, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. sst✈^discuss 15:48, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. sst✈^discuss 15:48, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. NN community station. Can't imagine there are many listeners. Szzuk (talk) 15:20, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:57, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:02, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I cannot find anything on WP:GNG and also community radio stations are easy for anyone to create. Tyler Mongrove (talk) 15:33, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:58, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gaelic football rankings[edit]

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

Unofficial, WP:OR and not notable Gnevin (talk) 14:46, 28 October 2015 (UTC) Gnevin (talk)[reply]

Keep. As the author of the article, I have to disagree. The fact that the Gaelic football rankings is currently an unofficial (as in not recognised by a sporting body) ranking method is not included as a reason for deletion in WP:AfD. Also, the unofficial status of the ranking method is clearly indicated in the article. I do not believe that the ranking method constitutes original research as it is solely the repreresentation of exisiting information (results of Gaelic football games) in a different manner (results leading to exchange of rating points). All further information shown in the wiki is derived from this representation of information. The rankings have been in place less than one year and appear to be attracting between 15 and 20 views per day. While the importance of the ranking system (outside discussions on GAA matters) is not currently taken into consideration by the GAA governing bodies, one could envisage a time where rankings would be used to determine league seedings or championship seedings (should the championship structure ever change!). I request that the article not be deleted as it provides an interesting insight into the current and historical placings of Gaelic football county teams which is of interest to avid GAA supporters. Tinahinse (talk) 11:41, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:57, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:00, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:00, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unofficial rankings are by their nature unencyclopedic and seem to represent a level.of WP:OR. There is also a fair amount of WP:POV in the article with headings such as "Greatest Shocks." The lack of coverage of these unofficial standings outside of primary sources means the article fails WP:N. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 09:09, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:02, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per Jkudlick. Snappy (talk) 10:21, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. SOFTDELETE per low participation herein. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:59, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sheshadre Priyasad[edit]

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

The article fails WP:NACTOR, in that she has only appeared in one film (whose notability has been questioned). Criteria #1 states "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." Previous PROD notices have been removed without addressing the subject's notability. Dan arndt (talk) 07:06, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 07:06, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 07:06, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I see no better improvement. SwisterTwister talk 04:07, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:55, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:54, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. KTC (talk) 00:38, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Reed[edit]

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

Non-notable undergraduate journal, PRODded for lack of evidence of notability, dePRODded by COI editor who "created this page to let folks know this journal exists". PamD 09:05, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 10:57, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 10:57, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails GNG. sst✈^discuss 15:51, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:56, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:54, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not independently notable and improvable yet. SwisterTwister talk 08:11, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:32, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Damascus countryside offensive (October 2015)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, recommend redirecting to Northwestern Syria offensive (October 2015) reverted already. Also a near close of Daraa offensive (October 2015) Mdann52 (talk) 09:29, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 10:56, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 10:56, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Have added a new source from FARS Scores of Militants Killed in Syrian Army Offensive in Damascus Countryside, FARS, 14-10-15. There are more. Guru Noel (talk) 13:59, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment FARS not accepted as a reliable source by Wikipedia. EkoGraf (talk) 04:52, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. EkoGraf (talk) 17:13, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment nom no longer valid at time of vote. You will need another argument. Plus Damascus is not in Northwestern Syria for anyone unfamiliar with Geography considering that merge option. Guru Noel (talk) 20:21, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The control of the countryside around Damascus is highly relevant to the conflict and this offensive could be important enough to pass WP:GNG according to the available sources. Furthermore, Damascus is not in Northwestern Syria or close to Danaa. MaeseLeon (talk) 08:59, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - what evidence is there that reliable sources call this event the "Damascus countryside offensive"? I couldn't find much through Google. There is a fundamental problem with creating articles about recent events as there can be no telling how the event will be covered by reliable sources in the future (or if indeed it will even be considered notable) - see WP:NOTNEWS. What ever aspects of this article are considered relevant should be merged into Syrian Civil War. Anotherclown (talk) 11:06, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, if not delete totally than at least merge some of the more relevant info (if there is any) to the main article on the war. EkoGraf (talk) 01:48, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:56, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:53, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge elsewhere. This is yet another example of NOTNEWS in the Syrian conflict. Fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage in multiple reliable sources independent of the subject. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 20:26, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:00, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Xavier Minniecon[edit]

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

fails WP:BIO. if his claim to fame is being a weekend weather presenter that's not really much. and could find nothing in gnews on him. LibStar (talk) 06:13, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 07:48, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 07:49, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 07:49, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 14:19, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - passes GNG (although a couple of the links are dead). Probably also passes WP:JOURNALIST (regarded as an important figure) or WP:ENTERTAINER (has large fan base - see this for a chuckle). Most of his current google hits are for performing as the MC for various functions, often quite important ones - I'd say this supports being regarded as an important figure and having a large fan base. He's also (if you put much stock in such things) the eightieth-most popular weatherman in the world, according to Ranker.com :) --Yeti Hunter (talk) 04:28, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

where is the coverage, this one can't be indepth coverage for establishing WP:JOURNALIST, WP:ENT or WP:BIO, and ranker really a reliable source? LibStar (talk) 04:39, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:52, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wayback Machine has snapshots of the dead links (here and here - the first is a breif bio from 9 News, the second just lists him as being the weekend weather presenter, though it does note his unique style of presenting. The Advertiser isn't on the NLA digital archive after 1954 yet, so I can't easily check the 1998 article. However being a weekend weather presenter for 13 years means he is a pretty well known part of the local (South Australian) television scene - as evidenced by more recent sources noting his (minor) celebrity status and being a popular MC. Strangely, the Victor Harbor Times is digitised, and has him back in 1999 doing a "celebrity sing-off" at the Victor Harbor Folk Festival. I'm not suggesting for a moment that this makes him notable, but rather using it as evidence that his role as a television personality has made him notable as a South Australian identity.--Yeti Hunter (talk) 00:41, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:02, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Congenital contractural arachnodactyly in cattle[edit]

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

Not worthy of an article separate from congenital contractural arachnodactyly, nor is it worth merging the articles, since content appears to be borderline copyvio (see article talk). Brycehughes (talk) 04:46, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 07:54, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 08:00, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 14:18, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:51, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. joe decker ^talk 06:35, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RSForm!Pro[edit]

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

Basically an advertisement -- Kethrus |talk to me 13:59, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Kethrus |talk to me 13:59, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I see nothing better at this time. SwisterTwister talk 08:01, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:57, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:02, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:50, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Software article of unclear notability, with only low-quality references. The article's many refs are promotional coverage, blogs, and how-to articles which are typically not sufficient to establish notability.. Article was created by an SPA as possibly promotional.Dialectric (talk) 01:40, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. joe decker ^talk 06:35, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Omotosho[edit]

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

Subject of the article fails WP:POLITICIAN. No evidence of notability. Having contested for Kwara State governor is not an evidence of notability. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 13:33, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 13:35, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 13:35, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 13:35, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 13:35, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The article creator's exhaustive promotion of the subject, without having mentioned anything that would satisfy WP:BIO, seems like a strong indication that there isn't anything. --Closeapple (talk) 11:09, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:57, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:49, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:POLITICIAN. Even if the subject were notable, the article is so promotional that it is barely salvageable. Graham (talk) 05:00, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 14:55, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Chia-Hui Lu[edit]

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

I don't read Chinese, which may be why I can't see the notability of this person. As the article stands, she appears not to meet WP:ARTIST or the GNG. My searches of books and news have found several other people with the same name, but no in-depth coverage of this one. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:49, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 12:03, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 12:04, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now at best as I simply see no obvious better improvement. SwisterTwister talk 04:13, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:56, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:49, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Some in-depth coverage of this person: [13][14][15][16][17]--Antigng (talk) 05:44, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. KTC (talk) 00:40, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

MotorBrands[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:CORP as far as I can tell. Bjelleklang - talk 10:47, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 10:50, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 10:51, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I simply see no better improvement aside from some Books links. Pinging tagger Trivialist. SwisterTwister talk 04:24, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:56, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:49, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. no apparent notability DGG ( talk ) 18:07, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 23:00, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jaise Jose[edit]

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

Even if the role in Manal Haharam is significant, it's not enough for notability , nor are the refs. DGG ( talk ) 04:48, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:57, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:57, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I simply see nothing better. SwisterTwister talk 04:59, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as Jaise Jose is a proven actor who has done more than 10 films and doing 3 more films now. This link should give us a better picture. (http://www.malayalachalachithram.com/movieslist.php?a=2781) Rajeshbieee (talk) 13:53, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

— Note to closing admin: Rajeshbieee (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:58, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:44, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) ansh 666 12:33, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of Extra Credits episodes[edit]

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

completely unsourced and no suggestion of notability jps (talk) 03:10, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 03:23, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The sources (in this case, the episodes themselves) do exist and can be added as such (since right now, they're simply linked directly). Having lists of episodes for series is common if the series itself is notable; Extra Credits is, and this list was likely split off to keep the main article a reasonable size. The content could always be merged back to Extra Credits if consensus is against having this article separate, but the content should not be simply deleted. —⁠烏⁠Γ ^(kaw) │ 06:03, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. —⁠烏⁠Γ ^(kaw) │ 06:03, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. —⁠烏⁠Γ ^(kaw) │ 06:03, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. —⁠烏⁠Γ ^(kaw) │ 06:03, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. —⁠烏⁠Γ ^(kaw) │ 06:03, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy as there's no references and it'll need references for all the descriptions. Ana r chyte 09:50, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- "Unreferenced" is not a deletion argument; it must be unverifiable to merit deletion. And here the article subject is mass-distributed works, which are obviously reliable sources for their own content. Only if the description veers into analysis or opinion (or facts external to those works) would we need secondary sources as references. postdlf (talk) 16:04, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, excessive detail for a nondramatic, nonfiction series (and dramatic series are the only ones for which we maintain episode lists as a matter of standard practice, not just any notable series). The main article can note which individual episodes, if any, have received particular attention from secondary sources and why. postdlf (talk) 16:04, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As stated above the list links to the episodes themselves (either on EC's site or directly to the YouTube videos), in addition the article was created to split off the list from the main article of the show as far back as [May 2012] (At which point the main EC article shrunk from 48,123 bytes down to 9,706 bytes, and is currently sitting at 17,689 bytes) and adding ALL the content back into the main article would simply bloat it out (adding easily 106KB of data) to an unusable proportion for those wanting a quick run-down of the show in general. If people think the content of the article as it currently stands (and is being updated weekly at a minimum) should be moved off-site to a "fan site" or such, fine, just don't blanket-delete the effort spent into updating and maintaining the article over the past 3+ years. El Nero Diablo (talk) 09:24, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:58, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:43, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as WP:SPLIT from main article for size reasons. WP:GNG is not applicable as this is editorial content organization decision, rather than topic notability. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 23:27, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:57, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ron Hamence with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948[edit]

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

(Previous AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sam Loxton with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948)

Despite the high quality work put into this article which has enabled it to reach FA status, it remains a content fork of Ron Hamence and Australian cricket team in England in 1948. The article goes into undue detail on Hamence's peripheral role on the tour. The biographical article, which is a Good article, is only 1,741 words long, and could easily be expanded to include more of the relevant details from this article. Essentially, Hamence did not play any of the Test matches on the tour, and in the context of the series, was a mediocre player. His primary role on the tour seems to have been allowing other players to have a rest. Does that sort of role really need this entire article to provide details? Harrias ^talk 12:40, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because Colin McCool played even less matches on the tour than Hamence, and again did not play in the Test matches. The parent article in this case is a bit longer, Colin McCool is 2,981 words long, but again I think that the relevant information can be included in the biography, rather than taking up an article on its own. Harrias ^talk 12:45, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Changing to Neutral. ~~Redirect and merge some contents into the two articles named above; No opinion (yet) on McCool.~~ I don't think this does any disservice to YellowMonkey's work, as long as the things we like make it into the other two articles. Every wikiproject can and should change their standards over time, and if WP:CRICKET feels this is overdetailed per their current standards for FA-level work, and if removing the fluff only results in content that would be better in the other two articles, then deleting and merging is a nice solution. - Dank (push to talk) 13:55, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I think for attribution purposes it's generally easier to have a "merge and redirect", not "merge and delete". WP:MAD suggests so, anyway. Bencherlite^Talk 14:38, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - I made it so. - Dank (push to talk) 14:44, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Also see my timeline comment below. - Dank (push to talk) 01:46, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Changing to neutral. At first, the balance of information I had indicated that the wikiproject standards had changed, and I was uncomfortable standing in the way of that. As things have developed, I can't tell anymore what the current standard is, so I'm not comfortable voting either way. - Dank (push to talk) 14:24, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm not quite sure why any of these guys need individual pages for the 1948 season: I understand they went undefeated, but that does not equal notability for each individual player for each season in a team sport. Each one is full of redundant info and even what they did after.

Seems extreme sports fancruft and a poor choice from the Cricket WikiProject if they endorsed this overkill. This is WP and site-wide notability guidelines apply - We don't have a similar page for every player on the undefeated 1972 Miami Dolphins. Publish this on the Cricket Wikia. —Мандичка^YO 😜 11:17, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Slightly bonkers overkill, but the case that any policies have been breached is not made. The sources are there and what is "undue detail" is not well defined in policy. Johnbod (talk) 15:56, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a policy for you: WP:INDISCRIMINATE. These articles seem to suffer from Excessive listings of statistics. Guidelines about WP:REDUNDANTFORKing and WP:POVSPLITting are relevant. WP:SPINOFFing would be fine, but as I complained below, these articles are a good example for bad spinoffing. Also: WP:TECHNICAL Ceosad (talk) 17:47, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, none of those hit the target as far as this AFD is concerned. What about WP:IDONTLIKEIT? Johnbod (talk) 19:13, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, how about Wikipedia is not a diary in addition of the indiscriminate statistics? These articles are pretty much written variations of statistical lists or some sort of season diaries. Something like two-thirds of Ron Hamence with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948 is made of jargony statistics text like this:"[Hamence's] second innings was praised for the aesthetic quality.[28] It was the first match on tour that Australia had failed to win.[12] Hamence was rested for the following match against Nottinghamshire, which was again drawn,[1][12] before returning against Hampshire. He made five as Australia were dismissed for 117 in reply to the home side's 195, the first time the tourists had conceded a first innings lead during the season.[12][29] He did not get another chance with the bat as Australia recovered to win by eight wickets.[1][29]"

Could you tell me why neither of these policies would apply? What does this article teach us that is not able to be contained in the articles of Ron Hamence or Australian cricket team in England in 1948? The only thing that I do not like here, is the fact how carefreely FA and GA statuses have been granted... I am NOT opposed to summaries or spinoffs of any kind, but they have to have a reason to exist! Ceosad (talk) 20:05, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you think "[Hamence's] second innings was praised for the aesthetic quality.[28] It was the first match on tour that Australia had failed to win." is "jargony statistics text" we obviously see things very differently. "The only thing that I do not like here, is the fact how carefreely FA and GA statuses have been granted" is pure WP:IDONTLIKEIT at AFD - WP:FAR is the place for that. Johnbod (talk) 17:42, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep yes it is a high level of detail but the daughter/index article fulfils notability requirements with sourcing as is. All are of a fair size. And not small enough to make merging obligatory. As always, fracturing wikipedia into smaller wikis is a bad idea and irrelevant argument here anyway. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:18, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But much of this "fair size" is a direct consequence of good faith, yet short-sighted, content forking that has bloated these articles beyond reason, usefulness and readability. WP:REDUNDANTFORK WP:TNT Ceosad (talk) 18:21, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both articles and merge only the necessary details into their respective biographies. I completely agree with the nominator's views. Even to someone with a keen interest in cricket history, Hamence was an obscure player at the international level with only three Tests under his belt and what he did on this tour doesn't deserve a separate article. The article goes into an awful lot of detail about what he did in the less important matches of the tour, and that isn't interesting even to me who normally enjoys reading about old cricket matches. The same can be said regarding the McCool article. Maybe we can further improve the Ron Hamence article in time to promote it to FA status and post it on the Main Page instead. For the record, I'm voting "delete" not because WP:IDONTLIKEIT but because it's non-notable as an independent subject. 1.39.62.143 (talk) 21:28, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 00:50, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep both per WP:N and WP:NOTPAPER. If there was sufficient coverage in reliable sources to get these articles to FA standard, then notability is obviously established. A vast amount has been written about the 1948 "Invincibles" Australian team and players of this era more generally, so I don't see what the problem is. The complaint here seems to be that we shouldn't have a dedicated high quality article on these topics, and instead merge shorter versions of the content into other articles, which doesn't seem sensible to me - surely it's a good thing to have these fine articles? Nick-D (talk) 00:52, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- FA and GA status is irrelevant to notability and apparently even existence. Don't forget Bicholim Conflict - Wikipedia's GA about the battle that never took place.[18] —Мандичка^YO 😜 17:07, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's an absurd comparison, and I'd suggest that you strike it. The Bicholim Conflict article was pure vandalism with all references being faked, and these articles were developed in good faith using legit sources. Nick-D (talk) 21:41, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Timeline: This article was scheduled as a TFA for Nov 25. The FAC nominator has been gone for over 5 years, so as is usual in such cases, I notified the wikiproject instead, at WT:CRICKET#Wikipedia:Today's featured article/November 25, 2015. Three of the people who saw that (I'm assuming) showed up at WT:TFA in this thread to talk about their reservations about this article showing up on the Main Page. This deletion request is one proposed method of dealing with their request. I'm not wedded to any particular approach to the problem. - Dank (push to talk) 01:46, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The fact that several of these articles specify in their lead that the player in question was "not instrumental" in the team's successful tour, and yet there is still the amount of well-cited information that there is, speaks to me of how well-covered the topic must be in relevant sources. GRAPPLE ^X 08:57, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Have you never heard of fluff? —Мандичка^YO 😜 17:07, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But how in-depth are these well-cited references compared to average sports journalism coverage? Vast majority of the inline citations are some obscure sites with cricket statistics. It feels like a mush of jargon and statistics tries to hide the fact how hollow the coverage actually is. These articles have alarmingly low amount of book sources alone, if we look at other featured articles. WP:INDEPTH Without an adequate depth of coverage both neutrality and verifiability are questionable. WP:VERIFY WP:NPOV Ceosad (talk) 18:12, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

well, that is the sort of thing that cricket enthusiasts love and is the meat of any cricket article, and obviously of little interest to others. Many (if not most) esoteric articles could be classified thus. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:31, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct, but as these are biographical articles, we should be wary of the issues I raised. Even if these players have died a long time ago. As StAnselm points out, Hamence's importance for the team is questionable. Hamence fails WP:ANYBIO but easily satisfies other requirements such as WP:NCRICKET. I find it impossible to justify this article as [Hamence has not] made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field. This is one of the main reasons why I have so vocally accused this of being a [POV] fork. Ceosad (talk) 20:52, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep both - the 1948 Australian team has been widely covered over the years and as a result the subjects of these articles all seem to easily meet the requirements of WP:SIGCOV to pass the General Notability Guideline as I understand it. Anotherclown (talk) 09:42, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. —Мандичка^YO 😜 17:07, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - we'd use that meme if it didn't have sourcing...which it does, so not relevant. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:33, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both (or all of them) due to issues raised by 1.39.62.143 and the nominator. Furthermore, as these various forks are excessively verbose and detailed, and a serious case of forking, I am skeptical on their continuing viability as articles. They will need to be heavily pruned to be useful at all. At their current state, I will completely agree with Wikimandia. In fact, these articles with excessive details serve the completely opposite effect compared to the "Introduction to..." articles, as they drown any useful information withing a mush of meaningless trivia. Something must have gone completely bonkers in the Cricket WikiProject's quality control as this Introduction to general relativity is easier to read than these featured monstrosities. WP:TECHNICAL Ceosad (talk) 16:01, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- i.e. you don't like it. We get that. So go find something else to read/write about. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:33, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:54, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See my comments above for you and Johnbod. Ceosad (talk) 20:52, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Firstly, "the 1948 Australian team has been widely covered" (Anotherclown) - but that doesn't mean this particular aspect of it has received significant coverage. Indeed, it's almost all routine coverage, such as scoreboards. The only really significant thing we can say about the subject is, as the article so eloquently puts it, "Hamence was not instrumental in the team's success." Secondly, a number of the "keep" arguments are based on FA status - but that is putting the cart before the horse. Indeed, something has gone seriously wrong with the whole FA process if an article like this is regarded as "the best of the best" that Wikipedia can offer - in any case, we can't assume that just because it's FA, the references provide the significant coverage needed to demonstrate notability. Thirdly, I think it is fair to compare the scope with that of other WP articles. The comparison to "every player in the undefeated 1972 Miami Dolphins side is an apt one. The tour is certainly notable - the presence of individual players is not. Or to take another analogy, consider actors appearing in films. As I've argued elsewhere, Donald Bradman with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948 would be like Brad Pitt in Mr. & Mrs. Smith. Are there lots of sources discussing Pitt's performance? Yes. It is Pitt's most important work? Probably not. But Ron Hamence with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948 is in a different order together. That would be more like Jennifer Morrison in Mr. & Mrs. Smith. And even then, I'm sure we would find more reliable sources discussing Jennifer Morrison's role than we have discussing Hamence's role. Finally, it's not just about sourcing - we could probably find enough sources to write an article on the food that the players ate during the tour. But I hope we all agree that this doesn't make it a notable topic for an encyclopedia. StAnselm (talk) 18:47, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The fact that it is FA means that it has ample sourcing, which would usually be enough to satisfy notability criteria. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:34, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, it doesn't mean that at all. St Anselm (talk) 21:25, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per previous keep comments. This discussion above clearly expounds the two sides, and the banter between messages simply amplifies the attitude, almost good as watching the current game in Perth. JarrahTree 00:48, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it pains me deeply to support the deletion of an FA, but there has to be a limit to the kind of pages we have, and these seem to me well over the line. I think StAnselm's argument above is particularly good. Just because an FA can be written about a topic doesn't mean it should. Frickeg (talk) 03:34, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both. We need to go back to basics here, and not let our judgments be clouded by the article's status. The topic of this article is "Ron Hamence with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948" – not anything else. Does this topic meet the general notability guideline? The first criterion for an article to meet the GNG is significant coverage; I can't see any way in which this article meets that criterion. There have been no articles written about Ron Hamence's role in the tour, let alone a book (or even a chapter of a book). Notability is not inherited, from either the main tour or Hamence himself. The current standards at WikiProject Cricket would not allow these types of articles to be written, and I see no reason why we should grandfather existing articles in. IgnorantArmies (talk) 07:21, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think these articles shouldn't really be an FA article and in the way thats the way it should stay. Because I am surprised that it has lasted so long. Matt294069 is coming 01:46, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. I had qualms about these articles when they were created, but they do form part of a 42-article Featured Topic which is, aside from two FTs on warships, the single largest such collection across WP. On their own, I wouldn't find anything much to defend in the two nominated, nor in a couple of others; but as part of an FT which is "complete" and unlikely ever to be added to, I think there is an admittedly weak case for retention. Johnlp (talk) 16:15, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – I was one of the supporters back when the Hamence article was at FAC and wasn't concerned back then that the article failed notability guidelines. If I thought it wasn't notable enough to exist, I wouldn't have supported it. My opinion really hasn't changed. I see no reason why these players shouldn't have such spin-off articles if the sources exist to support bringing such articles to a high level. The way I read WP:INDISCRIMINATE, the policy is referring to actual lists of statistics (or text that is effectively all-list), not a narrative that happens to be stat-heavy such as the articles in questions. I tried to make a case mentally for deletion since this debate is something reasonable editors can disagree about, but I just don't see it. Some of the arguments in favor of deleting the pair of articles are questionable to me. For one, I see multiple statements that FA doesn't take into account notability, which simply isn't true. From WP:WIAFA: articles must meet the "policies regarding content for all Wikipedia articles" before the FA criteria are even considered. As I said, we're implying that the article is notable enough to exist when one of us reviewers supports an article. (While I'm here, I don't appreciate the insinuation that myself and other reviewers are "careless", as most of us take reviewing very seriously, but that's not the main issue at hand). This doesn't mean that mistakes can't be made or that consensus can't change, but it does reflect the beliefs of numerous editors at a point in time; I'd assume GA doesn't back the promotion of non-notable articles either. Another editor commented how few books were referenced in the articles as proof of a lack of in-depth coverage; I count nine for Hamence and eight for McCool, which are higher totals than many (most?) FAs. Without being able to access the books and judge their content, I'm going to assume good faith that some in-depth coverage of the players' tour experiences exists unless I see some evidence otherwise (not mere opinion on what is in the books). There are circumstances in which I would support an FA or GA being deleted, but I would need to see some strong evidence that the article in question is non-notable or worse, like the Bicholim hoax above. I'm not convinced by the arguments here. Just one editor's opinion. Giants2008 (Talk) 00:35, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Cas Liber's comments. Reasonable courage provided from reliable sources as well. Seems like those who want to delete this have inactionable reasons such as "I think these articles shouldn't really be an FA article and in the way thats the way it should stay." or just don't like it. That has nothing to do with notability. Burklemore1 (talk) 04:53, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep All. This nomination completely misses the essential point that the "on tour" articles were created as part of a Wikipedia:Featured topics drive about the Australian cricket team in England in 1948. It is essential for the purposes of the featured topic to examine each of the participants individually. Take these out and you might as well scrap the featured topic too. The argument about Hamence's statistics is unfounded: there is no table of stats in the article apart from a standard brief summary in the infobox. The article discusses Hamence's performances by matches played and obviously it mentions how many runs he scored each time. How could it not do? This all comes down WP:IDONTLIKEIT per Johnbod above. Jack | ^{talk page} 08:22, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete all articles. Ron Hamence is notable, Australian cricket team in England in 1948 is notable, but Ron Hamence with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948 is not notable on its own. If what individual players of a cricket squad did on cricket tours is notable, just imagine the number of such articles that can be created. We may end up having hundreds of "Sachin Tendulkar with the Indian cricket team in XYZ in ABC" articles. And a minimum of 30 articles can be created every time a cricket series takes place between two international teams (since there are at least 15 member on each squad). Having exceptions like "Ian Botham with the English cricket team against Australia in 1981" or, say, "Mitchell Johnson with the Australian cricket team against England in 2013-14" is alright and can serve readers with useful and interesting information. But this case of Ron Hamence crosses the line (and a line needs to be drawn). Fenopy (talk) 09:56, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTPAPER --Dweller (talk) 10:28, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't get your point. WP:NOT has several lines supporting this deletion, such as:

"there is no practical limit to the number of topics Wikipedia can cover or the total amount of content. However, there is an important distinction between what can be done, and what should be done"
Under 'Wikipedia is not a directory' section, it says, Wikipedia articles are not: "Non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations, such as "people from ethnic / cultural / religious group X employed by organization Y" or "restaurants specializing in food type X in city Y". Cross-categories like these are not considered sufficient basis to create an article, unless the intersection of those categories is in some way a culturally significant phenomenon."
In another section it says, Wikipedia articles should not read like: "Case studies. Many topics are based on the relationship of factor X to factor Y, resulting in one or more full articles. For example, this could refer to situation X in location Y, or version X of item Y. This is perfectly acceptable when the two variables put together represent some culturally significant phenomenon or some otherwise notable interest."
Under 'Wikipedia is not a newspaper' it says, Ensure that Wikipedia articles are not: "A diary. Even when an individual is notable, not all events they are involved in are. For example, news reporting about celebrities and sports figures can be very frequent and cover a lot of trivia, but using all these sources would lead to over-detailed articles that look like a diary." -- Fenopy (talk) 10:51, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Casliber. I also agree with much of what BlackJack ("Jack") wrote, above. --Dweller (talk) 10:27, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Most of those arguing for the articles to be kept have done so based on the article's status, with no attempts so far to make an argument for the notability of the subject matter. As I noted above, I really don't see how the topics of these articles meet the general notability guideline. Is there anyone willing to argue that they do? IgnorantArmies (talk) 10:49, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A number of people have argued with that already. --Dweller (talk) 10:57, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

People have stated that the subject is notable, but no one has actually provided evidence or made an argument. IgnorantArmies (talk) 11:07, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify what I mean further, none of the sources listed in References section (which should really be called "Bibliography") deal with Ron Hamence's role in the tour, only with the tour overall. The only other sources used are Cricinfo and CricketArchive, which cover all cricket tours and thus count as routine coverage. IgnorantArmies (talk) 11:10, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there isn't a biography of Ron Hamence but the Perry book about the "Invincibles" does go into some detail about each squad member and YM has drawn on this for information specific to Hamence. Much of the referencing, of necessity, relates to the tour in general which is the background to this article. Same comments apply re most of the other players as only a few had biographies written. Let me put it this way. If Hamence's 1948 experience was confined to his biographical article, would you remove it from there because it lacks notability? We are moving up a level with this because we are dealing not only with articles about the 1948 tour but with a featured topic on the subject. Jack | ^{talk page} 15:12, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notability does not apply to content within articles, so of course Hamence's experiences on the tour could be incorporated into the main article. I think the fact that no one has written biographies for many of the players is a good argument as to why Wikipedia shouldn't have separate articles devoted to a few months of their lives. IgnorantArmies (talk) 15:41, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

While I've yet to work out what I think should happen here, and may just sit on the fence, the argument that it should be kept because it is a featured topic is to put the cart before the horse. If these two articles are merged or deleted, then Hamence and McCool will still be covered in the topic by (a) their main biographical articles and (b) the main article about the tour itself. After all, Keith Johnson (the tour manager) is included in the featured topic on the basis of a few paragraphs in his article about the tour without having a separate article about his 1948 role, and the same would no doubt happen for Hamence and McCool if their articles did not survive. Featured topics are based on articles that pass Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and cannot be used as trump cards if it is determined that an article would not otherwise pass these criteria. Bencherlite ^Talk 15:31, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It seems clear that, in accordance with Wikipedia:Summary style, this article - like the related articles for each other player on the team - was deliberately created outside Australian cricket team in England in 1948 to stop that article from getting too long (see comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sam Loxton with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948; compare also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rafael Nadal in 2010). This is a technique that is used elsewhere: compare, for example, Gunpowder Plot in popular culture (is that a notable topic in its own right? where are the books dedicated to it?). Perhaps some of the details could be merged into Ron Hamence (or Colin McCool) or Australian cricket team in England in 1948, but merging all of it in either place would be disproportionate and give undue attention to this player or episode. It is not an indiscriminate list of statistics or trivia. It is a treatment in prose of the player's actions on the tour. This is just the sort of information that you might find in an in-depth work on the player's life, or of the tour. In particular, this article is not an equivalent to Introduction to general relativity: it does not stand as an "introduction to" a technical subject explictly aimed at the non-expert, but as an article on a narrow specialist topic. That said, it should still be readable to the non-specialist. Perhaps the English needs finessing to make it more approachable for the non-specialist - do go ahead and edit it to make it better - but that is not a reason to delete. The sourcing is fine too: of course this particular topic is discussed in books and articles about the men's lives and about the tour. Put it this way: what encyclopedic object is advanced by deleting inoffensive and factual articles of this nature? Ferma (talk) 19:45, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per summary style (thanks Ferma, notpaper, etc. While this article is certainly borderline, I think the sourcing is strong enough to hold up on its own. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 05:55, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Discussions for renaming or merging the article can be held on the talk page. (non-admin closure) Ya sh ! 00:27, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Smartphone zombies[edit]

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

non notable neologism. Insufficient material to merge anywhere, and unlikely entry point for use as redirect. Fiddle Faddle 12:39, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep per WP:SK, "...so erroneous that it indicates the nominator has not even read the article in question". I say this because the article contains lots of material supported by reasonable sources such as Japan’s smartphone ‘zombies’ turn urban areas into human pinball and so the nomination's claim that there is "insufficient material to merge anywhere" seems quite mistaken. It may be that we have other pages under other titles for similar or related topics but our editing policy is to consolidate this material, not to delete it. Andrew D. (talk) 14:11, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:10, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and merge to Mobile phone overuse, as had been suggested by @Swpb: on Nov. 10 until the template was removed shortly after by @Andrew Davidson:. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:55, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That merge discussion didn't get going and is redundant to this discussion. AFD takes priority because its template should not be removed without a formal close. There's no such restriction for the other templates and the point of my general rewrite was to remove clutter as it seemed the nominator hadn't got past this. Andrew D. (talk) 13:33, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see. No, the merge doesn't require a formal close to remove, though it does require consensus, I believe. I'll remove it with an explanation this time on the edit summary and Talk page. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:14, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:22, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:24, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:24, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Defense for the original article. Firstly, the original article is more focusing on the group of people who always use their smartphones, but not the phenomena of mobilephones overuse. Typically, the original article is written about the people ,totally differnt from the such a phenomena,for example the impacts of the smartphone zombies, is talking about the Mobile phone overuse, the authors will add the influence of physical health.However, the original article concentrates to the the impact of a specific group of people. Secondly, as for the problem that the word is not heated enough, the reference mostly were edited in 2014 to 2015, that is to say, recently, more and more people begin to pay attention to such group of persons, and do some reseaches and analysis to them.Thirdly, rewritten version is not detailed enough because it lacks lots of information about smartphone zombies, which is quite different from the original one. Ccmsharma2 (talk) 15:45, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a serious topic. It's getting coverage, it's influencing civic planning. It's different from overuse in general as it's about overuse in one context (intensive but often brief), rather than the long term or isolation issues. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:43, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse keeping content: This topic is unquestionably notable. Like the development of the selfie article in 2013, we are tracking a trend where the title of an article can be up for dispute. I was not familiar with the phrase "smartphone zombie", but I can it has been used in the press. A merger discussion can be had separately.--Milowent • ^{typed this from his iphonewhilst crossing the street ... ack} 14:20, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Afds often discuss merging, I'm my experience, and with the removal of the merge tag I think we need to discuss it now. I'm certainly not in favour of 'removing the the content.' And I can't see why the content can't reside in a section of the Mobile phone overuse, whose lead does encompass the sort of behaviour addressed here. As for the "zombie" meme, which is used in a couple of the refs, news editors have a fondness for catchy silly terms that'll attract readers, and goodness knows, anything zombie will do. These poor souls are of course not "zombies," they're simply users displaying aspects of mobile phone overuse behaviour, and I don't see a need for a content fork right now. I don't intend to change my !vote at this time. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:37, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shawn, I probably am in favor of a merge too, but that usually only works in an AfD with strong consensus.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 18:42, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In Switzerland was just published a research by the University of Zurich, confirming the psychological problems arising with the overuse of smartphone.Alex2006 (talk) 14:53, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, in fact this is a likely entry point, since it's used in newspaper headlines. Renaming or merging can be discussed on the talk page or whereever. Siuenti (talk) 15:25, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll just chime in one last time to point out that WP:POVNAME advises us to use non-trendy neutral names for article titles. I've already stated at the aborted merge discussion that I think this should be merged -- leaving behind a redirect as an entry point -- to the neutrally named main article, so that's it for me. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:30, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - SNOW. Folks, please don't waste everyone's time initiating an AfD within 24hrs of article creation on a topic that has obvious Google hits. -- GreenC 16:32, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Noting that the reason for many of the keep rationales being pretty poor is because there's a notable concept we do not already have an article about (I just looked pretty hard and didn't come up with anything satisfactory) hiding behind this non-notable neologism. It's probably going to be kept, and I wouldn't disagree with that, but the keep should be immediately followed by a discussion of the proper way to frame the notable subject. To have an article called "Smartphone zombies", there should be a whole bunch of very good sources (e.g. academic papers) which come to a consensus on that term -- and I seriously doubt that's the case -- or otherwise use only sources that talk about "smartphone zombies". Taking what some people call "smartphone zombies" and seeing similar meanings in sources about different terms would rely too much on original research to make that connection. Best would be a descriptive article title. How about a Keep and Rename/Refocus as Pedestrian mobile phone use, Mobile phones and walking, or to get a little more specific Texting while walking? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 04:38, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:29, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Chattel marriage[edit]

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

There is no evidence that 'chattel marriage' is used in any field of study as a term to define a specific type of marriage, rather than the word 'chattel' being used to describe the condition of women in different, specific types of marriage that have existing articles (i.e. coverture). The article itself is virtually unsourced and the sources it does cite do not actually use the term 'chattel marriage', so are irrelevant. Arianna the First (talk) 14:01, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:36, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:57, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator --JumpLike23 (talk) 12:42, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This was a thing that existed, but it was called different things in legal history. I'm not certain that an encyclopedia article could be created, but we should allow for some time for it to be rescued, perhaps a few more days. Bearian (talk) 17:49, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Redirect to Coverture per nom. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:16, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. joe decker ^talk 06:32, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jian Joyner[edit]

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

fails WP:GNG. WP:ONEEVENT The Banner talk 11:24, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, WP:BLP1E. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 11:55, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:35, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as fails OE & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 23:58, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. joe decker ^talk 06:32, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

BluDoors[edit]

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

Another software company with no evidence of notability. fails WP:CORP and WP:GNG. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 10:46, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Wikicology. A look at the main author's contributions makes me feel that this is Mr. Ikhianosime himself, or maybe a friend or relative. Anyway, the programmer, nor the company or browser are notable. rayukk | talk 10:52, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 09:07, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 09:07, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 09:07, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 09:07, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:34, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Nothing better at this time. SwisterTwister talk 23:26, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not yet notable. DGG ( talk ) 01:41, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. joe decker ^talk 06:32, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cr OS Linux[edit]

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

A minor, dodgy Linux distro of the past that was active for about three years. There were a tiny number of news articles published about it, but I don't think they are enough to establish notability. The distro wasn't even carried by proper mirrors, having to resort to a file hosting service named DepositFiles to share the disk images. With this kind of services, downloaders have either to pay for a premium service, or use a free option that is intentionally made slow and cumbersome. Even most very small distros are able to get better hosting for their images. ilmaisin (talk) 11:52, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:57, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:57, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Nothing particularly better. SwisterTwister talk 21:01, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Software article of unclear notability. The linuxinsider.com and lifehacker refs are significant coverage, but do little to clarify why this distro is notable apart from its misleadingly similar name to Google's Chrome OS.Dialectric (talk) 04:05, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. KTC (talk) 00:41, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sveiobladet.net[edit]

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

online only newspaper for a town with a population of 5000, one possible offline reliable source. almost qualifies for web-content speedy imo. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:04, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:00, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. —Skyllfully ^(talk | _contribs) 21:50, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. —Skyllfully ^(talk | _contribs) 21:50, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:44, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, too minor. Geschichte (talk) 21:47, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:NWEB/WP:GNG. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 20:25, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. I've read thsi whole thing through, twice, and cannot see a clear consensus in either direction. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:57, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Eunice Sanborn[edit]

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

Article is not clear but it seems like Sanborn was merely a pretender to the claim of being the oldest living person (although that cites an inaccessible forum so it's not clear either). It seems like Maria Gomes Valentim was actually considered the oldest person during this time retroactively so all these citations about her being the oldest woman when she died (WP:ROUTINE obituary coverage) are not evidence of notability if they are based on a false premise. Ricky81682 (talk) 09:26, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. Last discussion was recent enough and as stated before she's clearly notable if you interpret WP:BIO in favor of supercentarians. 166.176.58.103 (talk) 09:30, 11 November 2015 (UTC) — 166.176.58.103 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

The last discussion was in 2009 and if you interpret anything anyway anything is notable enough. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:38, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 10:14, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 10:14, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. She was thought to be world's oldest person is itself have notability. revocation of the record will not be a lose of notability. user:Ricky81682 is issued deletion discussions of a large amount, but some of them is indisputably abnormal. user:Ricky81682's personal reason that hate oldest people article is not the correct reason to delete this page.--Inception2010 (talk) 10:52, 11 November 2015 (UTC) — Inception2010 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

So everyone on longevity claims who was thought to be the world's oldest person is notable enough for their own article? That's an interest interpretation. And I'm not getting into my personal issues but I see this as no different than the old articles on every fictional character which eventually merged into lists unless they are separately notable. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:59, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete "The two were the first to build a concrete bottom pool in Cherokee County at that time". Definitely the kind of detail our readers want and need. NOPAGE. EEng (talk) 15:25, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Now we need a succession box for that. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:47, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep under notability. Quis separabit? 16:08, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So she's notable because she's notable? Great argument! EEng (talk) 18:20, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete routine obituary coverage are not evidence of notability.--TM 11:29, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Verified as being one year younger than claimed and was the oldest living American at the time of her death. Several sources provide sufficent coverage for notability. If even more sources are desired, please see the following:

Eunice Sanborn turns 111 (Jacksonville Progress, 21 July 2006)

Sanborn could be added to list of world’s oldest people (Jacksonville Progress, 1 August 2006)

At 111, Jacksonville woman is now the oldest Texan (Chron, 24 March 2008)

Happy Birthday, Mrs. Sanborn (Jacksonville Progress, 20 July 2010)

Texas Woman Celebrates 114th Birthday (ABC News, 21 July 2010)

930310 (talk) 18:43, 15 November 2015 (UTC) — 930310 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

What's need is not "more" sources, but nontrivial, nonroutine sources. The first piece on your list, for example, reads in its entirety:

Eunice Sanborn of Jacksonville celebrated her 111th birthday Thursday with a party at her home thrown by friends, family, Sunday school members and caretakers. Ms. Sanborn’s husband once owned The Lookout amusement park, which was also home to the first concrete-bottom pool in Cherokee County.

This is, to say the least, routine trivial coverage. You need to counter the NOPAGE argument by showing us what, actually, an article on this subject would say about her. No one's going to plow through all the repetitive nothingness to find it for you. EEng (talk) 20:22, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Did your birthday get an article in the newspaper? Thought not. How is that in any way "routine"? -- Ollie231213 (talk) 21:05, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The previous nomination for deletion (from 2009) ended with no consensus and the article has been kept. It has been improved ever since. Additional sources have been found during this discussion as well. I can see no sufficient reason for deletion.White Eaglet (talk) 23:07, 15 November 2015 (UTC) This editor has made few or no other edits outside this topic.[reply]
Delete; it's nice that she lived an apparently fulfilling life and that she staved off the inevitable for an unusually long time, and oddly enough none of the preceding seems to show up as criteria for notability. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:54, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GNG says that notability is determined by coverage in reliable sources, not whether or not you like it. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 21:05, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You keep pretending that the only issue here is notability. Even granting that she's notable, that still leaves the question of whether the reader is best served by a standalone article, or by an entry in a list. EEng (talk) 01:02, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The claim that she was the "oldest verified living person in the world at the time of her death" is backed by appropriate strong reliable and verifiable sources that are unquestionably about the subject. Alansohn (talk) 04:30, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to think this is WP:A7. Notability isn't about verifiability of "a claim" (otherwise there's be no such thing as BP1E); it's about SIGCOV. And then there's NOPAGE, which you haven't addressed. EEng (talk) 08:14, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article that I'm reading is at or near the median in size of our five million articles. It meets any standard, acronym or abbreviation that you or I can come up with regarding significant coverage. Alansohn (talk) 16:57, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, brother. The question isn't what's in the article, but what should be in the article. Any subject can be puffed up with meaningless fluff. If you want to have the last word now, please be my guest. EEng (talk) 17:49, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Really? The 2nd oldest person in the world isn't notable? I beg to differ. She died over 4 years ago so sourcing will be more difficult, but not a reason to delete this page.--Uietueps (talk) 07:54, 20 November 2015 (UTC) This editor has made few or no other edits outside this topic.[reply]
Keep The sources provided by 930310 (talk · contribs) and in the article clearly demonstrate that the subject has received sustained significant coverage from 2006–2011. Eunice Sanborn clearly passes Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Regarding the WP:NOPAGE arguments, I refer to my comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emma Tillman. WP:NOPAGE says:
When creating new content about a notable topic, editors should consider how best to help readers understand it. Sometimes, understanding is best achieved by presenting the material on a dedicated standalone page, but it is not required that we do so. There are other times when it is better to cover notable topics, that clearly should be included in Wikipedia, as part of a larger page about a broader topic, with more context.
I believe that in the case of Eunice Sanborn "understanding is best achieved by presenting the material on a dedicated standalone page". There is extensive information about Eunice Sanborn in the sources provided. The article can be further expanded based on the sources linked above, and it would be WP:UNDUE weight to merge her article to a page like List of supercentenarians from the United States.
WP:NOPAGE further states:
Editorial judgment goes into each decision about whether or not to create a separate page, but the decision should always be based upon specific considerations about how to make the topic understandable
"Delete" proponents have failed to explain how the topic would become more "understandable" if Eunice Sanborn's article is merged to the supercentarian list.
From http://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/article/At-111-Jacksonville-woman-is-now-the-oldest-Texan-1547206.php:
Census records show that Sanborn was born July 20, 1896, in Lake Charles, La., though she claims she was born a year earlier, French said.
She married her first of three husbands when she about 18 years old. The couple soon moved to north-central Texas, but the man died in a traffic accident in about 1927. She remarried in the early 1930s and in 1937 she and her second husband built and operated Love's Lookout, a recreational facility just north of Jacksonville.
The facility included an Olympic-sized, lighted swimming pool, miniature golf course, dance hall and archery range. The family closed it in the late 1970s.
She was left a widow again in the early 1940s. She married a third time, but her husband died in 1979. She also outlived her only child, a daughter, French said.
This biographical information is encyclopedic and can be used to further expand the article.
Cunard (talk) 06:53, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So she had three husbands and her second business owned and operated a recreational facility? Is everyone who did that deserve a separate, stand alone article? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:40, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge with List of supercentenarians from the United States. Of course, one way to try and get your way is to just remove most content and sources from the article, like EEng did here. Coverage in reliable sources suggests she passed WP:GNG. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not an argument. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 21:05, 21 November 2015 (UTC) This editor has made few or no other edits outside this topic.[reply]

Again, you keep pretending that notability is the only test for having a standalone article. I removed the worthless fluff from the article, thus demonstrating how little there is to say about her, which in turn is why NOPAGE is so compelling here (and in so many longevity "articles"). EEng (talk) 01:02, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete NOPAGE big time. Nothing encyclopedic in this article, not even some amusing trivia. Instead of repeated these tiresome arguments all the time, we should perhaps have a centralized discussion about all these so-called longevity "biographies", so that we can get this dealt with once and for all. --Randykitty (talk) 14:38, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets WP:GNG. Just Chilling (talk) 17:50, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the only thing that she has done is outlive a great number of people. Is that itself notable? I would say no... that said why delete this article? It can help others. Jab843 (talk) 18:03, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 21:45, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Josephine Ray[edit]

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

Person who was the oldest person ever recorded born in Prince Edward Island, the fourth-oldest person ever born in Canada, and ultimately the oldest American ever (and second oldest in the world) is full of cruft about these "titles", not actually notable and per WP:NOPAGE should be deleted. Of the sources, the GRG table indicates the material facts about here, Redsoxconnection.com is dead and not likely a reliable source, and the remaining sources are WP:ROUTINE obituary stories. Ricky81682 (talk) 09:19, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 09:26, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 09:26, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. She was oldest person in the U.S. is so notable. user:Ricky81682 is issued deletion discussions of a large amount, but some of them is indisputably abnormal. user:Ricky81682's personal reason that hate oldest people article is not the correct reason to delete this page. In addition, many people with similar titles, results in the past of AfD (1, 2, 3, 4) has become Keep.--Inception2010 (talk) 10:52, 11 November 2015 (UTC)--Inception2010 (talk) 11:01, 11 November 2015 (UTC) — Inception2010 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment. I have corrected some of the problems of this article.[19]--Inception2010 (talk) 11:54, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for NOPAGE. Born-worked-married-died, plus (if you can believe it) "Ray followed, as much as possible, the Boston Red Sox baseball team. After watching baseball games, she often had cake and ice cream. At her 108th birthday celebration, she was greeted with the song "Take Me Out to the Ball Game" and a cake with the Red Sox symbol on it. Ray continued to buy Red Sox merchandise, and commented that she intended to continue doing so." The followup statement that a completely unrelated old person, Fred Hale, "who lived to be 113 years 354 days old, was also a fan of the team", borders on self-parody. EEng (talk) 15:28, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. World's oldest Boston Red Sox fan is notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.171.121.177 (talk) 20:41, 12 November 2015 (UTC) — 166.171.121.177 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete as yet one more non-notable individual who happened to live a little longer than most. Old age is not notability - "inherent to their being" or otherwise. Scr★pIron^IV 20:44, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article has no problem. she was the 2nd oldest living person in the world out of a population of 7 Billion and oldest in United States. Record holders of oldest living American usually have an article.--153.151.83.197 (talk) 07:34, 13 November 2015 (UTC) — 153.151.83.197 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete and Redirect to List of the verified oldest people. Nothing here justifies a stand-alone article. WP:NOPAGE. Perhaps a line about Ms. Ray and Mr. Hale should be added to Boston Red Sox. It was in a newspaper once so it must be notable, right? Maybe Red Sox fan-hood is a factor in human longevity. I think someone should submit a paper on the topic to the Planck Institute. David in DC (talk) 18:26, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keeep Was featured several times in the media and several sources provide notability. The anti-supercentenarian crew keeps using the same arguments over and over despite general consensus being that longevity warrants notability. Mrs. Ray was the oldest living North American and the second oldest person in the world at the time of her death. 930310 (talk) 17:54, 15 November 2015 (UTC) This editor has made few or no other edits outside this topic.[reply]
Keep There are a lot of additional sources. One only has to have the will to search for them. I'd advise that to those who constantly nominate articles for deletion instead of improving them.
Aiken Standard March 9, 2010
Winnipeg Free Press January 27, 2010
Brandon Sun January 27, 2010

As of Mrs. Ray, she has received a lot of media attention and her remarkable age has been scientifically proven.White Eaglet (talk) 23:16, 15 November 2015 (UTC) This editor has made few or no other edits outside this topic.[reply]

You haven't answered the WP:NOPAGE argument i.e. that even accepting (for the sake of argument) that the subject is notable, there's insufficient worthwhile stuff to say about him or her to justify a standalone article, and/or that what little is known about the subject is better presented in the context of a larger article or list. EEng (talk) 04:23, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Those three pages have been removed. ~~Are those all stories following her death?~~ - Ricky81682 (talk) 23:30, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please note, none of the three links provided by WhiteEaglet actually lead anywhere. David in DC (talk) 17:00, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Routine coverage in mainly local newspaper does not meet WP:N. Polequant (talk) 14:50, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect Another "born-lived-had a family-enjoyed sport-got old-got real old-died" type of article. longevity by itself is not notable. Blackmane (talk) 23:32, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Really? The 2nd oldest person in the world isn't notable? I beg to differ. She died over 5 years ago so sourcing will be more difficult, but not a reason to delete this page.--Uietueps (talk) 07:55, 20 November 2015 (UTC) This editor has made few or no other edits outside this topic.[reply]
Keep the claim of notability is supported by an article that provides the significant coverage required by policy, with multiple reliable and verifiable sources. Alansohn (talk) 20:53, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As explained a number of times now, notability is only the beginning of the question of whether a subject should have a standalone page -- see WP:NOPAGE. Your comments don't speak to that question. EEng (talk) 00:05, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The beginning and end of this discussion, is that the article provides ample coverage of the topic, far exceeding the standard to have a standalone page. Your arguments might gain a greater sense of credibility if they weren't gratingly repeated over and over again, especially after they've been considered and directly rejected. Alansohn (talk) 06:04, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Yet another "biography" with no encyclopedic information whatsoever. I agree with EEng, this is a parody of an "article". NOPAGE big time. --Randykitty (talk) 14:42, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets WP:GNG. Just Chilling (talk) 17:52, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:32, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mamie Eva Keith[edit]

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

Individual who was the world's second oldest "verified" person (whatever verified means) is not sufficient for notability. Of the three sources here, the GRG table confirms the details here and makes this a WP:NOPAGE issue, the Bionity citation isn't to a reliable source and is actually pulling from Wikipedia's Oldest people article (and thus circular) and the Chicago Sun Times piece is WP:ROUTINE obituary coverage. Ricky81682 (talk) 09:13, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 10:15, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 10:15, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete NOPAGE. Most of the article recounts the Keystone-cops confusion over who's oldest that year or whatever. Other than that, utterly pedestrian born-married-worked-died. EEng (talk) 15:19, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lacking the coverage that would satisfy WP:N. Nom just got to this before I did. Canadian Paul 18:44, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand Sources provide notability and the article could use some more sources, if the anti-supercentenarian crew isn't satisfied:

Guinness Faces Age-old Question (Chicago Tribune, 28 February 1986)

At 112, She Claims the Record (Chicago Daily Herald, 1 March 1986)

At 113, she may be oldest in world (Chicago Sun-Times, 22 March 1986)

Legacy: 113 years of memories (Chicago Daily Herald, 23 September 1986)

930310 (talk) 18:17, 15 November 2015 (UTC) This editor has made few or no other edits outside this topic.[reply]

Looks like local coverage given that she lived in Illinois. CommanderLinx (talk) 18:25, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mamie Keith now world's oldest? (Salina Journal, 1 March 1986)

Woman might own title as most aged person (Bluefield Daily Telegraph, 1 March 1986)

Et Cetera (Winnipeg Free Press, 2 March 1986)

Mamie Keith (Joplin Globe, 3 March 1986)

113-year-old woman died Sat. (Corbin Times Tribune, 23 September 1986)

So she was not only featured locally. 930310 (talk) 19:50, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't answered the WP:NOPAGE argument i.e. that even accepting (for the sake of argument) that the subject is notable, there's insufficient worthwhile stuff to say about him or her to justify a standalone article, and/or that what little is known about the subject is better presented in the context of a larger article or list. EEng (talk) 04:32, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Redirect to an appropriate list. Half of the article is about who she replaced as a "record-holder" and the muddle caused by 'false claimant" to this mythical title. The rest of the article is full of mudane information. Except the questionable information about remembering the news of the Battle of Little Bighorn, which took place when she was 3. WooooHoo, how fascinating. WP:NOPAGE Her DOB and DOD belong in a list. There's nothing here for a stand-alone article. David in DC (talk) 16:56, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect sources may provide substantial coverage, but substantial coverage of trivia does not confer notability. Blackmane (talk) 23:28, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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: Coverage sufficient to consider the subject notable based on sources identified by Cbl62 and their subsequent expansion of the article, which also swayed many to change their original delete !votes. —Bagumba (talk) 05:58, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Duax[edit]

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

Unreferenced biography of a small city-mayor and basketball coach from a very small school who only coached for one season. No evidence of notability per WP:BIO or WP:NCOLLATH. clpo13_(talk) 09:13, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No evidence Duax has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources. Hirolovesswords (talk) 23:42, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete notability not established.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:55, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of basketball-related deletion discussions. Rikster2 (talk) 20:20, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Rikster2 (talk) 20:20, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable small-town mayor and small college basketball coach. No evidence the subject satisfies the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG, with significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources, and I am unaware of any applicable specific notability guideline whose criteria the subject satisfies. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:29, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all. Doesn't meet GNG. For the record, he is also a small college football coach (coached both sports at St. Ambrose). Rikster2 (talk) 20:49, 1 November 2015 (UTC) Changing vote to Keep per new sources found by User:Cbl62. Nice work, Cbl! Rikster2 (talk) 18:24, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom (and see this list of "contributions"). -- Hoary (talk) 23:08, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, if there's one guideline I'd change on Wikipedia, it'd be to require a valid reason to remove a PROD. Seems like a waste of action, especially since WP is short on moderators. Rikster2 (talk) 23:41, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I read DGG and Zagalejo's comments below with interest. I'd never heard of Davenport but it does indeed seem of moderate size. So I'm willing to be persuaded. But I note that the source cited for the claim that he was a mayor is an obituary, and that all this says about the matter is "Mr. Duax had been involved with city politics, serving two terms as alderman, two terms as county supervisor of Scott County and one term, in 1976 and 1977, as mayor of the city of Davenport." If even his obituary can't add something like "His tenure will be remembered for [blah blah]", then I wonder about his notability. (I do, however, appreciate his appreciation of sewerage.) -- Hoary (talk) 22:38, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Davenport, Iowa isn't that small; the current mayor has an article. I'm not sure why Duax's mayorship isn't presented as his primary claim to fame, but I'm sure it must have been covered by 1970s newspapers. (This is admittedly very trivial, but I'll link to it for its entertainment value.) Zagalejo^^^ 04:38, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Zags, that's hilarious: the City of Davenport invited "Ed Norton" to help inaugurate the city's new sewer program. I can still hear Jackie Gleason bellowing "One of these days, Norton . . . pow, right in the kisser!" Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:07, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. Zagalejo^^^ 04:44, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Davenport has a population of 97,000 people in 1970. We normally keep articles on all mayors of cities with populations > 100,000. (50,000-1000,000) is a disputed zone and some are kept. Under 50,000, almost never. 97,000 is close enough. Of course, whoever wrote the article didn;t realize that would be the key factor, notthe coaching, so ther article needs re-organizing. DGG ( talk ) 05:48, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Week delete/redirect/merge to List of mayors of Davenport, Iowa~~ now Week Keep. While I see merit in User:DGG's article, I cannot find any other source outside an obituary, and I am afraid this would be an eternal stub. I'd rather redirect/merge it to List of mayors of Davenport, Iowa. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:00, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am not passionate either way about this subject, but shouldn't GNG still need to be demonstrated to keep an article for a mayor of a city over 100,000 residents? I am not aware of any SSG that supersedes GNG. Rikster2 (talk) 13:13, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Eternal stub suppose the article is an "eternal stub" -- that is no reason to delete the article. A stub article is a valid article.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:55, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed my vote; it's now large enough not to need merger, so I guess we can keep it, as it is a borderline case. Good job rescuing the article. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:49, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Davenport is hardly a "small town", as incorrectly asserted above. With a Census estimated population over 100,000, it is the lead city in the Quad Cities metropolitan area, which has population of nearly half a million. A quick search (including newspapers.com) turned up a number of sources, and I've added some to the article. Cbl62 (talk) 01:49, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Cbl62 - In my opinion those sources are not sufficient to demonstrate GNG. Rikster2 (talk) 13:56, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Close call IMO, but I tend to be more lenient for individuals whose notoriety dates to the 1930s to 1950s, a period when it's much more difficult to find sources online. Cbl62 (talk) 18:39, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I see two independent paths to notability here. First, we typically find that head college football coaches of four-year programs tend to pass WP:GNG as outlined in WP:CFBCOACH essay and we can see in the Chicago Tribune article as n example. Second, the mayor of a city of that size also tends to generate enough press to pass WP:GNG.--Paul McDonald (talk) 17:05, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It depends. Some unquestionably do, and say it on their face, such as WP:PROF, which is explicitly an alternative. Some common practices do, and it is widely accepted, as for high schools. Some subguidelines do, and that's widely accepted also: olympic athletes, of recordings that are listed in one of a specific list of charts. National elected official is another one that is universally accepted. WP:N says GNG is the usual guideline--it explicitly says it is not the only one. DGG ( talk ) 11:02, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How is that Chicago Trib blurb an "article?" It's a couple of sentence transactional blurb. That's not significant coverage. Rikster2 (talk) 20:38, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's no real definition of a "blurb" article and no specific requirement about length of any article that I can find in Wikipedia, I can only guess that it is something that Rickster2 made up. If not, please provide a link. The subject of this Wikipedia article is the subject of the article in the Tribune.--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:43, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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." Please note that GNG requires significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources to establish notability. And, no, the Chicago Tribune article in question does not constitute significant coverage. Not even close; it is WP:ROUTINE transactional coverage. The burden is on "keep" proponents to demonstrate that significant coverage exists, not on "delete" !voters to prove the negative. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:54, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's more than a trivial mention and actually is the main topic. The coverage provided has allowed the article to be written, there is no original research that I can find. Therefore, the definition of "significant coverage" is actually met per the Wikipedia definition in GNG. "Significant coverage" does not refer to size of source article, but to the content of the source in relation to the Wikipedia article. And that test is met.--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:00, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quoting PaulMcd: "'Significant coverage' does not refer to size of source article, but to the content of the source in relation to the Wikipedia article." Above, Paul, you suggest that Rikster2 has invented his own standard. In answer, well, you just did exactly that; you invented your own standard out of whole cloth. The quoted element of GNG says "significant coverage" is that which covers the subject "in detail". The linked Chicago Tribune article does not cover the subject in detail. Not even close. Period. We need to stop distorting the obvious and intended meanings of the notability guidelines because someone thinks a particular obscure subject is "important" to their way of thinking -- even though significant coverage of the subject does not exist. And, of course, you ignore the two key words, which were pointedly bolded for your benefit: "in detail". So, I will repeat it one more time: "'Significant coverage' addresses the topic directly and in detail." This coverage does not. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:48, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Details in just the Tribune article: (1) Name, (2) previous job, (3) future job, (4) sport, (5) who he is replacing and (6) where his replacement is going, (7) his future boss happens to be who he is replacing, (8) his age, (9) where he went to high school, (10) and how his teams did the previous two years in the playoffs. That's ten significant details pertinent to the Wikipedia article. I've invented nothing, I'm reading from the guideline and the source cited. The definition of "significant coverage" is given to us by GNG and that's the definition we should use. I've shown how the coverage meets that standard--that at least this one article addresses the subject directly and in detail. All you've done is say that it doesn't but you give no reason why to support. You then put emphasis on your argument by inserting phrases like "not even close" and "period" -- and these words are often influential, but they are not a reason to delete. I suppose you could write it in bold and use a bigger font, but that still would not be a reason to delete. WHY do you think this article and its content does not meet the standard? Just saying it doesn't make the standard doesn't make it so. Please proved support details lest we end up in WP:WABBITSEASON.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:29, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think a proper GNG analysis is fairly nuanced and ends up in a gray zone. On the one hand, sports Wikipedians have all encountered routine transactional announcements, one-liners indicating that an athlete or coach has been hired, fired, signed, released, traded, placed on disabled list, etc. Such one-line announcements don't constitute the sort of coverage we need under GNG. The Chicago Tribune article, as Paul notes above, is not a one-line transactional announcement and instead provides some meaningful background information and context. On the other hand, we've also all seen feature stories on highly notable coaches and athletes. That is the type of coverage that we generally hope for in a GNG analysis. The Trib piece falls short of that; it is somewhere in the middle. Having researched a ton of athletes from the pre-Internet age, I have found that one-paragraph pieces like this are quite common; unlike today's mass media age, in-depth feature stories during the first several decades of the 20th century were generally reserved for the coach/athlete who was a true star. For a large percentage of the MLB and NFL players of the 1900s to 1950s, you will not find coverage more extensive than a paragraph or two. The analysis in Mr. Duax's case is rendered all the more difficult because the local papers from the Quad Cities are likely to be the richest source of information, and they are not available on-line for the 1930s through the 1970s, which was Duax's period of significance. I see this as a close and hard case under GNG. Cbl62 (talk) 20:03, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is my idea of a real news article about a coach transaction. And, yes, they wrote them like that then too for coaches that were notable. I know because I've written plenty of college athlete and coach articles from that era and earlier. The Trib thing is a blurb on the back of the sports pages basically fulfilling a newspapers' obligation to be the local publication of record, it's not even a marriage announcement or a rotary club meeting announcement and those are in papers, too. Rikster2 (talk) 23:39, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We may be veering off on a tangent, but it's nevertheless a useful discussion. The example you gave is from an entirely different media era, i.e., 2015. I, too, have researched many (hundreds) of athletes and coaches from the first several decades of the 20th century, and you don't generally find lengthy, in-depth feature stories even at the NFL and MLB level, unless the individual was a star. My perspective is that a GNG analysis has to be sensitive to the fact that (1) the type of coverage for non-star athletes/coaches differed in the 1910s to 1950s, and (2) most of it is not readily accessible on-line. For these reasons, I tend to be tougher on modern athletes/coaches in terms of what I expect to see. Even with that being said, I remain perched on the fence with respect to Duax. I just can't agree that the suggestion that this is a clear-cut or easy case of failure to satisfy GNG. Cbl62 (talk) 00:33, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, here's one from 1962 for a smaller school. How do we determine if it's lack of currently available sources or lack of coverage? Rikster2 (talk) 00:41, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your question is a good one. I think that we still need to have significant coverage in multiple, reliable sources, but where it is clear that the newspapers from the relevant media market(s) are not available on-line, I would be a bit more lenient in terms of what types of coverage will suffice. For example, an obstacle I often face is that none of the Detroit area newspapers are on-line (even by subscription) from 1923 through the 1980s. Cbl62 (talk) 01:26, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment could those of you arguing "keep" please demonstrate that the subject meets GNG? All of the subject-specific notability guidelines are there to indicate subjects that will most likely meet GNG. I think the primary argument here is that this subject may not. Rikster2 (talk) 19:23, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm on the fence, but a lot of coverage from the 1950s is not available on-line. In particular, none of the newspapers from the Quad Cities are on-line from the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s. Examples of coverage regarding Duax that are on-line include: (1) this obituary from the Quad City Times in 1997, (2) this shorter piece from the Chicago Tribune, (3) this from the Muscatine Journal, (4) this from the Carrol Daily Times Herald, (5) this and (6) this from the Muscatine Journal and News-Tribune, and (7) this from the The Mount Pleasant News. Cbl62 (talk) 20:56, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:44, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:44, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep There appears to be enough reliable sources for the claims made in the article. Davenport, Iowa has a mayor-council form of government, and every indication is that the subject was elected (rather than appointed to the position). My assumption is that there would be records in the local papers of his campaign in 1975, providing more information about the subject. --Enos733 (talk) 18:28, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Moving off the fence and falling to the keep side. As I've said above, a close call, but he has notability as a college coach and mayor in the Quad Cities area. The Quad Cities newspapers are not available on-line during Duax's period of significance, but I assume those papers had substantial coverage of Duax's coaching and mayoral efforts. This assumption is bolstered by the fact that he has had significant coverage in media outlets outside of the Quad Cities, as referenced in my comment above. Factoring all this into the calculus, I am persuaded that Mr. Duax satisfies WP:GNG. Cbl62 (talk) 19:38, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Prove it: nothing linked above rises to the level of significant coverage. We don't assume that coverage exists. Doing so defeats the entire purpose of having the WP:GNG standard and going through the AfD analysis, which requires that significant coverage exist, and the burden is on "keep" !voters to demonstrate that it does. In the absence of coverage, notability fails. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:01, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The coverage that has been found and referenced above is borderline but adequate under GNG. My assertion that additional coverage exists is not in the least a stretch or baseless speculation. Unfortunately, the media outlets that would give the most significant coverage to a mayor and college coach in the Quad Cities are not available on-line for the years of Mr. Duax's notability. In a properly nuanced GNG analysis, it is entirely appropriate IMO to note that additional significant coverage is certain to exist in the Quad Cities newspapers. Turning a blind eye to this obvious reality is a disservice to our effort to build a comprehensive encyclopedia. Cbl62 (talk) 21:29, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Further Even Wikipedia:Notability is a guideline and not policy. The demand to "prove it" reminds me of the link WP:PROVEIT which does go to a policy, but that is one on article content and not notability of the subject. However, it seems that some arguments are really hanging their hat on WP:GNG and what I would consider to be a more strict interpretation of that guideline. That's fair, others can do that. In this particular case, I'll roll back to another Wikipedia policy: Wikipedia:Ignore all rules: "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." It seems to me that this strict interpretation of WP:GNG is indeed preventing us from improving or maintaining the encyclopedia. So I'm leaning on ignore, keep it, and move on to something else.--Paul McDonald (talk) 22:06, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I have placed a call to the archivist at the Davenport Public Library. She confirmed that none of the Quad Cities newspapers from the period of interest have not been digitized, making it difficult to access published sources from the era. While a research fee would be required for in-depth research, she has agreed gratis to take a quick look at resources they have available. She may also be able to check with the archivist at St. Ambrose. Accordingly, it may make sense to re-list this AfD to see what the archivists are able to come up with. Thanks. Cbl62 (talk) 21:48, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And I certainly would have no objections to re-listing this AfD under those circumstances. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:26, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Further digging has turned up sources asserting that Duax invented the full-court press, with Dean Smith and John Wooden adopting the strategy in the 1960s. I added a couple sources on this to the article, and will do further research on this point. If correct, his status as the inventor of a major element of basketball strategy significantly advances the notability analysis. Cbl62 (talk) 00:04, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think the claim that Duax invented the full-court press highly dubious and the linked sources (at least the one I can access from the article) doesn't seem all that reliable. Most credit either Gene Johnson with its invention when he was coach of the McPherson Globe Refiners in the AAU of the twenties and thirties, Frank Keaney who popularized it at Rhode Island in the 30s and 40s or John McLendon, who coached what is now NC Central University in the 40s. Rikster2 (talk) 00:27, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Cbl62: Before you accept that claim at face value, you may want to read our Wikipedia articles about Gene Johnson and the full-court press. Johnson is credited with inventing the press two decades before Duax became a head coach, and nearly three decades before dean Smith and John Wooden popularized it. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:28, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Will do. As we both know, claims of "invention" in sports are often difficult to pin down, with many "inventions" being evolutionary rather than sudden inventions. Cbl62 (talk) 00:33, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In this case though, Johnson and Keaney were very well known for the press long before Duax took the reigns at St. Ambrose though. he may have been an early adopter, but no way he invented it. Here's Keaney's basketball HOF profile with a mention of his full court style. Here's Johnson's Kansas Sports HOF profile claiming he invented it. Rikster2 (talk) 00:38, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A search of newspapers.com suggests the term first came into usage in the late 1930s. The fact that there are claims that multiple people invented the strategy is not surprising. Having been involved in prior discussions of who invented the forward pass, I've concluded that these assertions are not easily verified. Assertions from University athletic departments trying to promote their alumni are particularly untrustworthy. Duax was actually a coach for many years before arriving at St. Ambrose, working at high schools in Indiana and Illinois (by 1942 at the latest) throughout the 1940s. In any event, I've added language to the article qualifying the assertion. Cbl62 (talk) 00:50, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The source clearly says "St. Ambrose's Duax." Cbl62 - I have read over a hundred books on basketball history and have never heard of him. The blog you have linked isn't that credible IMO. Rikster2 (talk) 00:59, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:IDONTKNOWIT is not a reason to delete. It is one of many specific arguments to avoid in deletion discussions.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:51, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How about this - the one source making the claim is a blog with very dubious reliability and there is ample evidence from highly reliable sources that others created the system decades before this guy supposedly did. I appreciate you want to keep this article, but Wikipedia shouldn't be a place making claims that on the surface appear false. Rikster2 (talk) 14:10, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, I am certainly open to changing my vote to keep once I review the article again with the new info. But you need to stop questioning my motives. We are disagreeing so far, but that doesn't mean I am doing anything below board. Rikster2 (talk) 14:18, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rik, I don't question your motives or in any way believe you were doing anything below board. I apologize if anything I said gave that impression. Anyone looking at the article in its original unsourced and poorly written state would have reasonably questioned Duax's notability. The article has now been completely written and is sourced with articles containing significant coverage in which Duax is the principal subject. Sometime, we become entrenched in a position once a stand has been taken, and I'm simply hoping that people can now take a second look with an open mind. Cbl62 (talk) 14:34, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That wasn't directed at you, it was for Paul McDonald who has now in two separate places questioned my intent. That isn't productive and does not assume good faith. Rikster2 (talk) 15:27, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I had no intent to question your intent. I was responding to your comment that you didn't know who it was and therefore the subject wasn't notable. That's a stretch, and that's why we have WP:IDONTKNOWIT. Previously you called an article a "blurb" and my response was that we don't really have a uniform definition of what a "blurb" is. I don't think you're acting in bad faith, I just find two your points outside the realm of the topic with no real way to affix them anyplace.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:46, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And I didn't say he wasn't notable because I've never heard of him, I was just giving context that I, as opposed to some of you guys who focus almost exclusively on football, have some background. My takeaway point was that the source (have you seen it?) wasn't credible. You and I disagree that the Trib piece is significant coverage - but you basically said I made up my definition. Of course I have my interpretation of which sources are credible and which aren't - they just happen to be a bit different than yours. Ease up, dude, like I said I am not locked into delete given the new sourcing but do YOU honestly believe this dude invented the full-court press? Rikster2 (talk) 15:51, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have no opinion on the full-court press issue. I do know that generally we keep articles on head college football coaches at 4-year schools, and generally we keep articles about mayors of towns of this size. Sometimes we have a hard time finding on-line source but it is rare that we do not find offline sources, it just takes some time.--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:01, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And my going-in position is that all head football (and basketball, but football is higher profile) coaches are NOT inherently notable and when there is a borderline case like this, I want to see the proof. You and I came into this discussion with different lenses, neither of us made s$#t up for the discussion. Rikster2 (talk) 16:05, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If it's proof you want, please investigate the 28 sources in the article (in its current state). I am not clear on what your other comments bring to the discussion.--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:15, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and your comment just crystalizes everything. I will look at the sources, and evaluate again - as I said, big guy. Rikster2 (talk) 16:52, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We have to have some standards. Unfortunately, this individual really has no significance. Some hyper-local newspaper coverage of a Mayor or school coach is simply not enough to meet WP:GNG. To be honest, I actually find it rather extraordinary some editors would suggest a school coach could ever be so notable as to warrant a BIO AusLondonder (talk) 22:44, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@AusLondonder: Well, that's why we go through the AfD exercise and the GNG analysis, because none of this actually based on the concept of "importance". It's based on actual coverage in independent mainstream sources, not my sense of the subject's importance, your sense of importance, or Paulmconald's sense of importance. The Wikipedia concept of notability per GNG and the spin-off specific notability guidelines, based on the demonstrated existence of significant coverage, has been the fundamental determinant of whether Wikipedia articles stay or go for most of the last decade. Without that concept of notability, we really have nothing more than unsupported individual opinions, or the anarchy of Ignore All Rules in every discussion. In the absence of a paid editorial staff that makes decisions as to what subjects are "encyclopedic," that concept of notability is all we have. Plenty of city mayors and plenty of sports coaches are notable, but how we make that determination is important because it sets the bar for every subject that follows. Cheers. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:01, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, we have thousands of articles on university sports coaches and U.S. mayors. Europeans (not sure if you are one, but infer you may be given the user name) often don't understand the significance of university athletics in the USA. University sports often get more extensive coverage even than professional sports in this country. As Dirtlawyer correctly points out, the notability standard is an objective one based on the coverage of the subject in reliable sources, not based on anyone's subjective opinion that coaches and mayors should not have Wikipedia articles. Cbl62 (talk) 23:37, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but I just can't see any evidence this individual is notable. What sourcing has indicated this individual meets WP:GNG? AusLondonder (talk) 01:42, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See Cbl62's links @ 20:56, 7 November 2015. He and two other editors are arguing these references are significant coverage sufficient to satisfy GNG. I and several other editors say "not". Cbl62 is seeking additional coverage, and he is a talented researcher, very good at teasing relevant results out of Newspapers.com and NewspaperArchives.com. He has asked for an AfD re-listing to complete the research process he has begun with the public library and St. Ambrose archivist. No harm in that, and even money that it may turn up better newspaper clips than we have so far. We shall see. It's a process, and he has saved quite a few articles in the past. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:59, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I am continuing to add, and will continue to add, sources to the article as I find them. The article is now completely rewritten from this unsourced article that was originally the subject of this AfD. Even without yet having dipped into the Quad Cities newspapers, and without even having yet heard back from the Davenport Library archivist, it is becoming clear that coverage of Duax surpasses the expectations of GNG. One of the most significant new sources I have uncovered is a three-column, half-page feature story on Duax from the Des Moines Register (one of the most respected daily newspapers in the Midwest) which can be found at newspaperarchive.com here. See also this feature story from 1966. I ask all prior "delete" voters to re-review the article with an open mind and honestly reflect on whether the article in its improved and updated form now meets the requirements of GNG. In this regard, I am pinging the early delete voters: @Hirolovesswords:, @TonyTheTiger:, @Hoary:, @Piotrus:. Cbl62 (talk) 03:31, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cbl, can you cut and paste those two Des Moines Register article to a clip file (like you can do in Newspapers.com) or the equivalent? Both links were gone when I just tried to view them. Thanks. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 05:25, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think newspaperrchives.com allows that, but they allow anyone to view a couple articles per day without subscribing. Cbl62 (talk) 05:37, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Cbl62's comments above and his research to find a wide array of coverage about the subject. Jweiss11 (talk) 08:18, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Bagumba (talk) 08:48, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Cbl62's comments are excellent reasons for this article to stay. They've more than researched this subject. I'm not "getting" the need here to generate a more thorough discussion, unless it's just to pick-up added delete votes?! --MurderByDeadcopy^"bang!" 17:10, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not a vote count.—Bagumba (talk) 18:16, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- And, it might be worth assuming good faith as well. Rikster2 (talk) 18:24, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, however, I'd prefer to see some facts to back up some of these WP's. Also, there's this WP:IAR's which appears to negate those WP's! --MurderByDeadcopy^"bang!" 18:32, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You want facts to assume good faith? Rikster2 (talk) 18:42, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, those facts are clear by the nitpicking of this conversation. Also, I'm hardly the first user to recognize AfD's are basically decided by a hobbled vote, nor will I be the last! --MurderByDeadcopy^"bang!" 19:21, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Much thanks to Cbl62for doing the groundwork to establish that Duax meets the notability standard. Let's all focus on facts, not opinions, and be wary of making comments which could be construed as personal attacks. —GrammarFascist _contribs ^talk 22:10, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Convenience break No. 1[edit]

Comment - I am striking my "delete" !vote above, and I will elaborate at some length on my rationale and the various sources that have been profered. Suffice it to say that but for the two or three additional sources added and linked by Cbl62, I would be letting my "delete" vote ride. I commend Cbl for his follow-through in finding them. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:26, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. KTC (talk) 00:51, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rajiv Internet Village[edit]

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

single line article completely dependent on a newspaper quote. Vin09 (talk) 08:26, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support deletion - I myself proposed twice, but someone removed the deletion template. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 09:08, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 09:29, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:59, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now and restart later if it can be as there's hardly much here. SwisterTwister talk 07:36, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 23:01, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Still (Historian and economist)[edit]

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

No references provided to support a claim to notability. PROD and A7 nominations failed via revert by "brand new" editors. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:13, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, at least long enough to allow editors to develop it. I am not the original editor, but a quick Web search finds a number of resources that attest to the significance of this author and they could be used to fill out the article. These include:

Griffin, G. Edward (October 11, 2010). "MEET BILL STILL, FIAT-MONEY ADVOCATE: An analysis of the documentaries Money Masters and Capital Crimes". www.freedomforceinternational.org. Retrieved 11 November 2015.
"The Money Masters (review)". topdocumentaryfilms.com. Retrieved 11 November 2015.
"Where The Money Masters producer Bill Still really stands on monetary reform". fauxcapitalist.com. September 5, 2010. Retrieved 11 November 2015.
Durden, Tyler (November 14, 2010). ""The Secret Of Oz" - The Truth Behind The Modern Financial System, And The Money-Political Complex". www.zerohedge.com. Retrieved 11 November 2015.
{cite web|title=Keiser report – interview with Bill Still of "The Money Masters"|url=http://www. infowars. com/keiser-report-interview-with-bill-still-of-the-money-masters/ |website=www.infowars.com|date=September 20, 2011}^{infowars. com is fringe, does not meet our sourcing guidelines and should not be used}
"Bill Still, investigative journalist and award-winning filmmaker of documentaries including The Money Masters, The Secret of Oz, and his latest documentary Jekyll Island: The Truth Behind the Federal Reserve will be hosting an AMA". 14 Dec 2014. Retrieved 11 November 2015. Bill Still is a former newspaper editor and publisher. He has written for USA Today, The Saturday Evening Post, the Los Angeles Times Syndicate, OMNI magazine, and produced the syndicated radio program, Health News. He has written 22 books and three feature-length documentary videos.
"Greece should leave Euro zone: Pundit". www.presstv.ir. June 12, 2015. Retrieved 11 November 2015. Press TV has interviewed Bill Still, an author with The Money Masters from North Carolina, and Sean O'Grady, a finance editor with The Independent from London, to discuss Greece's debt crisis.
""JEKYLL ISLAND" FILM SHOCKER: After a century of secrets, documentary finally reveals "Truth Behind the Federal Reserve"". www.wnd.com. October 29, 2013.
Scher, Abby (June 2013). "Banking on the Public: Going Postal, North Dakota, and Other Finance Alternatives". dollarsandsense.org. Retrieved 11 November 2015.
"BANNED AT AMAZON! VIDEO EXPOSE OF ECONOMIC FRAUD: The Secret of Oz' filmmaker still can't sell on e-commerce giant". www.wnd.com. November 30, 2009.
Nickerson, Mike (2009). Life, Money and Illusion Living on Earth as If We Want to Stay (Rev. and updated ed.). New York: New Society Publishers. ISBN 9781550924411.

Obviously, I realize these are not all high-quality references and I have not checked them in detail. But I do think they are enough to indicate a reasonable claim of significance.

In addition to his documentaries, he is also an author. I have seen that he has written 22 books but I can't find them all - just:

Still, Bill (1992). Legend of the Holy Lance. Lafayette, La.: Huntington House Publishers. ISBN 9781563840029.
Still, William T. (1990). New world order: the ancient plan of secret societies. Lafayette, La.: Huntington House Publishers. ISBN 9780910311649.
Still, Bill (2011). No more national debt (4th. ed.). St. Petersburg, FL: Reinhardt and Still. ISBN 9780964048553.

(Sorry - forgot to sign when I wrote the above.)--Gronk Oz (talk) 11:47, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

- Seriously? He's notable because someone wrote about him at wnd.com and the like? Those references are awful. I think you've reinforced the case for deletion. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:26, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - The article is obviously in poor shape, and at the moment it does not provide the evidence to prove notability. But as the guidelines say, "If an article fails to cite sufficient sources to demonstrate the notability of its subject, look for sources yourself". And I found enough in a few minutes to incline me towards allowing time for the author to work on it and see whether they can bring the article up to scratch.--Gronk Oz (talk) 07:41, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, those sources don't support that notion -- they're crap. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:35, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment**. I'm not sure that this subject is notable enough for an article, but I would note that we have already been through this issue before. Wikipedia had an article entitled "Bill Still" and an article entitled "The Money Masters", both of which were deleted a while back. Famspear (talk) 13:37, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I have to say that the list, in the proposed article, of Bill Still's "accomplishments" is pretty funny, though. Famspear (talk) 13:45, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Upon reflection, the subject does not appear to be notable enough for a Wikipedia article. As noted above, a prior article on Bill Still was deleted from Wikipedia some time back. Relatedly, an article on "The Money Masters" (his internet "documentary") was deleted, apparently around February 2008. Another article on "The Money Masters" was later created, and that article was deleted (around June 2013, I think). If anything, the current state of this article illustrates the lack of notability of the subject. Famspear (talk) 20:19, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. KTC (talk) 00:52, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Ronto Group[edit]

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

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (companies) requirement. The old 2006 AfD, in the days notability was still fresh and poorly understood, ended up as no consensus with two keep votes - one from the creator and another from an editor who "has heard of it", therefore argued WP:ITSIMPORTANT. Sigh. As I discussed in my Signpost Op-Ed, this is a good example of Yellow-Pages like company spam. This one had almost a decade-run on Wikipedia, let's put it out of its - and out - misery. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:37, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 08:09, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:58, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now as I see no convincingly better improvement. SwisterTwister talk 23:33, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. They might conceivably be notable, but if someone ever wants to try to make an article in good faith then can use AfC. DGG ( talk ) 02:16, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - doesn't seem notable as far as developers go. I can't find any indepth coverage in secondary sources. The article has been a poorly referenced tiny stub for nearly a decade. Citobun (talk) 10:36, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:31, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

White Dog Cafe[edit]

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

and DELETE REDIRECTS at The White Dog Cafe and White Dog Café

3 location local business, created and only edited by Neelix, likely so he could blue link this sentence "Ben Cohen of the ice cream company Ben & Jerry's met with Claiborne at Philadelphia's White Dog Cafe" from an article about one of his favorite books Jesus for President. Legacypac (talk) 07:30, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 07:36, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This is symptomatic of all of Neelix's article creations. They are either POV advocacy (of often questionable notability), or they were created to be blue-links within those articles (with dubious notability) apparently in order for the main article to look good and notable itself and/or for the main article to be impressive enough at first sight to pass GA/FA without much investigation. In the end it comes down to the fact that every article Neelix ever created is probably going to have to be looked at, in my opinion, and gone over with a fine-tooth comb. I've dealt with a similar editor here on Wikipedia (now retired), and that was exhausting enough, but the scale at which Neelix has been doing this all of these years simply boggles the mind. This article very well may meet notability, but the dubious genesis is disturbing and symptomatic. Softlavender (talk) 08:02, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Like this GA that goes on for 50,000 bytes on a 32 page illustrated kids book Lucky and Squash - compare to the treatment the author gives it here [20] Legacypac (talk) 09:39, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, that has nothing to do with anything I'm talking about. Softlavender (talk) 09:48, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:58, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:58, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment 2: Another problem with Neelix, somewhat similar to his unwarranted mass redirects, are his unwarranted mass categories in the articles he creates. I had to remove 5 of the 9 categories on this article because they didn't apply. And beyond that the article contained at least three false claims not supported by the citations. Softlavender (talk) 13:32, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now I suppose unless better improvement can made. SwisterTwister talk 23:32, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I think this could have been speedied: what possible claim to notability exists here? The Drover's Wife (talk) 02:01, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. unreliable sources. When there are sources, but they are probably unreliable, I think an afd discussion is fairer. Somebody might possibly find better . The speedy was earlier declined for just that reason. DGG ( talk ) 01:53, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@DGG: There appear to be plenty of available RS sources; they simply were not used when Neelix created this slapdash article. Also, when you !voted Legacypac had deleted the most important part of the article without cause. Softlavender (talk) 09:37, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

which part? That the previous owner was a panelist at a University in Denvor after she sold the place (which might do something for an article on her but not the cafe) or that they ran a special for 10 days last year [21] like no restaurant has ever offered a special price of $35 on a meal? Legacypac (talk) 22:13, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[22]. -- Softlavender (talk) 23:56, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there's actually buckets of sources. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 23:33, 16 November 2015 (UTC).[reply]

buckets of trivia, it seems to me, like the sentence on restrooms , as mentioned as just part of a general nyt article. Or local business journals, thoroly undiscriminating in publishing pr for local institutions. Or that the founder gave a talk at a university. Or the restaurant's PR for its presence at local environmental events. If there are better, please add them and remove this sort of sourcing, which is of course typical of promotional editing. DGG ( talk ) 17:39, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@DGG: Have you even made an effort to check Google or GoogleBooks? You don't even have to type the search -- just click the links at the top. AfDs are decided on notability, not on the state an article is currently in. Softlavender (talk) 20:11, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see they published 2 cookbooks, and a good many minor mentions. DGG ( talk ) 22:03, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

*sigh* There are plenty of full articles, including HuffPo. Apparently I am going to have to collect links and post them here since no one else can be bothered, even though this is an AfD and that's how we judge GNG. Softlavender (talk) 22:38, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - there are buckets of sources limited to the Philadelphia area, and a passing mention from one in New York (which is not very far away); writeups of regional interest. Some writeups in books (including its own published cookbooks) but passing mentions or directory listings again. Quite a bit of buzz around its former owner making public appearances, which doesn't confer notability on her restaurant. We need more. That said, there is depth of coverage within the limited coverage area, so this is a weak !vote, but tagging this for A7 deletion was clearly incorrect. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 23:08, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Neelix created a crap article but that doesn't mean the subject lacks notability, which it clearly has. Dozens if not hundreds of instances of significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, so easily passes GNG and any other relevant guideline. Here are just a few: [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], [38], [39], [40], [41], [42], [43], [44], [45], [46], [47], [48], [49], [50], [51], [52], [53], [54], [55]. That's just for starters. There's lots more, but I don't have time to do an in-depth search. Softlavender (talk) 23:27, 18 November 2015 (UTC) ETA: Paging SwisterTwister, The Drover's Wife, DGG, and Ivanvector to examine these sources. Softlavender (talk) 00:05, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per Softlavender's sources, which make this one pretty overwhelmingly clear — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:39, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Passes WP:CORPDEPTH, having received significant coverage in national-level reliable news sources: ^[1], ^[2], ^[3], ^[4], ^[5]. There is also some coverage in books: ^[6]. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:14, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Associated Press
^ CNN
^ The New York Times
^ Yes! magazine
^ U.S. News and World Report (subscription required)
^ Programming for Parks, Recreation, and Leisure Services. pp. 68-69. (subscription required)

Keep, as noted, there are plenty of sources that give non-trivial coverage to the subject, establishing notability. Harrias ^talk 17:45, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. A very worthy individual. However, the consensus is that the subject fails WP:GNG and, despite a copious publication output, does not separately meet WP:PROF. Just Chilling (talk) 17:42, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

John William Harkins[edit]

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

No evidence of sufficient coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, such that the subject would meet Wikipedia:Notability (people). Does not appear to meet the criteria set out at Wikipedia:Notability (academics). Cordless Larry (talk) 07:20, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 07:42, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:00, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Delete The article is supported by a blog and faculty listing by his employer. Zero independent sourcing. I checked EVERY search link in (news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR) - I found zilch.

Then I checked the article creator's contribution history. I'm seeing TWENTY EIGHT New Page biographies. It appears to be an indiscriminate creation of pages for Columbia Theological Seminary faculty. I checked a large majority of them. They systematically fail to cite independent sources to establish notability. A lot of them carry tags for lack of Notability&Sourcing. Assuming this article gets deleted, does it make sense to then bundle the others for deletion discussion?? Alsee (talk) 10:52, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

- Sigh. I tagged John Azumah for notability concerns, and then saw this one and decided it was worse than the Azumah article. I hadn't realise there were that many. A bundled nomination may well be in order. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:53, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep -- He has a prodigious publication output in the last few years. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:57, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- One of the criteria set out at WP:NACADEMIC is that "The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources". As far as I understand the guideline, number of publications doesn't matter - it's their impact that does. I haven't seen any evidence that his research has made a significant impact on the discipline. In fact, most of the "publications" listed in the article are just conference papers, not even published articles. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:20, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The "prodigious publication output" is merely WP:bombardment. The "publication lists" includes BLOG posts (i.e. Conditions May Vary, Inside Passages, Get Out! CREDO Health Vitality Blog). As Cordless Larry notes, the entire list is meaningless without secondary evidence of significance. Bundling is probably needed because the "publication lists" and "award lists" are systematically unreliable indiscriminate WP:bombardment. Alsee (talk) 05:45, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It can be hard finding stuff on Google Scholar, but his "The Disconnected, Unplugged Man: A Clinical/Theological Case Study" is significant; the journal issue it appeared in had several articles written specifically in response to it. StAnselm (talk) 19:46, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Journal editors often invite response articles, but I don't see any evidence that his article has been cited outside of the issue of the journal it appeared in. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:25, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, I think you're right. (I was going to !vote "keep", and then turned it into a comment.) St Anselm (talk) 20:32, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment: The correct name seems to be "J. William Harkins". St Anselm (talk) 19:48, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No evidence that subject passes WP:PROF. St Anselm (talk) 20:32, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on possible future-ADF bundle for the other 27 articles: The article submitter appears to be half way through a process of indiscriminately creating articles for every name on Columbia Theological Seminary current and former faculty list. I'm thinking the Bundle would carry automatic access to WP:refund due to the bulk nature. That AFD could could be followed by an administrator noticeboard request to assert WP:COI, making any resubmissions go through WP:AFC. Alsee (talk) 05:45, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think the bundle is a very bad idea and has "train wreck" written all over it before it even leaves the station - several of the articles created are on notable people. St Anselm (talk) 08:00, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps a more selective bundle or bundles is advisable, based on a proper assessment of notability? Cordless Larry (talk) 08:20, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Concur with analysis by Alsee and StAnselm. Searches turned up nothing that would make this pass WP:BASIC or WP:PROF. Worldbruce (talk) 07:16, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article author Jcstanley added some links in the external section without commenting here. I almost didn't see it, and others might want to check it. I still don't think I see anything that satisfies wp:Notability_(academics), nor a single sentence about him that wasn't written by him or an employer. The closest thing I'm seeing for independent mention of him seems to be episcopalatlanta.org: Latest Diocesan News, however that is the website of his current employer (Career: Episcopal Diocese of Atlanta as an instructor in Pastoral Care (2000–present)). Alsee (talk) 11:18, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Sam Sailor ^Talk! 01:34, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mina Ōba[edit]

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

The subject of this article is a member of a major music group (AKB48), but does not appear at present to have sufficient independent notability to justify a self-standing biographical article. The two sources cited in the article simply mention her name in passing, so the article fails WP:GNG in the absence of any in-depth third-party coverage. The most logical course of action would be to redirect to AKB48 until some future date when/if the person becomes notable in their own right, and I did redirect the article, but it was immediately undone by another editor who reckons we need to gain consensus first, even though two other editors also recently PRODed the article and tagged it for Speedy Deletion on the grounds of lack of notability. So here we are at AfD... DAJF (talk) 06:40, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. DAJF (talk) 06:42, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect: Unless/until there is reason to think there will ever be an encyclopedia-article-sized amount of text about her, a redirect is surely more useful. (I wanted to write "an encyclopedia-sized article", then worried that someone would argue on the basis of the obvious misinterpretation. Such is life.) Imaginatorium (talk) 06:49, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Um, @Imaginatorium -- redirect to where? Quis separabit? 14:57, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I meant to AKB48, at least for the time being. Imaginatorium (talk) 16:03, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As I said below, she is not a member of AKB48. If the result is redirect, it should be to SKE48. Michitaro (talk) 18:08, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I don't have the time to read all this now and judge if it is enough to give an "encyclopedia-article-sized amount of text", but there are a ton of articles out there with only her name in the title (I did not include the many that have her name along with others): [56], [57], [58], [59], [60], [61], [62], [63], [64], [65], [66], [67], [68], [69], [70], [71], [72], etc. My impression just going through the titles is there is enough to create your average idol article: info on debut, which team and when (she is an SKE member, but doubled with AKB for a while), election results, becoming team leader, appearances in commercials and films, etc. Oba also had a few mini-scandals, such as when she wrote something in her blog that resulted in a suspension from the group, and some other problem remarks. I'm leaning Keep unless someone can convince me all these articles mean nothing. Michitaro (talk) 13:59, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to either AKB48 or SKE48. Quis separabit? 22:29, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Given the sources I found, can I ask your reasoning behind your decision? Michitaro (talk) 22:37, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, because once the necessary improvements have been made and a suitable article has been fashioned (which does not inspire AFDs or PRODs or speedydelete requests), the redirect can become a standalone. I understand you "don't have the time to read all this now", but when you have the chance, as you seem very familiar with the subject, I am sure you can provide enormous assistance in this endeavor. Yours, Quis separabit? 03:16, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I was genuinely asking what you thought of the sources, but I guess you don't have an opinion. I am not an expert on the subject and had never heard of Oba before this AfD. I have just done what any person participating in an AfD must do, which is look for sources, but I was hoping for help in evaluating them. I will try to improve the article later when I have time, but I would appreciate others actually considering the sources instead of just judging from the current state of the article. As WP:NRVE states, "Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate citation. Wikipedia articles are not a final draft, and an article's subject can be notable if such sources exist, even if they have not been named yet." I am genuinely asking others to consider whether these sources are good enough or not. Michitaro (talk) 13:50, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As per Michitaro and the jp version of this article, it looks as though there is sufficient material for an article. Bondegezou (talk) 16:26, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 07:12, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 07:13, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The three sources from Michitaro that I checked with Google Translate all look valid, and Japanese Wikipedia shows a well developed article with varied sources. Alsee (talk) 11:46, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps Keep for now simply until this has can better improved from Japan Wiki and if not, simply return to the AKB48 or SKE48 article. SwisterTwister talk 20:26, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. per SK1 (The delete !vote isn't really a !vote in terms of !voting) - Sources provided so wrapping it up. (Thanks JMWt). (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 15:55, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Phoenix Radio[edit]

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

Non notable radio station, Fails GNG –Davey2010^Talk 02:25, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Per Davey, not notable TypingInTheSky (talk) 02:58, 28 October 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) 06:35, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:12, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:12, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:12, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:14, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 07:10, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - has OFCOM license so meets notability criteria. The page is rubbish and needs better sources, I have found refs in local media, OFCOM docs etc. Suggest pear back the page to what can be reffed to non-primary sources. JMWt (talk) 09:14, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have the refs ? ... If you add them either here or on the article I can wrap this up, Other than the cites to its own site there doesn't seem to have been better cites in prev revisions, Cheers, –Davey2010^Talk 14:40, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have time this pm to tackle the page, but this is the OFCOM details page, this is a news article by a local hospital relating to a radio programme, this is a mention in a local newspaper article, this is a mention of funding by the National Lottery, this is a local media report about funding... I agree that it is quite thin, but with more time I think more references would be found. JMWt (talk) 15:23, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. KTC (talk) 00:52, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Islam Radio[edit]

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

Non notable radio station, Because of their ~~stupid name~~ I'm picking up everything to do with Islam and Radio so finding anything on this station is like finding a needle in a haystack!, Fails GNG anyway –Davey2010^Talk 02:23, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 07:58, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News Media-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 08:19, 28 October 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) 06:35, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:13, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:13, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:14, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 07:10, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there are a number of Islamic radio stations with OFCOM licenses to broadcast, but this doesn't appear to be one of them - it is possibly a previous name of one of the current channels. At best it should be a note on a page for a currently broadcasting radio channel. Also the linked website is broken, so this page doesn't seem to serve any purpose. JMWt (talk) 08:50, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Searching for "islam radio" Bradford (the station's base according to the article), I came across two articles: [73] and [74], although I doubt their WP:RS-ness. A couple of streaming radio websites show that Islam Radio is linked to http://www.islamradiodigital.com but this gives a dead site. Searching for "islam radio" Yorkshire, I found this, which implies that the station had been dissolved some years ago. In all, two sources with a tiny bit of almost the same text and mere mentions in radio/company directories, would not pass WP:GNG in my opinion. - HyperGaruda (talk) 16:07, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - although the term "stupid name" is not in the spirit of such a discussion as this, my researches on the web, including those listed above by others, show that this disolved radio station which seems has never presented financial statements and became subject to a strike-off action in 2009 – any evidence it became established or broadcast before it was disolved? – is patently not notable. Acabashi (talk) 02:14, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Well I'm closing this myself - I had hoped someone would close it for me but doesn't look like that's gonna happen so screw it - Sources have been provided which I'm happy with so I'm wrapping this up. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 05:21, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Branch FM[edit]

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

~~Non notable radio station, Fails GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 02:19, 28 October 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) 06:34, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:16, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:16, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:16, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 07:09, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the fact that it has an OFCOM license is enough to prove notability. There is (admittedly pretty thin) information I can find about it from OFCOM, other media, the charities regulator etc. I suggest reducing the page to stub with the bare minimum information that can be referenced from these non-primary sources. JMWt (talk) 09:01, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No refs other than a link to their license. Szzuk (talk) 15:16, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I already agreed the refs are rubbish, but other refs exist. Lack of refs does not mean that the page is not worth keeping in-and-of-itself. JMWt (talk) 15:25, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
See you've just admitted there's next to none information on it, Most if not all articles here need sources - If no one can find anything then it's a non notable article and should be deleted, Had this been created yesterday It would fall under A7 (to be honest all what I've nominated would), If you can actually find something then great but if not it doesn't deserve an article. –Davey2010^Talk 15:33, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, but the procedure for improving sources is a refimprove hatnote, not deleting the page. There is more than nothing, if you'll be kind enough to wait until I have time to edit the page properly, I will show you.JMWt (talk) 15:40, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is tho is that adding the refimprove does nothing - There's been a few articles where the refimprove's been there since like 2006/2007, Ofcourse I can - Believe it or not I'd rather these get saved than deleted, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 16:08, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I think we have already established that having an OFCOM broadcast license establishes notability according to WP:NMEDIA. This might mean that it is only possible to say that the station exists and has various commitments it has to meet to broadcast in the UK. But that is enough to mean that the page should not be deleted. Anyway, I have included several new references including media and a published research paper. Have a look now. JMWt (talk) 18:25, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

An ofcom license doesn't convery notability at all. If you read Nmedia it says community radio stations of this kind are generally not notable and have to pass wp:corp. Doing that requires quality references which you don't have. The refs you have added say the radio station has a license and some listeners and definitely doesn't pass wp:corp. Szzuk (talk) 18:46, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Are we looking at the same section? WP:BROADCAST implies very strongly that licensed (rather than unlicensed) media is notable, and that the "primary criterion of having received independent media coverage." Furthermore the top of that section says that the station should also be judged on the "uniqueness of programming". This station has been reported in independent media, has a broadcast license and according to the regulator has unique programming. There is nothing to answer on any of those points. I cannot see anywhere in WP:NMEDIA anything which can be read to suggest that "community radio stations of this kind are generally not notable". In fact the only section which bares any resemblance to that suggestion is the one which states that Travelers' Information Stations are not notable and "might redirect to an article about the highway, park or tourist facility they cover." That is clearly not the situation for this station. None of the other sections seem to me to be relevant. JMWt (talk) 20:37, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Broadcast (radio) says this "Notability can be established by either a large audience, established broadcast history, or unique programming." So there are 3 questions to ask...does the station have a large audience? Answer no. Does the station have an established broadcast history? Answer no. Does the station have unique programming? Answer No. Unique programming doesn't include volunteer DJ's talking about community issues because it isn't unique - it is mundane. (I'm not going into policy guidelines on wp:corp) Szzuk (talk) 21:34, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

of course, it can be both unique and mundane. In fact, the line you've highlighted above has the important word either. Mundane volunteer DJs talking about community issues are by definition producing unique programming. JMWt (talk) 21:44, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The community radio chat is just like you'll hear in a coffee shop or garden centre cafe opposite the radio station - it isn't unique. Szzuk (talk) 22:30, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in reliable sources.
1. "Successful seven years for radio". Dewsbury Reporter. 2014-11-16. Archived from the original on 2015-11-19. Retrieved 2015-11-19.
  The article notes:
  
  On Saturday November 8, local radio station Branch FM celebrated their seventh anniversary after obtaining a Community Radio License in 2007.
  The station spent the morning broadcasting live in Dewsbury and provided an open invitation to the public with visits to the studios and refreshments.
  Branch FM is a Christian radio station founded by members of Dewsbury Gospel Church. They have approximately 30 annual volunteers, aging from 15 to 65.
2. "New gospel radio station to hit the airwaves". The Yorkshire Post. 2006-03-20. Archived from the original on 2015-11-19. Retrieved 2015-11-19.
  The article notes:
  
  Branch FM thinks there is an unmet market for Christian broadcasting and has been given a licence to try its theories in the Dewsbury area.
  Like the Branch Bookshop and the Branch Christian School, the radio station is an offshoot of Dewsbury Gospel Church, which traces its roots back to the temperance movement. There is no single organisation of "gospel churches" but like most with a similar title, Dewsbury's characterises itself as "charismatic and evangelical" – meaning more American than Church of England in style.
  And it believes it was sent a "Vision from the Lord" to get into American-style religious broadcasting.
  Its prayers were answered yesterday when the Government's Office of Communications (Ofcom) announced it had been awarded one of the new Community Radio licences.
  The article also notes that Branch FM had been broadcasting on the Internet:
  Within nine months, Branch FM expects to be on air 24 hours a day from the studio above its church in the old Temperance Hall on Halifax Road, Dewsbury.
  It already broadcasts over the internet and claims up to 5,000 "hits" a week, from all over the world, although it cannot say how many visitors tune in. So-called "webcasting" only gets listeners who are good with computers. The new licence is for a wavelength – still to be chosen – in the spectrum most ordinary radios are tuned to.
3. Cooper, Martin; Macaulay, Kirsty (2015). "Contemporary Christian radio in Britain: A new genre on the national dial". International Studies in Broadcast and Audio Media. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2015-11-19. Retrieved 2015-11-19.
  The article notes:
  
  Branch FM is a Christian community radio station in the Dewsbury area.
  ...
  In a similar manner, Branch FM takes the position that, ‘If the community is involved, that includes non-Christian organisations, as long as they are doing good, then obviously we will support that whole-heartedly’ (Hodgson 2013).
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Branch FM to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 06:31, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes#Broadcast media notes:
Licensed radio and TV stations are generally kept as notable if they broadcast over the air and originate at least a portion of their programming schedule in their own studios. Lower power radio stations limited to a small neighborhood, such as Part 15 operations in the United States or stations with a VF# callsign in Canada, are not inherently notable, although they may be kept if some real notability can be demonstrated. Stations that only rebroadcast the signal of another station should be redirected to their programming source (e.g. CICO-TV is a redirect to TVOntario.)
Since this is a licensed radio station and has received the significant coverage necessary to Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, this article should be kept.
Cunard (talk) 06:31, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nom comment - and again unfortunately I can't withdraw so could an admin do the honours please?, I'll add sources later, (Thanks Cunard!). –Davey2010^Talk 15:26, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for reconsidering your position after reviewing the sources, Davey2010 (talk · contribs)! Cunard (talk) 05:11, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome :), Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 05:19, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Well I'm closing this myself - I had hoped someone would close it for me but doesn't look like that's gonna happen so screw it - Sources have been provided which I'm happy with so I'm wrapping this up. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 05:23, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Creative FM[edit]

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

Non notable radio station, Created in 2006 & been unsourced ever since, The creator was "BSS" which I'm assuming is "Beaumont Street Studios", Anyway no evidence of notability - Fails GNG –Davey2010^Talk 02:15, 28 October 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) 06:33, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:17, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:17, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:17, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:17, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 07:09, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - appears to be a temporary station which operated under a restrictive license from OFCOM. It does not appear to have applied, or been granted, a license for some years and the linked website is broken. JMWt (talk) 09:06, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The company running the studio was indeed Beaumont Street Studios Ltd (Company number 2189926) as bssonair.co.uk, which was dissolved December 2013, although they ran the station as creativefm.net from 2007, a site now defunct and available, if it ever became the site for the station. There never seems to have been any references for this station, notable or not, so an assumption of not notable and a delete would be appropriate. Acabashi (talk) 03:15, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename to Beaumont Street Studios per the significant coverage in reliable sources.
This article can be reworked to be part of an article about Beaumont Street Studios, which has received significant coverage in the BBC, a 2006 book published by Rowman & Littlefield, and Huddersfield Daily Examiner. Information about Creative FM can also be sourced from the BBC and Huddersfield Daily Examiner.
1. Rennie, Ellie (2006). Community Media: A Global Introduction. Lanham, Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield. p. 150. ISBN 0742574466. Retrieved 2015-11-19.
  The book notes:
  Beaumont Street Studios
  The neighborhood development approach to community broadcasting can be seen in Huddersfield, a small town in West Yorkshire. Beaumont Street Studios, established in 1985, was initially a response to social problems within the local black community. In its early days, the center offered only sound recording studios and training, but it has now diversified into multimedia, as well as radio and video training and production. Beaumont Street Studios runs short-term radio broacasts—called Creative FM—under the Restricted Service License scheme. The studio is also involved in the New Deal for Musicians and the New Deal for Creative Industries, both New Labour strategies to bring unemployed people back into the labor market...
  ...
  Beaumont Street Studios have no core funding and their annual income varies from year to year depending on what funding is available. According to [training manager Jeni] Vine, in the year 1999/2000, the annual income was around half a million pounds. ... The commercial operations include sound studio rental and short-courses for businesses. But the majority of funding comes from grant-based projects, including the New Deal for Musicians.
2. Davison, Emma (2010-02-08). "Mystery surrounds Huddersfield's Beaumont Street Studios closure". Huddersfield Daily Examiner. Archived from the original on 2015-11-19. Retrieved 2015-11-19.
3. "Places features: Beaumont Street Studios, Huddersfield". BBC. 2006-10-18. Archived from the original on 2015-11-19. Retrieved 2015-11-19.
  The article notes:
  What do Huddersfield's Town Crier and Embrace, of World Cup song fame, have in common? Well, they are just some of the people who have had doors opened for them by the town's Beaumont Street Studios which is celebrating its 21st birthday!
  Beaumont Street Studios (BSS) may now be Yorkshire's answer to London's Abbey Road but it began in a very small way. It was set up in 1985 by the Huddersfield West Indian Association. ...
4. "Tuning in to Creative radio". Huddersfield Daily Examiner. 2004-06-17. Archived from the original on 2015-11-19. Retrieved 2015-11-19.
5. "What next for Beaumont Street Studios after assets sale?". Huddersfield Daily Examiner. 2010-10-05. Archived from the original on 2015-11-19. Retrieved 2015-11-19.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Beaumont Street Studios to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 07:24, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nom Comment - Unfortunately I can't withdraw so could I ask an admin to wrap this up & move the article please? - Sources are fine & I'll add 'em later so no point in this being left open, (BTW thanks Cunard for the sources). –Davey2010^Talk 07:38, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 17:39, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sphere (metal)[edit]

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

Not notable. The references don't support general notability while there is no indication they are notable musically. There’s a Polish version of the page at pl:Sphere but it seems identical as best I can tell (this seems to be copied from it) so makes no difference. JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 01:55, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

More references added. I hope it's enough now.
Pages are not identical, they are translated, not even closely though. --D95097 (talk) 03:09, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: does it meet Wikipedia:Notability (music groups)? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:04, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Answer: Yes, pts 1,4,5,11,12. - -D95097 (talk) 00:29, 4 November 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) 06:33, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 07:02, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 07:02, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 07:02, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If kept, I suggest it be moved to the the more logical Sphere (Polish band), Sphere (band) be moved to Sphere (American band) and a DAB be created in Sphere (band). Sam Sailor ^Talk! 07:08, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Simply no better improvement. SwisterTwister talk 20:27, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. KTC (talk) 00:52, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Miljenko Matijevic[edit]

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

Singer for notable band, but is not individually notable as a musician. BLP has no outside sourcing whatsoever besides related site. MSJapan (talk) 00:28, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. —UY Scuti ^Talk 07:20, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —UY Scuti ^Talk 07:20, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. —UY Scuti ^Talk 07:20, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As I see no standalone notability. The existing significant coverage are for the band and he only has got passing mentions. Doesn't pass WP:MUSICBIO.—UY Scuti ^Talk 07:25, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 06:41, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There are plenty of sources for him with the group, but I cannot locate anything showing him with a single or album on his own. As such, there is no notability for him outside the band.--CNMall41 (talk) 06:48, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 as G12 (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 06:52, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Elion Resources Group[edit]

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

Unsourced and the organization doesn't appear to be notable TheCaliforniaKansan (talk) 05:27, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:31, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:32, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I just deleted it as a copyvio from http://www.elion.com.cn/en/English-xinwen.shtml and other pages at that site. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:38, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. KTC (talk) 00:53, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hakki Suleyman[edit]

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

Wholly-negative BLP on a relatively minor figure. Close to an attack article. No sources for anything biographical outside of roles in minor political controversies. The Drover's Wife (talk) 04:45, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - whole I disagree that someone who holds enough votes to create (which happened) and finish to Opposition Leader of Australia is not notable, I also value the opinion of experienced editors and this doesn't have a snowball's chance in surviving. Flat Out (talk) 05:02, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  Keep - not wholly negative with positive Chair roles included and reliably sourced. The extensive reliable mainstream media sources including The Australian, The Age, Sydney Morning Herald, ABC, Financial Review, and Crikey indicates that the subject is not a "relatively minor figure" and has held key national roles including this one.  Flat Out (talk) 04:49, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless an editor experienced in Australian politics can transform this article from a BLP violating political hit piece into actual NPOV biography. Ping me when it has been rewritten. Otherwise, my recommendation to delete stands. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:10, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment with respect to Cullen328 whom I admire greatly, a thorough reading of the sources will show that article is a fair and accurate summary of the points made by those reliable sources. Flat Out (talk) 05:16, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reply If true, that hints to me that the sources in the article are not representative and are cherry-picked to portray the individual in a negative light. A political figure does not rise to a position of national prominence without reliable sources saying a few positive things about them. Certainly, the sources would have offered the types of basic biographical details which are entitrely lacking in the article. My BLP violation detector screams "hit piece" when I read this article. Why am I wrong? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:29, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I encourage you to perform a search and see if you still think I have cherry picked sources. Note' - a figure can rise to national prominence when they control a stack of votes that support the pre-selection of a Federal politician and the support for that politician over an opponent when a Federal Opposition Leader was elected partially by the party membership. If anyone can find positive coverage I'd be happy to include it Flat Out (talk) 05:35, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I have added some commentary regarding party investigation into branchstacking and the clear links to the subject and the current Federal Opposition Leader. Flat Out (talk) 05:38, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reiterate my recommendation to delete as a BLP violating hit piece, with disappointment. This is not an NPOV encyclopedia biography. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:05, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 06:39, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 06:40, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 06:40, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 06:40, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Yes it passes GNG. But it looks like the only thing he is notable for is branch stacking. In other words, for a pretty small-time crime or fraud. WP:CRIME suggests that criminals are only noteworthy if "renowned nationally or internationally", or if the "motive or execution is unusual". None of this applies here - branch stacking is pretty yawn-worthy stuff for 99.9% of the population. None of his other (positive) achievements would make him notable in their own right and I dispute the assertion that he is "not a minor figure" - would you seriously argue that being elected as one of 86 delegates to a Labor party conference gets him an article? That's ridiculous. Hence this article fails to establish notability despite passing GNG. It could also be said to fail WP:BLP1E, so I can't possibly see how keeping this article adds to the encyclopaedia. Frankly I'm surprised it has't been speedied as a blatant attack page. Yeti Hunter (talk) 00:04, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing here actually convinces me that this is a sufficiently notable crime as to warrant permanent coverage in an encyclopedia — it's an extremely localized crime of limited import. And it's a fairly WP:ROUTINE one, at that — dig deep enough, and you could find thousands of political organizers, in practically any country on earth, who've done the very same thing or worse without Wikipedia feeling the need to maintain an article about all of them. Branch stacking may be a uniquely Australian term, but it's far from being a uniquely Australian phenomenon — I could point to dozens of examples in Canadian politics where basically the exact same thing was at least alleged, with the only discernible difference being that "branch stacking" isn't the name we use for it up here. Yeti Hunter is correct that both WP:CRIME and WP:BLP1E militate against this — Suleyman wouldn't earn a Wikipedia article for anything else that's been shown here, and this in and of itself isn't a notable enough crime to lift him over the bar. And finally, I strongly suspect that the intention here had as much to do with making sure his daughter, and/or the entire Labor Party in toto, was tarred and feathered by association as it does with him personally — but it would be a rank WP:NPOV violation to keep an article on that basis either. All in all, just not a thing we should be keeping an article about. Bearcat (talk) 04:17, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete per all of the above points. --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 15:24, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy/snow delete per all of above. IgnorantArmies (talk) 07:36, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 02:10, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wayward Queen Attack[edit]

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

Non-notable chess opening, almost never played by strong players. Opening doesn't even have a generally accepted standard name. MaxBrowne (talk) 03:08, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominator. Material for this opening sequence in chess is mostly sourced, but the opening itself is non-notable. It is almost never played by high level chess players; chessgames database shows 21 games with 2.Qh5, compared with over 85,000 for the most common move 2.Nf3. Commonly considered a beginner's opening, or a joke opening. It has no generally accepted name in any standard chess reference work. Delete or merge/redirect with Open Game. MaxBrowne (talk) 03:24, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 03:28, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it doesn't need to be a move that the pros would use (ie a good move) in order to be notable. In fact, it appears that it has been used and spoken about by professionals (which would seem to indicate notability), and the article itself does discuss its downfalls. I see no reason to delete the entire article simply because it's not a preferred move. Discant X 03:37, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Grandmaster Hikaru Nakamura put the opening on the map by using in serious competition more than once, explaining to fans he used it to create interesting middlegame positions. It's rarely used, but I think his re-theorization of the opening is significant to chess literature and that the opening has notability stemming from that. IHTS (talk) 04:12, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It's a common opening at lower levels, but more importantly it's received sufficient coverage to pass WP:GNG. In particular, Nakamura's Qh5 generated a lot of press (relatively speaking), e.g. Chess Ninja, Telegraph, Chessbase, and I could've sworn there was something in Chess Life, though I can't be sure and it's not popping up in my search results. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 04:34, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - That's not to say this is the name the subject should have. No opposition to a move if there's a more common name. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 04:35, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that there is no common name for it is one of the major things which suggests to me that the opening is non-notable. We could mention that Nakamura tried it a few times in the Open Game article (in fact he mostly played it in online bullet games to confuse opponents and gain time on the clock). Most standard opening reference works don't even give it a footnote, and to give it an entire article in wikipedia is WP:UNDUE in my view. MaxBrowne (talk) 04:59, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 04:48, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per IHTS actually. Nakamura has since matured his opening repertoire, but it did raise some eyebrows when he played it in 2005 and some theoretical attention was provided for the opening. The sources provided by Rhododendrites are relevant. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:20, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It's very strange that people insist that this sequence of moves (I refuse to dignify it with the word "opening") is notable enough to deserve its own article, just because some bratty 17 year old played it a few times. Other fringe openings like Grob's Attack at least have a few books written about them - this one has no books written about it, and doesn't even have a footnote in ECO, MCO or any other reputable openings book. Nobody even seems to agree on what it's called. The name "Wayward Queen Attack" apparently stems from the very poorly regarded book Unorthodox Chess Openings by Eric Schiller ("utter crap" according to Tony Miles) and is far from being a mainstream usage. The earliest reference I've found to 1.e4 e5 2.Qh5 is in the Dubuque Chess Journal 1875, where it is called the "Kentucky Opening", then in the early 20th century it becomes the "Danvers Opening" (named by Elmer Ernest Southard after the insane asylum where he worked). Then it becomes the Terrorist Attack, Used Car Salesman Attack, Parham Attack etc etc. Giving a sequence of moves which doesn't even have an accepted name its own article is clearly undue weight and a violation of WP:NPOV. At best it deserves a passing mention in the Open Game article - this reflects its relative importance among chess openings. MaxBrowne (talk) 12:39, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@MaxBrowne: Frankly I would think most, though not all, moves following e.g. e4, d4, c4, e4e5, e4e6, e4c5, e4d6, e4c6, e4nf6, e4nc6, d4d5, d4nf6, d4f5 (maybe a couple others, maybe fewer than this) would've been written about over the years to the extent sufficient to make a case for WP:GNG. It just so happens that this is one that has seen recent coverage, so it's even easier to make that case. As an article, it's also reasonably well developed (considering the state of so many other opening articles). As this is looking to be a pretty clear consensus to keep, maybe a next step would be to explore the idea of putting work into Open Game and eventually merging this content there? Or even an article for uncommon chess openings [for which there are sources]. I'm not so sure if that would make sense, but I wouldn't be opposed to exploring it. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:40, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I said my piece. Consensus or not, I believe my arguments are stronger and more in line with wikipedia policy. Would be interested to know what non-chessplayers make of this; most of the commenters here are wikiproject chess regulars and possibly biased in favour of keeping. MaxBrowne (talk) 02:58, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Re "just because some bratty 17 year old played it a few times". Well at 17 he was a GM, also U.S. Champion. (At 15 Fischer was GM, also U.S. Champion. I suppose Fischer could be called "bratty" then, too. Another parallel: Fischer later played more than once the rare & virtually unknown 1.b3.) There was some consensus re Shiller's book being reasonable source for the article name in prior discussion. Talk:Wayward Queen Attack#Naming; Why is it called the "Parham Attack"? (If that is still consensus, it seems that ref for "Wayward" name s/b included in the article, currently it is not. Done) IHTS (talk) 11:09, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. KTC (talk) 00:53, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Staron[edit]

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

No sources, page is about a single product that has received little attention from the media. Really not much claim of significance either. Discant X 02:44, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Just a non-notable brand for a notable class of product (solid surface countertops). We're not a catalogue. Andy Dingley (talk) 03:01, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 03:29, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 03:29, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and restore original redirect? - Nothing to suggest at this time. SwisterTwister talk 06:53, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect (to Corian) was just plain wrong. Why would we redirect one brandname to a competitor? Andy Dingley (talk) 10:26, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. KTC (talk) 00:56, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

From where to what language evolution theory[edit]

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

Article is a recent fringe theory that is in no way notable and was written by the creator of the seemingly self-published theory himself (see COIN discussion). It is not sourceable in any way except for the single primary source that is the paper itself. It was originally being given undue weight on the Origin of language article; the creator then moved it here after it was contested. LjL (talk) 02:16, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. LjL (talk) 03:00, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 04:03, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to apologize ahead if I accidentally violated any of your guidelines. However, I do want to state that this model is based on a peer reviewed paper, so I disagree with categorizing it as a fringe theory. I believe this topic is important and wish your will agree with me and not delete the page. PolivaOren (talk) 04:34, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but "peer reviewed" doesn't make it not fringe. Plus, it's published on a site that claims to be "an Open Science publishing platform offering immediate publication of posters, slides and articles with no editorial bias", which sounds to me like it means self-published and "immediate", so no guarantee of peer reviewing except after the fact. The site itself calls your essay an "opinion article", not a research paper or anything like that. The topic of the origin of language is certainly important, but in the grand (and encyclopedic) scheme of thing, your particular essay, quite frankly, isn't. LjL (talk) 14:42, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This is a new theory created by the article's author and published in a single paper. It may merit a sentence in the Origin of language article but it is both WP:UNDUE and WP:TOOSOON: in short, it is Not Notable, though of course it could become so one day. I'm not sure the "FRINGE" charge is correct; this is a mainstream peer-reviewed paper which presents a new theory, which may be right or wrong. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:21, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for the reasons outlined by Chiswick Chap. Note that fringe science is not necessarily the work of crackpots: it can be legitimate science that is simply too fresh to be properly judged and described in an encyclopedia. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 09:02, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because of all the reasons already outlined. I'm not in a position to assess the accuracy of the article's claims, but it isn't a notable topic. Andrew³²⁷ 12:58, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above, and also as per WP:COI RailwayScientist (talk) 18:43, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There are two problems: 1) This work is not peer-reviewed yet; the only reviewer has reservations. 2) The only source is the article itself. Only when scientific research or a scientific theory receives significant independent attention can it be considered suitable for a standalone article in Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not the place for researchers to post lay summaries or mini-reviews of their own work. Fences&Windows 20:55, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of secondary sources describing this work. Note that the text was likely written by the author himself, and does not conform to Wikipedia standards (inline YouTube links, etc.) –Jérôme (talk) 08:32, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for most of the reasons given by others. Eeekster (talk) 22:17, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. KTC (talk) 00:57, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mayhemic Destruction[edit]

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

fails WP:NALBUMS. LibStar (talk) 01:30, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 01:40, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 03:32, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 03:32, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 03:32, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Nothing better at all for a better article and this current version simply seems like any other album article aside from their information of course. SwisterTwister talk 07:33, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree 100% with SwisterTwister but I could change my mind if something else pops up that I can't think of. Tyler Mongrove (talk) 15:30, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:NALBUMS. Azealia911 _talk 16:08, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Sam Sailor ^Talk! 01:29, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thought stopping[edit]

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

Has no visible verifiable references from reliable sources. Dead end. Contested PROD. — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 00:54, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 04:03, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Whack!

You've been whacked with a wet trout.

Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

Keep, and whack the nominator with a wet trout. The subject is easily verifiable, even in the external links that were provided, one of them being from NASA's website. It took me just a few minutes to gather other references that reliably explain the details of thought stopping. I've added a references section under which they are now listed. Obviously, the nominator must not have been at all interested in the subject, because he apparently did not even google it. The Transhumanist 11:11, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, agree there seems to be plenty of references. I would however suggest considering merging with Thought suppression - these seem to me to be the same thing to me at first glance. Derek Andrews (talk) 11:14, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Thought stopping appears to be a specific method of thought suppression, but it is a notable cognitive behavioral therapy in its own right. There are other more general forms of thought suppression. The Transhumanist 11:46, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

keep. sorry, but this article does seem okay to me. this concept does have an entry in a US federal govt reference work, right? --Sm8900 (talk) 20:57, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. KTC (talk) 00:57, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yismake Worku[edit]

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

Neither of the references given in this article mention the subject. I checked the Amharic Wikipedia, and while there is an article on him there, its two references consist of a Facebook link and a deadlink. This article requires references to reliable, independent, verifiable sources that discuss him non-trivially in order for this article to be retained, and I was not able to identify any. KDS4444^Talk 00:04, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But when check the Google Books result on the search, their appears to be an entire volume devoted to analysing his work. Did you see this? It's the first result in Gbooks. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:16, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:18, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethiopia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:18, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 03:41, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh wait the publisher of said book is a division of VDM Publishing, which a suspect sort of operation. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:50, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The book does not appear to be a reliable source, per WP:SELFPUBLISH. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:05, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Simply nothing better by far. SwisterTwister talk 06:45, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It is possible that the two works about him are master's level theses, but I can not verify it. In the absence of further information, I think we need to delete. DGG ( talk ) 18:26, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Anyone can nominate an article and say "They don't want their article on Wikipedia", If it's legit you'll/she'll need to provide proof. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:02, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Zehra Laila Javeri[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Zehra Laila Javeri

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

Zehra Laila Javeri does not want this article to be published on Wikipedia. Lailamcb (talk) 10:25, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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] ttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tNlI5RINwdI

[2] Associated Press

[3] CNN

[4] The New York Times

[5] Yes! magazine

[6] U.S. News and World Report (subscription required)

[7] Programming for Parks, Recreation, and Leisure Services. pp. 68-69. (subscription required)

[1]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]