Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 October 21

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 20 October	22 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 delete and redirect to Habasit Holding. Randykitty (talk) 12:43, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rossi Motoriduttori[edit]

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

Article was dePRODed with the comment that the sources are valid because they are all taken from the company web site, Concern was: Unsourced. No major claims of importance or significance (WP:ORG). Wikipedia is not a directory. WP:NOTYELLOW. See WP:PRIMARY. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:16, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Notability cannot be established from primary sources alone. Ceosad (talk) 04:28, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It seems easy to find more sources which demonstrate notability such as this. See WP:BEFORE. Andrew D. (talk) 20:21, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at this source. Being mentioned in a case study is not the stuff notability is made of. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:49, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is exactly the stuff notability is made of. Per the WP:GNG, such a source is independent, reliable and detailed. Q.E.D. Andrew D. (talk) 23:20, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:44, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:44, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if it can actually be improved as I also found links at Books, News, browser and Highbeam but delete if it cannot be immediately improved and can simply be restarted later. SwisterTwister talk 06:24, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:32, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Hoping to get someone with more Italian reference experience involved - looks like it could be notable, but I am unsure. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:24, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:24, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of notability. If somebody believes they can find the sources to back it up, I have no problem with restoring this to their user space, but lacking that, delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:47, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there is evidence of notability, as presented above. RoySmith seems to have some idiosyncratic concept of notability which does not conform to our guideline. Andrew D. (talk) 23:20, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, or Redirect to Habasit Holding, of which it is a subsidiary. I can find nothing beyond passing mentions in independent sources, so I do not believe this subsidiary has any real claim to notability. Reyk _YO! 08:37, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CORPDEPTH, although I won't object to a redirect per Reyk to the article of the parent Aktiengesellschaft. Bearian (talk) 16:15, 30 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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:09, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Zone consoles[edit]

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

unsourced and non notable. disputed prod noq (talk) 23:18, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I say delete because it doesn't seem particularly notable and it is unsourced. Not So Dumb Blond (talk) 05:25, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my previous PROD. Bootleg consoles are rarely notable because they're rarely covered in reliable sources. This one is no exception. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 11:09, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It was just created,more information is likely to be added soon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.215.193.216 (talk) 15:36, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Looks like this is mostly already covered at Vii, where it's also under-sourced. Looking for references, I found a usable one from 2010: [1] but it's brief and raises more questions than it answers. Grayfell (talk) 00:15, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like Sega Zone (console) has its own article, which also needs a great deal of attention if it's going to survive. Grayfell (talk) 00:29, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it doesn't prove notability and is not referenced very well. Ana r chyte 07:42, 27 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. A7 is just as valid now as it was before. DGG ( talk ) 00:20, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hybe (website)[edit]

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

Was speedily deleted before as Hybe.com for A7. My concern is that the significance is still not credibly stated. Failing that, the article isn't notable either (WP:WEBCRIT); all news stories I can find are based on the press release. The article itself seems to coatrack the affiliated TV program to the website. Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 22:26, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 22:33, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 22:33, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 22:33, 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:50, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew_Hughes_(photographer)[edit]

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

The article is an obvious WP:SPAM violation. The edit history makes it clear that the whole article is created almost exclusively by the subject, and it never establishes any real WP:NOTABILITY, its purpose is just to advertise its creator. Jeppiz (talk) 22:17, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 22:27, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 22:27, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 22:27, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete under A7. Not So Dumb Blond (talk) 05:30, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I considered nominating it for speedy as it's so obvious. Jeppiz (talk) 13:38, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'm not deleting A7 as it does make some claims of importance, and it would probably be better to go through a community process than a speedy deletion shortcut. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:22, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:22, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom and above editor. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:27, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This one is pretty clearly WP:PROMOTION to me, and anyway fails to establish notability. FuriouslySerene (talk) 13:33, 29 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:49, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alexa Hamilton[edit]

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

Delete: no substantive claim to notability as actress or in any other way. Quis separabit? 22:06, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 22:17, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 22:17, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I see no obvious improvement here. SwisterTwister talk 04:41, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree that she doesn't appear notable. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 09:11, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - her role in the Poseidon Adventure mini-series might be notable. Bearian (talk) 21:42, 27 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:33, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Louis van Niekerk[edit]

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

NN poet. There's a claim of winning a prize that I've been unable to verify.

Note that there appears to be a different person named Louis van Niekerk, an actor that may be notable. That person does not appear to be the subject of this article. The Dissident Aggressor 21:57, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 22:04, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 22:04, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 22:04, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now as I found nothing better aside from some Books links and the other links were to other people. As a fellow conservationist, it's unfortunate to delete this but there's simply no improvement. Pinging Velella. SwisterTwister talk 04:52, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:52, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -I can see no evidence of notability or even that he has any significant environmental credentials. To be notable as a poet needs a great deal more than is provided. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 09:28, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I was surprised by the number of people in the news with this same name, but none appear to be this individual. Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:30, 29 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:33, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination withdrawn Howicus (Did I mess up?) 14:45, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

German submarine U-2506[edit]

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

This is a U-Boat (one of hundreds) that never attacked or was attacked by an enemy ship. The only sources that write about it are comprehensive sources that write about *every* U-Boat, regardless of what the U-Boat actually did. That is not significant coverage, so this article fails the general notability guideline. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 21:50, 21 October 2015 (UTC) Nomination withdrawn. I know how military history editors think (as I'm one myself), so perhaps I should have anticipated this. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 14:45, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 22:01, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 22:01, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 22:02, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: The Uboat was instrumental in late war development of sonar equipment. There are plenty of sources available, although they won't show when looking for the WP-article title. ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 05:08, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The nomination is false from beginning to end. The boat in question was attacked. There are sources which cover the topic distinctively. And such considerations are irrelevant for the general notability guideline which specifically says that notability is not a matter of fame or importance. Andrew D. (talk) 12:44, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:34, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kamila Porczyk[edit]

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

Non-notable MMA fighter - does not meet WP:NMMA. Other claims to notability are winning of relatively unknown competitions. Peter Rehse (talk) 13:46, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 13:46, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak~~ delete Definitely non-notable in MMA with only 2 fights, neither top tier. Not sure whether those competitions show enough to meet WP:GNG. Mdtemp (talk) 14:47, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Crossing out the weak part of my vote since there's no indication she's a notable entertainer.Mdtemp (talk) 15:25, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:40, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:40, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:40, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:40, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:40, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with the previous comments about her MMA notability. My search didn't find significant independent coverage to show the Miss Universe Fitness pageant wins were significant and her appearances on Polish television shows didn't generate the coverage I'd say was needed to meet WP:GNG. Most of the coverage I found was routine sports reporting on her MMA appearances, but she clearly doesn't meet WP:NMMA. It may be that there are sources in Polish that I didn't find, but my vote is based on what my search found (or didn't find). Papaursa (talk) 02:31, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 12:02, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment so appearing on TV comedy show with sources such as Święta wojna isn't notable either then. Dwanyewest (talk) 02:36, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Appearing on a comedy show isn't enough to show notability unless you can show she meets WP:ENTERTAINER. Mdtemp (talk) 15:25, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't even any evidence she was on that show. She's not listed in the show's article as part of the cast or at the article's source at IMDB. Papaursa (talk) 19:11, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:51, 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 no consensus. Cannot see any clear consensus here. Since it has been relisted thrice, been open for too long (a month), closing it. (non-admin closure) Yash! 05:15, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Asian Men's Youth Handball Championship[edit]

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

No-notable event. Flat Out (talk) 02:05, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: A continental championship in a pro sport like Handball looks quite notable. Mohsen1248 (talk) 17:41, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - as a youth series it is not a pro event. Flat Out (talk) 05:14, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:57, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:57, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:57, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 02:20, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:32, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 20:41, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Well organzied article and not any different than other youth/junior handball tournament, sources should be added though. Kante4 (talk) 20:44, 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 no consensus. Cannot see any clear consensus here. Since it has been relisted thrice, been open for too long (a month), closing it. (non-admin closure) Yash! 05:16, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Asian Women's Junior Handball Championship[edit]

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

Non-notable event Flat Out (talk) 02:05, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: A continental championship in a pro sport like Handball looks quite notable. Mohsen1248 (talk) 17:41, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - yes but this is a junior event not a pro event. Flat Out (talk) 05:13, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:58, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:58, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:58, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 02:20, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:35, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 20:41, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Well organzied article and not any different than other youth/junior handball tournament, sources should be added though. Kante4 (talk) 20:44, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Similar tournaments from other continents have good articles, we just have to add more info on the Asian one. Charlie the Pig (talk) 22:39, 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:35, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

William Cleveland[edit]

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

Questionably notable and improvable as the best my searches found were this, this and this so if there's no better improvement here, this should be replaced with a disambiguation page for the two other William Cleveland (and I was going to but I wanted comments first). Pinging Moonriddengirl and Alansohn. SwisterTwister talk 23:18, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:20, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:20, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:20, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 19:11, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not generally notable, based on lack of sources, and not notable as an author. One of his books, Art and Upheaval, has a page even though it has no references. It, too, should be presented at AfD. LaMona (talk) 04:47, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete His name makes it a bit difficult, but all I can really find is passing references to him and his organization which aren't substantial and some reviews of his book. Nsteffel (talk) 22:14, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless substantial coverage in independent and reliable sources can be turned up, as has not happened yet in the time this AfD has been open. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:30, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per nom and above editors. Searches did not reveal enough to show they meet either WP:GNG or WP:NAUTHOR. And I agree with LaMona regarding his book as well. Searches there turned up very little, and I've nominated it as well. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:58, 29 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:35, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kev. D (Music Artist)[edit]

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

I can find no evidence this artist is notable. The MTV and CNN references are not what they seem - they are unverified user-generated content; the remainder appears to be either the same, self-published or in non-notable publications. I could find no significant coverage myself and nothing which comes close to meeting the requirements of WP:GNG or WP:MUSBIO. RichardOSmith (talk) 18:55, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the exact same page content was previously at Kev. D(Music Artist) and speedily deleted. RichardOSmith (talk) 22:19, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 22:30, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 22:30, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I see no obvious better improvement here. SwisterTwister talk 04:41, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Notability not established. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 09:26, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not notable //nepaxt 19:44, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - searches show they fail WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:40, 29 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:32, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Foster (farmer)[edit]

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

"District Council of Lower Eyre Peninsula's citizen of the year " is not a claim to notability; " National Climate Change Adaptation Research Facility (NCCARF) National Climate Champion Individual Award." is a little more substantial but still not a major award. Membership on a gov't advisory council is not notability. Refs are PR, notices, and a local ref on a local personality, which is not discriminating. DGG ( talk ) 18:28, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 22:32, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 22:32, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:BIO. the awards are very minor. LibStar (talk) 01:07, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: several additional references have been added from the Port Lincoln Times newspaper and ABC (a national broadcaster), though they are mentions of Foster, or include commentary from him and are not biographical. --Danimations (talk) 04:38, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No significant coverage; passing mentions and very minor awards do not count as significant. Frickeg (talk) 13:51, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No in-depth coverage, fails WP:GNG. IgnorantArmies (talk) 11:30, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - laudable work, yet not notable. Bearian (talk) 21:44, 27 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. Clear advocacy. G11. DGG ( talk ) 18:39, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sabbath manifesto[edit]

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

I'm not entirely sure of better improvement especially given the current version and the best I instantly found was this, this, this and this and I'm not entirely sure if this should simply be merged elsewhere. Pinging Biscuittin, E Wing, DGG and Graeme Bartlett. SwisterTwister talk 17:45, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 17:47, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 17:47, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 17:47, 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 no consensus. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:04, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Casey McKee[edit]

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

Questionably notable artist as my searches found few results with the best here, here, here and here. So unless this can be better sourced and changed after existing the same since October 2008, there's nothing to suggest keeping. SwisterTwister talk 05:40, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:42, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:42, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:42, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:42, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:47, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 06:07, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete has won no major awards nor is there evidence of significant peer recognition. LibStar (talk) 13:35, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 02:35, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep per WP:CREATIVE, r the question is whether her art works in the permanent collections of museums are in major museums, and I would be equally able to argue it in either direction. On balance, I think they probably do count as major. DGG ( talk ) 23:05, 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 delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:28, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Genesis V. Cordoba[edit]

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

No evidence of notability per WP:GNG or WP:CREATIVE. A costume designer relatively unknown films. Note IMDB is not a reliable source per WP:RS/IMDB, and the author of the IMDB biography has only created that one article, which may indicate affiliated source. In any case, significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources is lacking. --Animalparty! (talk) 01:43, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It is in poor form to nominate for deletion so soon after an article was created. Did you contact the editor who made the article? Did you do WP:Before? I think the AfD page makes it clear that sending an article for deletion is the last step out of many. Note: I am not saying the article does or even will pass GNG at this point. What I am saying is give things time and first assume good faith, do research and contact the creator. You had no time to do any of these and that's not right. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 03:42, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I did a diligent search of sourcing before nominating and performed all steps of WP:BEFORE with the exception of notifying the creator, and for that I may be guilty of biting a newcomer. I will strive to be more patient with new articles in the future. I welcome Thefilmdiary to provide any additional information or sources, and regardless of the outcome of this discussion I hope they continue to participate in Wikipedia. --Animalparty! (talk) 04:41, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Animalparty! I appreciate you seeing my point of view. Let's all work together to help newer editors understand notability so we can keep people who want to contribute. :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 13:45, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 05:36, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete A7 User:Megalibrarygirl may want to check her facts again as there was 6 hours between creation and nomination that is plenty of time for the author to have added at least one reliable reference, anyone to perform their BEFORE searches and realize this person does meet any inclusion criteria including WP:GNG or WP:NACTOR. There isn't even enough of a claim of signifigance to pass the CSD#A7 criteria you removed without explaining. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 11:23, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 13:37, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 13:38, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I maintain that six hours is not enough time, Mcmatter. We are losing editors by acting too quickly, instead of reaching out. You put up the speedy delete tag, I believe. Did you write anything on the user's talk page to help them out? Megalibrarygirl (talk) 13:42, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Also, you are right, Mcmatter that I forgot to add the explanation for removing your tag. I'm sorry! My reason is: article is already up for AfD, let's see what a group can turn up. I want you to give the article time. There may be experts in the field. I don't know anything about costume design, do you? We need some other eyes out there.Megalibrarygirl (talk) 13:48, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not seem to meet the "significant coverage" part of our general notability guidelines. While this individual may be talented, it does not appear that in their, thus far, short career they have received the level of attention and coverage that would warrant their inclusion in an encyclopedia. EricSerge (talk) 14:46, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now until a better article can be made. SwisterTwister talk 04:01, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 17:19, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -While I agree that a new editor should be given time to improve an article about a notable person, and definitely should be contacted about their article, Cordoba just doesn't have enough coverage in reliable sources. ABF99 (talk) 04:16, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @MBisanz:Why was this relisted? consensus is clear, there was one user complaining that 6 hours wasn't enough time to add a reliable reference and asked for more time and 7 days is definitely enough time especially since by this point a BLPProd would have it deleted as well as it has zero reliable references. All other votes have been delete.McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 13:14, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no reliable sources, and costume designers are all too run of the mill in film. May be a case of WP:TOOSOON. Bearian (talk) 21:40, 27 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, early close per WP:SNOW (non-admin closure) Snuggums (talk / edits) 00:44, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Assassination of Anna Politkovskaya[edit]

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

Synopsis: Coatrack for Anna_Politkovskaya. Even more so because the content being placed in here is being contested here .

It's being used to insert facts in contention from the main article KoshVorlon 17:12, 21 October 2015 (UTC) KoshVorlon 17:12, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - Anna Politkovskaya was a highly notable and influential journalist who had a long career. She is not known just for her death. Her assassination was politically motivated and caused worldwide outrage. There is no reason it should not be a separate article, just like Assassination of Boris Nemtsov. This is not what WP:COATRACK is. —Мандичка^YO 😜 17:22, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's already discussed on her article the second article is a coatrack for the OR and SYNTH that's currently being discussed in this RFC , it is indeed a fork of that same article and a coatrack for the OR and the SYNTH that many have attempted to place in the main article. KoshVorlon 17:42, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's not what coatrack is. "A coatrack article is a Wikipedia article that ostensibly discusses its nominal subject, but instead focuses on another subject entirely." This article is about her assassination, preceding events and subsequent events (investigation and trial). There is one section of supposedly related events, but even if that section is disputed, it doesn't make the article itself a coatrack of Anna Politkovskaya. —Мандичка^YO 😜 18:13, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense proposal It's not a coatrack. One article is about the person, Anna, who is notable in her own right, even if she had never been murdered. The other article is about her assassination, which was also notable in its own right. This is like claiming that the article Assassination of Martin Luther King, Jr. is a coatrack for the article Martin Luther King, Jr.. If anything it just reveals the proposer's ignorance. Snow keep this please. Volunteer Marek 17:46, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep as a disruptive nomination from a serially disruptive editor. No reasonable grounds for deletion provided; this appears to be yet another case of User:KoshVorlon making up a non-existent policy and then demanding Wikipedia comply with it. If KV can provide an actual policy-based argument for deletion I'll reconsider—the fact that he hasn't done so strongly suggests to me that he's as aware as everyone else that there isn't one. ‑ iridescent 17:55, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and SNOW close. KoshVorlon believes this article to be a coatrack based solely on the fact that the bit about Putin's birthday, which is currently being discussed at Talk:Anna_Politkovskaya#RfC, is in this article. So this entire 9 year old, well-sourced article about a notable subject has to be axed because of that one bit of contested information. Ridiculous.--Atlan (talk) 18:39, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Content controversy cannot justify deletion of a clearly notable subject. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 19:12, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep - useful, informative article. Its existence allows to present a lot of details of the murder and keep some balance in the main Anna Politkovskaya article Alex Bakharev (talk) 23:19, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
keep - notable event and subject. Thoroughly sourced article. Looks like a contentious nomination. DangerDogWest (talk) 07:06, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per Iridescent. Begoon ^talk 09:49, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep. Bad-faith nomination, just like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Godwin's law. Nominator is due a block or ban if this keeps up. Softlavender (talk) 16:31, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - obviously. BMK (talk) 22:41, 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:37, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

HomeMatic[edit]

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

Fails WP:PRODUCT and parent company EQ3 has no article. I was unable to find sources other than press releases. Maybe someone who speaks German can help find German-language significant sources. shoy (reactions) 14:37, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Form fhelmli: I think it should stay because of:

compareable Produkts arge also at Wikipedia: I think that homematic is compareable to KNX KNX (standard). Knx hast got a very large Wiki Page.
I have Referenden ELV (mother Company of EQ3) in the Wiki article (as requested)
I have ade a reference to the official Homematic Webpage (as requested) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fhelmli (talk • contribs) 19:34, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that other products have articles has no bearing on this particular article. Wikipedia requires multiple reliable independent sources for each article, so coverage by newspapers or tech news websites, for example. shoy (reactions) 19:52, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:44, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have added some news article references. Is this what you request?comment added by Fhelmli —Preceding undated comment added 05:55, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:09, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and draft & userfy for now for the author as I'm not seeing much convincingly good. SwisterTwister talk 06:00, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:16, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 17:04, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Current sources aren't enough to establish notability, and searches aren't turning up enough additional references to show notability. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:12, 26 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:37, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Online lab model of learning[edit]

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

Speedied as advetising (by somebody else) but speedy declined. Nevertheless I believe that this is essentially a promotional article; it reads like something in a brochure. I also doubt whether it is a widely used term which has a coherently defined meaning.TheLongTone (talk) 11:59, 29 September 2015 (UTC) TheLongTone (talk) 11:59, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mild Keep - I question the sources for this article and it has the feel of someone's project but I can't find outright failings of the article. There may be other article that touch similarly on the subject like E-learning (theory) but don't see exactly how it fits together... - Pmedema (talk) 12:58, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:42, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 15:34, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:26, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 17:01, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Clearly lacks any reliable or in depth coverage, and is likely a WP:NEO. Many of the citations, coming from unreliable sources, don't even mention the topic. There's also huge WP:OR problems. This definitely should be deleted. FuriouslySerene (talk) 18:00, 28 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:17, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Anthea Montessori House of Children[edit]

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

Inadequately-sourced article about a newly-opened preschool. Fails WP:ORGDEPTH for lack of available sources. - Mr X 14:13, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. - Mr X 14:13, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. - Mr X 14:13, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. - Mr X 14:14, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. - Mr X 14:15, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now as this is unlikely improvable yet. SwisterTwister talk 05:33, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 16:26, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to appropriate locality article as per longstanding tradition, expressed at WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES and evidenced by over two thousand redirected articles in the category redirects from schools, that we don't have articles for schools less than high school age. Jacona (talk) 11:51, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no notability established. Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:02, 29 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 no consensus. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:38, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gianni Profita[edit]

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

Is he notable and can this be better improved? I'm not entirely sure as my searches only found some links here and there here, here, here, here and here. Maybe others familiar with this or its field can help as this has also barely changed since July 2008. Notifying past users AllyD and Favonian. SwisterTwister talk 03:31, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 03:32, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 03:32, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 03:32, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 03:32, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 02:23, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can find him name-checked in Italian newspapers, and he did hold a directorship of what seems to be the Italian equivalent of the Authors Guild for a time. However, I don't find any significant sources about him, and there are none to crib from in the Italian version of the article. (This appears to be pretty directly a translation of that.) Therefore, I think this is a delete for now, unless someone comes up with better sources; and it could always be re-created in the future. LaMona (talk) 00:30, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:46, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If " General Manager " of the two organizations listed is head of those agencies, it would be a keep, for we keep people in such positions. But I cannot asoltrely tell, as I do not know know Italian organizational systems.Sincethe previoused think it was a directorship, I'msatisafied. DGG ( talk ) 17:38, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 16:19, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep First, the creator of the article is "Assistenteprofita" -- that is, "Profita's assistant". *sigh* However, he is known in Italy, not always for the better. I found articles [here, here, although only the first one is substantial. However, that he held a position in the ministero dei Beni culturali, albeit for only two years, may be enough to keep. The article is minimal and should be expanded, with additional references. LaMona (talk) 15:50, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Yash! 05:08, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jamie Lawson (album)[edit]

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

WP:CRYSTAL. Album release date hasn't happened yet, and charting that was indicated was for singles, not for the album itself. Content has absolutely nothing to do with the album itself, but it regurgitated content from the articles on the singles. MSJapan (talk) 21:53, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This album meets Wikipedia's criteria for a notable album:

An album requires its own notability, and that notability is not inherited and requires independent evidence. That an album is an officially released recording by a notable musician or ensemble is not by itself reason for a standalone article. Conversely, an album does not need to be by a notable artist or ensemble to merit a standalone article if it meets the general notability guideline. Album articles with little more than a track listing may be more appropriately merged into the artist's main article or discography article, space permitting.

It is indisputable that Jamie Lawson is to be considered a 'notable musician'. This article does meet Wikipedia's General Notability Guideline, as all 5 entries on the list can be checked. Only one of the singles mentioned in the article has its own page, so the album page provides for information for the first time on other singles. This article currently includes release information and charting information for album (MSJapan's claim that charting information was for singles is incorrect, as sources show that chart statistics are for the album). The track list will be updated to include writers and times for all track after formal album release on October 16 2015. HeyJude70 (talk) 14:27, 13 October 2015

Reply Except that notable musicians do not release notable albums by default; that is what WP:NOTINHERITED is all about. Your charting information cannot be for the album, as the album hasn't been released yet; the article clearly states it was pushed back, and nothing can chart before its release, so I'm sorry, but there's no way that chart information is for the album. As for your sources, you have two reliable sources. ITunes, Google Play, and Twitter just don't cut it. MSJapan (talk) 07:08, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ReplyAlbums can chart on the iTunes Charts prior to release. The iTunes Charts are detirmined by sales of an album, so in this case the sales for this album which was available for pre-order proved to be high enough for the album to chart. The sources used for the charts determines this, and a quick scan of the Australian or UK iTunes store chart will also prove this point. Please educate yourself on how different charting systems work before removing them from a page. HeyJude70 (talk) 08:30, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: iTunes charts are not Billboard. It's got nothing to do with "different charting systems" - iTunes charts are not what we use for charting purposes. See WP:CHART. MSJapan (talk) 19:10, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reply:This album page has been greatly improved since this article for deletion was opened. The page now includes writing credits and times for every track, personnel for the entire album and a brief history behind that album. As of next week, charting information will be added as the album has already been shown at #1 for the UK Official Charts Half-Week. This page also has several new, reliable sources. HeyJude70 (talk) 06:41, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 16:16, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: The album has now peaked to number 1 in the UK, number 5 in Ireland, number 4 in Australia and number 3 in New Zealand. There are now lots of reliable sources and content provided in the article now. Greenock125 (talk) 10:20, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep Sufficient sources, charting album. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:03, 26 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) 01:25, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Justine Kish[edit]

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

Non-notable MMA fighter. Fails WP:NMMA with only 4 fights, not of them top tier. She hasn't fought in almost 2 years so it's unlikely she'll ever get 3 top tier fights.Mdtemp (talk) 16:04, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 16:28, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep~~Delete~~ Joined the Ultimate Fighter (participation does not confer notability) and was eliminated fairly quickly. No Top Tier fights and unlikely to gain them. Fails WP:NMMA and WP:GNG.Peter Rehse (talk) 17:22, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Justine Kish is notable under WP:KICK as a kickboxer who has won a World Muaythai Council title and there are sources in the article to prove it. Dwanyewest (talk) 21:50, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No need to copypaste that's what the link is for but yes you are right - she meets WP:KICK. Just wish the article could talk about that more. I changed my vote.Peter Rehse (talk) 22:07, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It was harder to find a reliable independent source for her WMC title than I'd expect. Even the WMC monthly news pages didn't mention it. The article's focus on MMA was misleading, but a WMC title is enough to meet WP:KICK. Papaursa (talk) 19:01, 25 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:20, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nikolas Charalampous[edit]

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

Non notable boxer. Youth and junior titles do not show notability and coverage is routine reporting of sports results.Mdtemp (talk) 15:53, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 16:27, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Very weak keep - one of a series of articles on New Zealand boxers recently created by the same wikipedian. I don't know enough about the sport to know which ones justify their place in WP, though several are probably borderline. I'd be swaying towards a keep for this one - on the strength of his silver medal at the Arafura Games. Grutness...wha? 23:54, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet WP:NBOX and I don't think Arafura Games meets the criteria of competing at the highest level.Peter Rehse (talk) 09:08, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:NBOX. Arafura Games medal is not notable enough. Has not done anything at the professional level either. Charlie the Pig (talk) 04:38, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Neither youth championships or an Arafura medal can be considered as competing at the highest level. Coverage fails WP:GNG as it is just routine sports reporting of fight results. Papaursa (talk) 19:38, 25 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:39, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

JayJay Oakey[edit]

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

Lacks the significant independent coverage to meet WP:GNG. Nothing to show he was notable as a boxer or weightlifter. He fails WP:NBOX and the weightlifting results don't even mention him.Mdtemp (talk) 15:49, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 16:27, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails to meet WP:GNG because of a lack of significant independent coverage. He's not even mentioned in several of the references, notability is not gained through your boxing trainer, and there's no evidence he achieved notability as a boxer (WP:NBOX) or weightlifter (WP:NSPORTS). Being selected for the "regional pre-selection trials" for the 2012 Olympics does not show notability. Papaursa (talk) 19:51, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per above - does not meet any notability criteria.Peter Rehse (talk) 19:57, 25 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:32, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Affiliate Window[edit]

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

This article was deleted at prod, but then userfied by request. I can't see an indication of notability, and the only reference given doesn't seem to mention them. I've looked through 10 pages of ghits and can't see anything worthwhile there. The article has been tagged since2010 for needing more references. Peridon (talk) 12:38, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 00:04, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 00:04, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 00:04, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 00:04, 15 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! 15:29, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Restoration of a previously deleted page. Carrite (talk) 16:20, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Nothing in there indicates any notability. FuriouslySerene (talk) 18:04, 28 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 - recreation of a page previously deleted by AFD — CactusWriter ^(talk) 19:31, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Miss World 2016[edit]

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

Event that still fails WP:CRYSTAL. No confirmed date. No venue. No reliable sources. Not much has changed since this was deleted at the previous AfD debate. Multiple editors are contesting a G4 speedy. • Gene93k (talk) 15:18, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

An admin should delete under speedy even if people keep removing the tag. —Мандичка^YO 😜 17:37, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is the second recreation already. Speedy deletion!! is the way to go. The Banner talk 18:29, 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. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:56, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Hogarth[edit]

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

Could find no sources that indicates subject meets WP:BIO NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:05, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 15:15, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 15:15, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 15:15, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I also can't find any good source.--Musa Talk 17:47, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for nowat least until more obvious better improvement can be made. SwisterTwister talk 20:41, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:56, 25 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. Closing for a second time as it's now an obvious Keep, I probably shouldn't of closed it the first time but whatever it's been reopened and relisted and nothing's changed consensus wise so pointless dragging the AFD on again so just gonna reclose it. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 11:46, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Whataboutism[edit]

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

Article on non-notable neologism that appears to be created in an attempt to use Wikipedia to increase usage of the term. The term itself was made up by The Economist journalist in 2006 and have barely been used ever since. As google search and google trends indicate some usage of the neologism begun in 2014 way after creation of this article. I myself discovered this article when it was linked in political discussion where one of the sides was accused of "whataboutism". It describes Tu quoque fallacy, neutral article for which already exists. The difference with this article is that this one has heavy anti-Russian bias and inherently non-NPOV. Niyaro (talk) 04:19, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. First this is a suspicious WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT nomination by a suspicious account with just a few edits (some of them several years old). Second, article is fairly well sourced and there's plenty evidence for its notability. The term is frequently used in media and also in academic work [2]. The article on the tu quoque is about the fallacy in general, this is about a particular manifestation. Hence the scope is different. There's nothing "anti-Russian" about this article and this assertion really just reveals the WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality of the nominator. Neither is the article non-NPOV. Volunteer Marek 05:10, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I've never talked with you and I believe I've never encountered you as well, so I don't understand what warrants such accusations. How about you keep it civil instead of accusing me of committing wikipedia sins for no reason whatsoever? On topic, search for Google Scholar doesn't support your claim that it's in frequent use, quite opposite — there are about ten articles most of which around one year old. Accusing somebody of using logical fallacy and more over accusing somebody of being propaganda has very clear negative connotations. This term was specifically coined to discredit points made by Soviet Union and Russia by accusing them of being fallacious and this is what gives this neologism clear anti-Russian bias. The scope of this article is different from tu quoque only in the sense that it single outs Russia as a user of this logical fallacy (which is obviously used by everyone) and creates a new term for this. If one tries to remove anti-russian bias and bring cases of other people/countries doing the same, then the article scope will be literally the same as tu quoque one. That's why it's inherently non-NPOV. And all of this is really secondary to the fact that this is nothing else but a neologism and wikipedia has strict rules against them which this article doesn't meet. Niyaro (talk) 06:10, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - well-sourced article on this phrase with a variety of commentary from different perspectives. Contrary to the nominator, I have only encountered it used outside of Wikipedia. 阝工巳几千凹父工氐 (talk) 09:00, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Like I said, I've encountered it outside of Wikipedia as well in a discussion very similar to this one: link, and this is exactly what rule on neologisms means when it says "an attempt to use Wikipedia to increase usage of the term". Statistics from google trends for "whataboutism" also don't have anything on a time before creation of this article — first query was made in 'march 2014' Niyaro (talk) 06:10, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see that there's evidence that Wikipedia is being used to drive the term's acceptance - the driving force seems to be coming from outside, in the articles sited. Yes, it is the same as Tu quoque - but as Whataboutism is now a commonly used name for Tu quoque, this is a case for merging with Whataboutism, not for deleting it. If you feel the tone is anti-Russian, then please go ahead and edit to make it more balanced. 阝工巳几千凹父工氐 (talk) 04:35, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As noted by others, this is well sourced, and as a child of the Cold War born a bit before JFK became president I can assure you the sources are correct, this was a much used Soviet tactic, in those cases only incidentally "Russian" since many of the most prominent Soviets were Russian (but not, for example, Stalin), and then there's the "Kremlin's useful idiots" Lucas encountered in London, plus many, many others nowadays who frequently use this rhetorical tactic. Hga (talk) 10:26, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The issue isn't about tactic. Everybody uses this rhetorical tactic once in a while. There's already an article about it called tu quoque. The issue is about this new neologism "whataboutism" and wikipedia's rules clearly state: "To support an article about a particular term or concept, we must cite what reliable secondary sources, such as books and papers, say about the term or concept, not books and papers that use the term" and as far I can see all the sources merely use the term or explain the meaning of it rather than being about the term. Niyaro (talk) 06:10, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, easily able to find literally hundreds of scholarly academic sources, within seconds. — Cirt (talk) 05:11, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Google scholar gives 12 results, and of those that I've checked one was an anonymous comment on the website and the other one actually stated that the term was coined by The Economist journalist. So can you please provide an actual example of those hundreds of scholarly academic sources that you have found and how you found them? My results so far clearly show that this neologism is not notable and not in a frequent use. Furthermore I couldn't find a single work that is about neologism itself other than simply crediting word to The Economist author. Niyaro (talk) 06:10, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. No, contrary to the claim by Niyaro, this term appears in a large number of sources - see Google news, for example [3]. My very best wishes (talk) 15:38, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Google News search includes results from journalists' blogs as well as anonymous commentaries left on news websites, therefore Google News search is not reliable evidence for word's notability, especially considering that the word was made up by one of the journalists. Furthermore, in the rule on neologisms, which is very short and conscious and is linked several times in this discussion, is stated that: "an editor's personal observations and research (e.g. finding blogs, books, and articles that use the term rather than are about the term) are insufficient to support articles on neologisms". You need sources that establish word's notability as well as sources that are about the word itself. Compare with article on another neologism — Truthiness. It has plenty of reliable sources that clearly state that the word is notable as well as plenty of secondary sources that are about the word itself (articles that describe word's backstory, it's spread in usage, rise in popularity and so forth). The only thing Whataboutism article has on the neologism itself is a statement that it was made up by Edward Lucas (based on article written by Edward Lucas), while the rest is all about tu quoque rhetorical technique as used by Soviets and Russians and not the word itself at all. Niyaro (talk) 04:36, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, there are multiple RS specifically about whataboutism, such as here. This page can be better sourced? Yes, sure. My very best wishes (talk) 20:25, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 15:04, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Closure comment - I originally closed as Keep but the nom wasn't happy and to be totally honest some of the Keeps are weak so to save everyones time being wasted at DRV I'm just reopening & relisting. –Davey2010^Talk 15:06, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - for sure. Not only does it have very solid sources in English, it is also covered in the Russian-language press [4], [5]. —Мандичка^YO 😜 18:26, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Ample coverage in reliable sources. A recent example: [6] from The Washington Post, which discusses whataboutism in the context of modern American controversies. This source is already in the article, and there are many others like this on Google News. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:37, 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 Materialscientist (talk) 06:07, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Finnish people in France[edit]

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

No indication topic meets WP:GNG. Editor is creating many such articles including.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 11:41, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 11:41, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 11:41, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for failing WP:GNG. Finnish people in Spain would be a borderline case, but France is a bit too uncommon destination for emigration... Ceosad (talk) 18:04, 18 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! 15:01, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Violates WP:Original research since, although of course there are Finnish people living in France, no other source seems to treat them as a group. Especially as the article wants to include people whose ancestors were Finnish along with immigrants.Kitfoxxe (talk) 15:29, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I would vote to delete any article of the kind that is just demographic statistics.Kitfoxxe (talk) 15:33, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If you have an opinion on any of the related articles, please comment at their AfD page. This is not a bundled AfD. Cheers. Jbh ^Talk 16:29, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not supported by in-depth coverage in independent sources. Can't see where an article about this particular group in this particular country is notable. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:11, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Delete all. WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 15:52, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Delete useless articles. blocked account is creating many similar useless articles to nominate himself to admin.--ProvinceofIndonegra (talk) 05:14, 28 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 Materialscientist (talk) 06:07, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Albanians in France[edit]

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

No indication topic meets WP:GNG. Editor is creating many such articles including.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 11:39, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 11:39, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 11:39, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for failing WP:GNG. Ceosad (talk) 18:05, 18 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! 15:01, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not supported by in-depth coverage in independent sources. Can't see where an article about this particular group in this particular country is notable. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:13, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Delete all. WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 15:52, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Delete useless articles. blocked account is creating many similar useless articles to nominate himself to admin.--ProvinceofIndonegra (talk) 05:14, 28 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 Materialscientist (talk) 06:06, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Irish people in France[edit]

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

No indication topic meets WP:GNG. Editor is creating many such articles including.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 11:37, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 11:37, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 11:37, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for failing WP:GNG. Ceosad (talk) 18:07, 18 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! 14:59, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not supported by in-depth coverage in independent sources. Can't see where an article about this particular group in this particular country is notable. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:22, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Delete all. WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 15:55, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Snappy (talk) 17:22, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If you have an opinion on the other articles please comment at their AfD. This is not a bundled AfD. Thany you. Jbh ^Talk 17:28, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It should be. Snappy (talk) 21:16, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I did not think of it when I nominated them. There are many more of these which have been created by a bunch of SOCKS. If these are deleted then it might be worthwhile to track the other non-notable ones down and bundle them. Jbh ^Talk 21:21, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Delete useless articles. blocked account is creating many similar useless articles to nominate himself to admin.--ProvinceofIndonegra (talk) 05:07, 28 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 Miss World Philippines. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:53, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Miss World Philippines 2016[edit]

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

Effectively unsourced (no unrelated sources conform WP:RS, external link is no source) crystal bol. No date, no venue... The Banner talk 14:46, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:00, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:00, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Would temporarily converting into a redirect to Miss World Philippines until more details come out and the event comes closer be a suitable option? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 01:38, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Miss World Philippines for the time being. Not finding source coverage at this time to qualify this article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:14, 29 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:20, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stefan Gaasbeek[edit]

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

Article about a non-notable business person. I only found one reliable source that covers the subject in any detail [7]. Fails WP:BASIC. - Mr X 14:28, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 14:47, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 14:47, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I'm not seeing any obvious better improvement here. SwisterTwister talk 20:39, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Notability not established. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 09:12, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - clearly does not meet WP:GNG or WP:BIO. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:17, 29 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 per G7' Materialscientist (talk) 01:56, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Polly franks[edit]

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

Article about a victim advocate. While I'm sure she does great work and deserves recognition, I can't find enough sources to meet WP:BASIC. There's a brief profile here [8] and a passing mention here [9]. I also assume that the passing mention here [10] is the same person. - Mr X 14:04, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 15:18, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 15:18, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- Many links and references have been added to cite and show that she is a noteworthy individual, She had a hand in getting “Two Strikes and You’re Out Child Protection Act.” passed I think that alone makes her noteworthy, although I will agree the article needs more work — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dtb1987 (talk • contribs) 16:04, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as copyright violation. Article likely written by her publicist. —Мандичка^YO 😜 21:37, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:26, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Photogeochemistry[edit]

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

I do not think that this a term with any wide currency: possibly worth a redirect, but I don't know where to TheLongTone (talk) 15:24, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm not going to pretend that this article doesn't have problems. But I don't see anything that leaps out on a cursory examination, and the term itself has at least some currency; a Google Scholar search is fairly productive, with well-cited Science of the Total Environment and Plant and Soil articles early in the results list. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:07, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As per Squeamish Ossifrage. The latest paper it shows is from 2013, which in turn cites another paper using the term which I don't think is in the Scholar list. Also one paper in PNAS, which uses the term as a category for identifying the paper. ghytred talk 17:42, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:13, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:14, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:52, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Interdisciplinary fields are becoming more common, and this one definitely has some practitioners and citations. "Photo geochemistry" may be a variation of the name. — Gorthian (talk) 03:49, 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 speedy delete as an obvious hoax -- Y not? 15:08, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jurrien J.B. Le[edit]

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

Person does not exist upon further research, and sources are completely random. The diction of the page clearly suggest a hoax, so this page qualifies for speedy deletion. Yiosie ²³⁵⁶ 13:21, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 13:34, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I would hesitate to delete is as a 'blatant' hoax myself, but the nom's comments about the references and the style, coupled (but not furiously...) with the apparent lack of ghits, make me feel that this is an elaborate hoax. The comment from the author on the talk page "Please leave this page on for one more day. PLEASE" convinces me that this is not genuine, and possibly might go as vandalism. Peridon (talk) 14:17, 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 Send to draft. Randykitty (talk) 12:45, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tushies Baby Wipes[edit]

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

Non-notable brand. TheLongTone (talk) 13:15, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Send to draft : I think there's a systemic bias problem here - baby care products don't seem to carry the attention in what we normally consider reliable sources. Even Johnson's Baby Wipes, which I would expect anyone to have become a parent in the last 20 years to instantly recognise, is a redlink, and there is a mere cursory mention in Johnson & Johnson. Does being stacked on the shelves of Boots make a product notable? In the case of Tushies, there are references to the product here, here, here, here and here, all of which seem to be independent, but also say nothing much more than "it's a box of baby wipes - boooring". Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:22, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 15:27, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 15:27, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Draft and userfy if at all needed because I'm not seeing any obvious improvement here. SwisterTwister talk 20:36, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Userfy - I don't think it's a bias, I simply think that baby wipes are inherently not notable. Not enough to show notability. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:11, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy, per SwisterTwister, and while we're at it, let's create more baby goods articles. Bearian (talk) 16:18, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTCATALOGOFCONSUMERBRANDS -- RoySmith (talk) 23:55, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - individual brands of common household products like baby wipes are generally not notable enough for their own articles, except in exceptional cases. However, it would be notable enough for a brief mention in the article on the company that makes it. SJK (talk) 08:43, 31 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. — foxj 04:01, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hemispheres Tour[edit]

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

Redirected this to the band but edit undone by article creator. Notability: No reason given why this tour is in any way worth an article. TheLongTone (talk) 12:37, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per discussions herein Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rush Tour. Recreation of non-notable tours. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 17:28, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 20:46, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 20:46, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I'm not seeing why we should keep this. SwisterTwister talk 04:42, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom and above editors. Nothing in search engines to show why this particular tour is notable. Notability is not inherited. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:29, 29 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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:28, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of adjectivals and demonyms for Colorado counties[edit]

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

I proposed this list for deletion with the following arguments: "Let's see: the two exceptions, Broomfield and Denver, are included in the parallel list of Colorado cities. All other counties follow a normal pattern. The usefulness of this list is thus effectively zero. The notability of the subject is close to zero as well. There's a reason we don't have this list for any other state (or similar level in any other country), and there is clearly no reason to make an exception for Colorado, as these are not notable or noteworthy demonyms." The ProD was removed by the article creator with reason "While this list is not particularly noteworthy, there are eight exceptions in the adjectival column and two exceptions in the demonym column that do not follow the expected order." The two demonyms I handled above, the eight adjectival "exceptions" are counties which are also adjectivated by an abbreviation (e.g. Adams County and AdamsCo, Boulder County and BoCo). This rather trivial shorthand doesn't seem like sufficient justification to rebut my deletion proposal. Fram (talk) 12:35, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It is also completely unsourced, and it is unlikely that reliable sources can ever be found for these. bd2412 T 12:55, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete. Per above, and even if sourced WP is not a dictionary/slang dictionary/abbreviation dictionary. They can be added to the articles as appropriate, e.g. if sourced and worth adding. But this list serves no purpose.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 13:35, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - completely silly listcruft. Whoever refers to anything by a demonym related to a county? —Мандичка^YO 😜 17:10, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sourced or not, verifiability doesn't guarantee inclusion. --Animalparty! (talk) 19:33, 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. WIll delete "erminal Cycle as well -- RoySmith (talk) 19:58, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Terminal cycle[edit]

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

Non-notable artistic works. Article (and author's contribs) seem largely self-promotional. --Non-Dropframe _talk 11:55, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating the following related page as it is an identical copy.

Delete both As the nominator says, these duplicate articles fail WP:NOTABILITY and seem to be pure WP:SPAM. Jeppiz (talk) 21:28, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shame on Jeppiz. It is not spam. Terminal series of the videos is a serious work of a reputable artist. It is strongly suggested for reviewers to get educated in contemporary arts before making any judgments or decisions in regards to contemporary art works. It is unconditionally accepted that one needs to know how to read prior to judging any literary work. Butterbeanne (talk)

[[11]]
[[12]]
[[13]]
[[14]]
[[15]]
[[16]]
[[17]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Butterbeanne (talk • contribs) 21:52, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not seeing any coverage of this "serious work of a reputable artist" in independent, in-depth, reliable sources. Coverage by galleries which usually are trying to sell the products doesn't really count as reliable. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:44, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge / Redirect to Tim White-Sobieski if that gets kept at AfD (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tim White-Sobieski). I don't see coverage enough for two articles at the moment. —Kusma (t·c) 11:25, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - zero coverage from reliable independent sources. Apologies to the editor above, but artist's bios on commercial sites, promo articles, and links to other wikis aren't considered reliable independent sources. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:25, 29 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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:29, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Michał Cieślak (boxer)[edit]

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

Non-notable boxer - does not meet WP:NBOX Peter Rehse (talk) 11:18, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 11:18, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 11:34, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources except for a link to his fight record and nothing to show he meets WP:NBOX. Mdtemp (talk) 15:33, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly fails WP:GNG and WP:NBOX. JTtheOG (talk) 23:39, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails to meet WP:NBOX or WP:GNG. The only source is his fight record and that doesn't show anything that would meet WP:NBOX. Papaursa (talk) 19:45, 25 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:31, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

H.B.M Fareez Rahman[edit]

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

Contested BLP PROD. Dead end. Orphan. Possible COI. — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 08:47, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 09:28, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 09:28, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: WP:NOTNEWS, that teen was involved in drunk driving and accident, does not make him notable.--Human3015^TALK 09:32, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. When I added the BLPPROD tag to the article, it was completely unsourced. sst ✈ 05:39, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per nom and above editors. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:31, 29 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. postdlf (talk) 11:59, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of people on the cover of Maxim magazine (US)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NLIST, Same kind of non-notable list List of people on the cover of Maxim magazine (India) was deleted recently Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people on the cover of Maxim magazine (India). Human3015^TALK 07:56, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 07:57, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 07:57, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 07:58, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's a distinction to make the cover of Time, just possibly Rolling Stone as well. Maxim not so much. Nobody writes about it, except about the first man to do so.[18] Clarityfiend (talk) 09:34, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The notability of the magazine does not automatically convey notability to a list of people upon its cover - it requires reliable secondary sources providing coverage about this very specific topic, which appears to be lacking. Nwlaw63 (talk) 13:06, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above comments. ABF99 (talk) 02:38, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of secondary coverage. Of course, notable exceptions exist (see also Idris Elba, et al), but those can be discussed at the main article for the publication. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 16:55, 26 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:21, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stan Lowry[edit]

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

Tagged for notability since 2014. This article fails WP:SOLDIER and the subject is not notable. Reads like a memorial site Gbawden (talk) 07:34, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 08:10, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 08:10, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 08:10, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as it lacks notability.--Catlemur (talk) 16:02, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Hamish59 (talk) 13:53, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unfortunately. Well structured article, but obviously a memorial. Will say that if reliable, independent sources can be found to show notability (although no assertion of notability currently exists in the article), I would not be adverse to it being revived. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:33, 29 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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:28, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of people on the cover of Maxim magazine[edit]

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

DAB with only one page (another one was deleted as the result of an AfD) Ymblanter (talk) 07:21, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 07:44, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Move This could have been handled with a {db-move}. List of people on the cover of Maxim magazine (US) to be moved to the undisambiguated title, or this title could simply redirect to the US title, if anyone thinks international versions may be notable. Boleyn (talk) 08:37, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The one dab entry, with any luck, is also on borrowed time. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:36, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As with the U.S. list, there is little support here in reliable secondary sources. Nwlaw63 (talk) 01:17, 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. There's a clear numerical consensus to delete. Moreover, looking at the keep arguments, I don't see any which are either policy-based or persuasive. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:02, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Coyne[edit]

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

Notability is not inherited - the only reason this person seems to have an article is because they are related to some powerful/famous Canadian political figures. While there is some coverage in RS, the focus of that coverage is really just on the fact that she has stayed out of the public eye and hasn't done anything that would be notable. I don't think that's enough to hang an article on. Most of the other sources cited in the article aren't about Sarah at all (they're about her mother, or one of the Trudeaus) and only mention her in passing. Fyddlestix (talk) 07:17, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Fyddlestix (talk) 07:17, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Fyddlestix (talk) 07:17, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Nominator asserts an article was started on Sarah Coyne "because they are related to some powerful/famous Canadian political figures." May I remind nominator that WP:GNG says when topics "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article". I suggest that the ongoing coverage of Coyne means she does measure up to the GNG criteria. GNG doesn't say an individual has to have done something notable to merit coverage in a stand-alone article, merely that they "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject."
Nominator asserts "Most of the other sources cited in the article aren't about Sarah at all (they're about her mother, or one of the Trudeaus) and only mention her in passing." (1) Shouldn't compliance with WP:BEFORE oblige nominator to do their own web searches, not rely solely on references currently in the article -- particularly when the article is only hours old? (2) Some of the references do only cover her in passing. Notability is not binary. Almost none of the subjects of our BLP articles became notable for a single factor, like winning the Victoria Cross. The notability of almost all of our BLP articles is calculated by adding up separate notability factors, which wouldn't make the individual notable, in and of themselves, but do make them notable when all added together. When multiple articles cover Coyne in passing, but each focus on a different aspect of her life, passing mentions can start to add up to "significant coverage".
Do I need to list the factors that add up to notability for Coyne? Geo Swan (talk) 17:02, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

— Note to closing admin: Geo Swan (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD.
Delete If I saw a couple more WP:RS like the Toronto Star article, I'd be on the keep side. But I've done the WP:BEFORE work and I don't. Everything else is indeed just passing references, as the nominator says. Fails WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:30, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because "Known for: Pierre Trudeau's only daughter" does not make notable. Martin Morin (talk) 01:12, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO. Being a former Prime Minister's only daughter does not make her notable. Me-123567-Me (talk) 01:21, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It seems clear enough to me that Sarah Coyne is Not a Public Figure WP:NPF. At most, she would be a subject notable only for one event WP:BLP1E and, in any case, that event (her birth) was not of her own making. If [when] Sarah has accomplishments and, through them acquires notability that warrants an entry, it seems possible that some of the material in the current article under discussion could be considered for inclusion in this hypothetical future article as part of a back-story. For now, though, Sarah -- particularly as a young person in her early 20s -- seems entitled to go about her life without the current article hanging over her head. Radinbc (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:12, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- BLP1E applies to individuals known for "1 event". Which of the multiple events in this young woman's life are you singling out, and why are you discounting the other events?
- NPF doesn't preclude coverage of the individuals to whom it applies. Rather it urges an additional level of caution. Doesn't that mean that if someone thinks NPF applies to a particular BLP article, and they think the article isn't showing the additional deference owed to an individual who didn't choose to be notable, their first step would be either raising the issue on the talk page, or through regular editing?
  You wrote Coyne "seems entitled to go about her life without the current article hanging over her head" -- without offering a single passage in the current article that you consider problematic. What's up with that?
  If I were an individual with elements in my life that some might seem tabloid fodder, and I could choose between having no wikipedia article, and a nice, accurate, fair-minded wikipedia article, I'd choose having the wikipedia article. Why? Because if there was yellow journalism about me, I would feel better knowing that the fair-minded people who read the yellow journalism, or heard about the yellow journalism, would be able to google me, and find the mild, accurate, fair-minded wikipedia coverage. Geo Swan (talk) 21:34, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Her mother, father, and half-brother are notable in their own rights, but Sarah Coyne is not. She's simply related to those notable people, and notability is not inherited. She is correctly mentioned in her relatives' articles, and that's all she warrants. Meters (talk) 05:15, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, she doesn't appear to have done anything particularly notable. PK T(alk) 12:36, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- usually the tool that shows how many times an article has been read shows a spike of several dozen reads, on the day it was created -- which I think is due to new page patrollers. The article on Sarah Coyne was apparently ~~read 6000 times yesterday~~ read 22909 times in the last six days. Geo Swan (talk) 23:13, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- That doesn't make it notable. Me-123567-Me (talk) 01:47, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, and since she was mentioned in passing in media articles about her half-brother who will shortly become Canada's new Prime Minister, people are looking her up. It probably didn't help that at least one major Canadian media outlet incorrectly referred to her mother as "Pierre Trudeau's second wife." Just to clarify, this is not justification for an article, just other reasons for the page hits. Meters (talk) 21:02, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability is not inherited just because one has famous relatives; a person has to actually get over an inclusion rule completely on their own steam. Obviously this happened this week out of a desire to fill out the Trudeau genealogy — but nearly all of this article isn't actually about anything Sarah did, and mostly just reiterates things her father, mother and older half-brother did. And even when she is mentioned within that coverage (which she isn't always), it's as a minor footnote in the action rather than as an actual subject of it. She's obviously a smart young woman, and might very well accomplish something encyclopedically noteworthy after she graduates, but for the nonce she's a private figure who hasn't yet done anything that particularly warrants the attention of an encyclopedia — and accordingly we shouldn't be invading her personal privacy. No prejudice against recreation if she ever actually gets over a Wikipedia inclusion rule for something more than existing. Bearcat (talk) 22:52, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep "Notability is not inherited", really? I expect Princess Charlotte of Cambridge will continue to have an entry here even if she does no more than poop her diapers. Getting tight about whether to include an article made sense with hard copy records and manual indexing. Computer systems should be able to handle whatever we throw at it. Wasting time agonizing over whether to include articles that could go either way is pointless. Humans should have better things to do. Kid Bugs (talk) 03:44, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- - Comment My main point above was it does not seem worth the effort to exclude an article that could go either way, given the trivial cost of inclusion. Perhaps an outside agency could be used to give weight either way, in that case Who's Who is a good reference for notability. In the Canadian Who's Who Online, Sarah Coyne is not included at this time. Kid Bugs (talk) 01:24, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, but Princess Charlotte’s situation is not analogous with Sarah Coyne’s circumstances. At birth, Charlotte became a royal princess, fourth in line to ascend to the throne of the UK, Canada, etc. That makes Charlotte notable right now. By contrast, Sarah is fourth in line to nothing today - except maybe for a latte at Starbucks. Sarah is simply not notable currently.Radinbc (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:17, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think you may be saying that the Princess Charlotte complies with our notability policy, even though she hasn't "done anything", because multiple RS have written about her, in detail. Some people have argued that, for some families, "notability IS inherited". They argue this for families like the UK royal family, and the USA de-facto royal family in waiting -- the Kennedy family. Like most contributors, I don't agree with that. I argued Coyne, like Princess Charlotte, measured up to the GNG. We should keep the article on Princess Charlotte because she measured up to the GNG. Geo Swan (talk) 13:08, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The situation is reminiscent of articles in the List of children of the Presidents of the United States. Some of them have individual articles, others are covered in articles about their families. Is there enough material for a article about her family? Dimadick (talk) 06:43, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now. She's 24 and she's a student. Remove the famous father, mother and half-brother and she's just like any other 24-year-old student. She may be notable in her own right in the future, but right now, there's nothing. freshacconci talk to me 13:37, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – I would be more likely to argue that there is enough for WP:GNG if there were multiple news articles entirely about her such as this one, but passing mentions in articles about other people are insufficient to support an article at this time, in my view. And especially considering she prefers her privacy (per WP:BLP policy it is worth taking this into account). Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 17:10, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Any son or daughter of a Canadian prime minister is ipso facto notable. Sarah Coyne is also the only woman in Canadian history who is both daughter of a prime minister and sister of a prime minister. Bellczar (talk) 07:16, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That is quite simply incorrect. Notability is not inherited. Fyddlestix (talk) 12:53, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just on a point of fact: Sarah Coyne is not now, nor was she ever, the child of a Canadian prime minister. She was born after Pierre Trudeau had left office. Radinbc (talk) 20:33, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That is pure sophistry. Bellczar (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:59, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing administrator -- Several individuals who voiced "delete" opinions only explanation was some variation of "she's not notable because she hasn't done anything". These include @Martin Morin:, @Me-123567-Me:, ~~@Radinbc:~~, @Meters:, @PKT:, @Freshacconci:. It is my understanding of the closing administrator's role that they have the authority to discount opinions that are not supported by policy -- like these ones. As I wrote in my keep the GNG does not require the subjects of BLP articles to have "done anything". It requires the subjects of those articles to have "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." These six contributors left the "hasn't done anything" argument after I reminded the nominator of the wording of GNG -- which suggests they belong to the class of AFD respondents who don't feel obliged to read the arguments they don't agree with. Obviously achieving the wikipedia goal of consensus decision making can't be reached when discussion respondents don't read arguments they don't agree with. Geo Swan (talk) 11:46, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You need to assume good faith, and not attack other editors simply because they disagree with you. I'm sure your arguments were read, they are apparently just not persuasive to the majority of commenters here. They certainly weren't persuasive from my perspective; I think it's patently obvious that the majority of the sources in the article mention the subject only in passing, and that the one article that might be considered as conferring notability is a one-off soft news story. This doesn't meet the threshold for significant coverage in multiple RS that would make her notable. Fyddlestix (talk) 12:53, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Fyddlestix:, the wikipedia decision making model is supposed to be consensus based. Sorry, but why don't you recognize that this places an obligation on civil and collegial respondents to explicitly state why they think a counter-argument is "just not persuasive"? Consensus and compromise can't be reached when respondents don't read what those they think they disagree with have to say. Consensus and compromise can't be reached when respondents don't respond to what those they think they disagree with have to say.
I dispute I attacked anyone. Do you think I attacked you in my initial keep? If so, please check again. I may respond more fully to this comment on your talk page. Geo Swan (talk) 17:45, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and @Fyddlestix:, how many is "multiple"? You wrote: "...the one article that might be considered as conferring notability is a one-off soft news story. This doesn't meet the threshold for significant coverage in multiple RS..." Multiple, does that include two? You didn't tell people about the second profile of Sarah Coyne, in the January 2014 issue of Frank magazine --Realm of the Coyne. You still haven't responded to my point that if other articles each contain one or two passing mentions of Ms Coyne, but those passing mentions are of different aspects of her life, they too can add up to significant coverage. Geo Swan (talk) 20:59, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Geo Swan: Not particularly interested in replying to further questions from you about this, and I'm under no obligation to explain my !vote beyond the reasons I've already given; it is my assessment that the sources cited in the article are not numerous and not in-depth enough to demonstrate that the subject meets either WP:GNG or WP:BIO. They are mostly passing mentions, and in my judgement they don't meet the standard of significant and in-depth coverage that is required for someone to be notable. That's really all I have to say on the subject, except to note that there's pretty clear evidence (all the delete !votes above) that I'm not the only one who does not see sufficient evidence of notability in either the article or its sources at present. As far as "attacking" other editors, I was referring to your suggestion that the !delete votes "belong to the class of AFD respondents who don't feel obliged to read the arguments they don't agree with." This was un-called for and pretty obviously inaccurate. It seems clear from the comments here that others did read your comments, but that your arguments are just not as clinching as you seem to think there are. Fyddlestix (talk) 21:59, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just a reminder that my post of Oct 22 arguing for deletion included citations of two relevant guidelines. @Geo Swan may not agree with my interpretation of these guidelines but to suggest that I had not referenced any is incorrect.Radinbc (talk) 20:27, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, you cited WP:BLP1E and WP:NPF. I struck your name. Geo Swan (talk) 21:22, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A couple of respondents here recommend assuming Ms Coyne would prefer not to be covered in a wikipedia article, and that this assumption should trigger a higher than usual notability criteria for her.
Traditionally, we have shown some deference when an individual requests no article, but only when their notability is marginal, when they are right on the cusp. When individuals are clearly notable, we cover them whether they like it or not.
A few years ago there was a heroic NCIS agent, who had received a very rare substantial cash bonus for some classified accomplishment, who was also a professor at one of the service colleges. After I started an article about him he wrote to OTRS, and requested his article's deletion. The OTRS committee member who answered his email complied. They told me the hero had no actual objection to the article, he just didn't want to be covered. The OTRS guy and I corresponded for well over a year, as new elements came out that I would have added, if the article hadn't been deleted. He was polite, but firm. The hero didn't want an article.
So I initiated a DRV. After others agreed with me that his desire alone wasn't enough for a speedy deletion the OTRS guy changed his mind. Nevertheless the DRV was closed with a combined restoration and "administrative" or "procedural" AFD. The article sailed through the AFD with almost universal keep. At least that is how I recall events.
The ironic thing is that after the article was restored, the hero, who had retired from government service, and started a consulting firm, became quite diligent at making sure the article's coverage of him was up to date.
Note: Ms Coyne has not written to OTRS to request deletion. Should we act as if we know what she wants? Geo Swan (talk) 22:28, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment on your comment You are obfuscating and gaming the system again George. This subject is not notable. The end. Secondarywaltz (talk) 22:36, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are lots of highly notable people who have a bunch of relatives, who get passing mentions, related that primary highly notable person, who aren't notable themselves. Some other notable people, like, for instance John F. Kennedy, or Queen Elizabeth, have some non-notable relatives, and other relatives who are notable, in their own right. Queen Elizabeth has or had some cousins, who she is close enough to that the sit in the Royal Box, at the race track, but who never open hospitals, or get appointed as the figurehead leader of a charity. When one of Elizabeth's less well-known relatives does get press coverage, for opening a school, or a hospital, or for playing a visible role in a charity, it helps move them into the independently notable sphere.

Several respondents here keep claiming that Sarah is "only known for one thing". I think they mean she is known for being born. I am going to list some other factors. Readers may think these two are notability factors.

Why Sarah Coyne is not an example of a blp1e
event	year	notes
birth	1991	everyone has a birthday
borne to unmarried parents	1991	once this would have been a huge scandal, now this is relatively commonplace. Alexandre and Zoë had been together for several years before Zoe bore Pierre Emmanuel Trudeau, but they didn't marry until he was about half a year old
discover	1991	there was a flurry of reporting when a reporter found Pierre listed on Sarah's birth certificate, months after her birth.
meets Jimmy Carter	1994	In a relatively recent interview Carter described a faux pas. He was visiting Niagara Fall and by coincidence so were his old friend Pierre and Sarah. He describes greeting 74 year old Pierre, and congratulating him on his beautiful grand-daughter.
At PET's funeral not mentioned in Justin's eulogy	2000	At funerals, during the eulogy, doesn't the eulogy giver always list the deceased's surviving relatives? But Justin didn't mention Sarah, and that he did not mention her was noticed by all the reporters who covered the funeral Maybe Sarah's mom explicitly asked Justin to refrain from mentioning Sarah, maybe he just forgot. It is not our place to speculate. But I don't think there is any question this is a separate notable event.
At PET's funeral greeted by Jimmy Carter	2000	The press covered it, that makes it notable. Note: this is Carter's second meeting with Sarah, as he had met her in Niagara Falls, when she was younger.
At PET's funeral greeted by Fidel Castro	2000	The press covered it, that makes it notable.
attends UTS	2004?	Everyone goes to school. Not everyone goes to an exclusive school, with high admission standards, and a long list of notable alumni
TorStar profile	2010	I think everyone agrees that this profile of Ms Coyne contained all the details required to substantiate the mileposts of her life so far.
counter-reaction to the TorStar profile	2010	The Toronto Star was criticized by Sarah's mom, for invading her privacy. And, the Toronto Star was criticized by several of its rival publications. I suggest the counter-reaction is a separate event. Personally, I found the rival's criticism hypocritical. While mocking the Toronto Star, they managed to repeat many of, or most of the high points of the Toronto Star story.
asked about her political ambitions	2013	When Justin became leader of the Liberal Party of Canada reporters sought out Sarah, and asked her about her political ambitions. If they had written that the new leader has a half-sister, that would be coverage about him. But when they seek her out to ask about her political ambitions, that coverage is about her. I call this a separate event.
Frank magazine profile	2014	I haven't read it, as it is behind a paywall. I think it is worth going to the library to get a print copy of this article. Several contributors wrote, above, that they require multiple articles focussed primarily on her. Well, this is article number two.

I have often disagreed with the contributors from the military wikiproject, over the value of awards. By long-standing tradition, individuals who rise to the rank of General or Admiral, or individuals who win their countries very highest award for bravery, like the Victoria Cross, or Congressional Medal of Honor, are considered notable for that fact alone. I routinely found contributors from the military wikiprojects trying to treat lesser awards as if they conferred zero notability. I strongly disagree with this.

Less than one percent of our BLP articles are about an individual who had their notability established by a single event. Almost all of the individuals who have BLP articles had their notability established by adding up multiple notability factors. In my opinion there should be no question that a bravery medal of less prominence than the Victoria Cross still establishes significant notability.

Anyhow, if there is anyone who still thinks Coyne is an example of a blp1e, I'd appreciate it if they would explain their challenge to my reasoning here. Geo Swan (talk) 18:26, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly how much of that coverage documents her doing anything that would be expected to get a person into an encyclopedia? Virtually all of it is about her being born, being a four year old who happened to be around when famous people ran into each other, and on and so forth — virtually none of it involves her doing anything noteworthy. And incidentally, Frank falls into the "absolutely positively under exactly no circumstances legitimate sourcing for anything on Wikipedia NEVER EVER NEVER EVER" class of sourcing — so that article counts for half of less than nothing. Bearcat (talk) 23:37, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I think I have quoted GNG several times in this discussion. I think I have pointed out that there is no requirement that a person "do anything" to be considered notable. Rather GNG says that what makes someone notable is when RS write about them.
Some people may think I am being difficult by quoting what GNG actually says, when many respondents here seem to want to act like the guideline says something else. If there was a overwhelming consensus to ignore what GNG actually says, and to not consider anyone notable, unless they had actually "done something", I'd (1) go along; (2) urge all those insistent people to take steps to begin to bring the guideline into line with what they seem to think is established practice.
But, if there were an overwhelming consensus to ignore this part of GNG, wouldn't there be a long discussion in a more general fora than an AFD, where the wider community discussed this? Geo Swan (talk) 15:06, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This continued tactic of throwing everything at the wall in the hope that something sticks, while demanding that other editors challenge the claims is starting to look less and less like reasoned advocacy. Are we supposed to accept that because someone is one of thousands who have attended a private school such as UTC that this is a notability factor? Are we expected to agree that a eulogy always includes ‘a list of the deceased’s surviving relatives?’ @Geo Swan better hope not because even the eulogy he references doesn’t do that. There is no such list in the Justin Trudeau eulogy for his father, so Sarah Coyne’s presence or absence on such a list is moot. It’s not entirely clear that something that didn’t happen constitutes an event, anyway. Frank magazine is trotted out as a reliable source. There is no way that Frank would pass the WP:RS test. As noted in the Wikipedia entry for Frank, the publication (in all its various guises over the years) has been a scandal sheet – perhaps most noted for running a “satirical” advertisement in 1991 inviting readers to “deflower Caroline Mulroney,” the daughter of the then Prime Minister Brian Mulroney. Enough, already. Radinbc (talk) 00:15, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification please. In this edit I tried to offer a counter-argument to those who claimed Sarah Coyne should be characterized as a blp1e, by suggesting a dozen or so individual events. Thanks for voicing your concerns about some of them. Could you please clarify whether your position is that you still think she is best characterized as a blp1e?
Thanks Geo Swan (talk) 15:16, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The article itself makes no assertion of notability, except for the notability of those around her. Clearly does not meet notability guidelines. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:42, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - there seemed to be some confusion about my above !vote. Searches revealed that this person did not meet either WP:BIO or WP:GNG, indeed, since this article did not even meet the lower standard of A7, since no notability was asserted in the article, it most likely should have been speedily deleted. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:41, 29 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 no consensus. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:40, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jake Brimmer[edit]

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

He has not played a professional senior game at club or international level. Article fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Also fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 06:33, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 06:33, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 06:33, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 06:33, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep My initial thoughts are that he passes WP:GNG. There are two fairly in-depth sources quoted in the article, namely [19] and [20]. There is more coverage of him at [21] and [22], but admittedly those two are from the Liverpool FC and FFA websites, so whether they are truly independent of the subject is perhaps questionable. Finally there are other reports available, such as [23] and [24]. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 00:15, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think the sources found by AtHomeIn神戸 show WP:GNG is met even when ignoring the Liverpool and FFA articles. RonSigPi (talk) 23:59, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I assumed the creation of this page would be valid as a similar page has been created for Panos Armenakas. I was unaware of the rule regarding how high status a player must get to have a page created, yet Armenakas' page directly correlates in that status to Brimmer's. (Both have only played youth/international youth) Thank you. Theman0799 (talk) 01:59, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The difference here is that while Armenkas has had enough coverage to meet WP:GNG, Brimmer has not. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 19:28, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 11:42, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Definitely fails WP:NFOOTY and I don't really agree that there is enough reliable third-party coverage to pass WP:GNG. Getting a 'wonderkid' article in a regional newspaper is hardly rare and I don't see a reason why we can't just wait until he makes a professional appearance before creating an article. Also the Armenakas argument is a violation of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS Spiderone 11:45, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 15:26, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY — Jkudlick ^tc_s 19:28, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Having articles written about the subject in publications on other continents as pointed out by Fenix down meets the requirements laid out in WP:GNG. The article does require improvement. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 20:05, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets (barely) WP:GNG with regional coverage referenced above. But wait, there's more, that's not regional [25] and [26]. Nfitz (talk) 21:56, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL JMHamo (talk) 22:25, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Clearly fails WP:NSPORT, having not yet made his debut, and the coverage he has received is run-of-the-mill sports journalism insufficient for WP:GNG to be met. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:19, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The coverage that exists for Brimmer is similar, but seemingly not as much as Armenakas. I'm sure if given a few weeks, enough information could be sourced to make this article quite lengthy, but it does seem that arguing for a keep is probably a losing battle. - J man708 (talk) 04:30, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Edit - The more I look and read up, the more information is available from significant sources to be deemed viable. The article does need some tweaking, however. - J man708 (talk) 10:12, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – There is fairly considerable coverage of this player (a lot of it specifically about Brimmer and enough to reference a complete article) so passes WP:GNG. Macosal (talk) 11:03, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Indisputably fails WP:NFOOTBALL, don't think he gets past the WP:GNG either – one article in a trade publication and one article in a regional newspaper doesn't do it for me. I think Sir Sputnik's assessment of the coverage as "run-of-the-mill sports journalism" is pretty much spot on. IgnorantArmies (talk) 11:23, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - There are many more than the 2 currently-used sources out there. I'll try to add a bunch more in when I get a chance but a quick Google reveals a fairly significant number of articles written about him across various media. Macosal (talk) 12:59, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am a bit surprised by some of the comments above characterising the sources as "regional newspapers". Link [5] in my original entry above is from the highest-circulating daily newspaper in Australia and [6] is from The Australian, the biggest national newspaper in the country. Unless of course Australia as a whole is merely "regional" these days. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 00:02, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Fails WP:NFOOTY, but there is plenty out there to satisfy GNG. Sure there is a lot returned by google about a couple of free kicks he scored, but there are also these amongst others:

Potted history of the player on the FFA website.
Substantial interview with the player from local newspaper.
Significant article exclusively on the player from a national sporting magazine.
Polish coverage of the player.
Indonesian coverage of the player
Maltese coverage of the player
Regional level coverage that goes far beyond simple transfer reporting.

There is a lot of "look at this wonderkid"-guff and reports of his free kicks, but there is also plenty of coverage from a local, regional, national and international perspective that goes beyond transfer talk and provides in depth commentary on and interviews with the player. Fenix down (talk) 11:59, 26 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:33, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DC Fights Back[edit]

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

Questionably notable and improvable as I'm also questionable of its current existence with the listed website no longer existing and nothing to suggest a new website and also my searches finding nothing better than this which includes George Kerr's LinkedIn listing the group is apparently still active and finally this article has not changed much since starting in December 2007. Pinging Qwertyus (fun to spell that name), Gilliam and Niteshift36. SwisterTwister talk 06:20, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:26, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:26, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:26, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I went looking for sources 1½ years ago and found nothing. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 07:46, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article is less about the actual organization and more about being a platform. I'm not seeing coverage beyond run of the mill that it exists. Niteshift36 (talk) 12:16, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Could find nothing in searches to show this meets notability criteria. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:34, 29 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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:59, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Art + Soul[edit]

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

Questionably notable and improvable and I'm not sure if the Hetti Perkins article can be improved as well although my searches found links specifically only for her (and not this Art + Soul) here, here and here so this suggests this Art + Soul is not independently notable and improvable thus should only be mentioned at Hetti Perkins's article. SwisterTwister talk 06:24, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:25, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:25, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:25, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Nationally brouadcast TV series now at two seasons. WP:TVSERIES.

The Australians Graeme Blundell must have been impressed, he wrote a lot about it.

Blundell, Graeme (22 July 2014), "Aboriginal art for a modern audience", The Australian

Blundell, Graeme (15 July 2014), "Art of the political, without preaching", The Australian

Blundell, Graeme (8 July 2014), "Perkins returns to bare Aboriginal art and soul", The Australian

Blundell, Graeme (21 October 2010), "Putting Aboriginal art in perspective", The Australian

Blundell, Graeme (7 October 2010), "Joining the dots on Aboriginal art", The Australian

Blundell, Graeme (2 October 2010), "Joining the dots", The Australian

Lot's of others also covered it.

"Voices of the people", The West Australian, 8 July 2014

"art + soul Tuesday, ABC1, 8.30pm", Canberra Times, 7 July 2014

Purdon, Fiona (14 October 2010), "Hettie treads a well-decorated path", The Courier-Mail

Kalina, Paul (7 October 2010), "Drawing out connections", The Age

Anderson, Doug (7 October 2010), "TELEVISION", The Sydney Morning Herald

"Eye to the future", The West Australian, 6 October 2010

Schwartzkoff, Louise (4 October 2010), "Connecting the dots", The Australian

Power, Liza (2 October 2010), "Fluid face of art and soul", The Age

Meacham, Steve (29 September 2010), "Curator unveils a triple treat", The Sydney Morning Herald

Taylor, Andrew (26 September 2010), "Indigenous revelations", Sun Herald

Dow, Steve (5 September 2010), "The art of living", Sun Herald

Book had multiple reviews, most I found were short. (damn. $90 for a book)

McEvoy, Marc (19 December 2010), "ART", Sun Herald

Rey, Una (13 November 2010), "ART+ SOUL", The Newcastle Herald

"must read", Brisbane News, 27 October 2010

Grishin, Sasha (2 October 2010), "Advocates of Aboriginal art; ABORIGINAL ART", Canberra Times

Overall, more than enough for WP:GNG. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:46, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Found some urls for above, unfortunately most of The Australian ones are subscription links. The Liza Power/The Age one was already on the talk page and should of been enough to convince most of notability. Might be able to find more sources from here. duffbeerforme (talk) 03:43, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Nationally broadcast in a large country. Also of historical interest beyond the Hetti Perkins article as it is the first time large numbers of people learnt about Indigenous Australian art from an Indigenous Australian persepctive. -- haminoon (talk) 05:58, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – A WP:GNG pass, per a review of the sources provided above. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:49, 29 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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:01, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bonnie Aarons[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

fails WP:ACTOR. Minor roles such as "Waitress," "Lady in the bathroom" etc. Previous nomination was withdrawn because it was created by a sockpuppet. —Мандичка^YO 😜 04:51, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —Skyllfully ^(talk | _contribs) 05:03, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as this seems obvious with no better improvement. Pinging postdlf, Eeekster, Nakon, Onel5969 and Joseph2302. SwisterTwister talk 05:35, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - credits do not show them meeting WP:NACTOR, and searches did not return enough in-depth coverage to meet WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:34, 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 redirect to Ticked-Off Trannies with Knives. (non-admin closure) Kharkiv07 (T) 16:02, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Krystal Summers[edit]

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

non-notable actor with only three low-budget credits, no indication meets WP:PORNBIO either —Мандичка^YO 😜 04:37, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —Skyllfully ^(talk | _contribs) 05:02, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or redirect to Ticked-Off Trannies with Knives. Ordinarily I'd say that the lead actor in a film reviewed in the NYTimes was slam-dunk notable, but this was a review of a film-festival showing without a sign of broader release. WP:PORNBIO appears irrelevant; the (unrelated) porn performer uses a slightly different spelling of this stage name. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 19:44, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:35, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as I see no better separate improvement. SwisterTwister talk 05:35, 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 keep. And renamed (non-admin closure) Yash! 05:04, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of films featuring anthropomorphic insects[edit]

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

Unsourced, orphaned article with WP:NOTE concerns since 2012. I PRODed this article not realizing that another user had already done so not too long ago, making this article inelegible for deletion under WP:PROD. My concerns still stand, and since the article hasn't been improved since 2012, I doubt it will be anytime soon. I personally do not think this list is notable or adds anything of particular value to the project at this time. Therefore I recommend that it be deleted. Mww113 (talk) 03:20, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:LISTCRUFT —Мандичка^YO 😜 03:23, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's not policy; it's just WP:CRUFTCRUFT. Andrew D. (talk) 12:55, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 07:00, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 07:00, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 07:01, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There was a previous AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of films featuring anthromorphic insects. I nominated it but withdrew due to no support to delete. I had planned to convert it to List of films featuring insects but never got around to it. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 11:32, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is easy to find coverage of the topic in sources such as the Encyclopedia of Insects and Encyclopedia of Film Themes, Settings and Series. The topic therefore passes WP:LISTN. Andrew D. (talk) 12:10, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The second source looks like a good one! But do you think it would be best to make this into List of films featuring insects? Not all of these are anthropomorphic insects. Also, I cannot view anything from your first source. Can you share what it is stated in the source, or take a screenshot? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 12:21, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have tweaked the link for the first source to go to a better page but Google Books is not reliable in what it shows and it's not good to use it to breach copyright. The sources generally cover the wider topic of insects in movies and so I agree that expansion would be sensible. See Films about insects. Andrew D. (talk) 12:52, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for updating the link! That's definitely a good source too. It's high time I got around to making this list. Agree about leveraging that category. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:15, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What about the sourcing concerns? Does one of you plan to add sources to the article? And I'm still not convinced that the list should exist as it does now. Maybe list of films with insects would make more sense, but it it's current form I really don't see a compelling reason to list off such a specific thing. Who's going to be searching for films that contain anthropomorphic insects? They may be looking for information about anthropomorphic insects, but films that contain them? That doesn't strike me as particularly encyclopediatic. Mww113 (talk) 15:50, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that "anthropomorphic insects" may not be a thing, but insect (or "bug") movies are. I am seeing quite a few lists in search engine results that could be used. Just need to sift for reliable sources from the results. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:51, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but move to List of films featuring insects per Andrew D.'s sources above (plus others I remember finding about films featuring insects in general). If needed, we can include "Description" columns to identify which films of the set have anthropomorphic insects. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:15, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, rename, and expand per Erik and Andrew. —⁠烏⁠Γ ^(kaw), 02:49, 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:21, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Winona Dimeo-Ediger[edit]

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

No notability. Does not meet WP:AUTHOR or WP:BIO. Cramprius (talk) 02:42, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 07:03, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 07:03, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 07:04, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there's simply nothing to suggest better. Pinging Eeekster and Sarahj2107. SwisterTwister talk 04:55, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A google search didn't produce any independent, reliable sources. The only reference in the article at the moment is a blog post and nowhere near enough to indicate notability, especially not for a BLP. Sarahj2107 (talk) 18:59, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per nom and above editors. Searches turned up nothing. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:52, 29 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 Materialscientist (talk) 06:08, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Croats in France[edit]

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

No indication topic meets WP:GNG. Editor is creating many such articles including.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 11:33, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 11:33, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 00:17, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Actually these kind of pages are encyclopedic, nothing wrong in such pages. But number of people should be "significant" enough to create article on them. In this case as per article 40,000 Croats are living in France, to decide wether it is significant or not, we have to compare this with population of France. I think not all pages mentioned above deserves deletion, maybe some. --Human3015^TALK 00:27, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Surely the test is not the size of the group, but rather the amount of coverage in reliable sources? That's likely to be related to group size, but some smaller groups could meet the notability guideline while some larger ones don't. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:56, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is whether there is enough significant coverage for a stand alone article. Also, the topic definition is a bit off since it is including immigrants and those simply with 'ancestry'. This problem exists with all of these topics. Jbh ^Talk 13:17, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for failing WP:GNG. Ceosad (talk) 18:06, 18 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! 02:23, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - is the equivalent of Croatian American - these articles are of encyclopedic value. —Мандичка^YO 😜 03:25, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not supported by in-depth coverage in independent sources. Not sure how someone can equate an incredibly well-sourced article with dozens of sources with this one. Can't see where an article about this particular group in this particular country is notable. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:16, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Delete all. WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 15:53, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Delete useless articles. blocked account is creating many similar useless articles to nominate himself to admin.--ProvinceofIndonegra (talk) 05:13, 28 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 Materialscientist (talk) 06:10, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ukrainians in France[edit]

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

No indication topic meets WP:GNG. Editor is creating many such articles including.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 11:32, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 11:32, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for failing WP:GNG. Ceosad (talk) 18:11, 18 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! 02:23, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - equivalent to Ukrainian American; of encyclopedic value —Мандичка^YO 😜 04:42, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - not supported by in-depth coverage in independent sources. Can't see where an article about this particular group in this particular country is notable. Better structure than some of the others, but still very poorly sourced. The WP:OSE argument doesn't really hold water in these instances. An article on Mexican-Americans makes sense. An article on Mexicans in Russia doesn't. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:28, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Delete all. WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 15:54, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Delete useless articles. blocked account is creating many similar useless articles to nominate himself to admin.--ProvinceofIndonegra (talk) 05:10, 28 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 Materialscientist (talk) 06:09, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Russians in France[edit]

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

No indication topic meets WP:GNG. Editor is creating many such articles including.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 11:31, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 11:31, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 00:29, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete as it seems to fail WP:GNG but the large numbers (if correct) of French people with Russian ancestry might justify an article. Due to notability and depth of coverage issues I am leaning towards deletion. Ceosad (talk) 18:10, 18 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! 02:22, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - large numbers of Russian emigres went to France after the revolution. Additionally, I don't see the point of deleting such articles when there are equivalents for the United States. —Мандичка^YO 😜 02:37, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not supported by in-depth coverage in independent sources. Can't see where an article about this particular group in this particular country is notable. The WP:OSE doesn't really hold water in these cases, since different countries have different immigration patterns. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:30, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Delete all. WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 15:55, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Delete useless articles. blocked account is creating many similar useless articles to nominate himself to admin.--ProvinceofIndonegra (talk) 05:10, 28 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 Materialscientist (talk) 06:09, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Belarusians in France[edit]

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

No indication topic meets WP:GNG. Editor is creating many such articles including.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 00:30, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 00:30, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belarus-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 00:30, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for failing WP:GNG. Ceosad (talk) 18:07, 18 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! 02:21, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not supported by in-depth coverage in independent sources. Can't see where an article about this particular group in this particular country is notable. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:23, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Delete all. WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 15:55, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Delete useless articles. blocked account is creating many similar useless articles to nominate himself to admin.--ProvinceofIndonegra (talk) 05:11, 28 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) 16:55, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

MELERIGAMY[edit]

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

I find no coverage in online reliable sources. Doesn't appear to meet the general notability guidelines. Perhaps there's more in another language, but based on the spelling used in this article, even verifiability is a problem. —Largo Plazo (talk) 23:14, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 23:31, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:39, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a matter of policy. It fails verification in a reliable source. --Bejnar (talk) 23:06, 20 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! 01:56, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The whole idea about it being "an ancient, European Tantric method" is in lack of better words far out. As far as I know there has been no historical European analogue to Tantra. From all I can tell this is a hoax: no sources prior to 2010 mentions melerigamy or melerigami. A few sources have the Sanskrit spelling "मेलेरीगामी". But then it would not be "invented in Europe". If "मेलेरीगामी" was a genuine word we would get hits on older literature, and we don't. The few sources after 2010 are not sufficient to build an article. -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 02:16, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no reliable sources whatsoever —Мандичка^YO 😜 06:10, 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:23, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of women investors[edit]

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

I might be wrong but I really believe that this is a case of WP:LISTCRUFT. Anyone who invests money is an investor and they are either male or female. To my mind that fails the Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information test. This is an unlimited list and is not encyclopedic IMO Gbawden (talk) 10:47, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per proposer - this is an unrestricted list which has no value in an encyclopedia. There may be a place for a list of notable or prominent female investors, with meaningful criteria for inclusion, but this article ain't it. Neiltonks (talk) 12:59, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 00:32, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 00:33, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 00:33, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 00:33, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How do you think the information this list presents differs from Category:Women investors, or its parent Category:Investors? Do you think that category structure should also be deleted? postdlf (talk) 00:46, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, and also possibly delete Category:Women investors. Gender is not an impediment to investing; there is no glass ceiling. Gender differences in investing would make a worthwhile article,[27][28] but individual female investors don't stand out or surprise anyone, any more than Height-challenged investors or African-American investors. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:10, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, and although this isn't the place to discuss it, Category:Women investors should be probably be deleted as well. The criteria for inclusion are extremely ill-defined and potentially infinite. Just about anyone who has a reasonable amount of money or owns a business has investments and is thus an "investor", although in the vast majority of cases this is not a defining characteristic, making it unsuitable to use for both lists and categories. There are some people (both men and women) who are "defined" as venture capitalists or whose primary occupation is working in investment firms, although even there, they may not be significant investors on a personal basis. Just two examples of the very inappropriate people on this list: Ellen Browning Scripps, a philanthropist. Yes, she invested in her brother's newspapers, among many other things that she did, but you would not define her as an "investor". Veronica Yip, an actress, singer, and businesswoman. Yes, she invested in her brother's failed Hong Kong Disneyland project and obviously in her own business ventures, but so what? It is not these investments which define her or her notability. It appears that the list (and category membership) consists of people whose article mentions that they invested some money in some thing at some point in their career. Voceditenore (talk) 06:54, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment. It is also useful to note the criteria for stand-alone lists as applied to this one:

If this person weren't an "investor: would it reduce their fame or significance?
Is this person a canonical example of some facet of investment?

In many of the cases on that list (possibly the majority), the answer would be "no". Thus, what is the value of this stand-alone list? Voceditenore (talk) 07:05, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets WP:LISTN as a topic that "has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources". Women investors are a topic of special interest and research. They are often considered as a subset of the investing class and gobs of reliable sources document how gender impacts investor decisions. Here are a few from this year:

Palmer, Kimberly (June 1, 2015). "What Men Can Learn From Women Investors". US News.
Chatzky, Jean (April 10, 2015). "Why women are better investors than men". Fortune.
Holland, Kelley (5 March 2015). "What women investors want". CNBC.
Zuhlke, Kristi (August 31, 2015). "The Real Unicorns Are Female Angel Investors". TechCrunch.

As Voceditenore noted, the list could benefit from well-defined inclusion criteria, but that isn't a reason for deletion. Per WP:CLN, this list is also complementary to the category, which is defining. gobonobo ⁺ ^c 09:17, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Gobonobo. I agree that the article needs work, but that's not a reason to delete, especially since it's relatively new. Give the creator time to work on it. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:10, 19 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! 01:54, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Clarityfiend, and delete category. —Мандичка^YO 😜 06:12, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Voceditenore, an indiscriminate collection of information, but keep (and clean up) the category if it is felt to be useful. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:47, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- How could the same information be simultaneously indiscriminate and useful just depending on how it is formatted? List of women investors = Category:Women investors. postdlf (talk) 15:06, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete absent meaningful clarification as to what the actual subject of the article is and what the inclusion criteria are. Neither Oprah nor Martha Stewart is listed, although they've made huge, noteable investments in various businesses. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 19:55, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this pointless, subjective list per prosposal. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 08:44, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The big problem here is there are two defining characteristics. Women and investors. If you are a notable investor that is one thing BUT what if you are a notable woman who is also an investor but not notable for being an investor? Mrfrobinson (talk) 19:53, 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. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:28, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ranjit Bawa[edit]

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

Questionably notable and it has not improved much since starting in March (article may have been started by Ranjit Bawa himself and had not been changed until last month) and the best my searches found were this, this and this suggesting there are surely more sources about him. However, I'm unsure if this article can be kept and improved. Pinging BethNaught. SwisterTwister talk 07:17, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:17, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:17, 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! 01:46, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article is poorly written and too reliant on one source at the moment, but of course it can be improved. For one thing he apparently won Best World Album Award in the 2015 Brit Asia Awards for Mitti Di Bawa [29]. Also paragraphs (in some cases several) on him here in Times of India, here in Hindustan Times, and here in The Tribune. This is just the English language press. I suspect there is even more in the Punjabi-language press. SwisterTwister, those articles were all in the search results you linked above. I don't understand why you didn't check the most promising individual articles before nominating this for deletion. Voceditenore (talk) 13:03, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - easily meets WP:GNG - Cwobeel (talk) 17:23, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The subject clearly meets wikipedia's notability guidelines per the nominator's mentioned sources and those by voceditenore. It's obvious that SwisterTwister nominated this article not for deletion, but as a motivating tool for article improvement which this article does need. That really isn't appropriate. I strongly urge Swister Twister not to use AFD so lightly in future.4meter4 (talk) 16:57, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't be so bold to say that 4meter4 as this past version here and what's more is this one clearly was not acceptable or clear with notability thus that would need an AfD. SwisterTwister talk 17:08, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect. You need to read WP:Before; in particular Section C. You knew there were reliable sources proving notability. You had the opportunity to improve the article yourself with those references. Stop waisting everyone else's time with lazy nominating habits.4meter4 (talk) 17:14, 25 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 only keep opinions were from IPs with little history and who failed to make any policy-based arguments. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:25, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Konopasek[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}}.

AfDs for this article:

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

Local tv reporter. Not enough sourcing independent of his employers to show notability. No reliable source for award, but a regional Emmy does not make for automatic notability. Also appears to be a autobiography, but that isn't a major concern for here. John from Idegon (talk) 05:25, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 06:43, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 06:43, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 06:46, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Seems like one of those vanity WP pages. Fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Also, seriously misleading to say he won an "Emmy Award." mikeman67 (talk) 13:57, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it. It's not uncommon for television news reporters to have Wikipedia pages. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:American_television_reporters_and_correspondents There is plenty of independent citations outside of the TV stations listed, and the Emmy Award citation was added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.156.107.42 (talk) 18:13, 14 October 2015 (UTC) — 104.156.107.42 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep it The article is similar to this article, which the Wikipedia community seems to be fine with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alex_Rozier — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.156.107.42 (talk) 21:11, 14 October 2015 (UTC) — 104.156.107.42 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 01:45, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I don't think regional Emmy Awards count for notability, as about 200 people win them every year. Local news reporters do have articles but typically it's after decades of work. He seems quite young so perhaps WP:TOOSOON. —Мандичка^YO 😜 06:20, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - He's a local news reporter in a major American TV market (Seattle). It also seems like he has a lot of experience to merit the article. Reporters with less experience and in smaller media markets have articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.238.9.74 (talk) 17:42, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:05, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:05, 27 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 no consensus. Randykitty (talk) 12:48, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kirsten Holmstedt[edit]

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

Doesn't quite pass WP:Author. Her claim to notability is that she's written three books, but only one has received any awards or significant attention.

~'ZupWitDat‽~ 21:29, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete: Some mentions ([30][31][32]]), just barely notable books, but not enough to be notable. Esquivalience ^t 00:19, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:11, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete and/or Redirect to Band of Sisters: American Women at War in Iraq. Nearly all of the coverage I'm seeing is in connection with the one book. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:19, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Borderline case. 3 books with a "real" publisher. Some press attention as expert on women in the military. But Not enough review, attention to argue that any of them was a major book. And little on author herself. So, redirect to Band of Sisters: American Women at War in Iraq.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:36, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:48, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:48, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:48, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:48, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as I haven't looked at this closely but if there's not much improvement, moving is always an option. SwisterTwister talk 05:38, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Keep. I found an additional review for one of her other books and it's just enough to push this into a weak keep category. That she's best known for the one book is undeniable, but there's just enough wiggle room here to justify a page. If this is deleted I'd argue strongly for a soft delete so that this can be un-redirected if/when the author gains more coverage. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:09, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You found a another source... for her book(s). Her first book is (probably) notable. However, (with the exception of the Shesource link, which is used twice, and which I'm not convinced is WP:RS, as it seems to have no editorial oversight and claims to exists solely to promote female "experts",) none of the references give in-depth information about HER, so she doesn't pass WP:GNG. And as a result, we don't really have enough referenced information available to write a decent biography, even if she was notable. Further, practically all available references relate to only one of her books. That isn't nearly enough to meet any of the criteria at WP:Author, also see WP:ONEEVENT ~~and WP:NOTINHERITED~~. Yes, "if" her books and her life story are made into feature-length films, all of her books become best-sellers and are reviewed in The New York Times, or she otherwise becomes much more famous, she might then be notable enough for an article, but that is one of the worst arguments to make at AfD.

So, how exactly is she notable? ~'ZupWitDat‽~ 19:17, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I'll note that I do respect the consensus of the above commentators and would not oppose a "soft delete", if that means a redirect to the article about her one notable book, as opposed to deleting the page outright. ~'ZupWitDat‽~ 19:17, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Seems a particularly weakly argued AFD outside of a couple comments. Courcelles (talk) 02:27, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles (talk) 02:27, 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! 01:43, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The Library Journal is a trade magazine, but it's considered to be a reliable, notability giving source on Wikipedia. It's a short review, but so far there has been no consensus about whether or not short trade reviews would be considered unusable to show notability. The thing about notability for authors is that reviews count towards notability even if the book itself would not qualify for its own article because it hasn't received heavy coverage or had a notable film made about it. There are plenty of articles out there for authors whose collective work has received notice but none (or few) have warranted individual books. As far as biography content goes, ideally there would be enough coverage to have a lengthy biography section, but an author is not absolutely required to have coverage about themselves in order to pass notability guidelines. Reviews and articles about the books themselves is enough to pass notability guidelines if they are in places Wikipedia would consider reliable. In this instance we have a book that has enough notability to warrant its own page and a book that received little attention other than the Library Journal and a public radio station. It's not an awful lot, but it is something and enough to where I'd argue for a weak keep like I did above. I'm not opposed to a redirect per se, but I do think that there's enough to rationalize keeping the article. Again, coverage for both books in reliable sources does show notability for the author and it's ultimately notability that's in question here. We shouldn't delete an article just because the sourcing might not be enough to really source a biography section. As for SheSource, that looks to be a WP:PRIMARY source. (Also, you can always remove the doublecite - there's nothing stopping you from doing that.) It's usable to back up basic details but can't show notability. However I'm not arguing for notability based on the coverage about her specifically, but on the coverage for her works. Saying that we should delete an article for an author because there isn't a ton of coverage about her (despite there being coverage for her books) seems a little counterproductive, especially as one of the qualifications for notability for authors is that their collective works have achieved notability - and notability for books can be established via reviews. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:47, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Tokyogirl79:

"There are plenty of articles out there..." WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is one of the worst arguments you can make.

"an author is not absolutely required to have coverage about themselves in order to pass notability guidelines." So you admit she doesn't pass WP:GNG, and would therefore have to pass WP:Author to be notable. I've left a detailed comment as to how and why she doesn't pass WP:Author below.

"We shouldn't delete an article just because the sourcing might not be enough to really source a biography." Why should we keep a WP:BLP we couldn't possibly write? BLPs require the best of sourcing. Keeping an article that may never be more than a substub does not improve the the encyclopedia.

I'm not saying her one notable book isn't notable, I'm saying that having exactly one notable book isn't itself enough to make an author automatically notable, and nobody's provided any evidence it's otherwise. ~'ZupWitDat‽~ 20:11, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Someone can pass WP:NAUTHOR and be considered notable. The thing is, all we have to do to establish notability for an author is to show that her work has received coverage in multiple sources. One of her books is notable and another has gained coverage as well. The other book might not merit a separate article, but NAUTHOR has never required that the author have published books that would merit individual articles. DGG can back me up on this as well, as he also frequently edits articles about authors and books. As far as the WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS bit goes, what I actually meant by this is that there is plenty of precedent for us to keep articles on authors based on coverage for their work even though the author themselves have received little to no coverage. If Holmstedt only had one book that received reviews I'd agree with you, but she hasn't. Her second book has received coverage. Limited coverage, but it's still coverage. Because of this, she does pass the notability guidelines for authors which again. Also, nobody is saying anything here about inherited notability. The argument we're making in this situation is this:

Holmstedt has released three books. Two of those books have received coverage, albeit one far more so than the other. One of the qualifications for NAUTHOR is that the author's body of work must have received coverage. Since she has two books that have received coverage, she passes NAUTHOR.

NAUTHOR was a guideline written specifically for authors because many authors tend to receive coverage for their works (ie, reviews) but not as much for themselves. What you're trying to do here pretty much goes against what has been established at NAUTHOR. GNG is not expected or even supposed to apply to every person because there are situations where it would disqualify people who are notable for things that would not gain oodles of traditional coverage. Any experienced AfD editor will back up that "one size does not fit all" with notability guidelines. As far as "not inherited" goes, no one is trying to say that another book would be notable because a previous one is notable enough for its own article. What we're arguing here is that the author has received coverage for multiple books and as such, would pass NAUTHOR - a guideline that does not require that the author herself have received coverage independent of her works. You can try to lobby for this to change, but it's unlikely to pass.

I also have to note that Holmstedt's work as a whole is used as a citation in various works, such as the MIT Press book When Johnny and Jane come marching home: how all of us can help veterans. Her second book The Girls Come Marching Home is used as a citation on pages 64 and 66 and Holmstedt's name is specifically highlighted. (I've added this as a source to the article.) You can also see her cited here, in this University of Nebraska Press book (for her first and second book). I've also found another review for her second book via Google Scholar (which I rarely use) from the Virginia Law Review, which looks to be run through the United States Department of Veterans Affairs. Her first and second books are also given a pretty thorough dissection in a doctoral thesis written by a University of South Florida student - and doctoral theses are considered to be usable as a reliable source.

Basically, the long and short here is that authors do not have to have coverage for themselves to pass notability guidelines, as coverage/recognition for their overall work is sufficient and Holmstedt has received coverage for her work as a whole, not just for her first book. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:39, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Like Czar, I think the sources presented are still weak at best. Please answer my question above, rephrased slightly here: with so little sourceable biographical information, why should we keep a WP:BLP that we can't possibly write (beyond a substub)? ~'ZupWitDat‽~ 16:46, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm turning my "weak keep" into a regular "keep" per my new additions. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:41, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Heck, now that I'm looking for things other than reviews, I'm actually finding enough to where I could justify her second book having an article. I also need to point out that what Hullaballoo was saying was that the LJ review means that it's likely that other sources exist, just that they're likely in places that many wouldn't be likely to check or even know to check, which is fairly common. It's especially common with authors whose work is of greater interest to the academic crowd, since mainstream sources tend to focus on more easily marketable fare like the new Dan Brown novel. Not saying that the mainstream sources are wrong for doing this, just that they have to go with what people are more likely to read, especially since there will always be more books than there are available review/coverage spaces in any given medium. In any case, it can usually be far more difficult to find coverage with academic sources unless you have access to academic databases, as the majority of academic sources do not show up in a Google or Bing search for whatever reason. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:53, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, more or less per Tokyogirl79 but more strongly. While LJ reviews may not be great as in-depth sources, they are strong indicators of stature and signals that more extensive coverage is likely to exist -- as for most books these days. typically offline or behind paywalls. No less important, the nominator has a serious misunderstanding of WP:NOTINHERITED, which generally does not apply to the relationship between creator and creative work. Most authors are notable precisely because they have created notable books (or other works); musicians are notable because they have created notable music. Notability is not "inherited" here; it is shared. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 20:29, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Hullaballoo Wolfowitz:

Nice misdirection; WP:NOTINHERITED was only a small part of my argument, and then only as a response to another comment. I've struck it, if only to show that my comment stands without it. Keep commentators are suggesting that because one of her books has enough reviews to be barely notable, she must be notable; that's wrong, and is almost the same logical fallacy explained in WP:NOTINHERITED. Having one somewhat notable book simply isn't enough to make her or her other books automatically notable. {Side note: This is exactly why my opening statement was so short and "weakly argued" @Courcelles: I read a number of recent AfDs, and concluded that longer comments are rarely read and comprehended in their entirety by good-faith contributors, and only serve to provoke such subterfuge as this}.

"Most authors are notable precisely because they have created notable books"; she has created exactly one book that could be considered at all notable, which is something, but not quite enough to pass any existent notability criteria (see below). And if she were notable, there should be some sources about HER (it seems Shesource is basically Facebook for self-proclaimed female "experts", and so doesn't count), so far, there's none.

Other than that, your argument seems to be that more sources probably exist, but you can't provide them right now; unfortunately, notability requires verifiable evidence. ~'ZupWitDat‽~ 20:11, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The criteria for WP:Author, and why she doesn't pass it:

1. The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors.

The sources presented do not demonstrate this.

2. The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique.

Definitely not applicable.

3. The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.

Note that to meet this criteria, the works must be well-known AND be the subject of a film etc. Hers aren't.

4. The person's work (or works) either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums.

Definitely not (a), (b), & (d). A very weak argument could be made for (c), but again, the few reviews here do not show "significant critical attention" for her works. Her works are not frequently cited by other "experts", they have not been reviewed by notable critics or in widely-circulated mainstream sources like The New York Times, they have not been the subject of films or similar derivative works; they simply aren't that notable, and neither is she. ~'ZupWitDat‽~ 20:11, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Per WP:BLP and Tokyogirls' encouragement, I've edited the article to remove all info that was unsourced or only sourced to questionable and/or primary sources. ~'ZupWitDat‽~ 20:11, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as a courtesy to Band of Sisters (book), which is very clearly her most notable work if she is not notable herself. I checked one of the LexisNexis and the reviews should be sufficient (at least for now) to support an article on the book. I don't see another clear case for the author being known for something else, or to have enough cause to give her a separate article. By the way, I would absolutely not count Library Journal towards notability, especially for recent books. LJ's a good predictor of whether serious reviewers will write something substantial about the book, but it gives too little on its own to show any mark of importance or discernment. czar 04:35, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

LJ isn't the strongest source, but so far there's been no consensus that it is unusable as a reliable source that would show notability. The subject has been broached at NBOOK and I've even started one of those discussions myself, but there's been no agreement on it being unusable. Even Kirkus Reviews is still considered usable and they're a trade with some serious issues when it comes to reviews. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:55, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well I'm in the camp that a two-sentence catalog-style listing (literally) in this case is not something to count towards significant coverage. I think if it gets down to the point of quibbling over whether something like LJ or Choice counts (Kirkus tends to be longer), the case for keeping is weak—it means that we're trying to decide whether a two-sentence summary of the book (which is already not worth citing if any other title has covered that info) makes or breaks a book's coverage. Articles should have enough for us to write a full overview of the subject. czar 14:14, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Band of Sisters (book), with due respect to the sources presented, they are mostly about the book, not about Holmstedt herself as far as I can see. Per User:Zupwitdat, I don't see that she meets WP:AUTHOR. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:19, 29 October 2015 (UTC).[reply]
I'm going to ping @Lankiveil: and @Czar: to come and look at the new additions to the article, specifically the additions of another review and citations to places that mention the second book explicitly. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:55, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't see it. (Could someone add a quote to the Caplan book citation? Otherwise it's unhelpful to me.) Unless there are sources about her, the coverage is explicitly about the books and the articles should be about the books. czar 14:14, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Czar, there are pretty extensive mentions. She's used as a reference in multiple chapters, ten times. Here are the portions that mention her in the book chapters and the notations that did more than just list the name of her book. Some of the notations are pretty extensive, enough to where they could probably be included as well for page notation. One of them actually used a full paragraph from her second book. It's pretty extensively used as a source and it's the only one of her books that is brought up in the work at all. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:51, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Text mentions

Kirstin Holmstedt describes many problems of these mothers in her book about women in the military. Those who come home physically injured or emotionally limited (detached, overwhelmed, angry) feel guilty or ashamed of being unable to carry out ordinary motherly tasks. (p. 64)
And Holmstedt relates the story of a black woman and a biracial Pacific Islander and Irish woman serving in Iraq, where their fellow soldiers repeatedly subjected them to racist slurs and racist treatment. (p. 66)
Notation #40 on page 234-235 reads “Holmstedt in The Girls Come Marching Home relates the story of a woman soldier who was shot at four times in the Army, three times by Americans and once by Iraqi celebratory fire.
Notation #57 on 236 reads “Holmstedt in The Girls Come Marching Home recounts the story of a woman who told her platoon sergeant that another soldier had sexually assaulted her, and the sergeant said they needed to keep the perpetrator in the service because they needed him to work.”
Notation #85 on 238 gives an extensive quote from page 149 of The Girls Come Marching Home, which goes on for about a paragraph: “Contractors like KBR provided … shower water that was not disinfected with chlorine or properly filtered; it was concentrated waste stream … She wonders what exactly the contractors spent the money on … [T]he contractors carelessly exposed troops … to E. coli, typhoid fever, and hepatitis … McNeill and those she served with had grown used to an upset stomach and the smell of sulfur in the showers … She carried a new M16 that was missing a part, so it wasn’t a reliable weapon. She carried a gas mask with a “training” canister rather than the type that would actually work in an attack.” The quote is used to back up a passage in the book about how soldiers were lied to by the government or military.

Thanks, but isn't that all coverage about the book though? What sources are being used to show that the author herself is notable? I see a notable book, a perhaps notable second book, and the issue is where to put coverage on the latter (since there's nothing on the author herself). If the books are related (are they?) the notable book's page would be a fine place to mention what the author did following the first book's release. So in absence of sources about the subject or sources that assert her uniqueness as an author, a redirect to the major book still appears to be the solution that covers all bases. czar 15:22, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets criterion 3 in WP:AUTHOR . The reviews are sufficient. LJ is a selective reviewer, with the intention of only including books that libraries are likely to buy. However, when there is only one significant book, it's optional whether to put the article at the book or the author -- in practice, we very rarely do both-(for one thing, most of the content would duplicate. (I normally suggest the author, for there is potential for expansion--people who write one notable book tend to write another) When there are multiple significant works, it makes sense to put the main article about the author, adding articles about the most notable books, but not necessarily every potentially notable book, because often a combined article is better. Here there are 2 books --they are about the same general subject, but they are 3 successive books. The first is very highly notable, with 1600 copies in libraries a/c worldcat. [33].The second talk about similar experiences, but in a subsequent war, and is also notable, with 700 holdings; Iwould cover it in the author article The third is forthcoming at this point, but probably will be notable, because a 3rd book in the same area by someone with previous very successful books usually is. I would cover this too in the author article. Though library holdings are not a formal criterion, they normally parallel the reviews--this is not coincidence, as libraries, especially public libraries, select their books mainly on the basis of such reviews, supplemented by public requests. DGG ( talk ) 15:53, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - she's a best-selling and highly rated author at the store for which I am working this holiday season, Barnes & Noble. If you come to the E. 86th Street store, I'll sell it to you as a book or Nook, along with a membership. :-) Bearian (talk) 16:25, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: We are now in the tenth day of the third week of this afd, despite there being no activity between October 24-28, and the consensus at the end of the second and third weeks being for delete/redirect. Is it standard procedure to keep an afd open for an arbitrary length of time to force a no consensus? Of course, the two comments above (# of library holdings? Popularity on one bookstore?) are not base on any policy I could find, and so will probably be disregarded by the closing administrator. ~'ZupWitDat‽~ 16:46, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems to be enough to pass WP:AUTHOR. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:52, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Kharkiv07 (T) 15:57, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kara Cooney[edit]

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

Seemingly NN academic. Despite some publications and contribution to a documentary, fails all 9 elements of WP:NACADEMICS. The Dissident Aggressor 18:18, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 19:45, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 19:45, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:52, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:36, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm not sure whether she passes WP:PROF (the strongest case is probably for C7, impact outside of academia) but I think we have enough press about her and her TV work to pass WP:GNG and enough mainstream reviews of her books to pass WP:AUTHOR. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:17, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if this is notable and acceptable. SwisterTwister talk 05:04, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:01, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:01, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:01, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: she gets sufficient significant coverage in independent, reliable sources to pass WP:BASIC. -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 06:58, 28 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) 16:46, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stagebeast[edit]

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

Effectively unsourced affair that fails WP:GNG. No interwikis, while you should expect Dutch or French versions of this Belgian band. The Banner talk 00:07, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 01:55, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 01:55, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless better can be found as I'm simply not seeing much here. SwisterTwister talk 04:16, 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! 01:04, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete NO evidence of notability. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:46, 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 merge to Vevo. Guerillero | Parlez Moi 00:47, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

24-Hour Vevo Record[edit]

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

Seems to be something made up one day. No Google hits at all barring the sources listed in the article (all of which reference Vevo's Twitter handle, which seems to be the only place this 'record' exists on the internet). Willing to be proven wrong, but not convinced this is notable enough for an article of its own. — foxj 00:51, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On second thoughts, gonna recommend this is merged with Vevo. — foxj 00:54, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I say delete it because there doesn't seem to be any claim of notability. Not So Dumb Blond (talk) 00:59, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
delete. A good example for WP:NOT. Staszek Lem (talk) 01:28, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 07:14, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Vevo as it does receive consistent coverage, however, it lacks the independent, in-depth coverage necessary to establish notability. The coverage is basically short articles based on VEVO Tweets and Tumblr posts. —Мандичка^YO 😜 01:45, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep The Vevo-record isn't something that's made up. The article is filled with sources from Billboard, one of the most respected news outlets in terms of music, and others. Vevo even has a webpage dedicated to the record (See here). Type in "Taylor Swift Vevo record" on Google and you'll find over 600,000 results with over dozens of articles reporting on it. So no, the Vevo record isn't made up and I don't see a problem with it having it's separate article keeping track of the record. Moonsprite (talk) 10:56, 22 October 2015 (UTC) Blocked as sockpuppet[reply]

Comment Merge I don't think a Tumblr page ↑ is enough, and I can barely see it as an important achievement. On the other hand, Adele apparently just broke the record and the media (Billboard, Rolling Stone) is going to announce it big. A little section on the Vevo article like: Adele holds the 24 Hour Vevo Record for .. most views, previously held by Taylor Swift with xxxx views for her video "x", would be enough. Cornerstonepicker (talk) 05:25, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per Moonsprite's arguments above. The list gives a historical insight into specific events in popular culture. Btljs (talk) 07:39, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment only I'm not sure why it's necessary for this discussion to be reopened. The entire reason this discussion got started is because the person who nominated it for deletion thought the Vevo record was something that was made up. Now that Adele's Hello has just beaten the record, just take a look at all the media coverage about her beating the record is taking place. It DOES exist and is it fully acknowledged by VEVO. The person also claimed there when you Google the Vevo record, the only thing that appears are the sources mentioned in the article. This is not true at all. Just Google Taylor Swift Vevo record and you'll see dozens of articles reporting on it. Moonsprite (talk) 20:01, 24 October 2015 (UTC) Blocked as sockpuppet[reply]

@Moonsprite: Because A) consensus had not been reached B) you are not permitted to close a deletion discussion in which you yourself have participated. —Мандичка^YO 😜 01:58, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Vevo. While there is coverage of this topic, I feel this isn't notable enough for its own page. A simple mention on the Vevo page, similar to Cornerstonepicker's proposal above, should suffice. Prhdbt [talk] 20:07, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have reverted a non-admin close by Moonsprite, which was improper because (a) the discussion has not run its full period, (b) there are delete !votes, and (c) Moonsprite had already !voted. Those who have already contributed can examine Moonsprite's addition and decide whether or not to change their !votes, but the discussion should run for its full time. JohnCD (talk) 20:27, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

*Strong keep The Vevo record gives such a big insight into specific events in popular culture. Merging it would mean nobody would know who held the record in 2012, 2013, 2014, or any other year for that matter. There would be a loss of knowledge that would be very hard to get a look at anywhere else. And the Vevo record exists nonetheless. Just because Vevo hasn't decided to give out psychical awards for this, doesn't make it any less valid. We live in a time where millions upon millions of people can watch something in 24 hours, and we have the technology to keep track of it, but it's not considered "notable enough" to get an article because it "doesn't exist". I'm urging a strong keep. — Preceding unsigned comment added by UniverseLight (talk • contribs) 21:01, 24 October 2015 (UTC) Blocked as sockpuppet[reply]

@UniverseLight: Yet only DigitalSpy has been reporting it (the first four). Was it really relevant? sounds like fan stuff until the "We Can't Stop" controversy happened and everybody wanted to know how many views it got. Cornerstonepicker (talk) 02:36, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: UniverseLight has only 3 edits attributed to the account; two are on this AFD, and the other is removing the AFD tag off the 24-Hour Vevo Record page. Prhdbt [talk] 21:51, 25 October 2015 (UTC) [reply]

Strong keep - most views in 24 hours on YouTube is a pretty big deal, and the honour of being the most viewed music video in 24 hours have been heralded vigorously by those who have achieved the top spot in the past; Nicki Minaj especially. However, there needs to be more sources to verify whether or not there is an official award by Vevo and that this is the official name of the honour. Otherwise, a different name for the article should be considered. For what the article is about, essentially, it should be kept, since it's definitely an honour that is held high in popular culture nowadays. Philip Terry Graham 01:45, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Vesna Wylde: It's not for the most views on YouTube. It's only for music videos for musicians whose labels are signed with VEVO. —Мандичка^YO 😜 01:49, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Wikimandia: Way to over-scrutinise somebody's words. Of course that's what I meant; I also was trying to say that most views in 24 hours on YouTube in general is a pretty big deal in the media and popular culture, and that an article on it should exist, regardless of whether or not an official accolade for music videos by Vevo exists and can be verified by reliable sources. Philip Terry Graham 16:14, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Vesna Wylde: I don't see how I overscrutinized your words. That's what you said, and you still don't seem to understand the difference. The real champion of this criteria (most viewed video in 24 hours on YouTube) is Gangnam Style by Psy, but it's not even on this list because Psy is not signed to a VEVO label. I agree that most views in 24 hours on YouTube is a big deal for pop culture, but that's not what this article is about. —Мандичка^YO 😜 20:24, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Vevo is merely a subset of YouTube videos that includes only musicians signed to three major labels. It's purely a marketing thing. There are other YouTube records and other viral videos that are excluded because they don't yet partner with VEVO. The real world record (as acknowledged by the Guinness Book of World Records) is for Psy's video but it is not included because he was not signed with VEVO at the time. It has some notability but I don't see anything in-depth that would give notability to the record itself (ie, articles talking about in-depth about why the record is notable). This fails Wikipedia notability in that area. UniverseLight Note the people suggesting merge - we are not advocating deleting the contents, just merging it with the already existing VEVO article, so the content would not be lost. It's not very long and is certainly appropriate to be included in the VEVO article itself. —Мандичка^YO 😜 01:47, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Wikimandia: " It's purely a marketing thing." Yeah, so is Valentine's Day, should we merge that with Love too? And you're acting like there are so many more videos that are being watched millions upon millions of times in 24 hours. Besides Psy's video, it's pretty much just Vevo music videos. Just check List of most viewed online videos in first 24 hours. Over half of the videos on that list have received the Vevo record. Besides, if you check stats.grok.se, the article received over 15,000 views on October 24, 2015. Clearly, enough people think this award is "notable" enough to look it up.

You don't seem to understand how notability on Wikipedia works if that is your analogy. Additionally, people will still be able to find it on the VEVO article. That's what merge means. —Мандичка^YO 😜 19:54, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong merge with Vevo: I don't think this really needs its own page, but rather its own section on the Vevo page instead. It's notable, but again, doesn't need its own page. Aria1561 (talk) 19:56, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I just want to remind you all that the Vevo record was already merged once with the Vevo page a few years ago, but after a hefty debate it was removed completely from the page along with a couple of other things. Moonsprite (talk) 22:35, 25 October 2015 (UTC) Blocked as sockpuppet[reply]

It's not really relevant for an AfD, although I looked at the talk page and archive for Vevo and there is no such discussion I could see. By the way @Moonsprite:, are you also Alvandria, this article's creator? —Мандичка^YO 😜 00:03, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Vevo. Not independently notable. This is not a keep vote. Stifle (talk) 09:21, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems notable enough to me. Billboard, The Hollywood Reporter, Entertainment Weekly and The Telegraph have all reported on the Vevo record at one time or another.Amynewyork4248 (talk) 17:43, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please hold off closing until the SPI I just opened is dealt with. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:18, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser note:. Moonsprite and UniverseLight are Confirmed socks. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Alvandria.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:32, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, educational and encyclopedic. Also, as per comment by Amynewyork4248, above. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 02:20, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:51, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Vevo: I think this is something very important, but it doesn't need its own page. A section on VEVO's page would be great. I loved the Cornerstonepicker's idea, just the table with few lines about its previous and currently holder. About the sources, I'm sure it's easy to find references provided by magazines, like Billboard or EW, and change them. GagaNutella^talk 19:41, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Vevo: This article is completely superseded by List of most viewed online videos in first 24 hours, which lists all sources, not just those from certain record labels. No reason to have both.
Merge with Vevo. per above. Inter&anthro (talk) 13:29, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, but I won't oppose, per WP:BITE, a merge. Bearian (talk) 16:12, 30 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.