Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 October 15

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 14 October	16 October >

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The result was Withdrawn. This AfD was never properly opened, so it was never properly closed. Technically, it has still been open this whole time. Nobody else could ever be admitted here, because this door was made only for you. I am now going to shut it. (non-admin closure) jp×g 03:26, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Acetonitrile (data page)[edit]

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

An indiscriminate collection of chemical statistics, with no context presented. Conifer (talk) 23:35, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn. Conifer (talk) 23:36, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:19, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Grant Jordan[edit]

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

Non-notable academic. Does not pass WP:NACADEMIC. BMK (talk) 22:53, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 23:25, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 23:25, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 23:25, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Although the subject has achieved a high position in his college, it is a county college and not a major academic institution, therefore I don't see that this meets wp:academic. LaMona (talk) 17:21, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom and above editor. Searches turned up nothing to show they pass WP:GNG either. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:48, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Both unsigned opinions are by Kmalik1111 (talk · contribs), but their arguments do not address the reasons for deletion. Sandstein 10:18, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Iris Computers[edit]

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

Re-doing a malformed AfD nomination that was listed directly on the log page on 13 October 2015 (diff). I am presently neutral regarding the topic. The nomination was as follows.

The subject does not qualify for a standalone article on Wikipedia. 38.95.109.37 (talk) 06:54, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

– North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:52, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:53, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:53, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:53, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I simply see no improvement. SwisterTwister talk 07:18, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This company and its purchaser have a bunch of press coverage, but it's all shallow stuff. Not enough under the WP:CORP policy alas. --69.204.153.39 (talk) 02:23, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Do Not Delete The page is now suitably improved. All feedback generated by experienced Wikipedia contributors was taken into account and shortcomings of the page were removed. The page now has references, valid press coverage, no marketing aspect and is strictly informational. The page gives the readers, information about a public listed company in India, thus making it important for this information to be in the public domain.
Delete - the addition of the 3 new references (the only work done on the page since it was nominated), does not help it meet notability, since 2 of the sources are press releases. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:52, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Do Not Delete Since Iris is a public limited company, information about it is critical to be available in the public domain. Instead of deleting the page, can we work together to improve it so it meets all Wikipedia standards and guidelines?

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:20, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Planet in Focus[edit]

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

Tagged on notability grounds in 2011. I can't find anything to really show how notable this festival is, and can't see any other way to go than deletion. Cloudbound (talk) 22:35, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 22:51, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 22:51, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 22:52, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 22:52, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alts:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

*Delete It is mentioned in Financial Post, and lots of non-RS show it as a long-running public-spirited environmental-festival that does good work but receives no real media attention. No small wonder the environment is seen as in peril. No media yes. Maybe if they had sponsorship from Coca Cola or Ford Motors. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 08:57, 16 October 2015 (UTC) Struck. See below[reply]

Keep I'm very surprised to find myself on the opposite side of Michael when he !votes delete, but I disagree that there aren't enough reliable sources in these Gnews search results to get by. This, for example is an item about the festival -- not a full article, but an RS -- in the Toronto Star, Canada's largest circulation daily. Here we have an article in Reelscreen, trade journal for Canada's documentary film sector. Torontoist has covered the fest, here. There's enough to meet WP:GNG, surely. Maybe the problem is simply the suggested search terms. Search for "Planet in Focus" + "Film festival," as I did. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:21, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've used the Star and Torontoist ref to verify some statements. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:37, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, thanks for the start at Quality improvement by Shawn in Montreal. — Cirt (talk) 09:40, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
keep per meeting WP:GNG and thus WP:ORG. Happy to reverse myself. Apparently my google-foo was temporarily broken. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 12:39, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Great. I'll work on it too. I also want to make sure that this doesn't happen to this article. I didn't see it when it happened but it's a classic case of WP:NOTPAPER and it pretty much ensures that the article on the even more notable Hot Docs fest in Toronto will remain a stub. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:54, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Shawn in Montreal's improvements. It meets GNG per the reliable sources found. Jim Carter 20:23, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Parking#Finding parking. (non-admin closure) sst ✈ 01:48, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Crowdsource parking[edit]

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

This is nothing more than backdoor advertising for the apps and companies that are performing dubious activities. At best it's just a case of TOOSOON, but with a proliferation of "App X has been told to stop" articles, I'm not finding any sources that lend credence to this being an encyclopedia-worthy topic. Primefac (talk) 21:47, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 22:34, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 22:34, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:56, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Parking#Finding parking. If this is a common use term, a redirect may be useful. Otherwise just delete. Rcsprinter¹²³ (converse) 23:15, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Easily fits into Parking#Finding parking. I see no evidence that this term is ready for a redirect, but I'm not against it. LaMona (talk) 17:23, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This has wide coverage that might imply notability, but it's of the shallow and short-lasting variety. If there's still a raging public debate about crowdsourced parking in 2 years' time, we can revisit this. --69.204.153.39 (talk) 02:49, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:05, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Divine wine nepal[edit]

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

Delete. Reason: Unsourced. Not notable either. White Arabian mare (Neigh) 21:22, 15 October 2015 (UTC)White Arabian mare[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 22:32, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 22:33, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wine-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:56, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no sources or indicia of notability. Montanabw ^(talk) 05:21, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of notability. Philg88 ^♦talk 06:27, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have to agree. I could find no sources at all. Much as I dislike having to toss an article so soon after it is created, I just don't see how this one has a chance of developing further, given that nothing turns up in gNews, gScholar, gBooks, Highbeam or anywhere else I could find. Sadly it appears to be only supported by original research. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 21:04, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence from WP:RS of notability. --Jersey92 (talk) 02:20, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are just no sources for the wine at all, and not enough for the company itself to scrape by WP:CORP. I often think we do a dis-service to non-English sources here, so I do encourage Darksector99 or others to try to help us out if those sources exist. And to Geoff's point, at least the article was clearly deficient for sources and made it almost a day here, better than the 2-7 minutes most articles get. --69.204.153.39 (talk) 02:30, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence of notability. Not a single reliable source found. I wonder if the creator coined the subject. Jim Carter 20:32, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. May I suggest that there are more effective and time-honored ways of selling expensive weapons systems, such as suborning political leaders, rather than writing spammy Wikipedia articles? Sandstein 09:57, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

MH-60CZ Multi-Role Helicopter[edit]

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

lacks direct source(s) to the subject (nothing in a google search either), and appears to be more of an advertisement FOX 52 (talk) 20:15, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:29, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:34, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - marketing fluff, promotional, advertising. No sources in article to even verify this is an existing proposal, even on company's own website. - BilCat (talk) 12:39, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as advertising. Horribly written fluff. A cood does of copyediting woukld reduce this article to almost nothing.TheLongTone (talk) 12:49, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Seems to be WP:SPAM. - Ahunt (talk) 16:03, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am working to include additional references to the MH-60CZ project. Many of them are in the Czech language but will be included for reference. This topic is notable and has been covered by many third-party, reliable sources. It is also verifiable. With regards to the quality of the writing, the article provides encyclopedic information of a quality equal to or better than similar articles covering other rotary wing platforms or programs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Highlands47 (talk • contribs) 20:15, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please see new references for notability, verifiability, and credibility*** — Preceding unsigned comment added by Highlands47 (talk • contribs) 20:29, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The added references make no specific notes and appear erroneous. Parts of the article stray off topic with Russia's involvement in Crimea and Surplus helicopters - FOX 52 (talk) 21:44, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@FOX 52: You are the nominator of the AFD, you don't need to !vote delete again. Jim Carter 20:41, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 G11, A7 by Deb. (non-admin closure) shoy (reactions) 12:47, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Carla Fache[edit]

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

Blatant self-promotion and even claims copyright: "All content @ 2014 by Carla Fache All Rights Reserved." No obvious indication of meeting WP:ARTIST Derek Andrews (talk) 19:09, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 19:38, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 19:38, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 19:38, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per WP:NOTPROMO. The text is apparently released as CC and verified via OTRS-ticket (see article talkpage). GermanJoe (talk) 20:27, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Tagged for speedy deletion as "unambiguous advertising" for obvious reasons. Diego Grez-Cañete (talk) 21:15, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedied - about as blatant as they get. Deb (talk) 09:38, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:08, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bentworth Stream[edit]

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

There is no evidence that such a waterway exists SovalValtos (talk) 18:56, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 19:37, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:38, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The entry for The Villager magazine for March 2013 states that Bentworth had its own river. I had the issue but lost it, and the it's recently been taken offline. Are you local? There are still long ditches alongside every road in the village that leads up to two water stations from where it got drained in the 1980s. If the March 2013 issue hadn't of got taken down then I doubt this discussion for deletion would be happening. I'm going to try and find some sources, then. The water stations would be a good start. JAGUAR 21:59, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A request for reliable sources for its existence was made over a month ago on the article talk page. None have been forthcoming. No map has been found that shows it, no mention in historical documents, no mention of it being drained in the 1980s, no mentions of fishing, mills, boat traffic etc. I do not doubt the statement by User:Jaguar that the copy of "The Villager" magazine mentioned had a reference to a river, but a magazine piece in a Parish magazine would not be a reliable source. Even if there was someone local to look into the ditches that drain the roads in the village I see no point, as that would be OR. Surely it is best to delete the article now? SovalValtos (talk) 11:12, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. SovalValtos has made all the points there are to be made here, there are zero sources available to verify subject. Yes, this discussion should have taken place even if that local magazine was online or was available in print. The lack of other sources more than suggest that this could be a hoax or the name is simply made up. -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 23:06, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:04, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Binary Option Robot[edit]

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

Blatantly promotional, doesn't meet the notability guideline. References are either WP:PRIMARY or do not mention the subject (at all). -- Kethrus |talk to me 12:48, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 12:52, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 12:53, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: As per nominator, it is blatantly promotional. Should have considered speedy delete under the criteria of G11. Ayub407^talk 16:38, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Ideally, there would be a redirect to something like Automated Binary Trading Scams. There seems to be a surge in campaigns for this and other similar services with lots of planted coverage and fake review sites. There are even sites that expose one service to recommend another! It would be incredibly useful if Wikipedia could provide genuine third party coverage, but that obviously requires third party coverage to exist. At the moment, I would only trust material from well-established news outlets or sites like snopes.com with some reputation in this domain. It's obviously not Wikipedia's role to expose scams, so probably this has to be deleted due to lack of independent sources. Vesal (talk) 11:20, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Vesal: I believe doing this could cause severe problems, I understand it may be a scam, but redirecting it to that without any definitive proof could be considered slanderous. -- Kethrus |talk to me 11:50, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, maybe Automated Binary Trading is a more neutral title, but this is all hypothetical since there are no independent sources to use. Vesal (talk) 16:28, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 16:26, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article (particularly the introduction) is written quite poorly (constant use of "they") and engages in advertising without really clarifying at points that Binary Option Robot is a product/service, and not a financial instrument or other construct. WP:Neutral point of view clearly applies here. That said, the sourcing, notability, and verifiability of the article are unimpeachable. There is grounds for significant improvement, but not deletion.--69.204.153.39 (talk) 19:10, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The rationale for deletion is that "references are either WP:PRIMARY or do not mention the subject (at all)." Please highlight which of these "unimpeachable" sources refute the nominator's point. Vesal (talk) 16:32, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep It can be improved, deletion would only hinder it.—Eat me, I'm an azuki (talk · contribs · email) 11:29, 9 October 2015 (UTC) Delete per Kethrus.—Eat me, I'm an azuki (talk · contribs · email) 11:48, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Eat me, I'm an azuki: Have you read the article, and looked at the sources? It primarily focuses on binaryoptionrobot.com, and if you see this revision (it hasn't changed much since then) it's blatantly for binaryoptionrobot.com, all they've done is clear the infobox and reword a few things. Furthermore, this isn't about "Binary Options" in general, as you can see by the title. Also, I've looked for sources by doing quite a bit of searching, there aren't many - so I've come to the conclusion it can't be improved much because the sources just aren't there. -- Kethrus |talk to me 11:46, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now I suppose until better can be made. SwisterTwister talk 06:36, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:39, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. as presumably a copyvio. may not be promotional for a specific firm, but clearly copied from another source: "We have found this brokers that robots usually recommend for trading: Banc De Binary, CherryTrade, Option FM, Exbino, Bloombex Options, GOptions, Porter Finance, Tradorax, Interactive Option, No1Options, RBOptions and IQoption." (I presume "this" was meant as "these" but I can not tell if the error was in the copying or in the original. There are similar grammar errors elsewhere, such as the final sentence.) DGG ( talk ) 04:09, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 "keep" opinions added since the relist merely assert notability, which is not in doubt, but fail to discuss the additional inclusion requirement that events must have lasting significance (WP:NOTNEWS). Discounting these opinions, we arrive at consensus that this is (until now) merely newspaper-type coverage of current events. Can be recreated if new sources indicate lasting significance. Sandstein 10:12, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Armanious family massacre[edit]

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

Clear WP:EVENT and WP:NOTNEWS. The article (permalink) is largely WP:COATRACK for the larger issue of the Coptics and Muslims. It was determined that robbery, not religion was the motive. The event by itself had no lasting impact. The page was one of many created by a now-blocked user CltFn. Kingsindian ♝♚ 00:48, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note I do not see any coatracking, just reports in reliable sources of rumours that were apparently rampant at the time. Coverage was extensive, have your read WP:BEFORE.E.M.Gregory (talk) 02:00, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 01:09, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This was a criminal murder/theft; committed by drug dealers. However, the response and coverage [1] at the time were extraordinary. Rumors [2] that the killing was a hate crime committed by Muslims against Coptic Christians made it a national news story. It is useful to have this article here, so that anyone hearing the echo of those old rumors can quickly discover that a garden-variety, low-life, thug was the murderer. But the rationale for keeping is WP:GNG: this murder got extensive, intensive coverage at the time, and in the follow-op of the trial. Rumors can make an criminal matter into a matter of national concern, and when they do, the proper thing for Wikipedia to do is to KEEP. Article needs improvement, I added a bit of copy and a few good sources.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:48, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What on Earth does this have to do with WP:NOTNEWS? What lasting impact does this crime have? There are hundreds, if not thousands of murders and robberies each day. That some people jumped to conclusions regarding the hate crime aspects at the time says what exactly? And what do you mean that it is not WP:COATRACK? Why is more than half the article discussing the religious angle, with comments from various religious figures, and Daniel Pipes etc.? Kingsindian ♝♚ 02:47, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"lasting impact" is not a requisite, but, rather, an indication of notability. Please read WP:GNG.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:13, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note also that the hate crime rumours live on in several books, [3]. This crime was notable, it just wasn't a hate crime.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:58, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What "several books"? I found only three. One of them is a self-published book by a vanity publisher. The other is just a reference book, which lists purported hate crime incidents, originally published in 2005, with a brief, passing mention. The other one is also a brief mention by a book in 2005 (not sure what that is about, I couldn't figure it out). Kingsindian ♝♚ 03:08, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My point precisely. (Several: More than two but not many). At least three books describe it as a "hate crime". But reasers of those books who look it up on Wikipedia will get the facts. Remember that google book searches are not comprehensive. More like being shown the tip of whatever iceberg you're looking for.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:39, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you think vanity publishing (paying someone to publish your book) counts, I don't know what to say. Secondly, the other mentions are simply passing mentions of this being a hate crime in 2005 (which turns out not to be true). Even if this were true, does every hate crime have a Wikipedia page? This is precisely why lasting impact is important. Kingsindian ♝♚ 16:06, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, quite of number of books describe the incident as a hate crime. Published in Dutch and English, by real publishers, these include Hate Crimes: A Reference Handbook, 3rd Edition, Contemporary World Issues, Donald Altschiller, ABC-CLIO, 2015, ISBN 1610699475, 9781610699471. the 3rd (2015) edition lists this as a hate crime. It is no longer regarded as such by the police. I thing it's a good thing for readers to be able to check facts like that against a brief article in Wikipedia, because reference books can be out of date or in error.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:48, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable incident supported by ample reliable and verifiable sources about the case. The fact that it was widely believed / purported to be a hate crime or terrorism only adds to the enduring notability of the case. Alansohn (talk) 02:40, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are ample sources to show this has lasting significance and was not just a small news event. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 22:59, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Editorofthewiki: Can you elaborate on what lasting significance this event has, and which sources show this? Kingsindian ♝♚ 23:59, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

KingsIndian, WP:BLUDGEON, here you repeat a question I responded to above.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:55, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails the various guidelines of WP:EVENT, including WP:LASTING and WP:PERSISTENCE. It is not uncommon for there to be news reports of a murder, then follow-up about the trial, conviction, sentencing, and appeals. This is routine coverage of a crime and it fails WP:NOTNEWS, one of the exceptions to WP:GNG. Initial thoughts that was a hate crime were dispelled over the course of the investigation, and it actually did not receive much coverage outside of the NY metro area (i.e. fails WP:GEOSCOPE). A search of GBooks is not persuasive. One author listed it (tantamount to trivial coverage) as a hate crime in his 2005 book prior to the facts coming out[4] and didn't even bother to update it for his 2015 version.[5] If there was WP:INDEPTH coverage, I might reconsider. As Kingsindian mentioned, the other is self-published.[6] - Location (talk) 16:07, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTTEMPORARY. A handful of the many in-depth explorations of this event and its impact are blue-linked in my comment below. My efforts to improve this article, by bringing sources expolring it's use as propaganda (both accusations of Muslim-on-Christian hate crime, and accusations that incident was used to fuel fear/hatred of Muslims) have been removed from page.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:34, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(Speaking of WP:BLUDGEON, I was wondering when you would come along to offer a reply.) WP:NOTTEMPORARY states: "As such, brief bursts of news coverage may not be sufficient signs of notability, while sustained coverage would be, as described by notability of events." This event never passed WP:LASTING, WP:PERSISTENCE, WP:GEOSCOPE, or WP:INDEPTH so WP:NOTTEMPORARY is not relevant. - Location (talk) 21:44, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment173 words of the article's 689, about 25% deal with the crime and conviction. The article, it follows, is not about the murder at all, but about the innuendoes and suspicions re Muslims at the time, who had nothing to do with it. That is technically therefore a WP:COATRACK, the crime being an excuse to talk about Muslims as terrorists. If the article is to stay, those who back it should roll up their sleeves, wikify it, and create distinct sections, separating the actual facts of the case, with the huge load of circumstantial paranoia surrounding the case. As it stands the title should be changed to reflect the content, along the lines of Armanious family massacre: the Facts and Ethnic Suspicions .Nishidani (talk) 16:12, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note Article has been tidied up, sourcing expanded. In addition to being a ghastly murder, this is s complex incident. Sequence is, roughly: Ghastly murder; no obvious suspects or apparent motive; Rumors and panic in urban community of Coptic Christians that Muslims are starting to murder Christians in Jersey just as they did back in Egypt; Rumors and fear in Muslim community that Muslims will be blamed as a group for murder by unknown assailant; Muslims show up at funeral to demonstrate empathy and solidarity with murdered family; Christians shout and shove (throw punches?) to drive Muslims away form funeral; Press coverage increases within region in wake of incident at funeral.(Headlinse like Musulmanes y cristianos protagonizan riña en funeral en New Jersey, UPI Latin America Service, 18 Januray) Prosecutors make unhelpful statements about how it looks like a targeted crime, not a robbery. National and International media coverage as a possible hate crime. At some point it emerges that victims throats were slit and rumors of "Islamist-style beheading" type hate-crime start. Substantial national press coverage of anti-Islam hate-mongering angle with headlines like: Killings rekindle flames of anti-Islam sentiment. (Tulsa World, Tulsa, Oklahoma, 23 January 2005) Then, ATM records are discovered making and IT TURNS OUT that this was a drug-related murder for the theft a quite small amount of money. Horrible, horrible horrible - but not a hate crime. No Muslims involved. Article could be expanded and improved. It should not be whitewashed as User:Dan Murphy attempted to do yesterday by removing sources and material about the brief but widespread press coverage of the possibility tat this was a hate crime. I have only dipped a toe into the massive caches of stories in news archives because there are only so many hours available. But I am persuaded that this should be kept, and The REASON why it should be kept is that there was massive coverage of this both as a possible hate rime, and as a possible thing that could be used to incite hatred of Muslims, and, because case had become notorious, there was ongoing coverage over the years.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:50, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In choosing which of the many sources to read and a handful to add to article, I gave preference to ones freely available online.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:11, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It is true that the article has been improved dramatically (permalink), from when I nominated it (permalink, diff with original), right down to the title (the original was a trashy sensationalist one due to Daniel Pipes): in no small part by the efforts of Dan Murphy. I feel bad about still asking it to be deleted, but it still is a random crime. There was a brief flurry of rumours about hate crime with random speculation (who knew that "slitting throats" is similar to "Muslim-style beheading"? words fail me). Still, nobody has given any evidence of lasting impact. A flurry of uninformed speculation in proximity to the murder does not pass WP:EVENT. Kingsindian ♝♚ 13:38, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Long afterwards, this murder was the poster child/selected photo in analysis of New Jersey crime wave.[7] I am back at this discussion, however, mostly to point out that User:KingsIndian is inaccurate when he dismiss news coverage of this incident as, "a brief flurry of rumours about hate crime with random speculation". In fact, coverage in major newspapers was extensive and in depth.New York Times "A Bloody Crime in New Jersey Divides Egyptians", Washington Post Investigators are looking into the possibility that Hossam Armanious, 47, his wife, Amal Garas, 37, and their daughters, Sylvia, 15, and Monica, 8, were slain by a Muslim angered over postings that the father wrote in an Internet chat room, New York Times Mourners Link Religious Feud to 4 Slayings, Philadelphia Inquirer The attack on a Coptic family rekindled feelings of hostility and mistrust between Muslims and Christians., New York Times Mourners Link Religious Feud to 4 Slayings, CBS News "Authorities insist a theory that a Muslim angry over Internet postings was responsible for the slaying of an Egyptian Christian family is just one of several under investigation" I found scores of such stories in archive searches. And an impressive number of stories revisiting this a decade and more later.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:06, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, the incident is not a poster child for anything. The NYT article is an in-passing photo in a regional story on NJ crime statistics. It has no mention of any hate crime angle, as expected. All of the other links are in January 2005, in close proximity to the crime, when there was random speculation. I am still waiting for any demonstration of lasting impact. Kingsindian ♝♚ 15:29, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As I stated, It is used as the poster child in that article, presumably because it was the 2005 murder readers would remember. (and also a child).E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:49, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But note that KingsIndian fails to address my actual argument - extent and depth of coverage.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:49, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There were 36 murders in Jersey City in 2005. There is only one article on Wikipedia about any of those murders. (See: Wikipedia's category on 2005 murders in Jersey City.) That is not an accident. The article was started with a political agenda (ongoing effort to make Islam/Muslims look as bad as possible on Wikipedia) and it continues. This "Gregory" fellow is obviously at Wikipedia with an unpleasant agenda. It is sadly not surprising that it's being tolerated to this extent. (Adding: Fer chrissake; the original version of the article was 75% about "rumors" that had already been demonstrated to be false at the time of creation, and leans heavily on the serial fabricator/propagandist Robert Spencer. So it goes.Dan Murphy (talk)

Curiosity piqued, I looked up Robert Spencer (author). I can see why Dan_Murphy does not like him. I fail to see what this has to do with news coverage of the Araminous murders. with notability. Or with me.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:08, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

- I don't believe that you fail to see that the original version of this article resting almost entirely on Spencer's false propaganda has something to do with this article.Dan Murphy (talk) 17:50, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly? I hardly glanced at the original article before I googled to see what sources were out there. it's not worth spending much time on an AFD if it's obvious that there are not sources, or that - as in this case - there are many. So after a quick glance, I search for sources. I do, as I did here, add some of the sources I find if the sourcing looks weak. Sometimes I'm sufficiently captivated by some aspect of the article to go in and really improve it, really try to sort the issues out. other times I just point out that sources and notability exist and move on. More or less leaving the article itself to someone who is familiar with the topic, or interested in it. This case posed special issues because of the tendency of editors not only to delete what was obviously a notable incident, but of the article as it was to make it look like it really was a hate crime, while recent editors have tired to edit out the accusations/early indications that it might have been a hate crime - This, frankly, puzzles me because it seems useful to keep refutation of false accusations of hate crimes on Wikipedia. If I ever had heard of Spencer before today, I must have found him was entirely forgettable.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:16, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note' Multiple reliable sources have today been removed, by a pair of extremely tendentious editors. User:Dan Murphy in particular appears to think that Wikipedia is some sort of video game that he can "win" by selectively deleting questions about his editing from his talk page, and by deleting sources from this article while it is at AFD.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:24, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To evaluate changes since the nomination. Sandstein 18:39, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:39, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - notable event, plenty of reliable sources. WP:GNG.--BabbaQ (talk) 11:42, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

BabbaQ. Just out of curiosity: have you ever not voted Keep for this kind of article? All I recall is a predictable Keep vote on every occasion, with no evidence of a reasoned opinion.Nishidani (talk) 11:46, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Inappropriate, User:Nishidani. I don't see you editing at AFD very often, but I see BabbaQ here all the time, on a range ot topics, sometimes voting keep and sometimes voting delete. Please try to remember that WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:15, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep not a stub, sourced, i dont see any reason to delete. Donottroll (talk) 04:29, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Just to clarify my position here. I would not have nominated the article as it currently exists, since it is no longer a WP:COATRACK article. Much of the objectionable content has been removed. But that does not mean that the article should exist. Nobody has even pretended to give any WP:PERSISTENCE based arguments that stand up to two minutes scrutiny. This was a storm in the teacup, was debunked, and everyone has since forgot about it. The editor who created it had nothing good in their intention, and has been since blocked for their various sins. Wikipedia space is practically infinite so I don't mind if it stays, but it is a singularly useless article, which nobody will read. Kingsindian ♝♚ 21:07, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It was discussed in major national and international newspapers. It was discussed in major media for at least a decade (many sources have been removed form the article during this debate). More to the point, WP:NOTTEMPORARY Reads: "Notability is not temporary; once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage." and WP:PERSISTENCE does not apply because, as the articles I linked to above show, coverage was not limited to articles "published during or immediately after an event," it included substantive followup and "analysis or discussion."E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:54, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets notability guidelines given the non-trivial coverage from multiple reliable third party publications. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 22:42, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's a routine news story. An event with no lasting significance. There's nothing really here other depth of coverage. While it may meet WP:GNG by that alone, it does not meet WP:EVENT which is also a notability guideline that points out in the case of an event depth of coverage is not enough in itself.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 01:22, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per Serialjoepsycho. Reading the article, it boils down to this: "Family killed in robbery, incorrect assumptions were made as to motivation which caused an isolated issue, story over." There is nothing actually in the article indicating a timeline of "lasting effect." Passing mentions in books are trivial coverage. Existence is not notability; just because somebody mentions something doesn't make it noteworthy. My television remote is not notable simply because it mentions a well-known TV manufacturer's name on it. This is, in historical context, just another crime and which, frankly, still seems to be coatracking religion by making a huge deal about it in the lede, when in fact it didn't matter in the slightest. MSJapan (talk) 15:44, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 was keep, especially after the improvements made by Sam Sailor. (non-admin closure) Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:46, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

BEST Robotics[edit]

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

This article fails the general notability guideline. It has no independent, reliable sources. Sunfoo (talk) 18:21, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 18:27, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 18:27, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 18:27, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:39, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This page is proposed for deletion because it lacks 'notability' but I found it very helpful when investigating robotics programs for youth educational. The information could be moved to the BEST web site, but that would decrease its' availability to people like me. I don't need 'authoritative' sources, just hints about how to look more thoroughly. This article served that purpose grandly. I suggest that the removal be rescinded. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JoerTex (talk • contribs) 14:11, 18 October 2015‎ (UTC)[reply]

Your comment is not based on Wikipedia policy whatsoever. Wikipedia is not for promotion (WP:NOTPROMOTION) and all articles must be verifiable (WP:V). @JoerTex: Please read those policies before commenting again. Thank you, Sunfoo (talk) 18:44, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but overhaul. A Google search gives lots of results at the state level, rather than national competitions, but I think there's enough to rebuild the article from independent sources. The key is to rebuild: in its current state, the article reads like a rehash of the BEST website and not a neutral encyclopedia article. —C.Fred (talk) 14:20, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I have zapped the link farm and the mission statement; I have added three cite books. There's plenty of sources out there, subject meets WP:GNG. -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 21:33, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Totally bad-faith nomination. Drmies (talk) 17:38, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Occidental–Whittier football rivalry[edit]

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

the so called occidental-whittier football rivary is non notable. its not actually a rivalry its no more then a match that happens often the creator doesnt give independent and reliable sources and he tried to hide the afd before ChasHB (talk) 17:03, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: For one, there's a second newspaper reference now. For two, the rivalry has been mentioned on College Gameday. For three, the rivalry is over 100 years old, and possibly the most-renewed in this part of the country) and there's a trophy presented to the winner. For four, I suspect one could find many sources if one had access to the historical LA Times.
Also, I believe the nominator is connected to the IP 173.236.126.106 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), whose edits consisted of attempting to nominate this page for deletion earlier, as well as levying a number of personal attacks and/or revealing of personal information about me on other user's talk pages. IMO, ChasHB and/or 173.236.126.106 should be blocked for project disruption; ChasHB's only edits consist of nominating the article for deletion and breaking some of the references on this page. p b p 17:18, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 October 15. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:22, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 17:27, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 17:27, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:14, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Nicholas[edit]

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

Autobiography about seemingly NN commercial and video director. The only coverage I've been able to find is at IMVDb or his own company. Fails all 4 elements of WP:DIRECTOR and WP:GNG. The Dissident Aggressor 16:40, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 17:09, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 17:09, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 17:11, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - none of the links a search beings up look RS - LinkedIn, Blogs, etc. ghytred talk 17:38, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now at least until a better article with better improvement and sourcing can be made. If needed, I'm willing to drafting and userfying, SwisterTwister talk 07:13, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per nom and SwisterTwister. Not enough in-depth coverage to meet notability criteria. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:11, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:08, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Brainomaniac[edit]

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

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

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

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

Non-notable film. No indications of any significant coverage anywhere. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:00, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 16:07, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 16:07, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to lack of notability since I cannot find even a passing mention of this film in reliable sources. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 17:40, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Very little through WP:INDAFD - title Brainomaniac, director "Pronil Halder", studio Artwood

Delete this brand new article per failing WP:NF. While Art Wood studio may have some limited notability, this film does not. As it was released just last August, this could change, and IF it does, the tweaked article can be undeleted and properly sourced. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 10:05, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. Reading the description of the film at its Youtube page, it's clear this film is not intended as a commercial release. All the more reason that it doesn't pass WP:NF. —C.Fred (talk) 13:28, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Don't delete this film may not have a global notability till now but the view statistics given over internet on this film for a month, it is quite impressive. So it is clear that this film is rapidly coming into the notice of people. _ Arka 14:04, 16 October 2015 (UTC) 101.221.134.211 (talk · contribs) has only contributed to the article(s) under discussion for deletion and AFD. Drm310 (talk) 15:20, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article I have seen this film many times and this film has become enough famous especially in India so I would recomment to keep this article. Kachu Mukherjee 14:23, 16 October 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.187.48.142 (talk)

@ Kachu Mukherjee: Your seeing it many times is fine, but not a notability... however as the film is in Bengali, perhaps you can offer Bengali spelling and Bengali language sources speaking toward the film. Under WP:NONENG they would be acceptable and would go far in supporting your assertion that it has become "famous". Thanks, Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 01:10, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable film; creator has WP:COI. --Drm310 (talk) 16:49, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can find nothing to show that this film passes notability guidelines as a whole. I wish the director well, but this just doesn't pass notability guidelines at this point in time. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:49, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails notability, per Wikipedia:Notability (films). — Cirt (talk) 09:42, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Histmerge. I am closing this as histmerge even though the creator of the page has indicated a willingness to have it replaced with Kő Cloch's original. Everyone seems to agree that Eden10Hazard's version is the more up to date. Both seem to misunderstand what a histmerge will achieve. In the edit history, Kő Cloch will appear as the creator of the article and Eden10Hazard's version will appear as a later modification of the original. For the record, copy and paste of drafts into the mainspace is always a bad thing because it loses the edit history. The correct procedure is to WP:MOVE the page. SpinningSpark 14:21, 23 October 2015 (UTC) SpinningSpark 14:21, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Michele Rocca (footballer)[edit]

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

Article is a duplicate of (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:K%C5%91_Cloch/Michele_Rocca_(footballer) Kő Cloch (talk) 15:19, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 15:41, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 15:41, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 15:41, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This is maybe little bad faith by Eden10Hazard to copy article text from your user space User:Kő Cloch/Michele Rocca (footballer) and I can understand it hurts. But if that is the only reason to delete this article then it may not get deleted. You can close this matter in good faith and can move to another article, or you can raise this issue at WP:ANI. --Human3015^TALK 15:46, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I think we should assume good faith for Kő Cloch, another user copied article from his draft and created same article without giving attribution to main content creator in edit summary. As per Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia one should give attribution while copying within Wikipedia. So this article should get deleted and let the original content creator Kő Cloch get the credit for this article to keep him inspired for future work. --Human3015^TALK 15:57, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 16:11, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Histmerge - I'm somewhat torn on this one, since the subject of the article meets WP:NFOOTY. However, WP:COPYWITHIN requires attribution when significant content is copied from one article to another, and there is no attribution. Also, the article was userfied at Kő Cloch's request so it could be improved in draft form. I feel we owe it to Kő Cloch to create the improved article in mainspace. EDIT: After Struway's comments below, I believe a merger of the page histories is appropriate so the appropriate parties receive the appropriate credit. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 16:21, 15 October 2015 (UTC); 19:53, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I am very torn about this since the article is notable, and I will share a few words of what I told User:Kő Cloch at his talkpage: I can understand you and it is not fun (and User:Eden10Hazard should not have done it). However, I can see some things that makes it a little bit easier to understand why Eden10Hazard created the article, because it has been notable since 28 September, and you have had more than two weeks to create it yourself, but since you had not done it we cant go around and wait for you so he did it. Also the infobox and lead is standard, so the only thing that was really copied is the section "Club Career", the other parts would have looked the same if I had created it from scratch on my own. What User:Eden10Hazard could have done is to give you a message "Hi, I think your article about Michele Rocca (footballer) is now notable since he played on 28 September, if you want to create it". If he had not gotten any response, he then could have created it, and given you credit in edit summary. At least that is what I should have done. Qed237 (talk) 16:30, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, or to be more precise, Histmerge. The version copied from userspace was an improved version of the non-notable version that I userfied for its creator at their request. Eden10Hazard copied it to mainspace and added a sentence about the subject's debut, for which they should get the credit. I agree that, out of courtesy, they ought to have dropped a note to Kő Cloch, and they certainly shouldn't have copypasted it. ~~Mind you, Kő Cloch shouldn't have copypasted Eden10Hazard's additional sentence back into their sandbox, either.~~ But merging the history of the sandbox version as of this revision dated 8 October, which is the one copypasted to mainspace, will sort it out. Once it's done, I'd suggest someone either sources the sentences with citation needed tags or removes them. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 16:42, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The sentence I've struck out is incorrect. Kő Cloch didn't copypaste Eden10Hazard's content back into their sandbox, they added their own version of the subject's debut citing a different source. I shouldn't write in haste, and hope Kő Cloch will accept my apologies for the carelessness. Sorry, Struway2 (talk) 20:14, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Histmerge - I've had this happen to me (on numerous occasions) and it's not good. Move back to the sandbox until it's ready for mainspace. Giant Snowman 20:19, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I wanted to create Michele Rocca as he has made his pro debut on 28 September, but when I google'd his name I saw en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Kő Cloch/Michele Rocca (footballer) but no page en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michele Rocca so I created the article with that text. I thought i did a good thing with that, except when I look at this conversation i should added Ko Cloch his username in the edit summary or what Qe237 says: send a small message. Sorry for the commotion, I understand now I had to do better. What we can do now is deleted my article and let Ko Cloch post it so the article will has his name or something. I don't know how it works, but i'm sure there is a way to fix this. Cheers, Eden10Hazard (talk) 1:15, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
Reinstate - May I now reinstate my original or is it best to wait until a verdict has been reached on the newest edition created by Eden10Hazard? Kő Cloch (talk) 13:18, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I think that's the best solution, all we need now is an admin to execute this. Cheers, Eden10Hazard (talk) 21:35, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:04, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hamara Linux[edit]

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

Unremarkable Linux distribution. I'd have speedied it but it doesn't quite fit into WP:A7. --Non-Dropframe _talk 14:53, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 14:57, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 14:58, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 14:59, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Software (linux distribution) article of unclear notability, lacking independent references. A search turned up no significant WP:RS coverage. Dialectric (talk) 16:45, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: searches show the usual, unreliable sources in cases like this, but also suggest that significant coverage in independent, reliable sources sufficient to meet the general notability guideline are not found. -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 21:17, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:19, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

JCS Flooring[edit]

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

Company appears to be not notable enough for an article at this time. The article is unsourced, and a Google search turns up no coverage that would support notability. Diannaa (talk) 14:36, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 14:54, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 14:55, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 14:55, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: searches suggest that significant coverage in independent, reliable sources sufficient to meet the general notability guideline are not found. -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 21:13, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Search in news produced a single hit to a business directory. Searches on Newspapers, Books and Highbeam resulted in zero hits. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:15, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there's nothing convincingly better to suggest keeping. SwisterTwister talk 01:16, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:06, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nokua design[edit]

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

This article was copied to mainspace immediately after being declined at WP:AFC for having no independent reliable sources. I was unable to find any news reports, book references, product reviews, etc., to add to the article. —Anne Delong (talk) 14:26, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. I've also found no secondary sources just as the nominator indicated. --Non-Dropframe _talk 14:32, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 15:01, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 15:01, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 15:01, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 15:02, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. NewYorkActuary (talk) 18:38, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete by AfD to ensure there is a consensus verdict rather than use CSD. Nominator says it all. Fails WP:CORP. Created by now blocked COI editor, so consider the unusual step of an early Salt. Fiddle Faddle 11:33, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom and above editors. Searches did not return anything to show they pass either WP:GNG or WP:NCORP. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:19, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 09:46, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rod Keller (actor)[edit]

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

It's close, but I don't think Rod Keller meets WP:BIO. A few bit parts on TV, a couple of broadway productions. Active doing some voice-over work, no notable awards. All the coverage provided in this article is transient and not deep. Mikeblas (talk) 13:31, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 13:41, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:44, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as completely non-notable with the few work pieces he has only being background characters. SwisterTwister talk 06:32, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Not "completely" non-notable since there are multiple articles about him in the Tulsa World [8][9][10]. If someone can come up with one substantial article from another reliable source, this may switch to "keep", although in that case the tone of the article (which currently reads like something from a stage program) will need some attention as well. --Arxiloxos (talk) 06:43, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. Arxiloxos (talk) 06:45, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 14:23, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. multiple articles in a Tulsa newspaper about a Tulsa native trying to make it in the theatre do not show notability -- that's a classic example of non-discriminating local coverage. DGG ( talk ) 04:06, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Searches do not turn up anything which shows they meet either WP:GNG or WP:NACTOR. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:20, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - not the worst acting article I've seen. Bearian (talk) 21:54, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The plethora of sources cited here has not been questioned. Sandstein 10:13, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Blackfire (band)[edit]

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

Questionably notable band with some coverage as shown in the article and my searches here, here, here, here and here (this last one has one link that says they've gotten attention from Arizona to New York and to France) so I wanted comments for a full consensus. SwisterTwister talk 06:40, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:43, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:43, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've heard of them in connection with Les Ramoneurs de menhirs - Francis Tyers · 19:26, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 14:02, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Onel5969, would you comment for the sake of a consensus? I'm sure you'll come along eventually but consider this an early reminder.

SwisterTwister talk 06:31, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Thanks, SwisterTwister, although I have to disagree with you on this one. I think there's enough there to keep the article. There's some nice in-depth coverage here, here, here, here (this source was copied in several other books as well), and this. Even the mentions that your second link leads to are nice mentions, and while in passing, indicate the importance of the band, as did this one. I think their minor niche in the music industry, as well as their pre-internet career limits their online exposure. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:37, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If as Onel5969's citations were not enough, I include hatted below 10+ longer or shorter mentions. They've even been referred to in fictional literature. Meets WP:BAND. -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 20:55, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

More {{cite book}}s

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Vincent Schilling (1 November 2011). Native Defenders of The Enviornment. Native Voices Books. pp. 76–. ISBN 978-1-57067-995-7.
Brian Wright-McLeod (2005). The Encyclopedia of Native Music: More Than a Century of Recordings from Wax Cylinder to the Internet. University of Arizona Press. pp. 61–. ISBN 978-0-8165-2448-8.
Michelle H. Raheja (1 January 2011). Reservation Reelism: Redfacing, Visual Sovereignty, and Representations of Native Americans in Film. U of Nebraska Press. ISBN 978-0-8032-6827-2.
David King Dunaway Professor of English University of New Mexico; Molly Beer freelance writer University of New Mexico (14 April 2010). Singing Out : An Oral History of America's Folk Music Revivals: An Oral History of America's Folk Music Revivals. Oxford University Press, USA. pp. 168–. ISBN 978-0-19-970294-7.
Bruce E. Johansen Ph.D. (22 September 2015). American Indian Culture: From Counting Coup to Wampum [2 volumes]: From Counting Coup to Wampum. ABC-CLIO. pp. 564–. ISBN 978-1-4408-2874-4.
Russell M. Lawson (2 April 2013). Encyclopedia of American Indian Issues Today. ABC-CLIO. pp. 688–. ISBN 978-0-313-38145-4.
Elaine Keillor; Tim Archambault; John M. H. Kelly (27 March 2013). Encyclopedia of Native American Music of North America. ABC-CLIO. pp. 181–. ISBN 978-0-313-05506-5.
Eunice Rojas; Lindsay Michie (8 October 2013). Sounds of Resistance: The Role of Music in Multicultural Activism. ABC-CLIO. pp. 42–. ISBN 978-0-313-39806-3.
American Indian Culture and Research Journal. American Indian Culture and Research Center, University of California. 2008.
Living Blues. Vol. 171–175. Center for the Study of Southern Culture, The University of Mississippi. 2004. pp. 42–.

They've even made it into fictional literature:

Jen Minkman (13 December 2012). Shadow Of Time: Dark Dreams. Dutch Venture Publishing. pp. 28–. GGKEY:ATX50PGHZZ3.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Unopposed nomination Sandstein 10:05, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Punk Rock Demonstration[edit]

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

No coverage in independent, reliable sources to verify or sustian article. Fails Wikipedia's General Notability Guidelines. All citations are to SPS and I could find nothing except blogs, Twitter, Facebook, various podcast hosts and their own web site when I looked for sources. Jbh ^Talk 13:34, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 13:35, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 13:35, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 13:35, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 13:39, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 13:40, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: no sources found to support subject meets GNG. -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 20:26, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:12, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bouryoku Nyachou[edit]

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

Doesn't seem to have passed WP:GNG. Should be deleted I think. —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 13:29, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 13:33, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 13:33, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 13:33, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -No reliable sources found to indicate notability. ABF99 (talk) 14:50, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
delete fails WP:BIO and WP:CREATIVE. sources provided are not reliable. LibStar (talk) 10:29, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 09:37, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cat people and dog people[edit]

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

I don't believe that this is a notable subject and may fail WP:NEO Gbawden (talk) 13:09, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 13:21, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now. This article stub was started three days ago; its ample sources have been moved to the Talk Page. Give the article creator a chance to flesh it out and prove notability. ABF99 (talk) 14:03, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as creator. There are ample sources on the talk page that demonstrate the notability of this topic. Plus, @McGeddon: explained on my talk page: "Yes, you only actually need two references to meet WP:GNG". At least at AFD there is an opportunity for passersby to hit the edit button and get this article moving forward. :D (I haven't had a chance to because I'm still pooped from working on Cats and the Internet and now i Ihave a Masters of Commerce to worry about... It's *that* time of uni).--Coin945 (talk) 14:46, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Beyond meeting the WP:GNG, there's also "not violating WP:NOT" that needs to be considered in creating articles. I'm not saying that is or isn't a problem here, merely that the nomination is probably more about that side of things if its quoting WP:NOTNEO. FYI. Sergecross73 msg me 15:41, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:43, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:43, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – I take a different exception to this article: if 'dog people' and 'cat people' are encyclopedic topics, then they should have their own articles. Lumping them together into one article will probably turn it into a compare-and-contrast essay rather than an encyclopedia article. I suggest delete this article, and recreate dog people and cat people only when there is enough content to bring the article beyond a dictionary defintion – which is essentially what this article is now. Aspirex (talk) 23:46, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think that a dicdef is understandable considering the article is a very new stub. It has two lines. But they count - they sum up the topic very succinctly. And there are a tonne of sources in the talk page.I lumped them together because it would be easier to justify the topic's validity before splitting into different articles, and it makes sense because in terms of animal-person it is only ever cat- or dog- person, never horse-person or fish-person. It builds on the duality of cats/dogs in society. At least, thats where my thoughts on this are. But your comments are valid and should be taken into account.--Coin945 (talk) 15:32, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Defines a classic meme within the pet owner world, with room for expansion. And there is too a "horse person" LOL! But not pushing for that article. ;-) Montanabw ^(talk) 05:14, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The sourcing on the article's talk page is sufficient to me to warrant an article. I don't feel like WP:NOTNEO applies, its an established term that has been used for a long time and used by a ton of reliable, third party sources. This isn't some zany word some kid made up on Youtube last week or something, the type of thing NOTNEO is usually trying to prevent. I'm not opposed to splitting it off into 2 separate articles, as Aspirex states, but I think that should be a separate discussion that occur sbased on how things are looking once its been expanded out some (hopefully soon). Sergecross73 msg me 20:07, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per ABF99. --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 13:51, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 09:33, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fairyology[edit]

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

Weakly-sourced WP:DICDEF - the claimed "earliest use found in Ainsworth's Magazine" is just an opera review that describes a song as a "piece of metrical fairyology". Modern news sources only seem to use the term with flippancy, giving the term no greater weight than "ghostologist" or "pumpkinologist" or anything. McGeddon (talk) 13:04, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete First, yes, this is WP:DICDEF because the existing content of the article is focused on stating in several different ways that the word means what it means, without then providing information about the thing it means, which is what an encyclopedia article does. I agree with McGeddon that there is no evidence that this is even an established word in any serious sense, or that what it connotes is an established field. A Google search for "study of fairies" OR "study of faeries" returns 100 hits and it isn't clear to me that as an organized topic it meets WP:GNG. I could be shown to be wrong about that, but that's my impression.In any event, unless someone wants to create an article from scratch, the current one would need to be edited down to the stub "Fairyology is the study of fairies", which is rather tautological even for a stub, which leads to McGeddon's remarks on "ghostology" or "pumpkinology". —Largo Plazo (talk) 14:54, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:45, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as utter bollocks. Fairies don't exist, and neither does this "field of study". Otherwise, someone would have won James Randi's Million Dollar Challenge by now. I had previously proposed deletion of the article, but the article creator removed it. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 14:51, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I would prefer to say that fairies have not been yet proven to exist - and not proven NOT to exist either... Anyway, they're as provable or otherwise as most (if not all) of the gods, demons and other whathaveyou across the globe. Not to mention horoscopes and homeopathic 'medicine', which are both bollocks but also notable. I've been researching the realms of faerie for a few years (for a book series), but have never heard this term in serious use. There is actually a brief entry on Wiktionary on it, which could do with a source adding, if anyone feels energetic. As to belief in fairies, I remember talking to some tinker children who would say 'I done it' (but not if being accused...), 'he done it' (more common), and 'her done it'. They wouldn't say 'she'. Why? They were from Ireland, and the word 'sidh' is pronounced the same as 'she'. And you don't talk about them, or even mention them, not if you can possibly avoid it. Peridon (talk) 20:38, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. G5 speedy delete, sockpuppetry. Ged UK 12:05, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of Zee TV events[edit]

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

Whatever this is supposed to mean it fails WP:GNG and is promotional of the Zee TV. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 04:35, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 04:35, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 04:35, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 04:35, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete : Nothing indicates significance in encyclopedic coverage Derevation^{Give Me Five} 07:30, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:11, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 13:00, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -Nothing found to indicate notability. ABF99 (talk) 14:21, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I don't think a separate article is needed for this and the existing content can safely be merged into Zee TV. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 01:38, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge why and what? What do you propose to write in the main article as merger? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 04:40, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 01:29, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Peterson[edit]

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

A mayor in a town in Oregon, individual appears to be non-notable per Wikipedia standards. Very little online that would prove notability. Other than being a mayor, no mentions whatsoever. Article is filled with her resume, references are few and largely primary. If not deleted, suggest merge with Salem, Oregon. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:59, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not sure merging with Salem is appropriate if she's not notable. Since notability is not temporary, putting her info in the Salem article would be unencyclopedic. Possibly merge some info to her husband's article if appropriate, if it's not already in there. Valfontis (talk) 15:01, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She is not the mayor of a small town in Oregon, she is the mayor of the capital city and second largest city of the state. Other current and former mayors of Oregon have their own articles, namely Kitty Piercy, Jim Torrey, Shane Bemis, all of which are or were mayors of cities the same size or smaller than Salem. Even Portland city commissioners like Steve Novick and Dan Saltzman have their own articles. I understand your deletion request for Lou Ogden, as he is the mayor of a city with less than 30,000 people, however Peterson, as mayor of a city with over 160,000, and as wife of a notable member of the Oregon Supreme Court, should stay, and according to Wikipedia:POLOUTCOMES mayors of cities at at least a regional level (Oregon being the region here) are usually notable enough to warrant their own article. Mr.Bob.298 (talk) 23:29, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just remember that notability is not inherited. Valfontis (talk) 00:00, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:37, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:37, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Being mayor of any size town or city does not ensure, nor create, notability per Wikipedia guidlelines and policies. Just because there are other mayor articles in Wikipedia, that doesn't make this article acceptable. Please see WP:OTHERSTUFF. Further, being the wife of a state Supreme Court justice means nothing, as notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 14:58, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that. Peterson has received much local media coverage as well as out-of-state coverage as far away as Michigan. Mr.Bob.298 (talk) 20:41, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Mayor of a city of over 150,000 people and also the state capital. I think that meets the notability standards. Setting dogma aside (because dogma is invariably a terrible thing to base a decision on), in practice we do take note of the size and status of the city when we determine the notability of mayors. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:41, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 12:59, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep based on my need to research and add more sources, I will change to "Keep" with more references. I think this barely passes WP:POLITICIAN, criterion 2: "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage." It's true that despite its size, Salem seems like a small town, and the mayor isn't particularly powerful in Salem, but that doesn't cancel out the fact that she passes our standards for notability. When talking about the "significant press coverage" it is necessary to then provide proof that there is such coverage here in the AfD, since it is lacking in the article. This is a bit difficult as Peterson has a rather common name, and because most online sources talk about her in her role as mayor, and not about her specifically, but not impossible. It may be helpful to search for her as "Anna M. Peterson" and also try to find sources for her activities previous to her stint as mayor. I've been able to add some info to her article with a little digging. It should be noted that per WP:POLOUTCOMES (which, of course, is not an official guideline) "Municipal politicians are not inherently notable just for being in politics, but neither are they inherently non-notable just because they are in local politics. Each case is evaluated on its own individual merits. Mayors of cities of at least regional prominence have usually survived AFD, although the article should say more than just 'Jane Doe is the mayor of Cityville'. Mayors of smaller towns, however, are generally deemed not notable just for being mayors, although they may be notable for other reasons in addition to their mayoralty (e.g. having previously held a more notable office)." Salem should be considered as having regional prominence, despite its rather provincial feel, due to its being the capital and having the 2nd (or 3rd) largest population in the state. I'm going to continue to research and improve the article. Valfontis (talk) 21:23, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 close (keep), not a valid reason to delete and IP trying to falsify the !vote with fake usernames/signatures. Vandalism, basically. Fram (talk) 11:55, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fuck You and Then Some[edit]

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

While wikipedia is not censored, this might be too much even for this site to bare. Way too much profanity. kevin (talk) 09:56, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Clayton 09:58, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Comment: The vote above was made by the same user as the nominator (see here and here). ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 10:17, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - Obviously not an AFD-worthy article. WP:NOTCENSORED is not an AFD nomination criterion for an article. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 10:09, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn by nominator. By blanking this page. Sandstein 10:06, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, I cocked it up by accidentally listing the target of a redirect rather than the redirect itself. Thanks to Sandstein for the procedural close. Si Trew (talk) 03:56, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Parimutuel betting[edit]

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

Retarget to Football pools. It is not quite pari-mutuel, although that will do, as an English audience I think this is better than to do it in French. Si Trew (talk) 09:36, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 09:29, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gramiksha[edit]

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

Can't find anything in RS sources that would qualify this under WP:GNG or WP:ORG. All web searches are to their own websites, blogs, wordpress, videos, etc. but no good coverage. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 09:05, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 09:05, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 09:05, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No independent coverage found. As already noted, what I found is just unreliable sources, blogs, wordpress etc. Fails our subject specific notability criteria of WP:NGO, even fails WP:GNG. Jim Carter 20:13, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lack of sources and the nature of the article could be a potential scam. The author needs to provide reliable 3rd party sources. SallyDee777 (talk) 19:33, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:00, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Lack of reliable and independent sources that provide significant coverage. Fails WP:GNG. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:37, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete per WP:G4 -- an exact recreation of previously version deleted per AFD — CactusWriter ^(talk) 15:27, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Avishek Majumder[edit]

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

This article appears to fail WP:ANYBIO, WP:MUSICBIO, WP:GNG and probably more policies and guidelines.

I have carefully searched for reliable sources about this musician, but have found none. Given the extensive coverage of the Indian film industry in English language media, this appears to me to suggest that this musician fails the tests for inclusion in Wikipedia. Shirt58 (talk) 08:37, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 10:23, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 10:23, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 10:23, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Shirt58: how about WP:G4? Its not been even a month since last AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Avishek Majumder. Did you miss it or overrule it for some purpose? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 10:44, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Dharmadhyaksha:: Did you miss it or overrule it for some purpose?

You are right. I am wrong. I missed the first AfD. I should have known better. See WP:ADMINCOND\WP:ADMINACCT

That said, I do not think I have misused my WP:ADMIN privileges here.

What you think? Pete AU aka Shirt58

I am not understanding what you took from my post. I was just implying that if you have missed it; whuch is very likely being a human, it can still be tagged for CSD by you or me or anyone; unless you have overruled that option for some unstated reasons. I was no where calling your actions some kind of misuse of your tools. CSD tagging it simply saves some community time. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 12:53, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Shirt58 and Dharmadhyaksha: Just FYI: This recreation has not been improved after the previous AFD which resulted delete. I've tagged it with G4 accordingly. Best, Jim Carter 13:23, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:04, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shadow rap[edit]

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

Unsourced WP:NEO, none of the sources offered use the term "shadow rap". Seems to be a WP:OR grouping of the idiosyncratic styles of a few performers into a named genre, I can't find any sources that use the term. McGeddon (talk) 08:06, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 08:34, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 08:34, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -Found no reliable sources to indicate notability as a musical genre. Seems to have more to do with fish. ABF99 (talk) 14:31, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No pages I can find on the named rappers includes the term. Not even rappers using the lure. Crow^Caw 22:32, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 08:32, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of Hereford F.C. players[edit]

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

A list of all players who have played for Hereford F.C., a newly-formed club playing at the 9th level of the English football league system, five levels below the lowest fully professional league. No equivalent article exists in Category:Lists of association football players by club in England for any other club which has never played in a fully professional league. Given the level at which Hereford play, they are unlikely to have more than a very small minority of players who pass WP notability requirements any time soon (players with prior experience in fully pro leagues are pretty few and far between at level 9), so the article will consist almost entirely of non-notable, un-Wikilinked names. Article was previously PRODded but the PROD was removed without explanation........ -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:24, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:24, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 07:56, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 07:56, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 07:57, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per my original Prod. Far too low a level for such a list given the fact that very few players will meet notability guidelines and also too soon given the recent foundation of the club meaning this list is very sinilar to the current squad listing. No problem with recreation at some point in the future is it becomes useful. Fenix down (talk) 09:02, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable list. Giant Snowman 20:17, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:01, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:02, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as per arguments provided by ChrisTheDude Spiderone 07:52, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 01:30, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Journal of Literary and Cultural Disability Studies[edit]

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

Article PRODded with reason "Non-notable journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG." DePRODded with reason "in Project Muse. Such journals are almost always notable." However, MUSE appears to be used as standard publication platform for journals published by Liverpool University Press (their own journals page is empty). No evidence of meeting any notability guideline, hence: Delete. Randykitty (talk) 06:41, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 07:23, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:03, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:03, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disability-related deletion discussions. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:20, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep One of the few times where I disagree with Randykitty on this class of subjects. MUSE is a selective list of electronically available journals, and journals they include in their system are important enough to be justify notability.,. If Liverpool Press uses it, I would would accept the implication that all their journals are notable. In fact, I consider all journals from a major univesity publish notable in any event. DGG ( talk ) 02:01, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Agree with detailed thoughtful analysis as given by DGG, above. Thank you, — Cirt (talk) 06:46, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with DGG's argument. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:08, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Any journal published by Liverpool University Press will be published by MUSE. Hence, DGG's argument implies that any journal published by LUP will be automatically notable. We do not generally make this assumption even for journals published by larger publishers (Elsevier, Springer, etc), so I am a bit confused why we would make this assumption here. Elsevier publishes all of its journals on its ScienceDirect platform and most journals on that platform are clearly notable. But are we now assuming that any journal published on ScienceDirect will be notable? On my user page I have a short list of journals launched by large publishers that failed after a few years without ever generating much interest. If even Elsevier/Springer et al produce the occasional dud, why would LUP be any better? --Randykitty (talk) 13:43, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am indeed arguing to extend this to all major university publishers & possibly select commercial publishers . The reasoning is that as since the great majority of such journals will be notable, and the distinctions , especially outside the sciences, are often hard to determine, it would be better to include them all. That way, we can have informative for the reader, which is our purpose. I'm not really concerned about promotionalism here, because the information we include is pretty standard. (The potentially promotional part is always copyvio also, & in any case easily removed). WP is an encycopedia , & the purpose of an encycopedia is to give information, not judge importance. I would guess that 90% of publications from US/ UK university presses are notable, and is it worth keeping out he other 10% ? What purpose does that serve? (I do not automatically extend this to commercial publishers at this point) DGG ( talk ) 21:28, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My problem is that this seems to be a very subjective criterion. Which publishers to include in the "always notable list"? Why only university presses and not the big commercial publishers (Sage, Elsevier, etc)? How do we justify not including OMICS journals? I think we should stick to NJournals, which provides clear criteria, and not opening this can of worms. --Randykitty (talk) 21:36, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per DGG's very sensitive and well-worded arguments, and also because as a person who is considered to have a disability, I feel that this journal is noteworthy. Have gone back and forth on this, trying to word it as rationally as possible, and to avoid letting my personal feelings come to the fore, but I do feel that this AFD unintentionally implies that Randykitty considers disability culture and literature non-notable, even though I do not believe they do think that. Mabalu (talk) 22:40, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 08:31, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Taegesoos Derby[edit]

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

Provides no context or references substantiating alleged rivalry, fails WP:GNG and WP:NRIVALRY Hack (talk) 05:58, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 07:29, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 07:29, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 07:43, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:NRIVALRY. Cannot in principle be a genuine rivalry with so few meetings between the sides. Fenix down (talk) 09:30, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the list is imcomplete - they've played a lot more times. There isn't a rivalry. Hack (talk) 09:05, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per above. fails WP:GNG and WP:NRIVALRY. Also the user who created it, the only things he's done has been to create this article, link to it from Australia's page and add a made-up friendly fixture in mid May 2016. --SuperJew (talk) 14:19, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above arguments. ABF99 (talk) 14:37, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:06, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the above. It dismally fails WP:GNG and WP:NRIVALRY. This is not relevant to the question of this deletion, but there is more potential for an article about the Japan/Australia soccer rivalry which has developed in the last few years (if anybody is looking for a subject to write about). AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 00:31, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 07:53, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - clear failure of WP:GNG. There is nothing to suggest that this is a genuine rivalry let alone a notable one. Spiderone 09:46, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 10:42, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there is almost nothing that could be called rivalry here. Fails WP:NRIVALRY as well as GNG which already have been noted above. Jim Carter 20:05, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the nomination. Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 11:20, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 07:03, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Saransh[edit]

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

Questionably notable and improvable as I simply found no signs of improvement with this being the best results I found. Pinging the only seemingly available users Tom Morris, RJFJR and EamonnPKeane. SwisterTwister talk 05:46, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:48, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:48, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:48, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:48, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disability-related deletion discussions. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:27, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

- Delete. Noble cause, but not a notable organization. DGG ( talk ) 08:50, 20 October 2015 (UTC)₮[reply]
Delete no sign of notability. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:37, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Unopposed nomination. Sandstein 10:15, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Michael the Maven[edit]

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

Not notable. Award is not major. He lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Sourcing is by him, not about. A search found nothing better. duffbeerforme (talk) 04:20, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 04:24, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 04:24, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 04:24, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:09, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per self-promotion. Montanabw ^(talk) 05:09, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:15, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gregory J. Hepburn[edit]

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

Actor with questionable notability. Seems to have no sources either. Wgolf (talk) 03:32, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 03:56, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 03:57, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 03:57, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not meet WP:GNG. Appears to be an autobiography. --Kinu ^t/_c 17:21, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note Previously Prod deleted (log entry) under the title Gregory Hepburn Oiyarbepsy (talk) 03:16, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there simply aren't any obvious signs of better improvement here. SwisterTwister talk 05:33, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 06:44, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Word of Life Church[edit]

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

Non-notable church. Appears to be more of a vanity article. Very little information available about this church aside from official bulletins and advertisements. Not to be confused with a similar-named church in New York which has recently made the news. LionMans Account (talk) 02:55, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 03:05, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 03:06, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 03:08, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete doesn't seem to be notable or verifiable. Brian Zahnd, the pastor, may be notable as an author (see for instance [11], but there's not anything here worth merging so a redirect isn't necessary.--Samuel J. Howard (talk) 14:20, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -Nothing found to indicate notability ABF99 (talk) 14:45, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 08:12, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

James Langton[edit]

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

Does not meet credibility standards for a boxer. Charlie the Pig (talk) 01:27, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(sports)#Boxing according to this Jame Langton does meet the Creditation and Notable enough to be on Wikipedia. Langton has won the NZNBF Boxing title which is one of the two National boxing titles in New Zealnd that is available. "Has fought for a regular/full national...." this is a title if a full national title. --Bennyaha (talk) 01:49, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 01:51, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 01:52, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 01:52, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here are all the Newspaper Articles and fight profiles plus more on google on langtons notibility, career and accreditation http://coastalrugby.co.nz/senior-centurions/ http://www.stuff.co.nz/taranaki-daily-news/sport/2732266/Caped-crusader-ready-to-run-riot http://www.stuff.co.nz/taranaki-daily-news/sport/69767258/Langton-gets-the-business-done-in-front-of-vocal-home-crowd http://www.stuff.co.nz/taranaki-daily-news/sport/67655437/langton-to-focus-on-boxing-career http://www.stuff.co.nz/taranaki-daily-news/sport/69695624/opunake-set-to-rumble-with-big-fight-night http://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/article.cfm?c_id=4&objectid=11507577 http://www.odt.co.nz/sport/boxing/354690/boxing-betham-eyes-nz-cruiserweight-title http://www.worldboxingnews.net/2015/10/13/news/november-3-super-8-card-finalized http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/sport/283290/monty-betham-to-fight-for-nz-cruiserweight-belt http://boxrec.com/boxer/643948 http://www.fightsrec.com/james-langton.html http://boxrec.com/show/715366 http://boxrec.com/show/719792 --Bennyaha (talk) 02:11, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a photo of the official results that is exclusive to the Boxrec editors and Boxing officials like myself stating that James Langton is the New Zealand National full Champion

--Bennyaha (talk) 02:26, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is something that was written about James for Opunake's 150 Years celebration. It doesn't include anything from 2015 though... James “Batman” Langton is Opunake’s first professional heavyweight boxer. Originally a rugby player, James had a long career playing for Coastal from its inception till it first won the Division 1 Championship in 2009. He was the first player to play over 200 division 1 games for Coastal (playing in excess of 300 games for Coastal and Opunake clubs combined) and donated the Cup 200 which is played for annually between Coastal and Southern Clubs and honours any player that has reached the milestone of 200 senior A games for the clubs. James was named Coastal most valuable player of the season numerous times and also had success playing for Taranaki colts, B and 7’s teams as well as a New Zealand youth team which toured the United Kingdom. After taking a couple of years break from sport in which he focussed on family, James decided to check out the Coastal Boxing Club and try boxing for fitness. It wasn’t long before James realised he still had the drive to compete at a high sporting level and in 2013 proved the adage that life begins at 40 when he became a professional boxer. James’ first two boxing matches were in Wellington against up and coming boxer Asher Derbyshire. James lost these first two fights in a points decision but these were important learning opportunities as he had not had the amateur boxing career that would normally pre-empt a professional boxing debut. At the conclusion of 2014 James was on a five fight winning streak. His first win was against Ali Brooks of Hawera who he knocked out in the fourth round in December 2013. On Valentine’s Day 2014, James had his second win with a technical knockout of Bernard Higgins from Auckland in the second round. Both fights were at “Sam Rapira Boxing” events in New Plymouth. In July 2014 James and his wife Kelly put on the Coastal Rumble at Sandfords Event Centre which is understood to be Opunake’s first professional boxing event. On the card were a number of “corporate” bouts featuring well-known Coastal and Taranaki-wide personalities with James fighting Dean Garmonsway of Huntly as the main event. James won the fight in a split decision which was not readily accepted by his opponent. September saw James notch up his fourth win, a unanimous points decision in which he fought as a cruiserweight against Atalili Fai of Wellington. At the same event Sam Rapira won the NZ light-heavyweight title. Then in November Dean Garmonsway had an opportunity for retribution at a rematch at the Waitara Fight Night. However, it was not to be and James won again in a points decision finishing 2014 undefeated. James’ boxing career is ongoing and he is currently deciding whether to continue fighting as a heavyweight or cruiserweight. In 2015 he looks forward to many more bouts including potentially headlining at another Coastal Rumble and taking on even stronger competition. It's in a book called Opunake 1865-2015 150 Years Centennial. The ISBN is 978-0-473-31369-8

Played 230 games for Coastal Rugby Club but played over 300 Senior A games for all clubs he represented. Retired after Coastal won the Taranaki Championship (McMasters Shield) in 2009. Played as a loose forward, mainly open side flanker - no 7. Was named MVP for the season 3 times for Coastal. Represented Taranaki Colts in 95 and 96 and Taranaki 7s in 1999. Also played for the Youth Sports Federation of NZ in its Five Nations tour in 1995.

--Bennyaha (talk) 02:30, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Has fought for a regular/full national or higher non-world title for an affiliated organization of one of the above listed major sanctioning bodies (e.g., IBF-affiliated (USBA), WBA-affiliated (BUI or PABA), WBC-affiliated (ABCO, BBBofC (and its predecessor the NSC), EBU (and its predecessor the IBU), NABF, or OPBF), or WBO-affiliated (NABO))" Charlie the Pig (talk) 02:39, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, do you personally know James Langton? Charlie the Pig (talk) 02:40, 15 October 2015 (UTC

No I do not no James Langton personally, I am the New Zealand Editor of Boxrec its my job to know all of this and backgrounds of boxers, I know his manager in a professional level --Bennyaha (talk) 02:55, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I also know that the IBO, WBA, WBO, IBF and WBC recognize New Zealand Natioanl Boxing Federation (NZNBF) and New Zealand Professional Boxing Associtation (NZPBA) as full National titles. There are two National titles in NZ thats NZNBF and NZPBA --Bennyaha (talk) 02:59, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I can show you with the help of boxrec of a dozen events where nznbf and nzpba work together at boxing events with both of them being recognized by the major sanctioning bodies an affiliating with them.--Bennyaha (talk) 03:12, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Would you be willing to wait for other contributors to comment? Charlie the Pig (talk) 03:29, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

sure--Bennyaha (talk) 03:34, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 09:08, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment will vote later. WP:NBOX is pretty clear which titles are considered notable for professional boxing with the long standing consensus that National titles per se are not. That is true for much larger countries than New Zealand (including US, Russia, etc) - the list of acceptable organizations are given and actually there have been grumblings that the standards are too loose there are just so many possibilities. Amateur titles are different and count if, and again the criteria are clear, the nation has some respectability in boxing. New Zealand scrapes in with a single bronze in the World Amateur Boxing Championships.Peter Rehse (talk) 10:14, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment The contributor has recently written a number of articles on New Zealand Professional boxers some of questionable notability. I did not AfD any for a number of reasons the most important being that I have a number of active deletions on far worse articles (I prefer to limit myself) and also there is a hole in wikipedia with respect to New Zealand boxing. The articles are half decently written so personally I was content to tag them for the moment. These points have no bearing on the current AfD - just saying.Peter Rehse (talk) 10:03, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:16, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Appears to fail NBOX. Article is truly awful in a number of respects and appears to be promotional rather than encyclopedic. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 05:21, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Delete I agree that he fails NBOX, but the problem lies the most NZ boxers would. That to my mind would leave NZ wiki users bereft of information in this field. He is notable in NZ boxing with coverage in major national papers, but not so outside NZ. On the grounds on NZ coverage I would prefer a keep decision. NealeFamily (talk) 02:17, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That is true of every single country - most boxers don't meet WP:NBOX and for each country a number who do. New Zealand has almost a 100 boxers with articles - a number consistent with their strength in the boxing world. I don't see an inherent need to treat boxers from New Zealand or any other country differently.Peter Rehse (talk) 09:44, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to delete based on PRehse above and further research NealeFamily (talk) 00:16, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nominator.Peter Rehse (talk) 11:54, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable boxer and coverage is routine sports reporting.Mdtemp (talk) 15:28, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable at all --Angry Bald English Villian Man (talk) 07:53, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Opinions are divided. But I find the "delete" arguments significantly more persuasive in the light of applicable policies and guidelines. The "delete" side advances numerous, prima facie valid arguments for deletion, such as the lack of clear, objective and usefully limiting inclusion criteria, as well as BLP concerns. The "keep" arguments mostly do not address or gloss over these concerns. Sandstein 10:03, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of cases of police brutality in the United States[edit]

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

This article is a list of incidents that various editors have decided were "police brutality". Discussion is focused on whether or not civil settlements, dropped criminal cases, civil judgements with criminal findings of not guilty, etc. should be included. There are no objective, sourced criteria for determining what is or is not "police brutality". I have been unable to locate sources for such criteria. Additionally, the list seems to have no conceivable limits as to what would be included; the slippery definition at police brutality includes "forms of verbal attacks and psychological intimidation" (I'd say police in riot gear are psychologically intimidating, as is the cop pulling you over for speeding) spread out over hundreds of years and hundreds of millions of people. SummerPhD^v2.0 01:26, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 01:42, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 01:50, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Instead of making separate article on each incidence it will be better to make single article incorporating all incidences. Those incidences in which "brutality" of police is "questionable" can be removed. There is category named Category:Police brutality in the United States, some of articles from that category can be merged into this list. --Human3015^TALK 01:59, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - To keep this article, we need unambiguous, sourced criteria. We have not been able to find such criteria. Without such criteria, every entry on the list is POV. - SummerPhD^v2.0 03:07, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

*Reluctant delete: Despite numerous requests to propose a criteria for inclusion on the list, the nominator has refused and just complained about the short-comings of the list. Without a legitimate criteria for inclusion, the list becomes a magnet for agenda pushers and editors with an axe to grind against particular police departments. I could change my !vote if some support was gained for a reasonable set of criteria. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:08, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - To clarify: I am not refusing to propose criteria, I cannot locate unambiguous, sourced criteria. No matter how often I am asked, I cannot provide something that -- so far as I can determine -- does not exist. If you or anyone else can find them, we might have something. We would still need to address selection criteria: all incidents (i.e., millions of entries)?, notable incidents? (duplicating the unsourced category that needs to be cleaned out)?, some other unambiguous, sourced criteria? - SummerPhD^v2.0 03:17, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked several times for you to propose a criteria. Thus far, you haven't. When you're asked to do something more than once and don't do it, you're refusing. It is up to us, the community, to decide that scope of the list, then the criteria that fits that, not look for already established criteria. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:38, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You've asked several times for something that apparently does not exist. There is a difference between "I will not" and "I cannot". - SummerPhD^v2.0 14:23, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't even make sense. I've asked for you to tell us what you think the criteria should be. Well of course it doesn't exist, if it did, I wouldn't be asking for it. Oh wait... you're still obsessing about the previous criteria that you can't find. Move on from it. You've been asked to propose a criteria. That means your own thoughts, not mine. Have you proposed one? No, you haven't. And yes, there is a difference between can't and won't. Thanks for the obvious. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:52, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A list such as this needs unambiguous sourced criteria. If I invent criteria, the article would have to be List of cases of what SummerPhD calls "police brutality" in the United States. I cannot find unambiguous sourced criteria. - SummerPhD^v2.0 00:27, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I asked for a suggestion.......proposed criteria. If we could agree on a proposal, then we could see if those sources exist. You want step B without step A. I think it's pretty evident at this point that you won't actually make the suggestion, just complain that we can't find a source to state...something that we haven't actually decided on trying to describe, so I'll stop asking for what you will not do. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:51, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Step 1: Propose list of criteria. Step 3: Find source supporting list of criteria. Got it. I'm done. - SummerPhD^v2.0 03:17, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that you don't find determining the scope of the list to be the first step is puzzling. Just start nailing boards together. I guess it'll form a house at some point? Niteshift36 (talk) 13:51, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are plenty of sources for the topic with obvious titles such as Police Brutality. These say things like "Many criteria have been used by police scholars to delineate various types of police brutality...". The topic clearly passes WP:LISTN and, per WP:CLN, we should not delete the list to favour the corresponding category. Lists are better at handling disputed cases because they support citations and notes. Andrew D. (talk) 07:45, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Do any of those sources give unambiguous criteria that we can use to determine if various incidents are "police brutality"? As for selection, are you suggesting a comprehensive list of every incident or some limiting criteria? - SummerPhD^v2.0 11:56, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew, this is why we need an actual criteria. For example, say a news site with a propensity for advocacy, like Mother Jones, decides to call an incident "brutality" because an officer made someone lay on the floor of a bar, but the incident was investigated, no charges filed, no significant civil suit results or any disciplinary finding or wrong-doing was made. We can't list something just because a source used a single word. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:43, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. I will preface my comment by saying that I almost always advocate for improvement rather than deletion (per WP:ATD and "don't throw the baby out with the WP:BATHWATER"). However, there are a few reasons why deletion is appropriate here:

The selection criteria for this list are ambiguous and subjective: WP:LSC says that selection criteria for standalone lists must be "unambiguous" and "objective". As SummerPhDv2.0 explains above, "police brutality" is exceedingly difficult to define. In the United States, "police brutality" is neither a crime nor a cause of action in tort (I think "excessive force" may be a tort in some jurisdictions, but that is arguably a different topic). Police brutality can, in some circumstances, be actionable as a section 1983 claim if the police violate an individual's constitutional rights, but a determination of whether the police were "brutal" is rarely determined in a court of law. Indeed, a determination of whether the use of force is "warranted" is necessarily subjective. It is a determination that is often made by inexpert media commentators who know little of the law or police procedures.
There is no reasonable way to limit the scope of this list: According to WP:SALAT, "[l]ists that are too general or too broad in scope have little value." As a matter of policy, Wikipedia should not have lists of cases about a specific crime, infraction, tort, or sin. Wikipedia does not have a list of Clean Water Act violations, a list of burglaries, or a list of arsons. I am sure you could find many notable examples of each, but a comprehensive list of such crimes would be far too broad to be of any use.
This list includes numerous violations of BLP policies: Many cases are included in this list because they ended in a settlement. The list then implies that because the cases settled, police brutality occurred. However, that conclusion is not supported by evidence. People often settle lawsuits even though they have committed no wrong – sometimes they believe that the evidence would look bad to a jury, and sometimes they simply don’t want to go through the stress of litigation. Indeed, many criminal defendants have plead guilty even though they were actually innocent (see Alford Plea). Unfortunately, the inclusion of these cases on the list violates BLP guidelines that that forbid any implication that a person has committed a crime. WP:BLPCRIME states that "editors must seriously consider not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed, or is accused of committing, a crime unless a conviction is secured" (emphasis in original). I don’t think any of the law enforcement officers in this list have actually been found guilty of a crime or tort called “police brutality,” so BLP therefore forbids any implication that they have committed such a crime.
Problems with neutrality: Assuming, arguendo, that you can define police brutality, an incomplete list of cases likely implicated issues of WP:WEIGHT. Including partial lists of cases misleads casual readers who may think that the missing cases may be unimportant, or that they may not have been police brutality cases at all (see WP:WEIGHT and WP:NLISTITEM).

For the aforementioned reasons, deletion is warranted. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 08:17, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That is the best response I've read. Point 3 is especially valid. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:45, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:14, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:14, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this appears to be a sink hole for POV pushing. I don't see how it can ever be WP:NPOV. VMS Mosaic (talk) 04:19, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - useful list. any list that makes a subject more comprehensible is beneficial for Wikipedia.--BabbaQ (talk) 11:36, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It may or may not be WP:USEFUL. It does seem to be irreparably biased and POV. - SummerPhD^v2.0 15:56, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, usefulness does not overcome the policy violations pursuant to WP:LSC and WP:SALAT, not to mention the BLP and WEIGHT issues. By way of analogy, a list of any crime may be "useful," but I don't think a "list of examples of cheating on taxes" would pass selection criteria or scope requirements for lists. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 16:56, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

keep Passes GNG. The sheer number of prominent and high profile cases within the United States is necessary within an encyclopedia. CrazyAces489 (talk) 07:02, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - As discussed above, we have neither workable selection criteria nor unambiguous sourced criteria defining "police brutality". - SummerPhD^v2.0 14:20, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Yes there are high-profile cases in the United States that can be defined as police brutality. However, for those "in-between" cases where brutality or reasonable force is based more on opinion than fact is where this list loses any purpose. It's a point-of-view, which isn't reasonably helpful to an encyclopedia.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 22:56, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Of academic value and well-sourced. If an entry is disputed, take it to talk rather than trying to wipe out the page. AusLondonder (talk) 01:21, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - As discussed above, we have neither workable selection criteria nor unambiguous sourced criteria defining "police brutality". - SummerPhD^v2.0 01:30, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AusLondonder, the fact that well sourced examples exist does not overcome the policy violations pursuant to WP:LSC and WP:SALAT. Per WP:LSC, the selection criteria for this list are ambiguous and subjective. Per WP:SALAT, there is also no reasonable way to limit the scope of this list. Nor is "academic value" a factor that we consider in AfD. A "list of tombstones in Canada" may have academic value, but such a list would violate WP:LSC and WP:SALAT. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 01:34, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the test for inclusion in the list should be notability as event in and of itself. Why can't we develop criteria? --JumpLike23 (talk) 03:23, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We need unambiguous, sourced criteria defining "police brutality". They must be unambiguous such that there is no question of POV as to whether or not a particular incident fits. The criteria must be sourced, otherwise we are creating a topic, similar to why we don't have a "List of yucky vegetables" or "List of corrupt politicians". If someone is convicted of murder, they are a murderer and the incident was a murder. "Police brutality" is not a specific crime and sources use varying, subjective definitions. - SummerPhD^v2.0 04:04, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

jumplike23, as SummerPhD explains above, it is impossible to create criteria that are "unambiguous" and "objective", as is required by WP:LSC. "Police brutality" is neither a crime nor a tort in any American jurisdiction, so the characterization of any police action as "brutal" will necessarily be based on the subjective judgments of commentators. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 04:10, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

many countries actually have laws addressing police brutality. See law dictionary If the reliable sources characterize it as police brutality, then we can list it as such. But, we do have a list of terrorist incidents and that is very subjectively defined. We have a list of NYPD scandals. Should we question what is a scandal? --JumpLike23 (talk) 04:19, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is not merely possible but likely that there are articles with ambiguous, subjective and/or unsourced criteria. Those articles have problems that should be addressed in one way or another. We're attempting to address this article's problems here. - SummerPhD^v2.0 12:03, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, let's only address the standard in a vacuum. --JumpLike23 (talk) 18:07, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

jumplike23, to elaborate on SummerPhD's point, other countries may have crimes or torts that may be called "police brutality," but no jurisdiction in the United States (to my knowledge) has such a cause of action. Other causes of action that are often used to claim damages for unlawful police conduct (including excessive force, section 1983 claims, substantive due process violations, etc-) are conceptually distinct from "police brutality" and provide little information about whether police conduct was "brutal." For example, the use of a taser on a suspect may be "excessive" (thereby satisfying the definition of "excessive force"), but it may not be "brutal." Indeed, it is impossible to create criteria for inclusion in this list that are unambiguous and objective because reliable sources necessarily impart their own subjective judgments about the definition of "brutality" when discussing this subject. To give you an analogy, we would not have a "list of people who look silly in Kansas" here on Wikipedia because the selection criteria would necessarily rely upon subjective judgments. Although there may be many reliable sources that describe people who "look silly," such judgments are necessarily subjective per WP:LSC. Also, these thoughts from WP:Ambiguous Words are instructive: "Some words have multiple interpretations and have different meanings dependent upon one's perspective. What one source describes as a 'war', may be described as an 'invasion' by the other side. Use of such words tends to be seen as advocating the views of one side over the other, unless they are clearly attributed to the correct side." -- Notecardforfree (talk) 18:15, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm actually appalled at the lack of research from a supposed reliable source like Law Dictionary. It even claims to be "fact checked"! It actually says "Police officers can use nerve gas..." Nerve gas? Are they for real? That really makes their claim that verbal abuse is "police brutality" fairly dubious. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:57, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong DELETE I came to this page think in this was a slam dunk. Police brutality? Of course we (America) have a problem with police brutality. Who would try to delete such a list. But the longer I edit, the more persuaded I become of the absolute need for articles to be tightly defined. Lists included. Perhaps lists especially. I am not saying that we need to define "police brutality". I am saying that we need to define what kind of incidents would be included in such a list. (Accusations? - by whom? Indictment? Conviction? Physical brutality, or verbal?) The problems with an utterly undefined list of this kind are enormous. Delete.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:58, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. There is simply no way to overcome all the problems. No one has even made a real attempt to define the selection criteria. VMS Mosaic (talk) 00:25, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

While I have !voted delete, the statement that nobody has tried to define a criteria isn't accurate. There have been discussions at the talk page about it. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:06, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Revisiting this AFD, I went to the talk page, and WOW did it persuade me that this page ABSOLUTELY needs to be Deleted. Attempts to require citations go back years, and serious efforts to define this list go back at least to 2014. All efforts at definition of what qualifies for the list have been stubbornly and effectively resisted. Sometimes, the only fix for a serious and persistent problem is DELETE.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:02, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Honestly, without any clear inclusion criteria this is going to become a massive violation of indiscriminate list of every time the police did something that people disliked. Also, there seems to be a large amount of original research in the list, in which Wikipedia editors, rather than reliable sources, have made the determination of whether police brutality occurred. While the presence of original research is generally not reason for deletion, without clear inclusion criteria this list is going to be in perpetual violation. If this article is kept, we should be extra careful to make sure that no edits are made to it that are in violation of Wikipedia:Libel, a policy with legal considerations. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:11, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. How about this for the inclusion criteria: only include events that two different reliable sources classify as police brutality, and where the police officer(s) are convicted of a crime as a result. We don't have to use a published definition of "police brutality" as inclusion criteria - the inclusion criteria are something that we get to decide ourselves, as Wikipedia editors. Certainly, we can't create our own definition of police brutality, but that is not the same thing as creating inclusion criteria. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 00:09, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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