Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 August 12

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 11 August 13 August >

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 Keep, notability appears to exist given the arguments provided later in the AfD Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:55, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

LeVake v. Independent School District 656[edit]

LeVake v. Independent School District 656 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This case appears to be non-notable. It was in a Minnesota trial court, and was appealed, but both the state and US supreme courts declined to review it. As a state district court case, it sets no precedent; and even the appeal (which is not covered in the article) would likely be precedential only for the slice of Minnesota over which the court of appeals had jurisdiction. (But I'll caveat on this; some states have different rules on precedent, and it's possible Minnesota extends precedent of an intermediate court over the entire state; California does this, for example.)

I PRODded it, but the prod was removed by the creating editor. The bases for removal was that the case was "appealed all the way to Minnesota Supreme Court (where it lost)"; and that "It is covered in several books per searches on books.google.com including Jones's 'Teaching about Scientific Origins: Taking Account of Creationism' and Moore's 'Evolution in the courtroom'."

In fact, it did not get appealed to the Minnesota Supreme Court; that court declined to hear the case. See [1]. It was "appealed" to that court only in the sense that the litigant wanted it to go before the court, but the court said, "we don't even want to hear it" and did not review the merits.

On the two book cites, as to the first, it appears to be a very limited discussion on one page, plus line-item entries in a couple lists. As to the second, it's a three-paragraph summary in a 381-page book. I don't think either one, or the combination of both, pushes this over into notability. TJRC (talk) 23:51, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. TJRC (talk) 00:06, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - non notable trivia. WP:NOTNEWS. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:01, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. In addition to the books mentioned above, this case has also been discussed in a number of law journals. See, for example:[1][2][3][4] On balance, I think this coverage is sufficient to confer notability. If I have some extra time this weekend, I will try to add these sources to the article. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 19:04, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Casey Luskin, Does Challenging Darwin Create Constitutional Jeopardy - A Comprehensive Survey of Case Law Regarding the Teaching of Biological Origins, 32 Hamline L. Rev. 1, 64 21 (2009)
  2. ^ Diane Heckman, One Nation under God: Freedom of Religion in Schools and Extracurricular Athletic Events in the Opening Years of the New Millennium, 28 Whittier L. Rev. 537, 624 559 (2006)
  3. ^ Supreme Court Review, 31 J.L. & Educ. 221, 223 (2002)
  4. ^ Recent Decisions, 30 J.L. & Educ. 631, 651 (2001)
How is it treated and discussed in those references? TJRC (talk) 00:03, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@TJRC: the Luskin article provides four pages of analysis that are specifically devoted to LeVake, and other portions of the Luskin article compare LeVake to other cases. The other three articles include 1/2 to 1-page summaries of the case, though they focus on summary rather than analysis and interpretation. I also found 1/2 page discussion/summary of the case in this article at p. 2, this book at p. 47, this book at p. 112, and this book at p. 28, as well as about two pages of commentary on the case in this book at p. 224. If these sources simply included a brief mention of the case in a footnote or in bullet-point list, then I would likely feel differently, but I think the depth of coverage in these sources substantiates the fact that this case is notable. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 01:15, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. North America1000 06:15, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – Meets WP:GNG per the sources provided above and per the descriptions of the depth of coverage. North America1000 06:16, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, after a very full debate with plenty of relistings. As so often with articles about corporations, people who don't like articles like this don't like this article, and sources that some editors find entirely satisfactory fall well below the minimum standards for others.—S Marshall T/C 18:10, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Brainbench[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Brainbench (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is an interesting case because the 1st AfD closed as Delete but the 2nd second was Keep, which I frankly am not seeing why this would've been kept; none of it is actually convincing at all for any substance and notability, my own searches have also mirrored this by finding nothing better. SwisterTwister talk 22:38, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 22:42, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 22:42, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Xxanthippe: How does your opinion of "just corporate blurb" correspond to the deletion of this article per Wikipedia's guidelines and policies? Sorry, but your rationale is vague and open-ended, provides no guideline- or policy-based rationale for deletion, and could be stated about any company-related article on Wikipedia. North America1000 08:50, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:11, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:11, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – The company's name was previously Tekmetrics.com. North America1000 23:13, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
  • (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
  • Delete Couldn't find any real coverage. The best I were able to find was a side blurb mentioned in three identical posts on small Ukrainian websites, by a Ukrainian IT expert noting some Ukrainian achievements, amongst which was being third most IT-certificate credited in Brainbench's "Bench Games Leaderboard". --Mr. Magoo (talk) 23:27, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Rescinded my delete. I guess it's able to meet the requirements through the ancient articles. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 14:01, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I've just added[2] 5 independent secondary WP:RS, each of them addressing the subject in detail. Four of them were cited in the 2nd AfD by Pcap but three of them had become dead links which I resurrected at archive.org. Given these sources, this should be an easy keep and I hope those who've already !voted delete may reconsider. Msnicki (talk) 08:07, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti Talk 15:05, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Coverage sufficient to establish notability. --Michig (talk) 19:16, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete sources such as InfoWorld and "Start Your Own E-Learning Business. Entrepreneur Press" are insufficient to meet CORPDEPTH. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:40, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Why and what do you mean by "such as"? It only takes two good sources to establish notability under WP:GNG. Seven sources are listed above and you seem to have focused on the two of the weakest (never mind that we often keep at AfD based on even less than those particular two.) Can you kindly review the entire list of sources above and explain why none of them qualify? Let's start with just the first three. Not one of those 3 qualifies? Really? An actual explanation of the deficiencies, not just a link to the guidelines would be helpful because I don't see it. We have a responsibility to apply the guidelines fairly, from a neutral point of view. If the sources exist to support notability, we have a responsibility to call it that way, even if we don't like the article, even if it seems spammy. Here, we decide notability, not content. Msnicki (talk) 13:52, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
While there may be a few acceptable sources, there's still not the amount actually needed for convincing and confident notability and substance. It's all, also, essentially still PR. SwisterTwister talk 22:58, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly how many sources do think it would take "convince" you? What about these sources strikes you as "essentially still PR"? Are you questioning their independence or reliability? Or are complaining about the content of the article, which I'd have hoped an experienced editor like you would know is irrelevant at AfD. Here, our only concern is notability. Msnicki (talk) 00:55, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's not the matter of the number of sources, but the depth of coverage. If a notable author wrote a book on this subject, that would be sufficient. If there are dozens, or even hundreds, of trivial mentions, that is insufficient. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:07, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The PR is everything, the information and style; news about funding and finances is particularly one that is always PR. SwisterTwister talk 01:13, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@SwisterTwister: Could you kindly identify which, if any, of the first three sources listed above is about funding and finances? If you agree, as I expect you should, that none of the three fall in that category, then I ask again, can you identify specific reasons why you consider these three articles -- not some other hypothetical articles -- to be deficient? I'm asking because so far no one has been able to give any reason at all, which I think is pretty telling about whether the delete !votes represent actual guidelines-based arguments versus driveby WP:IDONTLIKEIT opinions. Msnicki (talk) 02:34, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty obviously none of the sources cited above is a trivial mention, so are you arguing that the hurdle for notability should be a book? If so, could you kindly cite absolutely anything in the guidelines that supports that view? If not, then may I again ask exactly what you found deficient about the first three sources? Msnicki (talk) 01:20, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pruning comment -- I just trimmed the article of uncited / self-cited "product brochure" content. and there's not much there -- two sentences. There's not enough to sustain an encyclopedia entry. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:12, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This is purely a content issue, which is irrelevant here at AfD unless you can show that there simply is nothing else to report based on WP:RS, not that it hasn't yet been added to the article, which is clearly not the case. Msnicki (talk) 01:20, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sources presented at this AfD are insufficient to establish "depth of coverage" -- for example Washington Times is an interview with the company CEO where he talks about funding. Both would be considered trivial mentions, as I understand it. With the current sources, I don't see the article expanding much -- there's very limited substance to the coverage. The company does not appear yet to be notable. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:30, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Washington Times has been discussed at RSN and has been deemed not to be reliable. On other occasions too. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:39, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
How curious that you chose to avoid answering my question about the first three sources and chose instead to pick on a weaker source. Could that be because you could not find anything to criticize about the first three sources? Further, may I point that you're flat-out wrong about the Washington Times article? It is absolutely positively not an interview, it is an article that happens to include two (count 'em!) one-sentence quotes from the CEO. But the article is bylined and the rest of the article is in the voice of the reporter. That makes all but the two one-sentence quotes WP:SECONDARY. But again, let me ask: Never mind the other sources, what is wrong with the first three? I'll help you out: The answer is, there's nothing wrong with them. Msnicki (talk) 02:45, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at the other sources and they are equally not convincing; these are all trade publications reiterating company / product news. This is not enough to make a company worthy of note. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:16, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'll started with saying that it's the quality of the sources, yes, they may be by actual journalists but it's the quality of depth itself or coverage that is still not substantial to the levels of becoming enough for either establishing a better article or better substances. Even so, simply because a news article may be authored by a staff journalist, that is not saying the news is still not influenced by mention trivial subjects such s overusing interviews and quotes by the businesspeople themselves. Also, like several articles, the appealing subjects they like to talk about are its funding or finances, because that's what it's about: a business also searching for investors by putting appealing information about that. I will also invite DGG who has a long history with examining these articles. I will also note this about the current article, none of it is the substantial information to actually carry and support an article. SwisterTwister talk 02:59, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. North America1000 03:06, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You've given me absolutely nothing testable. All you've told me is sometimes a source isn't sufficient. Okay, but we're not talking about hypothetical sources you don't like, we're talking these three you say you don't like and I'm asking what's wrong with them. I don't think you can tell me because I don't think you have an actual reason. You just don't like the article, you don't want to admit your nomination was a mistake, therefore the sources must not be sufficient and you don't think you need to explain why. But none of this has anything to do any actual guidelines-based reasons. The Network World article is roughly 1000 words (I OCR'ed and word-counted it), the Information Week article is over 700 words and the Tech Republic article is over 1200 words. You're just not going to convince me we don't routinely accept less without at least telling me a lot more specifically what it is about these three articles you don't think is sufficient. Msnicki (talk) 03:22, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. The sources are trade magazines. Trade magazines tend to report even minor relevant news related to a specific area. This fails WP:AUD and in certain cases WP:ORGIND as well when they tend to reddress press releases. The Washington Times is a local source as well. The New Straits Times is a good source but doesn't elaborate much. This is nothing more than a run of the mill company offering standardised testing. More importantly, forget notability, this doesn't even have a credible claim of significance (I checked out the older versions of the article and I don't see any version which would pass A7). --Lemongirl942 (talk) 04:04, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's one thing to claim vaguely that sources fail some test in the guidelines and another to explain why. You've done the former, I don't think you can do the latter. For example, WP:CORPDEPTH lists 12 categories of sources we do not accept. Referring to the first three sources listed above, can you kindly identify which of those 12 categories each falls into? I assert that none of the three falls into any of those categories and that you've listed WP:CORPDEPTH simply because it seemed convenient, not because you have even a prayer of explaining how it might apply here. Your citatations of WP:AUD and WP:ORGIND amount to similarly lazy drive-by complaints. WP:AUD asks that the sources be national or international media, which is exactly what the first three sources are. WP:ORGIND asks that they must be independent, which they are. Nowhere in the guidelines do have anything resembling a prohibition on the use of trade magazines as sources. Anyone who's been to enough AfDs knows that's pretty typically the only sourcing we ever have for articles on technology-related products and we accept it all the time. Msnicki (talk) 13:55, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
WP:AUD is not satisfied as the trade magazines (your first 3 sources) come under "media of limited interest". There is a reason why we have WP:AUD. It is quite easy for a company to be featured on a trade magazine because the area of focus is quite narrow - and it is very easy to hire freelance journalists who will submit articles to these magazines. Many of these also tend to redress press releases and pass them off, like your third source does. More importantly, software related companies tend to receive a much higher press coverage than other companies. If you compare this company with other similar companies, you will realise that the coverage has been woefully low. Your statement that "Anyone who's been to enough AfDs knows that's pretty typically the only sourcing we ever have for articles on technology-related products" is not correct. Mainstream sources cover software companies quite often and a notable company will usually have detailed articles about it. In fact, I have observed a relative abundance of mainstream sources for software related companies in comparison to others. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 00:00, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's your personal opinion and nothing more. It's been debated at Wikipedia talk:Notability (organizations and companies)/Archive 15#Are trade magazines/portals acceptable? and there was absolutely no consensus to support your blanket claim that trade mags are excluded as "media of limited interest". More to the point, I have to wonder exactly how you define limited interest. Network World is an IDG publication with 1.6M unique visitors/month.[3] InformationWeek has a circulation of 220,000 according to our article. TechRepublic is owned by CBS and gets 25.6M unique visitors/month.[4]. To put that in perspective, the SF Chronicle only has a circulation of 223K. This is "limited interest" only perhaps in the sense that you don't find technology interesting, not there aren't lots of others who are interested. Msnicki (talk) 05:29, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, trade magazines have limited interest precisely because they are circulated to a specific audience. I am personally into technology - that doesn't mean every other person is. For your question about the influence, you can compare the Alexa ranks: Infoworld - 11,495, Techrepublic - 2757, while mainstream media is a lot ahead at SFGate - 913, NyTimes - 118, Washingtonpost - 181. We are looking at a case where the significant coverage is being almost entirely argued using a few sources in trade magazines. - surely, a notable company (and a tech company at that) would have received some significant coverage in mainstream media right? My position is clear - this is one of the numerous companies which do automated testing with nothing to show why this one is significant or better than the others. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 00:43, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. as far as I can tell, in this case the sources might be sufficient.The techrepublic article may be based to some part on a press release, but it is their own analysis. They say in so many words "its better than nothing. " DGG ( talk ) 05:37, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- the article appears to be WP:A7 territory. I'm not sure it can be expanded much based on the sources available. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:35, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You stripped down the article to two sentences (e.g. diff). There's plenty that can be written based upon what sources report. North America1000 01:07, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, based on what was in the article. Network World is a long article, but all of this (millions of registered users, exams administered, etc) are company claims. They cannot be independently verified as the company is private. That's why private companies are generally much less notable vs publicly-traded ones -- they are niche, up & comers, vying for funding, etc (see for example, this greenfield opportunity: dozens of entries and probably 90% non notable: List of collaborative software). These companies do a lot of PR -- but getting ink is not sufficient reason to create an encyclopedia article about them. They do not appear to have made a major impact on society at large or the technology space. So it almost always appears to be the case of WP:TooSoon and reliance on trade press coverage. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:16, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In the diff used by NorthAmerica, the statement that I removed -- "the company has provided its services to over 5,000 corporate and over 6 million individual clients" -- was cited to www.brainbench.com, which a source with a conflict of interest in this case. Add: This was actually restored by NorthAmerica. Again, these are company claims. The rest is cited to about.com, hardly a reliable source. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:23, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Dane2007 talk 22:46, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment to closer - I want them to compare from when I first nominated, the changes started and then the current version, none of which actually has contained substantially enough. Note how even the article was then changed, after I nominated, to actually contain product, services, clients and pricing information.... SwisterTwister talk 23:08, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment to closer – Check out WP:NOEFFORT. I wouldn't mind seeing the article expanded, but this may not occur while it's also nominated for deletion. North America1000 11:04, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. Glantz, Williams (1999-12-08). "Headhunter-Helper Firm Brainbench Lures Investors, Adds Tests". The Washington Times. Retrieved 2016-08-20 – via HighBeam Research. (subscription required)

      The article notes:

      Mike Russiello and his colleagues aren't teachers, but they have given nearly 400,000 tests this year.

      Mr. Russiello runs Brainbench Inc., an on-line testing and certification company formerly known as Tekmetrics.com.

      Brainbench, in Vienna, will announce a $2 million equity investment today by Lycos Ventures, a $75 million venture fund spun off from the company that runs the popular search engine, Lycos.

      Brainbench does independent testing that people can use to demonstrate their skills to prospective employers or bolster resumes. Employers can use the tests to measure the skills of workers already on staff.

      Mr. Russiello also will announce the company's plans to add more tests to its Web site. Brainbench started offering tests and certification exams for information-technology professionals in December 1998. The company will add testing services for professionals in fields including finance, accounting, health care and human resources.

    2. Isa, Marisa Mohd (2003-04-28). "Assessing career skills via online tests". New Straits Times. Retrieved 2016-08-20 – via HighBeam Research. (subscription required)

      The article notes:

      There are many online courses available these days, but did you know that there are also online testing and certification services to prove your competency in a certain field?

      Brainbench.com at http://www.brainbench.com is an important resource to visit if you're a worker or employer seeking to objectively measure your own skills or those of your employees.

      Founded in 1998, the company has grown quickly and now has over 1,000 corporate customers and four million registered individual users.

      I found the services offered by the site impressive and certainly useful. The tests being offered cover over 400 of today's highly in- demand skills, ranging from purely technical skills in information technology to soft skills in fields like office management.

      ...

      Brainbench tests are delivered online as Computer Adaptive Tests (CATs). Unlike pencil-and-paper tests, CATs enable test-takers to get immediate feedback on their performance.

      ...

      Another excellent feature is the Brainbench transcript itself. In it, you will find out what your score really means. There will be a detailed analysis of your percentile rankings and areas of strengths and also weaknesses, if any.

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Brainbrench to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 18:19, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment to closer - The sources listed above are essentially simply PR and PR-like, either by being interviews with the businesspeople themselves or simply PR altogether, focusing with the company's funding and finances, something that is always expected to be mentioned with media, but in itself not actually something convincing for notability here. SwisterTwister talk 03:48, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Easily disproved as a misrepresentation of the sources. Not one of the first 3 sources mentioned above (Network World, Information Week, TechRepublic) even mentions the company's funding. Msnicki (talk) 07:40, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus.  Sandstein  07:53, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

London Buses route 53[edit]

London Buses route 53 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable bus route. It's only claim to notability is that it serves a section of road that no other bus route serves, which isn't exactly an uncommon thing!

Trivial mention of a minor non-injury collision, the sort of thing that happens daily on the roads. Jeni (talk) 13:17, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - not noteworthy for a stand alone article, trivia. Kierzek (talk) 13:30, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - Passes GNG as there are a number of sources on the page. Most of them are books. Also, another claim of notability is that it was the first route in London and possibly the whole country to receive the brand new Wright Gemini 3 Hybrid buses. Class455fan1 (talk) 14:37, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Just out of interest, which part of Wikipedia:Speedy keep applies here? I can't find any books in the sources list of the article, only niche enthusiast magazines. Two of the magazine references appear to be passing references in an article that's not about the route itself, while the other is detailing how the route was diverted due to a road closure. All trivial mentions.
    Please by all means provide some non trivial coverage, in independent non self published sources and I'm sure we can reconsider. Jeni (talk) 14:48, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Reference 1 is a book "Seeing Red", published by Ian Allan publishing, which is highly regarded for its books on transportation (sadly the man himself passed away a about a year ago) There are also a number of articles in the BUSES Magazine about the new tender and the Gemini 3's and some consultations on the route from TfL about the extension to Whitehall. There are a number of sources listed which are by local news sources around South London about the cutback to Lambeth North, so is covered in secondary sources Class455fan1 (talk) 15:00, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Nope, "Seeing Red" is an article titled "Seeing Red" in "Buses Focus" magazine, which was a sister magazine by Ian Allan. Ultimately a niche enthusiast magazine, just like Buses Magazine. There are no books in the reference list.
    You still haven't answered as to which part of Wikipedia:Speedy keep applies? You still haven't given any non trivial sources! Jeni (talk) 18:11, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Buses Magazine was recently transferred over to the care of "Key Publishing" in 2013 so there are some sources in there, There is an article in the July 2014 article about the new Gemini 3 and one around the time when the tender was announced, but I don't have either of these issues because I don't subscribe to the magazine (I'm not made of money), but i remember seeing a big article about the Gemini 3's in the July 2014 issue as i had a look whilst in a WHSmith around that time. I did opt for speedy keep because of WP:IGNOREALLRULES but I did not see the "in a nutshell" part about WP:SNOW as I was using the mobile site (not the app) at the time, so I've changed it to strong keep. Class455fan1 (talk) 19:05, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Class455fan1 (talk) 14:44, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Class455fan1 (talk) 14:44, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: to be honest most of the London bus articles could be deleted under this criterion. WP:AfD/London Buses Route 43? "Non notable bus article". WP:AfD/London Buses Route X26? "Non notable bus article". WP:AfD/London Buses Route 1573? "Non notable bus article". I fail to see what could make any typical ordinary local bus route notable. jcc (tea and biscuits) 21:29, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This route is over 100 years old and it's easy to find detailed coverage because London buses are especially well studied. Andrew D. (talk) 10:07, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    You've found a picture of a bus on route 53 with a passing mention that it was renumbered, this is not detailed coverage! Jeni (talk) 10:56, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per 455 and Andrew D. Notability can be found through print as well as the web, per above. Granted, it needs expansion, but at a later date. Nordic Nightfury 10:13, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or redirect. I haven't got time to search for sources right now, but if there is insufficient coverage for an article at the present time it should be redirected (with edit history intact) to a relevant list article. Some London bus routes are notable, which means that all the London bus routes are logical and useful search terms that should direct readers to a list where they can find basic information and links to resources for further study should they wish. Thryduulf (talk) 10:40, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. "In November 2008, a bus travelling on the route was involved in a collision with a car in Woolwich. There were no serious injuries. Passengers stated that the bus driver had braked sharply to avoid a more serious collision, and he was praised by a spokesman for bus operator Selkent.[1]" Seriously? This is pure trivia.Charles (talk) 10:47, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Bus and car crash in Hillreach, Woolwich (From News Shopper)
There is no guideline as far as I'm aware that covers adding trivial information into articles as long as it can be verified, which it is. The only time where it should be avoided is having a section in the article that consists of pure trivia only. See WP:TRIVIA. Class455fan1 (talk) 10:54, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now (edit conflict) -- This needs to be considered as part of a much wider nomination for all London bus routes, not piecemeal (unless this is intended as a test nom). I have in the past been highly critical of bus route articles on the basis that they are ephemeral and liable to require a lot of maintenance. At present we have articles on most routes numbered below 200. We should have articles on all or none. Andrew Davison says it is 100 years old; that may be correct, but the article only goes back to the adoption of new buses following deregulation about 20 years ago. To the extent that the former nationalised (muncipalised?) system survived for much of the 20th century, it may be of sufficient endurance to merit articles. If so, it would be an exception. I support the removal of most bus route articles, as ephemeral and unmaintainable. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:58, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Peter, a couple of years ago, nearly every bus route (and lists of bus routes) in the country were deleted by AfD but at the time the London routes were highly guarded by a number of enthusiasts who have no regard for Wikipedia and it's standards. Most London routes that come to AfD these days get deleted by a fairly large consensus, this is the first that's got more than 1 or 2 keeps. Jeni (talk) 11:31, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Some bus routes are ephemeral but some are not and 80+ years with only minor tweaks is not uncommon in London. You simply cannot gloss route 24 (unchanged since 1912) and route 135 (commenced 2008) as the same. Thryduulf (talk) 12:03, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I said "for now" because I believe either we should keep then all or delete them all. The London routes have had a long term stability not found elsewhere, which might be grounds for keeping. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:43, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep This article passes WP:GNG since it has received significant coverage over many different type of sources that do include WP:RS. The threshold of notability has been breached. Maybeparaphrased (talk) 14:30, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Maybeparaphrased, which part of Wikipedia:Speedy keep applies here? Jeni (talk) 15:12, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete So far the Keep ivotes are claiming "detailed coverage" (which there is not); "books in the references" (which apparently there are not). Additionally, a link provided here at this AfD to a Book on Google books covers the look and color of London buses in 1979 - which seems to be a very trivial subject - and it has trivial coverage in captions of the buses that are covered - and I am not seeing Route 53 in this book - but the coverage would be trivial because the subject matter is wholly trivial.
Also, the subject of the first reference seems to be about a writer for the niche magazine driving London buses, it is not about Route 53, and not only that - I don't see where route 53 is mentioned in the article. Using this as a reference in the article is misleading. Essentially, I have to agree with the nominator, User:Jeni that there is group within bus enthusiasts who have no regard for Wikipedia and its standards.
This is not a fan site and it is not a hobbyist site. I don't see how ordinary bus routes in London are notable and deserve a stand alone article - even if some routes are 100 years old. Overall, there does not appear to be significant coverage of this topic in reliable sources - it is not notable and has not demonstrated any notable impact. Lastly, I think a redirect is acceptable - if not then delete. Steve Quinn (talk) 14:48, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Further cited history has now been added. Agree with User:Peterkingiron that a more thorough discussion need take place at somewhere like talk:WikiProject London Transport to come up with a set of criteria that could then be applied rather than random AfDs which result in better articles being deleted and lesser ones retained.
A point made by the nominating editor[5] that resulted in her lodging a formal complaint.[6] If Midlands bus route 8 was deemed worthy of retention, but the others on that debate not, there can't have been much on these articles to defend. 11Expo (talk) 14:51, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Off-topic and inappropriate commentary on editor behavior. Editors are warned to not repeat such behavior at AFD in the future. All conduct disputes should be raised an an appropriate forum, such as WP:ANI. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 09:26, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed by Coffee. Please do not modify it.
  • Note for closing editor There appears to have been some canvassing by User:Jeni [7] etc. While the validity of doing so is debatable, some editors had issues with the practice at a previous AfD at [8] where as in this case, the editor only initiated when the numbers weren't going her way. Had that debate not gone the editors way, wouldn't be to cynical to suggest the canvassing would have occurred, with the punt being taken it will result in a net of more votes agreeing with her. 11Expo (talk) 14:52, 26 July 2016 (UTC) In addition User:Jcc has also canvassed [9] etc, further compromising the process. 11Expo (talk) 07:29, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Yet you have no issue at all with the canvassing by User:Jcc who largely went after people who !voted keep in discussions going back years? We went through this last time, my canvassing is valid as I've notified people who !voted both keep and delete in previous discussions and haven't been selective (it's worth noting, many people have come here and !voted keep after my message.) Ultimately, you're troublemaking and stirring, just like you were last time. Feel free to run to the admins again, you'll get exactly the same response as last time. Jeni (talk) 14:58, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Canvassing shouldn't occur, period. If another editor did it previously then I would also take issue with it, please stop taking things personally. 11Expo (talk) 15:05, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    You've read WP:CAN, right? Where does it say that "Canvassing shouldn't occur, period"? If you're going to take issue with it, I'm waiting for you to report User:Jcc for canvassing. (I know you won't, because their style of canvassing was biased towards your viewpoint) Jeni (talk) 15:08, 26 July 2016 (UTC) She of little faith, has been noted above. 11Expo (talk) 07:29, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Ha, ha ha. I knew this was going to happen. User:Jeni was accused of canvassing once, so as I asked people for their opinions, on their talk pages, out in the open, I knew that she would leap on this. So I prepared an Google Docs. So unfortunately Jeni, the sheet proves that your claim that I "largely went after people who !voted keep in discussions going back years" is wrong; in fact I took great pains to contact equal numbers on both sides, which why in some cases I had to use "discussions going back years" to find such people. Ironically enough, only one person selected to be notified that voted "keep" at a prior discussion as of 18:00 BST has come here, so your claim is completely and utterly disproven- if anything Jeni's canvass where she contacted everyone in a discussion that ended in a delete vote where only two people voted for keep is canvassing. Boom, there's a boomerang for you. Look at 11Expo's talkpage if you have any doubts as to whether Jeni gets on with him/her- the talkpage is cluttered with templated warnings from her. :) Report me if you want User:Jeni, but I think I've proven my point. jcc (tea and biscuits) 16:56, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think you mean WP:BOOMERANG, Jcc 😜.Class455fan1 (talk) 18:46, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Hold up, Something fishy is going on around here, I smell a rat. It's funny how Jeni didn't notify anyone that a deletion discussion was going on for others such as for Route 390 (this happened when I was blocked), route 99 but for this one, there's a notification sent, and it's leaning towards keep. You said when this issue was brought up in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/London Buses route 70 back in February, you said this:
"And just FYI, I will do exactly the same thing at the next similar AfD"
but you only did it for this one, not for others which occured during February and July (which there was about three or four more during that time). And most of them were nominated by you for deletion. Can you please explain why? Class455fan1 (talk) 19:05, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's probably because Jeni knows it is contentious. If the votes are going her way no need to rock the boat, it’s only when they are not, that the editor decides it’s worth a punt, hence why it was done here and at route 70. End result is that canvassing by 2 editors has compromised the integrity of the process and it may end up being ruled null and void. 11Expo (talk) 07:29, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No jcc, your comments are completely incorrect and you make me wonder whether you've even bothered to read WP:CAN. That page lists "editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics)" as a valid group to send messages to about a discussion. Not once on that page is it stated that the pool notified of the discussion has to be neutral, as long as they did actually participate in the discussion. Your canvassing is far more of a worry, because you went out of your way to notify specific editors, and not others. If your notifying people who participated in a past discussion, you have to notify all of them, not just an even split. Omni Flames (talk) 22:39, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
An "even split" could have been down to the fact that some users may have already been notified about the discussion. Also to clarify, I am not saying that anyone is canvassing, I'm just suspicious about it because if these notifications weren't part of the previous discussions since February, why suddenly for this discussion have notifications been sent out?? Class455fan1 (talk) 23:10, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Omni Flames: I'm afraid that I'll have to disagree with you there. I shall ignore the phrase "whether you've even bothered to read WP:CAN", because that is a pretentious bit of twaddle, and instead point you back in that very direction. It says that: appropriate notification is 1) limited (tick, I notified 18 people), 2) Neutral (my message was "Hi! I see that you commented at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/London_Buses_route_X. You may be interested in commenting at this new Article for Deletion nomination Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/London Buses route 53."), 3) Nonpartisan- and this is the important bit. You accused me of votestacking- but the crucial thing is that votestacking is where you selectively notify people (which I did, hands in the air)- but here's the key bit- "to gain a numerical advantage"- which I most definitely did not. It also says "it would be votestacking to selectively notify a disproportionate number of "Keep" voters or a disproportionate number of "Delete" voters" further down the page. This the Google Doc disproves, and finally 4) Open- I did on their talk pages. On the other hand, as Class455fan1 pointed out, take a look at User:Jeni. When the going got a bit rough, she decided to notify a discussion where the result was delete- where instead there had been other recent discussions that resulted in keep that she could have chosen from. She hasn't done this for any bus article AfDwhere the result was leaning towards delete. WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY says that one should look at the principle behind the policy, and the clear principle of CANVASS is to avoid promoting one side of the discussion over the other- and I think I've kept to that. In addition, have look at this section on the canvass talk page. jcc (tea and biscuits) 08:53, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You'll find that I notified participants in the 4 most recent bus route AfDs rather than trying to cherrypick. It's not my fault that very few bus route AfDs go the way of keep! Jeni (talk) 09:20, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - As noted above I and many others got rid of well over a hundred bus routes here (Lists as well as actual service numbers like this article) .... Other than these buses being in London there's no actual difference between this route and a National Express one that's been deleted, They all still fail GNG and the only reason half of these are kept is because of the enthusiasts ..... I would happily nominate every single bus route on here if I knew I wasn't going to be dragged at DRV over it, If people want articles on this stuff then there's Wikia and god knows what else. Delete. –Davey2010Talk 16:11, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Keep' Good article on a notable and well used bus route. Kafuffle (talk) 16:28, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Bus routes are significant geographic features of a city. They are usually fairly permanent (i.e., they may change every few years, but not every month, so it's possible to keep up with the changes. Some people hee seem to think we have a rule than WP is Not a Gazetteer--no, in fact we have a very fundament al policy in WP:Five pillars that WP "combines many features of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers. ", Bus routes are mainly discussed in local papers when significant changes are proposed-- and to the extent we admit them as reliable sources for notability, it should possible to find sourcing. The question has nothing to do with the GNG--for the aspect of WP that resembles a traditional encyclopedia , the GNG is usually relevant; for the parts that resemble an almanac or Gazetteer, it is not, because such publication are comprehensive, not selective, and cover every event or featureof theype, not selecting, as encyclopedias do, on the basis of significance or notability. DGG ( talk ) 17:25, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A venerable and notable bus route. London bus routes are typically well covered in books, and this one seems to be no exception per the references. If it's true that many of these bus route articles have been destroyed that's a tragedy. I can't believe the heroes and heroines who have been defending these articles have been described as having "no regard for Wikipedia". The purpose of Wikipedia is to present the sum of all knowledge , not to destroy it! Perhaps a SNG is needed to further protect bus routes, we can't expect arbitrator DGG to arrive and explain policy at each of these discussions. FeydHuxtable (talk) 18:33, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now, or consider Redirect to List of bus routes in London. While a majority of London bus articles aren't notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia - route 53 is one of the more prominent ones. There isn't a great deal of secondary sources in this article, as it stands currently, but this can be easily improved with historical publications to satisfy the WP:N standard. Ajf773 (talk) 19:02, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The "further cited history" mentioned above that has just been added to the article as a reference is a 1996 book entitled "The Motorbus in Central London" by Kenneth Warren. The topic of the book is the motorized bus in London - this does not appear to be coverage of Route 53. It is not on Google Books either. This book is appropriate for coverage in a general article about the London bus system, but I am not seeing how it applies here.
I don't agree with DGG. Ever since I have been editing on Wikipedia it has been - and still is - an encyclopedia. Perhaps for clarification reviewing the What Wikipedia is not page should help. We garner information from Gazettes, Almanacs, or other such publications, but every topic that has an article is based on notability - WP:GNG - as an encyclopedia on par with Encyclopedia Britannica (and we have given them a run for their money) - unless some aspect of SNG squeaks it by.
Also, the paragraph of the Five Pillars to which DGG seems to refer at the outset says: "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia" [10] in Bold Blue. Then it goes on to say "It combines many features of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers". To me this says that as an encyclopedia it combines these things. It does not say we have a part that is a gazette and we have a part that is an almanac and we have a part that are baseball schedules and statistics and so on.
The aggregate of all bus systems in London is notable. This is very different from one bus route that lacks indications of notability. Also, the information discussed in local or regional newspapers is mundane and does not indicate notability. How is notification of a change in a bus route notable? How is construction on a bus route causing a detour notable? Wikipedia is not a directory and is not an indiscriminate collection of information. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 23:07, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I apologize for casting any other editors in a negative light. I did a strike thru of the above comment that I made during my Ivote. At AfD, it is best to discuss content and editing, not other editors. ----- Steve Quinn (talk) 23:17, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Steve Quinn No worries mate, we all get a bit carried away in the heat of the moment :). Class455fan1 (talk) 23:52, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As the editor who added the text from the 1986 "The Motorbus in Central London", the book gives a rundown of the history of about 40 of the older bus routes in London, with each having a 2-3 page history section, so is an appropriate source for this and similar articles should they be deemed worthy of retention. Agree that fancruft, timetable replication and trivia does periodically creep into these articles and should be weeded out. 11Expo (talk) 07:29, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: do other bus routes in London have Wiki articles? K.e.coffman (talk) 01:24, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    All of these ones do, at least: Category:Bus routes in London (see bottom of the page for the category link) Ajf773 (talk) 03:52, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    There are more London bus routes that *don't* have an article than those that do. Jeni (talk) 07:55, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Redirect to the list. Wikipedia is not the sum of all human knowledge. There are many areas for which reliable sources could be found which are not considered worth including. Primary schools for instance have to be of outstanding interest to get an article. Shopping malls have to be of substantial size to be covered, likewise companies. The policies WP:NOTTRAVEL and WP:NOTGUIDE have a bearing on this. Most of these articles have been created by bus fans with little or no encyclopedic content. They are often sourced to news stories about incidents that just happened to be on a route rather than about the actual route. Notability is not inherited from such things. We do not need an article on every ordinary route. Neither do arguments about Wikipedia being a gazeteer have much bearing on this. Gazetteers tend to cover the generalities of travel in an area rather than reproducing detailed directory information which is subject to frequent change.Charles (talk) 21:02, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I agree with Charles. This stuff is better handled as an expanded list, with spin-outs in the event of an unusually meritorious case. That is clearly not the case here. Eusebeus (talk) 16:51, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Off-topic and inappropriate commentary on editor behavior. Andrew Davidson is warned to not repeat such behavior at AFD again. Any conduct concerns should be raised at an appropriate forum, such as WP:ANI. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 09:26, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed by Coffee. Please do not modify it.
  • Notice that Eusebeus has not edited Wikipedia since last September – nearly a year ago. He might prefer that this topic be handled in a different way but he's not going to be exerting himself to make it happen, is he? We should stick with what we have rather than canvassing wishful thinking from editors who have moved on. Andrew D. (talk) 17:17, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Best stick to discussing the topic rather than the merits of particular editors. Charles (talk) 17:56, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Andrew, you're sinking below a line too deep for even you now. Please try to stick to the topic, I'm certain there's a book out there somewhere about this bus route you can link us to in order to irrevocably demonstrate some inherent notability which demands Wikipedia keep this from being deleted. Do you think this line of (poor and confused) diffs is beneficial to this deletion discussion? If you think editors have misbehaved, this is not the correct venue, but I'm certain you are already well aware of that. Please stop disrupting and derailing these discussions with your non-sequiturs. Thanks! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:45, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You may not realise this, but you are addressing the Colonel, one of the finest and most scholarly editors on all of Wikipedia. He does not do non-sequiturs. Let's have some respect! FeydHuxtable (talk) 22:26, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You may not realize this but no one cares, Stop trolling and go do something productive for fucksake. –Davey2010Talk 22:51, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as still nothing substantially convincing for its own article, this would be best mentioned together as one article. SwisterTwister talk 19:43, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update I ordered a copy of The Motorbus in Central London which has now arrived and so I can confirm that it is an excellent source for this historic bus route, containing pages of detail about it. I also see good coverage in other works such as Motor Omnibus Routes in London and the Routemaster Omnibus and so it is clear that the topic passes the WP:GNG. There will be no difficulty in expanding the topic; we just need to get this disruptive discussion terminated so that work can commence. Andrew D. (talk) 05:17, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suggest using these sources to write some encyclopedic content on the more historic routes at Buses in London or as a prose introduction to the list of routes. That would avoid having individual pages with all their promotional links and guide material.Charles (talk) 21:40, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 09:09, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Dane2007 talk 22:44, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 arguments for deletion are rooted in Wikipedia's policies, but those from the one or two people arguing for keeping are not. ("one or two" because the two IP edits are clearly from one person, and it looks very much as though the account is the same person too.) Having "endorsements" from prominent people and "playing a vital role in the art industry" are not in line with policy. The author of the article and both of the "keep" IP edits say that the article should be "strengthened", but whatever that means it is not a reason for keeping the article. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:03, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GhKings[edit]

GhKings (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Lacks significant coverage in independent reliable sources, fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG. — JJMC89 (T·C) 07:56, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 07:57, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 07:57, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As far as Ghana music is concerned, GhKings plays a vital role in the art industry. You might not be familiar with the entertainment industry in Africa, Ghana precisely - the article sources audiovisual endorsements from some of the biggest names in Africa; Omotola Jalade Ekeinde — [11], Reggie Rockstone - curator of Hiplife; Ghana's very own music genre — [12], VIP — [13] and more. They recently emerged as a startup company and has been working hand in hand with the Musicians Union of Ghana (MUSIGA)[14]. I suggest we keep it to further strengthen the article. User:kingsbergdeheddles (talk) 12:00, 5 August 2016 GMT
    Endorsements do not establish notability. We need significant coverage in independent reliable sources. — JJMC89 (T·C) 18:06, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    And I guess you're talking about BBC, CNN and co. Because the article sources from notable tabloids in Ghana; Ghana Web, Ghana Gist, Modern Ghana and George Britton. So unless you're judging the mentioned sources on the same pedestal as BBC or CNN, I think it's unfair. These are reliable sources and trusted by Ghanaians. User:kingsbergdeheddles (talk) 12:11, 6 August 2016 GMT
    Press releases and promotional pieces ([15][16][17][18][19][20][21]) are not independent. — JJMC89 (T·C) 19:04, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    [22] is the only one I can attest as a press release here. Like I said earlier, you need to pay extra attention to the media in Africa - giving props to an organization at the end of an article doesn't render it promotional. I don't see the organisation influencing the articles or so ever - the following classifies it as NOT indepedent and I don't see that with following links you shared; (NOT) press release, (NOT) self published, (NOT) advertising and definitely (NOT) written by the organisation (GhKings). Again, you're not being fair to journalism from Africa. User:kingsbergdeheddles (talk) 03:55, 7 August 2016 GMT
  • Delete -- insufficient sources to meet GNG and CORPDEPTH. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:50, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- Ghana's media is a bit different, but I will help strengthen this article 00:11, 9 August 2016 (GMT) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.66.255.131 (talk) — 41.66.255.131 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Speedy Delete --This article shows no sense of importance and should be deleted immediately41.215.173.94 (talk) 23:17, 9 August 2016 (UTC)— 41.215.173.94 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Delete-- Insufficient reliable sources The45means (talk) 23:40, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- This article just needs to be strengthened. And it's important to Ghana Music. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.66.255.68 (talk) 07:17, 12 August 2016 (UTC) — 41.66.255.68 (talk • contribs) 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, -- Dane2007 talk 22:43, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was The consensus is to delete, for lack of demonstrated notability. "Voice actor of a recurrent character in a TV show" is not a notability criterium. There does not seem to be enough support for either merging or redirecting. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:51, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jillian Henry[edit]

Jillian Henry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I cannot find significant coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources for this subject. There are only three "sources" listed under External Links. They are IMDB, a tv.com page and a TV Guide profile page. David in DC (talk) 15:13, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Doesn't seem to satisfy WP:NACTOR. Has had some roles, but not "significant roles in multiple notable films" (as outlined in Criteria #1 of WP:NACTOR). Maybe someday she'll meet these requirements as an actress, but it seems WP:TOOSOON right now. --My Pants Metal (talk) 17:03, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep or Merge (see update comment below): Cartoons can be "notable films" in some circumstances, and voice actors are just as apt to be notable for their work as screen actors. The policy here is WP:GNG, which supercedes NACTOR, which is an SNG -- an guideline that is helpful, but not exclusive. Montanabw(talk) 05:57, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree with everything you've written about notability. Cartoons can be notable films. Voice actors are as apt to be notable as screen actors. Even if a subject does not meet an SNG, GNG is still in play and someone who meets GNG does not have to meet any particular SNG. But the article cites no reliable sources, and I can find none. How does this subject meet GNG if we can find no reliable sources? David in DC (talk) 14:40, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE: Sam Sailor has found and inserted a source for a couple of facts in the article, in the Berkeley Beacon, the newspaper at the subject's university. I've dug up a primary source for the CARE award, which doesn't really appear to be very exclusive. The subject was one of 125 CARE Awardees in 2005. I still don't see WP:SIGCOV in multiple, independent reliable sources. David in DC (talk) 16:41, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    • Your position is reasonable and adding the WP:BEFORE research helps. I think that we have a highly subjective standard for "significant" coverage, though I think that reliable sourcing is met by newspapers and other press. "Independent" is also one of those rather fuzzy terms. While I agree that imdb is not RS, I think TV Guide is. This is a borderline case and isn't a hill I want to die on, but I think that young voice actors should be given a very thorough looking over before deletion. While people dislike the OTHERSTUFF arguments, this standard of an industry award and a few roles is routinely grounds for !keep votes in those pornstar articles, so I would hope that we give people who work on children's cartoon much more respect and an equal standard to the "other end of the spectrum" industry. Given that these articles tagged by WP:WOMEN are being AfDd or prodded at the rate of about one a day, it is not feasible for me to review all of them; it needs to be a team effort. Montanabw(talk) 20:02, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As an actor/voice actor Henry has had the role of Elena in the Lilo & Stitch franchise. I can't find any sources that goes into any detail about this (I have not seen the films), but if we look at the individual film articles, she's not mentioned. List of Lilo & Stitch characters sheds some light on Elena by saying in § Other characters that, Elena, Teresa, and Yuki: They are three girls that [...] usually travel in a group and seldom say anything other than a drawn-out, sarcastic "Yeah!". So, absolutely minor voice role. Her participation in The Benchwarmers, which premiered in April 2006, when she was 9, is supposedly what she is best know for. The Berkeley Beacon source I added confirms this. But is it true? I would not exactly assume BB qualifies as a thoroughbred reliable source. Henry does, in the film, not get poster credit, in fact the role of Gretchen is so far down the cast list editors here have not included her name in the article. Could that be a mistake? I doubt it. I can't find any other reliable source that goes into any detail about her in this film. Anybody else can? So, I think it's fluff, and I can't dig up anything to support her meeting WP:NACTOR currently. Staying within the subject-specific notability guideline, we turn to WP:ANYBIO, but the CARE Award by the BizParentz Foundation is not notable, and there may be good reasons for that. WP:BASIC, or GNG if you wish, could save her, but I can't find the sources to get us there. Sam Sailor Talk! 19:44, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: It might be worth merging some content to Lilo & Stitch (franchise) or a similar article. WP:BEFORE encourages merges, particularly where the title is a plausible search term, and also, leaving redlinks just invites the article to be recreated; a blue link preserves article history but limits re-creation until there is enough content to justify a spinoff from the parent article. Montanabw(talk) 03:37, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as I'm not entirely convinced by the merging as this, somehow and anyhow, regardless, would still have this vulnerable to restarting, and there's still nothing at all nearly convincing for a substantially independent article. SwisterTwister talk 05:28, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - voice actress for a recurring character on a beloved children's animated film franchise. Bearian (talk) 00:34, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep or Merge, Montanabw has made a good case for keeping the article or merging the information. I completely agree. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:52, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  16:38, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:06, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment @Montanabw, Bearian, and Megalibrarygirl: Can any sources be found and added? Sam Sailor Talk! 06:50, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are too many of these for me to care about all of them. My take is that if someone else cares, great. If not, a merge as I indicated above is my preferred solution. Redlinks just invite another round of the same. Montanabw(talk) 19:22, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 04:14, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Montanabw is right: a redlink makes people want to fill it in. A redirect tends to discourage that. I'd look for sources, but I'm vacation at the moment and doing minimal research. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:01, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:47, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not a fan of the franchise, but I am aware that she played a recurring character's voice in all three films. Bearian (talk) 01:18, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete it would be great to keep this article in Wikipedia but I don't find the sources in general sweeps such as this one. Voice-actors don't tend to get enough ink in the media, in my view, but the GNG is the GNG.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:52, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final Relist -- Dane2007 talk 22:36, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Dane2007 talk 22:36, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Sorry, but this falls short of GNG by a wide margin. Voice actors are often notable btw (particularly in the context of Japan), but they usually have more sources or they have voiced major character in multiple notable productions. I tend to consider voice actors equivalent to actors so WP:ENT is applicable. However, roles voiced are not major roles so I don't think this will pass WP:ENT. Overall I'm going for a delete as this is WP:TOOSOON. As for the merge/redirect, in this particular case I do not favour such an option. We usually do that when a subject has received significant coverage but only for a single event or if the subject is unambigoiusly associated with something. This is not the case here. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 10:08, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as sources haven't been presented showing notability. I don't see where a merge or redirect would be useful. Henry has been involved in more than just Lilo and Stitch, so we shouldn't pigeonhole someone searching for her into just one part of her career. Search results will work better here, and it will show all articles where her name is mentioned, such as Mulan II. -- Tavix (talk) 21:53, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- Tavix (talk) 21:49, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

V Andromedae[edit]

V Andromedae (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Notability has not been established according to WP:NASTRO. This a very faint variable star, one of many of its type, and without specific published research or any other claim to fame. Lithopsian (talk)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:32, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yellow Dingo (talk) 06:42, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't appear to meet WP:NASTRO nor WP:GNG. (Google searches produced results only in databases or for v Andromedae) Chickadee46 (talk|contribs) (WP:MCW) 16:22, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:26, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final Relist -- Dane2007 talk 22:34, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Dane2007 talk 22:34, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Non-notable star. It's a Mira variable, but hasn't received much scientific interest. Praemonitus (talk) 19:35, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 07:33, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Xinhua Finance Agency[edit]

Xinhua Finance Agency (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No significant coverage in independent reliable sources that show the significant impact of this company - only coverage is in press releases, passing mentions, and primary sources. Fails WP:ORG. Steve Quinn (talk) 02:04, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Anarchyte (work | talk) 10:59, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 02:42, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America1000 02:42, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. North America1000 02:42, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:19, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- Sources are insufficient to meet CORPDEPTH and GNG. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:14, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final Relist -- Dane2007 talk 22:33, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Dane2007 talk 22:33, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This one is A7 territory: no claim of significance. I am unable to find any reliable secondary sources for this either. I found a Facebook page which as 122 likes which is quite low. Sorry, but I don't see any notability here. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:52, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails CORP; no in-depth coverage of this company, since most of the hits seem to be passing mentions, the odd quote, and sources affiliated with the subject. Facebook will not cut it. GABgab 18:42, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, but barely so. Article text quality concerns will have to be resolved elsewhere, deletion is not usually the fix for such problems Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:44, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese Cartoon (band)[edit]

Japanese Cartoon (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This has been marked as being too much like a press release for almost 6 years, so I am relisting it for deletion. The concern is an apparent lack of notability and an article that reads like an advertisement. TomStar81 (Talk) 06:35, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:12, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Anarchyte (work | talk) 07:40, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 02:41, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:22, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. We can fix the content issues by normal editing, but the band seems to be notable: [23], [24] and [25] count as significant coverage in reliable sources I think. --Cerebellum (talk) 14:41, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final Relist -- Dane2007 talk 22:32, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Dane2007 talk 22:32, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Euryalus (talk) 13:02, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Steven E. Wedel[edit]

Steven E. Wedel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NBIO. Tagged for notability since June 2008. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 21:50, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:47, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yellow Dingo (talk) 06:44, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep minor writer, sort of in the Kilgore Trout category. I did a little sourcing. I think there is enough in this career to pass the notability bar.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:12, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 02:32, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:25, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- minor writer of marginal notability. Sourcing in the article is weak, with "liverjournal" and the like. I do not see it improving substantially to satisfy GNG. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:49, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • sources He had 5 seconds of fame across the Anglosphere this past spring, that enabled me to source his day job. His publisher is real, and could probably support an article. I pared the article down to the (sourced) bones. Also note that SF Site has covered and reviewed him extensively [28], this material - features, reviews and best-of lists - can be added to the article. I regard coverage of relatively minor WP:CREATIVE careers (when they can be sourced) as one of the most useful aspects of Wikipedia. E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:39, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: there's still a citation to stevenwedel.com - ? K.e.coffman (talk) 19:45, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I figured the guy was reliable for the name of the school he teaches in/I just got lazy.(pick you favorite explanation). You are correct. I just sourced it ti ABC News, the source I added earlier. It is in all the news stories that ONEEVENT thing that hit the news this spring. I'm trying to avoid over stuffing this page by oversourcing page, overdoing that news flurry.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:16, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, still not convincing. The subject is an English teacher who writes books. "Movie rights sold to Blackridge Entertainment" appears trivial for an encyclopedia; this is a non-notable firm (no article) and I'm sure many buy rights and never make movies. RS coverage is just not there to meet GNG. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:31, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Sorry, but this fails GNG by a wide margin. (That facebook post is almost a quote and something which faded from view without any effects). I'm not convinced that the subject passes WP:AUTHOR. There is no evidence that the books written are significant - significant books actually receive secondary coverage. This is a minor writer who is getting some reviews for his book because he stays in the West and I feel keeping this article would be a pretty good example of WP:SYSTEMICBIAS. In other countries, local sources are often considered unreliable or sometimes do not exist. The way to solve systemic bias is to have objective standards. We don't keep minor writers from other countries and neither should we keep those from the West. In addition, the article is clearly being used for promotion. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 01:29, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final Relist -- Dane2007 talk 22:31, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Dane2007 talk 22:31, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 into Einstein family. (non-admin closure) Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 07:05, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Eduard Einstein[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Eduard Einstein (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

In the 2006 AfD the main Keep argument seemed to be "give the article time for development". A decade on, it is still entirely reliant for notability on the subject being a son of Albert Einstein. Notability is not inherited.

The other argument given then was one of completeness, that interested people could jump around the various family members. That is not a reason to retain because we are not a genealogical website. We do now have Einstein family, into which this could be merged but, frankly, that also relies significantly on inheritance for its notability and the very few independently notable family members also (rightly) have their own articles. A brief paragraph or so in the main Albert Einstein article would suffice and, I think, such information is already present. Sitush (talk) 03:42, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge This article appears to be a genealogical entry, somthing against WP:DIRECTORY guidelines. However, it appears to meet the requirement of significant coverage. There should also be coverage of Eduard Einstein on some page due to the affect he would have had on his father. As mentioned in the previous deletion argument, the Albert Einstein page is quite long, so merging the page there would not be ideal; combined with the convention of placing biographies of relatives of Albert Einstein on the Einstein Family page this makes me believe the best option is to merge the Eduard Einstein article into that article. A similar arrangement can be found on the French Wikipedia, creating precedent for this action (however it should be noted that several other Wikipedia's have separate articles about Eduard Einstein). — Preceding unsigned comment added by FactualCollector7d1 (talk • contribs) 04:43, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • So find the significant effect it had on him - this was raised at the 1st AfD ten years ago. As for sources, the refs seem mostly to be primary. And policies/guidelines at other Wikimedia projects set no precedent for en-WP. - Sitush (talk) 05:16, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yellow Dingo (talk) 06:43, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America1000 02:30, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. North America1000 02:30, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:26, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final Relist -- Dane2007 talk 22:30, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Dane2007 talk 22:30, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Einstein family -- it appears that many members of the Einstein family have individual entries: Template:Albert Einstein; some are individually notable and some are not. I believe that in this particular case the sources are rather thin to establish individual notability so a merge would be a good option. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:03, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. A valid rationale for deletion has not been presented. For examples of valid deletion rationales, see WP:DEL-REASON. Of note is that the article creator was soft-blocked (by another admin) per their username being a username violation. North America1000 07:38, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Matilda and the Ramsay Bunch[edit]

Matilda and the Ramsay Bunch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Page is created by editor with username matching article title. Joel.Miles925 (talk) 22:24, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: I'm fairly sure having a username that is the same as an article isn't a reason for deletion. As for sourcing, check out: [29], [30], [31], [32], [33]. Has been featured on other sites: [34]. Passes WP:GNG. Anarchyte (work | talk) 08:37, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Anarchyte (work | talk) 12:24, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Anarchyte (work | talk) 12:24, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. North America1000 07:35, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 21:37, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Shorty's Lunch[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Shorty's Lunch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Nothing at all to show it meets CORP. All coverage cited is local. Before reveals nothing non local in detail. John from Idegon (talk) 22:20, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The subject meets CORP as it has received significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources as contemplated by GNG and refined by CORPDEPTH. We don't require national coverage; we require significant coverage, and that is easily met in this case. Rebbing 00:48, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Rebbing 00:52, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Rebbing 00:52, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America1000 03:12, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 03:12, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. North America1000 03:12, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America1000 03:13, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Washington, Pennsylvania if found to not be independently notable. The potential merge target article has no mention of this historic local landmark other than a link in the See also section. A merge would improve the merge target article and would be a functional and appropriate WP:ATD. North America1000 03:16, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- The business, although of local importance, is covered consistently by sources over the years and decades, so it appears to me that the coverage is significant, being so spread out. It also has an encyclopedic value as a local landmark. The article needs to be trimmed of intricate details (i.e. "the grill broke in 1980s and no one noticed"). But I find the notability established under GNG. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:41, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep GNG is an exceptionally low bar, and this passes. Chris Troutman (talk) 07:19, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. WP:SNOW -- Tavix (talk) 21:55, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

United States vice presidential election, 2016[edit]

United States vice presidential election, 2016 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There is no such thing as a "U.S. vice presidential election". The presidential and vice presidential nominees run on the same ticket as the presidential nominees. This does not strike me as a logical search term, hence deletion as my preferred outcome rather than a merge. (I think all of this info is contained elsewhere, anyway.) – Muboshgu (talk) 22:06, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:06, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. US vice presidential candidates don't run for that office; they just campaign for their boss (or in the case of one dingbat, against him). Clarityfiend (talk) 23:38, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete per above, PLUS: The politics involved are 100% intertwined with the POTUS election. I'm "weak" because it's enough separate information to merit a separate article. See Wikipedia:Content forking —GoldRingChip 23:43, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. North America1000 03:18, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America1000 03:18, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete there is no such thing as a vice presidential election in the US. There is a reason why no article exists for any other election. This needs to be deleted ASAP. Manful0103 (talk) 04:44, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, you can only vote for one unified "ticket," not an individual VP candidate. Thus, we don't have anyone campaigning to elect "Clinton/Pence" or "Trump/Kaine" - because it's simply not possible. We might be able to do something with some of the content in the article (we'll have to discuss that separately), but the article itself is unconvincing. GABgab 19:03, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Sorry kids this is not a place to make-up abstract pages of "fun stuff" you might think about. There are no VP elections in the US. Delete this please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:589:4705:B31D:5414:DA21:D9E1:EAB2 (talk) 13:26, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. & all of the above.--JayJasper (talk) 20:57, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. One could imagine a much reduced article along the lines of "2016 US Vice Presidential Nominations". TallNapoleon (talk) 07:37, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Per nom. Article about a non-existent subject.--NextUSprez (talk) 16:42, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Strictly speaking the above comments are not necessarily true given how the Electoral College works; see Twelfth Amendment to the United States Constitution. For the one case under the current constitutional arrangement where the election of the vice president departed from the election of the president, you could justify United States vice presidential election, 1836. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:03, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think that article would be justified, since it was faithless electors that refused to cast their electoral votes for the VP candidate that threw it into the Senate, meaning it was part of the presidential election and not a vice presidential election. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:33, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This article has to go. It can be broken up and put into elsewhere, but we do NOT have a VP election. Even remain it. Make it a page about ticket vetting. I could live with that. But a VP election page? No. We do NOT spilt ticket.2601:589:4705:B31D:93B:3AF5:D272:D226 (talk) 04:51, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Break-up makes not much sense, as it's a ticket election. Seperate articles would be justified with a separate election like governor and lt. governor in California, but that isn't the case here. --217.110.69.30 (talk) 10:33, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename to something more accurate like "United States vice presidential candidates, 2016" or "United States vice presidential candidate selection process, 2016". There's valuable information here. Instaurare (talk) 04:43, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is already covered in the article about the presidential election (and some others) and there doesn't seem to be a "vice presidential election" to merit this article. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 04:40, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: Merge suggested of ALL these VP articles at Talk:United States presidential election, 2016#Vice Presidential selection articles <merge suggestions>. See Wikipedia:Content forking for a good discussion of content forking, pro & con.—GoldRingChip 13:41, 19 August 2016 (UTC)—GoldRingChip 13:42, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Doesn't make sense having this article. The vice-presidential candidate is elected with the presidential candidate as part of a ticket, it's not a separate election. --yeah_93 (talk) 15:41, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 salt Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:00, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Trizzy[edit]

Trizzy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article about a musician that fails WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO, WP:MUSBIO and any other notability criterion you apply to it. This is a rapper who has seen essentially no media coverage, let alone significant coverage from independent, reliable sources of information. In addition, there appear to be COI concerns at play, and the tone is unfailingly promotional. This might conceivably be a CSD-worthy article, but no matter the means, the outcome is simple: it is not suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. /wiae /tlk 21:43, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 21:44, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Please note that the creator of this article bypassed the WP:AFC process by making a series of minor edits before publishing the article himself. Original name of account: [35] (indicates major COI); article edit history: [36]; self-acceptance of draft: [37]. clpo13(talk) 21:49, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: yes, I was going to query that, I thought that accepting your own article from draftspace was against Wikipedia rules. Fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. Ruby Recordings is not just Trizzy's record label – he founded it. Richard3120 (talk) 22:04, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Salt - Not only is the article subject non-notable, the article creator has gamed the system to get the article published. This user was originally TheRubyRecordings (talk · contribs) (as can be seen here) and as that user tried to hijack Ruby Records. Then came the name change to Chris at Ruby Records (talk · contribs), who created the article in this discussion, then the name was changed again to where it is today: Reuben1995 (talk · contribs). Along the way Draft:Travon Howard was also created. Perhaps it should end here. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 22:21, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails notability -- HighKing++ 01:03, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I read the rules, and it never said I wasn't allowed to accept my own article aslong as I followed the guidelines. 2. Trizzy is not the founder of Ruby Recordings, Erick Lang is the founder of Ruby Recordings, and he signed Trizzy. Trizzy isn't only a musician but also an entrepreneur. Trizzy is an notable subject and I already added references to prove. I recently watched another musician article page that doesn't have reliable sources still active. Please do not delete article. Reuben 22:33, 12 August 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reuben1995 (talk • contribs)

I never tried to hijack Ruby Records, it's just the names are similar and the article on Ruby records is outdated and that company is defunct. I didn't change username the first time, uncle milty. You made me change it, to name at Ruby records, and when I seen that having real name can get you harassments, I asked to change my username. Reuben 22:40, 12 August 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reuben1995 (talk • contribs)

Can you explain to me how this article is non-notable? And if the article is not ready, can you move it back to draft so I can continue to fix this article.Reuben 22:42, 12 August 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reuben1995 (talk • contribs)

If Trizzy didn't found Ruby Recordings then perhaps you had better fix your own Facebook page which clearly states "Ruby Recordings is a full service management, music publishing & entertainment company founded by Travon Howard". Richard3120 (talk) 22:47, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

kinda like what jay-z does. it says he's the founder to bring attention to the company/record label since he is signed to them. Reuben 23:09, 12 August 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reuben1995 (talk • contribs)

Are you saying that Jay-Z was not one of the founders of Roc-a-Fella? Richard3120 (talk) 23:18, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

>

No. What i am saying is, Jay-Z was not the founder of the Brooklyn Nets (Formally known as New Jersey Nets) but the way he cosigned the nets by saying he was the founder of the Brooklyn Nets, gained attention from the public. Reuben 23:27, 12 August 2016 (UTC) (UTC)

We have already explained why the subject is not notable - read WP:GNG and WP:MUSBIO and tell us which criteria Trizzy passes for notability. Richard3120 (talk) 23:11, 12 August 2016 (UTC) > i used the same references that was used for Famous Dex and more, before the article got updated to what it looks like now. if that's the case why was Famous Dex article approved before independent sources were on the article?[reply]


Also, these are independent reliable sources about Trizzy. [1] [2] [3] [4] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reuben1995 (talk • contribs) 23:37, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ DeJohn, Carolyn . "Pitches Pay Off at YEA! Investor Panel Event", MVCC, New York, 9 April 2014. Retrieved on 26 July 2016.
  2. ^ Mohawk Valley EDGE " Edge annual report 2014 web" EDGE, New York, 2014. Retrieved on 30 July 2016
  3. ^ "Young entrepreneurs to pitch plans at MVCC" Rome Sentinel. Retrieved on 26 July 2016.
  4. ^ Clark, Kristin. "Business leaders invest in student ideas at Young Entrepreneur Academy presentation", Oneida Dispatch, New York, 11 April 2014. Retrieved on 26 July 2016.

This article Famous Dex was created using a livemixtapes link (which trizzy has) and somebody else's website as references. i seen it with my own eyes. and u can go back an check the edits on that article as well. and you will see with your own eyes as wellReuben 23:45, 12 August 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reuben1995 (talk • contribs)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 21:31, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

White savior narrative in film[edit]

AfDs for this article:
White savior narrative in film (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A tendentious "white people are bad"-type thesis masquerading as an article based on the work of one academic. The list-type nature has resulted in constant bickering (e.g., multiple long-running threads on the TP regarding "The Matrix") over what should be included. Noting that at least two others[38][39] likewise think it ought to be heaved, I'm nominating. Froglich (talk) 21:17, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: I note that the article has been nominated twice before. Can anyone provide a logical reason as to why they think this article is going to improve?--Froglich (talk) 21:21, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Regarding your addendum: both of the other discussions were clear keeps. At any rate, there's no policy that articles prone to bickering should be deleted. clpo13(talk) 21:26, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As mentioned in the previous AFD's this narrative is noted in critical and scholarly research. It clearly meets WP:GNG. The suggestion that it is a "white people are bad" article (it is actually much more than this) leads to pointing out that WP:NOTCENSORED applies. All WikiP articles are open to editing and improvement - that happens with discussion on the talk page for the article - not by endless AFD's. MarnetteD|Talk 21:32, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
<dry sarcasm> While I do stipulate that the anencephalics who presently dictate academia have indeed awarded the indefatigably bow-tied Matthew W. Hughey with an associate professorship in the low-rent-district of hyphenated-weeble studies, I would strenuously object to the premise that the output of a fellow whose entire career has consisted of moaning about "Hegemonic Whiteness"[40] in any way constitutes "critical" (in the "important" or "necessary" sense of the definition) research.--Froglich (talk) 22:11, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there's the real agenda for this AfD. --Drmargi (talk) 23:49, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, there it is. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 12:58, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep: this nomination just reeks of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. As others have stated it is well referenced by reliable sources and surpasses our general notability guideline.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 21:45, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and improve There appears to be sufficient significant coverage in the works of Hughey[41], Schultz[42] et al to meet notability guidelines; though the independence of those from the theory of the trope could be questioned. Passing mentions of the trope in individual films make up the bulk of the article's references, and do not provide significant coverage required to add to notability, but I conceive that there is still a sufficiency. Improve the article through removal of the contentious list, and refinement of the prose to focus on a discussion & documentation of the trope itself, including attribution of POV; rather than focusing on collating purported uses. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 02:59, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America1000 03:23, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because the topic is notable through coverage in multiple reliable sources. The trope has even been discussed in recent movies The Legend of Tarzan and Free State of Jones. The nominator simply does not like it because they apparently feel offended by the topic (calling it the "animating spirit of anti-white racism" on the talk page). This nomination in spite of overwhelming evidence about the topic shows an attempted POV pushing just because they are squeamish about the topic. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 12:57, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It is a reasonably-referenced article on a topic covered in multiple reliable sources. It is both notable and necessary for a modern encyclopedia. Meanwhile the nominator Froglich reveals his/her own anti-academic bias on both the nomination and his/her comments: "the anencephalics who presently dictate academia" So the concept is used in academia, but in the nominator's opinion academics have anencephaly ( absence of a major portion of the brain) and should be disregarded. Troubling behavior by the nominator which makes it hard to assume good faith for his/her nomination. Dimadick (talk) 07:55, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Since you felt obliged to paste my name into your fantasy-projected non sequitur including me within a group comprised of myiad other individuals purportedly unable to tell the difference between a this-topic-irreverent Hollywood film (whose associated article I have neither ever edited nor submitted for AfD) and an originally-researched Wikipedia list article unlikely to ever approach a semblance of neutrality while including its list -- could you please hold still while I smack you upside the head with a salmo trutta fario while reciting the Pastafarian anthem? *Smack!* Thanks... --Froglich (talk) 07:55, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Omphalophobia (noun): Fear of being salted. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:22, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Omphalophobia[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Omphalophobia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is now the third pass on this non-medical "phobia", which I can only find reference to in the inevitable lists of supposed phobias. Can we salt it this time? Mangoe (talk) 20:29, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:22, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 21:33, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Luis Garza[edit]

Luis Garza (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I would like to submit the Luis Garza article for speedy deletion. This page has only one citation. The person is not of relevance to the Catholic Church nor to the Legion of Christ nor to society at large. For example, I could create many articles on many priests around the world, but that would not be of relevance. Luis Garza has never written a book, never has been the president of a school, and he is not "the second highest ranking person in the organization" like the article alludes to. During my research, I found that he is simply a Mexican priest who happens to live in the United States and is part of the Legion of Christ. In my opinion, there is no reason for this article to exists.24.216.70.255 (talk) 19:29, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - I completed the nomination for the IP. I didn't think speedy was an option so I brought it here. ansh666 20:18, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ansh666 20:20, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. ansh666 20:20, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. ansh666 20:20, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. ansh666 20:20, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ansh666 20:20, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep: Presumably nominated in error. The nomination says "The person is not of relevance to the Catholic Church nor to the Legion of Christ" but - as the reference in the article attests - he was certainly Vicar General. StAnselm (talk) 20:54, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as the reference confirms his former position, more references would be helpful Atlantic306 (talk) 21:52, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep: Agreed that this article lacks reliable sources. Confirming User:StAnselm's comment about clear relevance for the Legion both as #2 in command and as the one to break the sexual scandal of Fr Maciel. I can tell from non-reliable sources (word of mouth) that most of the info is true but someone really needs to source this. >> M.P.Schneider,LC (parlemus • feci) 01:36, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Needs more sourcing to pass GNG. pbp 03:56, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: There is no proof that Luis Garza was the first to break the sexual scandal of Marcial Maciel. Many others within the congregation and without actually tried to address the scandal but to no avail. The notion that Luis Garza was the first to break the sexual scandal is without reason. Also, the fact that Garza was Vicar General of a congregation of little note, does not require him to have a Wikipedia page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.216.70.255 (talk) 05:28, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note that it's considered inappropriate for a nominator to also have a bolded vote outside the nomination statement. You should probably strike this out. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 06:44, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as this is currently a stub article, I updated with RC-bio-stub, WP Mexico & search template (to talk page) thereby hoping to attract attention of more editors. I agree this article needs more Refs but I did not tag with Refimprove because it already has stubs. Regards, — JoeHebda • (talk) 14:18, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Garza was clearly a high ranking person within the Catholic hierarchy. PBP has expressed a general dislike of the vast majority of articles on figures within religious hierarchies, and has been routinely defeated in his attempts to delete such articles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:14, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Johnpacklambert needs to stop personalizing things. He also needs to realize why I vote delete on articles like these: if there aren't sources independent of the church of which somebody is an official, I vote delete. There are many other people who agree with my stance on this, and therefore many articles that have been deleted on this premise. pbp 15:28, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment most of the sources used in this article are news publications that have no ownership relationship with the Catholic Church. PBP's interpretation of what and what is not a related source has been resoundly defeated in the long discussions related to his failed attempt to delete the article on Octaviano Tenorio. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnpacklambert (talk • contribs) 19:49, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Resoundly defeated"? That article was closed as no consensus, and it doesn't matter if it was keep, delete, or no consensus, it doesn't have any particular bearing on this AfD. pbp 22:50, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 2016 Wimbledon. (non-admin closure) Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 07:58, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gabriella Taylor[edit]

Gabriella Taylor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Perhaps this person make it to GNG, because of the poisoning incident. I don't think so but I'm not in the UK to determine the amount of uproar. She is not notable for anything tennis related per WP:NSPORT or WikiProject Tennis Guidelines. Maybe she will someday be notable for tennis, since she has tried to qualify for Wimbledon, so it could be userfied. But right this second she's a no. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:48, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Sir Joseph (talk) 20:02, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Sir Joseph (talk) 20:02, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. According to a comment on the talk page "Miss Taylor made the second round of ladies singles qualifiers for Wimbledon in both 2014 and 2016, and the quarter finals of the girls singles at Wimbledon in 2016". So did she actually represent GB at Wimbledon? The posting is unclear on that. Assuming she did, surely that would make her a notable tennis player. Assuming she didn't then she doesn't meet the notability guidelines. Turning to the alleged poisoning for a moment, it received some media coverage yesterday, but nothing significant (see here). These are allegations, and a police investigation is ongoing. This is Paul (talk) 20:45, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
She did not represent GB at Wimbledon, she didn't make the field. This is sort of how tennis works for the ladies for non-tennis editors. You have the WTA tour... these are the events that are on tv and it includes the 4 grand slam events and 53 lesser tournaments. If you make the main draw field in any of the WTA tournaments you are notable. Just be included in the 32, 64, or 128 player draw. You can attempt to qualify for one of those main draws by playing your way through a bunch of qualifying matches. She won one qualifying match as shown in her activity at the ITF website, but lost in round two. There is also the minor league ITF tour. $50,000-$100,000 events that are not televised so you won't see these even on Tennis Channel. To be notable for that minor league tour you must win the tournament, singles or doubles. She has not done that. She entered one $50,000 event and was crushed in the second round.
$10,000-$25,000 events on the ITF tour are considered below minor league and are not notable even if you win. She won one doubles $10,000 and one singles $10,000. For the children in jr's, if you are ranked top 3 in the world in jr's or win either Wimbledon jrs, French Open jrs, Australian Open jrs or US Open jrs. you are notable. Singles or doubles, it doesn't matter. So Tennis Project is pretty open about automatic notability. It's uncommon, but some players simply get overwhelming press... mostly from tiny nations, because they are the best player in their country. That would satisfy GNG rather than tennis notability. I'm not convinced that an "alleged" poisoning (unless later confirmed), makes this person notable. Sort of 15 minutes of fame for something that likely didn't happen. But I'm not in the UK to be the best judge of that so I opened it up here to be convinced otherwise. I hope that helps for editors that don't do a lot of tennis editing. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:44, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America1000 03:29, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to 2016 Wimbledon. She did get a fair bit of coverage over this incident: [43] but at the moment it's BIO1E. I say save the edit history and avoid a redlink. Montanabw(talk) 07:42, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge If tennis experts can't agree she merits an article merging looks better than losing the material in the article. Proxima Centauri (talk) 10:44, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually we do agree that she does not merit an article for anything tennis related. But just like if John Doe at a shopping mall was found to have been poisoned by a spy, if that gets enough coverage, GNG may be activated. It's as simple as that. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:18, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  Sandstein  07:19, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Boys and expression of healthy emotions[edit]

Boys and expression of healthy emotions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NOTJOURNAL, WP:NOTESSAY, or some other category on WP:NOT. PROD removed by article creator. JudgeRM (talk to me) 19:47, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. JudgeRM (talk to me) 19:50, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. JudgeRM (talk to me) 19:50, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:48, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 21:34, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ginger Wallace[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Ginger Wallace (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This subject does not meet WP:ARTIST or WP:BASIC, as per several source searches. The first AfD discussion was closed as no consensus in August 2011. North America1000 07:18, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America1000 07:19, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. North America1000 07:19, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 07:19, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: NOT a great article but I believe it establishes at least a sufficient degree of notability. Needs work, though. I'm open to being convinced I am wrong as this is not my field of expertise. Quis separabit? 19:55, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:Artist. One exhibition (of original book illustrations) in the San Diego Art Institute is not enough to establish notability. Mduvekot (talk) 22:17, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti Talk 19:44, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Won awards in a major metro area, article needs work, but given the era, not a lot will be google-able. Montanabw(talk) 07:51, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that Wallace was the recipient of one award, the non-notable Millennium Award, not several. Per this source it "is presented to individuals or organizations committed to the betterment of the park …". Mduvekot (talk) 10:49, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I added sources that show her to be important in several Balboa park initiatives. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 00:56, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment from nominator – Changing my stance from delete to weak keep, per two sources (added to the article) that demonstrate WP:BASIC is met: [44], [45]. Struck part of my nomination above. North America1000 08:38, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 21:35, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Israel at the 2015 FIFA Women's World Cup[edit]

Israel at the 2015 FIFA Women's World Cup (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Another in a series of articles by same user: Israel in [Year] [Competition]. For multi-sport competitions like the Olympics, this is notable, but not for things like this, especially when they failed to qualify. Smartyllama (talk) 19:34, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is suggested (by me) at wt:AFD#duplicative separate AFDs "Israel at the 1954 World Cup" etc. that this AFD and many similar others be stopped and closed immediately, on basis these were not set up right. --doncram 21:51, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Additional articles under debate
Mandatory Palestine at the 1938 FIFA World Cup (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Israel at the 1994 FIFA World Cup (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Israel at the EuroBasket 2015 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Israel at the EuroBasket 2017 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Mandatory Palestine at the 1934 FIFA World Cup (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Israel at the 1950 FIFA World Cup (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Israel at the 1954 FIFA World Cup (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Israel at the 1958 FIFA World Cup (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Israel at the 1962 FIFA World Cup (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Israel at the 1966 FIFA World Cup (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Israel at the 1970 FIFA World Cup (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Israel at the 1974 FIFA World Cup (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Israel at the 1978 FIFA World Cup (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Israel at the 1982 FIFA World Cup (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Israel at the 1986 FIFA World Cup (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Israel at the 1990 FIFA World Cup (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Israel at the 1998 FIFA World Cup (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Israel at the 2002 FIFA World Cup (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Israel at the 2006 FIFA World Cup (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Israel at the 2010 FIFA World Cup (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Israel at the 2014 FIFA World Cup (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Israel at the EuroBasket 1953 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Israel at the EuroBasket 1961 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Israel at the EuroBasket 1963 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Israel at the EuroBasket 1965 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Israel at the EuroBasket 1967 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Israel at the EuroBasket 1969 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Israel at the EuroBasket 1971 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Israel at the EuroBasket 1973 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Israel at the EuroBasket 1975 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Israel at the EuroBasket 1977 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Israel at the 1954 FIBA World Championship (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Israel at the 1996 UEFA European Championship (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Israel at the 2000 UEFA European Championship (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Israel at the 2004 UEFA European Championship (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Israel at the 2008 UEFA European Championship (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Israel at the 2012 UEFA European Championship (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Israel at the 2016 UEFA European Championship (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Israel at the 2016 European Baseball Championship (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Israel at the 1964 AFC Asian Cup (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Israel at the 1960 AFC Asian Cup (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Israel at the 1956 AFC Asian Cup (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Israel at the 2010 European Baseball Championship (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Israel at the 2012 European Baseball Championship (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Israel at the 2013 World Baseball Classic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Israel at the 2017 World Baseball Classic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Israel at the EuroBasket 2013 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Israel at the 1999 FIFA Women's World Cup (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Israel at the 2003 FIFA Women's World Cup (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Israel at the 2007 FIFA Women's World Cup (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Israel at the 2011 FIFA Women's World Cup (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Israel at the 2001 UEFA Women's Championship (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Keep - Firstly, these types of pages are extremely common and happen all the time. Are you saying that we should go around and delete Israel at the 2016 Summer Olympics because you can get info on all of these sports on the individual pages, such as Judo at the 2016 Summer Olympics? Secondly, all of the info is not found on other pages. I have added plenty of other info to the various pages you have tagged this on, not included anywhere else, such as the roster and more detail on the competition. Third your tags make no sense, you mention that others don't exist, but plenty others have. You tagged Israel's Asian Games pages but if you check here Category:Countries at the AFC Asian Cup you can see other countries have it too. All of your arguments appear to be pretty flawed. - GalatzTalk 19:47, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As mentioned, individual nations at multi-sport events like the Olympics, or even multi-event competitions like the Swimming Worlds, are notable. So Israel at the 2016 Summer Olympics is notable. But individual nations at single-event individual competitions are not notable generally, with very few exceptions. If I tagged Israel at the Asian Games, I'll withdraw it, since that's notable as a multi-sport event. I thought I only tagged the Asian Cup entries. Also, Israel at the AFC Asian Cup is notable covering the subject in general, but Israel at individual tournaments is not. Smartyllama (talk) 20:01, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I meant Asian Cup, I miswrote. See Category:Countries at the AFC Asian Cup to see the are not the only nation. What makes Iraq notable but not Israel? In the same regard, if Asian games are then notable, why not after they switched to Euro?
Also my point about being available on other pages, was its not uncommon to have the overlap. I acknowledge there will be plenty, but that doesnt mean the page should be deleted. Like I mentioned, I added verbiage to most of these pages that did not exist elsewhere, and I added the rosters to many pages which were not listed on other pages. - GalatzTalk 20:08, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As I mentioned, Israel at the AFC Asian Cup, covering the subject in general across all years, is notable. Israel at the UEFA European Championship is notable as well. I did not tag either of those pages for deletion. However, articles about individual years are generally not notable for these competitions. For instance, although Iraq at the AFC Asian Cup exists and is notable, Iraq at the 2015 AFC Asian Cup does not exist, and should be deleted as non-notable if it did. Sorry if I wasn't clear about what I was saying. Smartyllama (talk) 20:14, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Based on your argument then you should nominate everything on Template:Brazil at the FIFA World Cup.
Again there is plenty of content on these pages not on the main page you are mentioning. The 2013 WBC roster will only be on Israel at the 2013 World Baseball Classic. If you look at Israel at the World Baseball Classic or 2013 World Baseball Classic – Qualifier 1 you will see no info on the rosters. Similarly on the 2013 page there is a huge write up on the eligibility not available anywhere else on WP. Your initial issue with these pages Here was that its just duplicate info, but thats not the case. - GalatzTalk 20:30, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't just that the information was duplicated. It was also the fact that they're not notable, for reasons I explained. Smartyllama (talk) 20:32, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You did not actually analyse each of the 60 cases. You copied the same AFD text. So I simply don't believe you. --doncram 23:50, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I get that, but the point is you aren't making arguments as to why the articles should be deleted. You are basically using WP:OSE as your rationale, however it clearly states "simply referring them to this essay by name, and nothing else, is not encouraged." You are just saying multi sport events are notable, these aren't. Can you cite reasons? Per WP:SPORTSEVENT "consider developing the topic in the existing article first until it becomes clearer that a standalone article is warranted" which is what happened. For example, you will see with WBC and World Cup I started by added more content to the main articles. As I was expanding it became very clear that there was enough information to justify its own article. - GalatzTalk 20:47, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There are more than 60 similar AFDs started. There is some discussion here that there are different circumstances for at least some of them. The way the discussion is structured (or not structured at all) is not how to sort anything out properly. I call for this AFD and the other 60+ to be closed, administratively. --doncram 22:03, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • information Note: The debates for the articles in the collapsed list have been closed, and the article AfD notices now point here. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:13, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. North America1000 03:27, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. North America1000 03:27, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America1000 03:27, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. North America1000 03:27, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. North America1000 03:28, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Trying to mass delete all these articles in a single AFD makes no sense. Some of the topics are very, very different. Keep but relist in separate AFDs. This is far to bulky to deal with. Nfitz (talk) 17:11, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Nfitz: That's what I did originally. They got merged. Now you want to unmerge them? Also pinging @Doncram: who was the one who wanted to merge these AFDs since it was his idea, not mine. Smartyllama (talk) 17:18, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • You don't get to have the community apply attention, carefully consider >60 separate cases when you did not prepare adequate nominations. You copy-pasted the same AFD nomination text, acknowledging no differences of content and sourcing. Obviously sometimes it is okay/good/necessary to split out "Country at Year Event" type articles. If you had yourself done some ranking or grouping of the cases, and had then nominated a couple representative examples, I would have supported having the community give you some feedback on your reasoning. But you lose me when you effectively try to demand that community address 60 cases as if they are all the same. --doncram 23:50, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Merging a few FIFA event deletions might make sense - but surely huge difference between that and a European Baseball tournament (if there really is such a thing!). Though rule of thumb for something like this is to just do one, and then Prod the others if successful. Was there one previously? Nfitz (talk) 23:05, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: FIFA is a major event in this sport, there are, similarly, probably thousands of WP articles like this that briefly outline the nations competing in top-level international competition in a given sport. Really, the wiki isn't breaking and these events are going to be covered at least in their national newspapers. Notability easily met. Montanabw(talk) 06:10, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Montanabw: There are many articles about general performance at all tournaments, but very few about performance at specific tournaments, and none that I could find where the team didn't even qualify for the tournament in question. Smartyllama (talk) 11:01, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
But if you read WP:OSE the lack of something else on its own does not qualify for using that rationale, you cant just simply state it. It meets the criteria for WP:SPORTSEVENT and WP:GNG - GalatzTalk 13:00, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep some: I think that we need to keep the events that Israel did qualify through to the main competition. But the rest I think that they need to be deleted. Matt294069 is coming 02:03, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • It depends on content and sourcing. Maybe it is huge news that a country did not qualify. Hmm, is this all about a quibble in titles? Where "Country at Year Event" should arguably be at longer title "Country at Year Event Qualifications"? If so then start a wp:RM. But there is merit in shorter title and redirect is needed. doncram 00:31, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Nomination was simplistic and did not acknowledge any difference among >60 articles. Obviously sometimes there exist good reason to split out a "Country at Year Event" type article. Like when the is plenty of content supported by sources and when, editorially, it makes sense to explain that once and link from "Year Event" and "Country at Event" type articles. Overhead created by 60 duplicative AFDs is too much. I don't have patience to try to seriously analyze 60 cases when nominator did not. Close this unwieldy AFD with message to nominator not to Do this again. Perhaps for one or two cases (but who knows which ones) the articles' creator made a judgment to split out when another editor might have chosen to put 2 copies of the info at "Year Event" and "Country at Event" articles, but even then it would be a judgement call. Has any iota of content been disputed? I think not. --doncram 23:37, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- at least procedurally, there are too many articles across too many sports for a single decision to be made here. Fenix down (talk) 11:53, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Procedural keep too many articles. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 13:56, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Bundle nominations

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

The result was delete.  Sandstein  07:50, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How To Improve The Current Healthcare Issues In Pakistan?[edit]

How To Improve The Current Healthcare Issues In Pakistan? (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Violates WP:NOTESSAY (thanks to User:Ubiquity for correcting me), may be copied from somewhere though Google doesn't make it clear. Smartyllama (talk) 19:31, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. JudgeRM (talk to me) 19:39, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. JudgeRM (talk to me) 19:39, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Actually, I think it violates WP:NOTESSAY. ubiquity (talk) 20:19, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Horribly written essay. Most of the information is already covered at other pages. Nothing worth saving--Savonneux (talk) 02:41, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think this essay is "horribly written". It's clear that whoever wrote the page put a lot of thought into the writing. The problem is that unlike a standard article, this essay does not have a clear focus—hence it is difficult to find a place for it to fit in, as you said above. Altamel (talk) 03:58, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Effort isn't correlative to excellence. It's a pretty much by the book secondary school expository essay. I'd even point out the parts where the author was padding out the word count without actually saying anything, if it were relevant. My ponit was that someone posted their homework.--Savonneux (talk) 05:04, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect Most of the information is essay-like and a lot of it needs to be cut down. However, some facts can be Wikified and merged into Healthcare in Pakistan. Particularly the tiered breakdown of the healthcare system and government policies. So I would suggest retargeting to Healthcare in Pakistan, with this article's info being preserved in the history to be copied later into that article. Mar4d (talk) 07:33, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is an opinion essay, not an encyclopedia article. Tigercompanion25 (talk) 15:43, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I like the idea of wikifying some of the better content and then merging to Healthcare in Pakistan, such as the structure of the system, various data points, and policy initiatives. That latter article could really do with an infusion of new content to bolster it up. However, I see no reason to redirect, as the title is a highly implausible search item. As a second choice, delete as a violation of NOTESSAY. GABgab 15:32, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 History of Delta Air Lines. (non-admin closure) Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 07:45, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2016 Delta Air Lines power outage[edit]

2016 Delta Air Lines power outage (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject fails WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NEVENT. There is nothing here of any long term significance. A PROD tag was attached and removed (in good faith) with the suggestion that the article could be redirected to History of Delta. I don't see a redirect being useful in this case. And the subject is so trivial in its long term importance I don't believe it merits a footnote in the main Delta article. Even with the WP:Recentism bias that is so ubiquitous on the project, this is just indefensible. Ad Orientem (talk) 19:28, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. ansh666 19:35, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ansh666 19:35, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ansh666 19:35, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Class455 (talk) 19:57, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Definitely not notable enough for a standalone article. A similar event at Southwest Airlines got a paragraph, not even a subsection, in the history section of the main article (doesn't have a separate history article). A Redirect to the history article might be appropriate if a substantial explanation can be written there, but currently it's two sentences. ThunderBacon (talk) 06:09, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to the reply There is not the slightest long term significance in this event. It doesn't just fail WP:NEVENT, it does so grossly. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:43, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Unless this turns out to be some kind of watershed incident of hacking or the like, this is just another example of another company's server failing causing headaches and frustration to thousands of customers. --Oakshade (talk) 23:55, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to the history article, WP:NOTNEWS. It can be spun back out if it proves to be a significant incident as Oakshade describes. ansh666 19:12, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 United States House of Representatives elections in Texas, 2016. MBisanz talk 21:22, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lori Bartley[edit]

Lori Bartley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Disputed PROD. Given the guidance at WP:POLOUTCOMES and the long-standing precedent against the notability of non-incumbent congressional candidates with no other claim to notability, this article does not meet the notability guidelines. Graham (talk) 19:06, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Graham (talk) 19:41, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Graham (talk) 19:41, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As usual, unelected candidates for office are not eligible for Wikipedia articles just for being candidates — if you cannot demonstrate and properly source credible evidence that she was already notable enough for a Wikipedia article for some other reason independent of her candidacy, then she does not become notable enough for a Wikipedia article until she wins the election. As usual, however, this makes no such claim — it's pure "she exists, here's her list of endorsements!" campaign brochure, and that's exactly the kind of article our inclusion rules are designed to prevent. Bearcat (talk) 02:35, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Bartley is not notable at this time. If she wins the election in November, she will be notable, if not she will not be.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:10, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – Just for everyone's information, the article's creator wrote the following on its talk page, presumably in reference to the AfD:

She has national name ID and it is a current race that is listed as notable by Eagleton Institute of Politics.Juju (talk) 13:08, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Graham (talk) 21:52, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to United States House of Representatives elections in Texas, 2016: What we have here is not just a candidate, but a unique and interesting candidate: A right wing, tea party African American candidate running for the seat once held by Barbara Jordan. So I think that it's best not to create a redlink, as that is just bait to recreate the article. That said, the sourcing is poor and the general consensus that candidates don't get their own articles just for running is our guideline here. Montanabw(talk) 16:21, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm not convinced that being a candidate who doesn't fit stereotypes is a reason to redirect to the race rather than just deleting. If it is recreated it can be deleted per G4 and SALTed until and when she wins election. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:11, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus.  Sandstein  16:05, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Novi magazin[edit]

Novi magazin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence of notability. References are all just in-passing mentions. It is only 5-years old, so this may be a case of WP:TOOSOON. Does not meet WP:NPERIODICAL or WP:GNG. Randykitty (talk) 06:37, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 08:11, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 08:11, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. North America1000 02:28, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America1000 02:28, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:26, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable magazine at this point; a passing or local interest at best. Kierzek (talk) 03:11, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment from a native speaker: they have some big journalist names there, and seem to have decent content (see e.g. the mention in Ashwood University), but they really didn't make a big breakthrough on the market. I'd wish to vote "keep" for a semi-notable magazine, but I struggle to find a policy-based reason. No such user (talk) 11:30, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@No such user: just to make certain that you are aware that you can bring sources in Serbian.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:52, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti Talk 18:55, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • sources Here, an analyst at Balkan Insight describes it as a, "Serbian economics weekly."[46]. B92 interviews the staff pretty frequently [47], can certainly validate tht it is a "Belgrade-based weekly."[48]. E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:41, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep this is a widely-cited national News magazine. Serious media trust it enough to cite its coverage (Wall Street Journal[49], L'Express[50]. There is no problem with promotion; it is functional to be a place where readers can validate that a magazine they see cited somewhere is a real news source. I say tag it for better sourcing and keep.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:51, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the ping, E.M.Gregory. They are indeed a serious political magazine with a moderate impact (honestly, I didn't hear of them before this AFD, but your news search is reassuring). A general problem with news outlets is that they are often cited or mentioned in passing, but are seldom written about – news outlets just don't write about other news outlets unless a major event occurs – so that we can establish policy-based notability and write a piece based on independent sources. I feel that the bar in WP:NPERIODICAL is set a bit too high, so I'd !vote keep per IAR, if anything. No such user (talk) 14:12, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Thanks E.M.Gregory, I appreciate your efforts.However, the sources you give just mention the magazine in passing. At most, they establish some notability for the persons being cited. Also, as No such user says, none of the sources provides any material on which to base article content. I don't think that the sources provided establish notability, but even if it did, we still have nothing that we car actually say about this magazine in a verifiable way. Notability is not enough for an article... --Randykitty (talk) 15:06, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm thinking about Wikipedia users. I'm a Wikipedia user; I sometimes create media stubs because WP doesn't have an article on a magazine/broadcast channel that I've never heard of before and need to know something about. Function fail for Wikipedia. If my search happens to produce a really solid source, I create a quick stub, see: Kuruc.info. To me, and to many users, even skeleton information on Wikipedia (if reliably sources, as with this article) is useful (date founded, city where located, validation that it exists and is cited by RS) is of some use. It has the function of separating the wheat of real publications from the chaff of crank sources made up to look like real publications. This article does that. Sometimes, having tried to find a referenced publication and discovered that it is a real publication that lacks a WP article, I create a stub, like The Daily Nonpareil. (revisiting just now, I was surprised by how good that article is. I remembered creating a naked stub. But Lo, an editor cameth along and improved it.) It is always my hope that creating or keeping a stub will encourage other editors to expand and source. The Miami Times, however, is still the stub I created. I reference it because, by the standard you are upholding here, we need to delete not only Novi magazin and The Miami Times, but at least half of the bluelinked newspapers listed in African-American newspapers. WP:COMMONSENSE keep.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:14, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Randykitty: But the little we have in there is sourced. It verifies that the newspaper exists, who are its editors, and that they received a minor award. I could add a few minor details, such as Sonja Licht having written op-eds for the magazine [51], or dig out a list of important journalist names who have written for the magazine. E.M.Gregory has shown that their articles have been cited, in passing, by several respectful news outlets. To add, they have been cited in a number of books. We are missing an independent coverage about the magazine itself indeed, but as I said, news outlets just don't write extensive pieces about other news outlets. I acknowledge this is a shortcoming, but if you scan a large number of articles about lesser newspapers, you're unlikely to find much better sourcing. No such user (talk) 09:46, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, I did some research and added to the article. Their link with the controversial businessman Miroslav Bogićević has been noted in several respected sources, albeit not in too much detail (the Vreme most extensively). Their articles are just so often cited and quoted [52][53][54][55][56] to justify notability alone.
    WP:OSE notwithstanding, I randomly clicked few entries in Category:British news magazines and sourcing is hardly any better. For example, 40-year-old New Internationalist has only one Guardian article, UTNE Media Awards website and one Mother Jones as independent sources, everything else is based on references from NI itself. Not that I condone it, but finding third-party references about media can be a tough job. No such user (talk) 13:09, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • No such user makes a valid point that cannot be dismissed as mere other stuff exists. The point is that an established magazine is is ENCYCLOPEDIC. It may take time to grow the article, but deleting a magazine the existence and impact of which is verified would be destructive to the project.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:40, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

*totally off topic question Is there a place where I could list African-American newspapers as a really useful place where American high school/university faculty in quest of a class project could direct the energy of history students. The information on historic black newspapers (and historic American ethnic newspapers; historic big city and small town newspapers now defunct) exists. It would be great to have these papers documented, by classes learning research skills as they study American history).E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:23, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. BLP1E takes precedence here. I would be very cautious about including information about him in the article on the publication DGG ( talk ) 22:43, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nico Hines[edit]

Nico Hines (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This guy has not done anything noteworthy besides writing one controversial article on a website. He deserves mention on The Daily Beast's article, but is not even close to deserving his own page. BaseballPie (talk) 18:36, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. JudgeRM (talk to me) 19:39, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: Would this article qualify for inclusion if it was about the article or incident itself? TIA generic_hipster 19:41, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: too soon. Give it a few weeks for more articles on this guy to surface. He will soon warrant an article — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.87.112.153 (talk) 21:01, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. JudgeRM (talk to me) 19:41, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. JudgeRM (talk to me) 19:43, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy deletion, WP:BLP1E. © Tbhotch™ (en-2.5). 20:53, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:ONEEVENT. We all do stupid things every now and then that don't deserve a Wikipedia article on them. Possibly merge to the Daily Beast article in a controversies section: you could argue that publishing it unedited is very poor judgment akin to this case, worthy of mention. But an entire article on this person solely covering this one topic verges on cyberbullying. Blythwood (talk) 22:03, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy deletion Having read WP:BLP1E, I am now even more sure than ever before that this needs to be deleted. Textbook case.

The incident itself also does not come close to deserving an article. It deserves at best a short paragraph on the Daily Beast page, which is what it has right now. Finally, the "just wait and see... this guy is evil and we will soon learn more" argument is just plain silly and about as far away from meeting the relevant standards as you can get. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BaseballPie (talk • contribs) 22:31, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's possible that Hines has other mentions in the media, or awards for his work with the times, that would warrant an article. This article is pretty shoddy, and needs to be worked on more carefully. 66.87.113.199 (talk) 22:35, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America1000 05:40, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete under WP:G10. The controversy is worth mentioning on The Daily Beast (where it is indeed covered), but there's insufficient justification for a separate article, and especially not one framed as a BLP. Robofish (talk) 23:30, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:34, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ashim KC[edit]

Ashim KC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete. Poorly sourced and advertorially toned WP:AUTOBIO about a musician with no strong claim to passing WP:NMUSIC. This was previously speedied for lacking a substantive claim of notability, but then the subject arbitrarily moved his own userpage back into mainspace again a few days later and nobody readdressed that until I saw it just now. Nothing here claims any substantive notability for anything more than vague and unquantified claims of popularity, and the referencing is parked entirely on blogs, song lyrics databases, YouTube videos and iTunes sales pages, with no evidence of reliable source media coverage about him shown at all. As always, a musician is not automatically entitled to a Wikipedia article just because he can be verified as existing -- but nothing here demonstrates or properly sources any credible evidence that he's earned one. Bearcat (talk) 18:27, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:00, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:00, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Pwolit iets is mistaken; all topics need reliable sources and medical ones in particular.  Sandstein  07:50, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Eisoptrophobia[edit]

Eisoptrophobia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Another phobia with no serious sourcing, no sign of real clinical interest or evidence—but it has Tigger! Mangoe (talk) 17:40, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • del fails WP:MEDRS. Staszek Lem (talk)
  • Keep. I saw a couple of usages where the term is used as part of a sentence rather than merely as part of a list. This usggests it has become part of everyday language. Also, I do not think a phobia necessarily needs a medical diagnosis in order to be considered encyclopedic, since Wikipedia is not a medical journal or anything of the sort. Pwolit iets (talk) 12:54, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete One unreliable source and no hits as anything other than a back-formulation originating from a heavily reposted blog source.--Savonneux (talk) 09:01, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:10, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  Sandstein  07:54, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of most viewed Polish language videos[edit]

List of most viewed Polish language videos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Original research, also wikipedia is not a collection of random information; there are no sources which notably discuss "most viewed Polish youtube videos" Staszek Lem (talk) 17:09, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say in this case because YouTube keeps a list of its most viewed, but doesn't break it down by language. Delete.Killer Moff (talk) 18:49, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I see. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:11, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:39, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:39, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:39, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:39, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- original research and indiscriminate collection of information. This "list" is apparently a map to create articles on these red-linked videos. This topic has not been a subject of independent inquiry and should be deleted. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:58, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  Sandstein  07:54, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ecclesiophobia[edit]

Ecclesiophobia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Another DICTDEF phobia article, this worse than most. The only source given is About.com, hardly anyone's idea of a reliable source. Searching finds metaphorical uses and "ecclesio+phobia" definitions but nothing to suggest that anyone actually has such a condition. Mangoe (talk) 17:00, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:23, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:23, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete no MEDRS sources see linked search. Jytdog (talk) 16:45, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a reasonable search term. The Google Newspapers search, above, link to a 1977 medical advice column (apparently syndicated, because the same result shows verbatim in multiple newspapers) where an MD essentially coins the term. There are three Google News references that use the term in a general or societal, rather than individual mental illness sense. I think this article can be expanded with these references and recast as a neologism much like Hoplophobia, but I agree there is insufficient sourcing to portray it as a diagnosible mental illness. Jclemens (talk) 17:20, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not "find a word" - we are meant to communicate accepted knowledge not bullshit to the public. This is not a real phobia that we can discuss in any meaningful depth. It is not even some widely held pseudoscience. It is just wordplay in Greek. Pop culture pseudopsychology garbage spewed by some talking head is not "accepted knowledge". Jytdog (talk) 18:12, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 08:08, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Gurley[edit]

Bill Gurley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Gurley is a non-notable investor. The coverage is pretty weak, such as interviews with him. John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:59, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:19, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:21, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve been following this page and would argue Bill Gurley meets the guidelines outlined in Wikipedia:Notability. Though his Wiki article currently doesn't reflect it, his remarks on the state of venture capital in Silicon Valley were covered by Fortune[1], The New York Times[2] and The Wall Street Journal[3], which noted Gurley as, “one of Silicon Valley’s top technology deal makers.” His personal blog, Above The Crowd, and his post[4] on the subject have been cited by Bloomberg[5], Vanity Fair[6] and The Wall Street Journal.[7]

Additionally, Gurley has appeared on stage at SXSW[8] alongside Malcolm Gladwell, is regularly on Forbes Midas List,[9] and won Venture Capitalist of the Year at this year's TechCrunch Crunchies.[10] Kshanti07 (talk) 00:06, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Kokalitcheva, Kia. "Silicon Valley investor: Unicorn startups are like career college students". Fortune.
  2. ^ Isaac, Mike. "Silicon Valley Investor Warns of Bubble at SXSW". The New York Times.
  3. ^ Winkler, Rolfe. "Bill Gurley Sees Silicon Valley on a Dangerous Path". The Wall Street Journal.
  4. ^ Gurley, Bill. "WHY THE UNICORN FINANCING MARKET JUST BECAME DANGEROUS…FOR ALL INVOLVED". Above The Crowd.
  5. ^ Milian, Mark. "VC Bill Gurley Tells Startups to Beware of 'Dirty' Fundraising Terms". Bloomberg.
  6. ^ KOSOFF, Maya. ""DIRTY" DEALS: BILL GURLEY SOUNDS THE ALARM ON THE STATE OF SILICON VALLEY". Vanity Fair.
  7. ^ ROSENBUSH, Steve. "The Morning Download: VC Funding of Tech Startups Enters Dangerous Phase, Investor Bill Gurley Warns". The Wall Street Journal.
  8. ^ GAYOMALI, Chris. "Uber Investor Bill Gurley: "There Is No Fear In Silicon Valley Right Now"". Fast Company.
  9. ^ "#8 Bill Gurley". Forbes.
  10. ^ Lardinois, Frederic. "And The Winners Of The 9th Annual Crunchies Are…". TechCrunch.
  • Keep – The subject meets WP:BASIC. There are several non-interview sources available that provide significant coverage. Some contain quotes, but are not entire interviews. North America1000 08:48, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 21:38, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deshauna Barber[edit]

Deshauna Barber (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I am not convinced that even winning Miss USA itself is enough to make a person notable. I am not convinced we have enough sources to demonstrate that Barber is notable. John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:23, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Extremely strong keep: She's a Miss USA winner, the most covered pageant in the country, and will compete at Miss Universe, which is one of the largest and most notable pageants in the world. Not to mention she also received significant coverage in the media for being the first military member to win Miss USA. I don't think there's a problem with sources but more can be added if that's the issue. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 16:26, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Now looking at the page, there are definitely not enough sources and I don't know why that is. I will add more. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 16:28, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. JudgeRM (talk to me) 19:44, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. JudgeRM (talk to me) 19:45, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: - she is the current Miss USA. Article notability is not based on article quality. The quality can be fixed by improvements. also per WP:GNG.BabbaQ (talk) 20:17, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:IDONTLIKEIT is irrelevant to guidelines as well.BabbaQ (talk) 20:18, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - per JudgeRM, article is properly referenced with reliable sources. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 21:12, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just love how I got someone to !vote "per JudgeRM" even though the only thing I did was add DELSORT. Anyways, GNG appears to have been met, so unless someone can convince me otherwise, keep. JudgeRM (talk to me) 00:40, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep national Miss USA winner, significant media coverage, also I think it's pretty poor that JohnPackLambert went and redirected this in the first instance with no discussion. State titleholders are one thing - and even I'm coming around to that - but this one definitely called for discussion. PageantUpdater (talk) 13:00, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America1000 16:37, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now. Discussion about notability guidelines has already started on the Talk page for the Beauty Pageant project. No harm will be done by closing this nomination as "keep" and letting the project-level discussion take its course. NewYorkActuary (talk) 05:05, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above Current Miss USA Winner.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 10:29, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 21:39, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chelsea Hardin[edit]

Chelsea Hardin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Hardin is not notable for anything, not even being a Miss USA contestant. That alone does not make her notable. The coverage we have of her has nothing to do with her. It has to do with the fact that an interviewer asked her which of two presidential candidates she would vote for, not even giving her 3rd party and indepedents as possible choices. Obviously I disagree with the formulation of the question, and I question whether is should have been asked at all. However the main point is her being asked the question and it receiving passing media attention does not make her as an individual notable. John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:27, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: I disagree, most of the articles about the controversy also focus on her, her thoughts, and how she answered it, not just the fact that the question was asked. I definitely think she has established notability. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 16:36, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: - per WP:GNG. and per coverage.BabbaQ (talk) 20:16, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I created a ton of these articles back years ago and have largely let the AFDs pass as I think I'm on the losing side with these and I'm not in the mood to fight it. I would have to add that if Chelsea meets WP:BIO then the rest of the articles that have been deleted/redirected this week should have stood as well. So I'm really arguing against myself here. Immediacy has little to do with the issue of notability. PageantUpdater (talk) 12:45, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    What? You do not see what other see? :)BabbaQ (talk) 14:02, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America1000 16:38, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America1000 16:38, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hawaii-related deletion discussions. North America1000 16:38, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • If found to not be independently notable, redirect to Miss Hawaii USA as a valid search term, and the subject is mentioned there. North America1000 16:39, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now. Discussion about notability guidelines has already started on the Talk page for the Beauty Pageant project. No harm will be done by closing this nomination as "keep" and letting the project-level discussion take its course. NewYorkActuary (talk) 05:07, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 North Carolina. (non-admin closure) Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 08:58, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Arlie Honeycutt[edit]

Arlie Honeycutt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Honeycutt is really only noted for winning Miss North Carolina. While this is part of the Miss America system,. which is more notable and watched that the Miss USA system, being older dating to before WWII while Miss USA was started in the 1950s by a swimsuit company mad that Miss America decided to no longer allow contestants to wear bikinis during the swimsuit portion of the competition, the state winners are still not individually notable. Her various musical performances and work to start a scholarship are just not enough to make her notable. John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:17, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment The article was also created by a user using the user name Arlie Honeycutt.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:21, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Miss North Carolina where the subject is mentioned. Otherwise, Ms Honeycutt is not individually notable, as my searches do not bring up anything substantial. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:50, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America1000 16:41, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America1000 16:41, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. North America1000 16:41, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • If found to not be independently notable, redirect to Miss North Carolina as a valid search term, and the subject is mentioned there. North America1000 16:41, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now. Discussion about notability guidelines has already started on the Talk page for the Beauty Pageant project. No harm will be done by closing this nomination as "keep" and letting the project-level discussion take its course. NewYorkActuary (talk) 05:04, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep She was crowned Miss North Carolina 2012. Other sate winners of the Miss America pageant have Wikipedia articles. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 21:17, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now - As NewYorkActuary has said, no harm would be done by leaving this as a "keep" until the notability guidelines for beauty pageants is settled. So far most of the coverage I've found about her is debatably trivial. She's made several appearances and guest performances for events, which earn brief mentions in sources. (examples:[57][58]) There are non-trivial sources on her from the local media, though most of these have to do with her selection as Miss NC and competing in the national contest. (examples: [59][60][61][62]). Still, several sources do cover her outside of the competition, attributing it as her source of fame but focusing on other aspects about her. (examples: [63][64]) - Indy beetle (talk) 23:30, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Indy beetle: The discussion is taking place here: RFC on creation of consensus standard, with some advocating that (1) state level winners are not presumed notable, (2) state-level winners are not presumed non-notable; and (2) a special guideline is unnecessary, and that GNG should be used. There's an overlap between the these three positions. There aren't really voices for "state-level winners are always presumed notable" so I don't think the outcome of the discussion, if any, would have an impact on this AfD. Thus it may not make sense to suspend the AfD process for this nomination. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:08, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @K.e.coffman Thank you for the clarification. Taking that into consideration, I'll move for a Redirect. Though I can't rule it all out, I don't think I've found enough info to establish general notability independent of the Miss North Carolina Pageant. Anyone else may feel free to follow up on what I've found so far, but I don't think there's much more here. Indy beetle (talk) 21:39, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:33, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

C Ravichandran[edit]

C Ravichandran (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Vanity article sourced only to the subject's own website and a Facebook page, failing all notability criteria that according to the article would be relevant, from the general notability guidelines to the notability guidelines for writers and academics. Thomas.W talk 15:56, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:12, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:12, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:32, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nadeem Hassan[edit]

Nadeem Hassan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Reason Momina01 (talk) 15:56, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:Notability, with minimal coverage from reliable/secondary sources.

"Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Momina01 (talk • contribs) 16:04, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:CRIME. "A person who is known only in connection with a criminal event or trial should not normally be the subject of a separate Wikipedia article if there is an existing article that could incorporate the available encyclopedic material relating to that person."

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. clpo13(talk) 17:31, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. clpo13(talk) 17:31, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. clpo13(talk) 17:31, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable 'alleged' criminal. Article fails WP:Notability, WP:CRIME. May be eligible for speedy deletion under Wikipedia's potentially libelous content policy. KalamCStone (talk) 12:11, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 21:40, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Robin Queen[edit]

Robin Queen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No indication of notability. Page was created by the individual it is about. Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 15:48, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on above statement Article was not created by subject but by a misguided employee of her department - see talk page: I work at the University of Michigan in the Linguistics Department and am creating pages for our current faculty to facilitate the search for information by students about faculty. (Unless there is any evidence that ColleenNoel is Robin Queen.) PamD 18:23, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Subject lacks any significant notability. Meatsgains (talk) 15:51, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Holders of named chairs at major universities pass a notability criteria for academics. I am sure a search would bring up lots more links and information on Queen.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:38, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Johnpacklambert: did you actually try searching before saying I am sure a search would bring up lots more links and information on Queen?? Because a search brings up plenty of people by that name... None of which appear to be her. --Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 17:42, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A search brings up her Google Scholar page, which indicates lots of articles published by her. It also indicates that she was the co-editor-in-chief of the Journal of English Linguistics, which might be enough for her to pass another notability guideline for academics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:47, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Here [65] is her google scholar page. Her h-index is 11. I am not sure if this would be enough to have her be considered a notable figure in her field.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:51, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Per this article [66] Queen is an at-large member of the Linguistics Society of America board.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:56, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment' Here [67] is an article from The Gaurdian that mentions some of QUeen's work.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:57, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Here [68] is a health and wellness publication also with an article on Queen's work.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:01, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: holder of named chair and chair of department, with coverage in independent source. PamD 18:23, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Meets WP:PROF. Previous speedy was declined for the same reason. --Drm310 (talk) 18:38, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Uanfala (talk) 11:06, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Named professor at a major university, was an editor-in-chief of a prominent journal, is an elected fellow of Linguistic Society of America. Certainly enough here to pass WP:PROF even without looking further. Nsk92 (talk) 19:06, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Passes WP:Prof#C5 formally, although GS citations are markedly lower than normally expected. The claim of an editorship cannot be independently verified. I note that there are copyright issues discussed on the talk page. If it were not for the WP:Prof#C5 guideline I would have voted delete as WP:Too soon. Article was created by editor paid by U Michigan. Her employer should note that such conduct can have unintended consequences. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:37, 13 August 2016 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep. Citation record not strong enough to make a convincing case for WP:PROF#C1 but she passes three other criteria (named chair, society fellow, and journal editor). —David Eppstein (talk) 02:02, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as passing WP:PROF with a named chair at a major university, elected fellowship and journal editor-in-chief. It does not appear to be autobiographical. Espresso Addict (talk) 03:32, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The longest paragraph in the article is the one on her work and its focus. Since I wrote this after reading about her various works, but without specifically quoting any one description, I do not see how it could possibly be a copyright issue.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:07, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There is a discussion on the talk page about copyright. If you have sorted this out, then well done. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:08, 14 August 2016 (UTC).[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:32, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Morgan Evans (director)[edit]

Morgan Evans (director) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Nothing notable about this individual. Barely even a stub. Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 15:42, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:00, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:00, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  Sandstein  07:19, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Journal of Alternative Perspectives in the Social Sciences[edit]

Journal of Alternative Perspectives in the Social Sciences (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article PRODded with reason "Non-notable journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG." Article dePRODded by anonymous IP with reason: "False and untrue proposal for deletion". Article creator since added several databases. Unfortunately, none of these are selective in the sense of WP:NJournals. Some (like Citefactor) are known bogus "indexing" services". At the moment that I am writing this, the article has 21 "references". These vary from links to library catalogs (only confirming that the journal exists, which is not in doubt anyway), to results from search engines, to press releases and links to the journal's own website or that of its publisher. The article claims that the is "present" in over 500 libraries worldwide. This is an online open access journal and many libraries add a link to such a journal (which does not cost anything) and include it in their "holdings". This is obviously not the same as paying for a subscription to a journal and basically rather meaningless. The article also claims that the journal is "much quoted reference literature". This is substantiated by a link to "Journal Scholar Metrics", which puts the journal in the third quantile of included sociology journals. According to their information, they tried to include as many journals as possible (so inclusion here is not selective) and among all the more than 66000 journals included by them, this one scores in the third quantile, showing that it does not stand out as a highly-cited journal. A Google Scholar search confirms this. In short, the PROD reason still stands. Hence: delete. Randykitty (talk) 15:40, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 15:43, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:43, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:43, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is 942 entries at the Google Scholar for the Journal of Alternative Perspectives in the Social Sciences and 234 entries in the Google Books for the same. Therefore this is notable publication. talk —Preceding undated comment added 16:23, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • JAPSS is the journal listed and indexed by number of university listings/indexes including those of national character (like British SunCat or Slovenian Cobiss etc.) and by those specialised in the journals indexing (see the article). Number of databases is listed to show the fact that the Journal is real one noted by many. The expression "much quoted" has been removed and CiteFactor link has been removed (one can assume that remark about "hoax" site is true). Reasons why over 500 libraries in WorldCat acquired the Journal is ones personal assumption, but the fact stands that the Journal is present throughout the globe in hundreds of specialised libraries. "Journal Scholar Metrics" puts (!, therefore catalogued) the journal in the third quantile of included sociology journals - this fact can be explained (possibly) by the fact that it is published first in 2008 and to the nature of the Journal. All members of the editorial board and authors published are faculty of some tertiary level scholar institution around the globe. This is awarded institution. One cannot put notability in question. There is one on all accounts. Expressions used in the text of the article can be discussed but not deletion itself. talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:10, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Dear Fajjtus, I see that you are new here and creating a new article on WP can be a daunting experience. In order for a subject to be covered in WP, it needs to be "notable". This word has a very special meaning here, it has nothing to do with good/bad and is not a quality judgement. It is purely used in the sense of "being noted". In order to show "notability", we need in-depth coverage in so-called "reliable sources. For academic journals, we often take a shortcut and accept inclusion in a very selective database as evidence of notability (see WP:NJournals). Number of hits on any part of Google is not an indication of notability. Most of the "hits" ion GScholar are articles published by the journal itself. In GBooks I get only 185 results, but that difference doesn't matter much. None of these hits are about the journal, these are citations of an article or another in the journal. A lot of them are false positives (I see for example a book on foot binding in China that was published in 2000, years before this journal started and therefore unlikely to say anything about this journal). The WorldCat count doesn't say much either. As you state: "Reasons why over 500 libraries in WorldCat acquired the Journal is ones personal assumption". Exactly! Perhaps it is like I said. Perhaps they include it because they all think that this is the most important sociology journal ever. The important thing here is that we have no idea what it is, so it does not provide any solid evidence for notability. Perhaps you are correct and is the dearth of citations (and hence the non-inclusion in large selective databases) simply because the journal is too young. In that case, creating an article on it is too soon, because we cannot predict the future.
In the preceding paragraph I have linked a number of essays, guidelines, and policies. Please have a look at them as it will make it much easier for you to navigate WP and to understand how things are being done here. --Randykitty (talk) 16:57, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. not in any selective indexes.Furthermore, the article is very highly promotional, intended to overstate the importance of this very unimportant journal. DGG ( talk ) 22:52, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep I just checked its usage in similar web, there are 5,000 visitors are accessing this journal site every month [69]. I am sorry, we may not depend completely on commercial indexing sites like Scopus, ISI web of knowledge, EBSCO etc. We should go based on usage and notability. Jessie1979 (talk) 05:39, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[Revert as per WP:BLOCKEVASION using strikethrough font.  21:55, 13 November 2016 (UTC)]
  • Comment: Usage figures nowhere in any of our guidelines (WP:N, WP:GNG). Please base your !vote on policy. Also, please note that "notability" is used on WP in a very particular sense, namely "has been noted", as verified by coverage in reliable sources. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 09:00, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[Revert as per WP:BLOCKEVASION using strikethrough font.  21:55, 13 November 2016 (UTC)]
  • Comment: Wikipedia policy and guideline about notability is not absolut clear (just checked), it much depends what one assume, know or understand, and it allows discussion about what is notabale, verified and reliable source. By my understanding this article provided a lonog number of third party reliable sources (not connected or part of the journal), and therefore notable and verified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fajjtus (talk • contribs) 16:33, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: To conclude, if you insist on agenda to delete the article, delete it. I just dont see the facts for such decision. Just ones or prevailing understanding of the "guidelines" and "notability" concepts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fajjtus (talk • contribs) 16:38, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Selection Criteria: We consider the following for including a publication into our database: 

   The publication must exercise peer-review or editorial quality control by qualified specialists to be included.
   The publication should report primary results of research or overviews of research results to a scholarly community.
   The publication is of a scholarly content; all scientific and scholarly subjects are covered by the database.
   The publication exhibits excellence in content.
   The target group should be primarily researchers.
   The publication is not commercial in nature.
   A substantive part of the publication should consist of research papers. All content or most of it should be available in full text.
   All languages are eligible.
   The publication should have an ISSN.

Second one: http://road.issn.org/issn/1944-1096-journal-of-alternative-perspectives-in-the-social-sciences#.V69bRRKdd_5 Those are not third party reliable cerification sources? Of course they are. 

   The publication should appear at regular intervals, generally more frequently than annually.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fajjtus (talk • contribs) 17:41, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for posting the inclusion criteria of these databases. The journaldatabase clearly accepts anything that resembles an academic journal. Their criteria are even fulfilled by most "predatory" journals. The same goes for the ROAD database. Neither of these two is selective, because they clearly attempt to include every academic journal. --Randykitty (talk) 18:23, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: British SUNCAT provide us information that this journal is available in the Academic Search Complete https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academic_Search , and that is another selective database. Both in printed and electronic form. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fajjtus (talk • contribs) 19:27, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment:COPAC (catalogue of UK and Ireland university, special and national libraries) provide information that both printed (!) and online journal is available throughout Uk http://copac.jisc.ac.uk/search?&title=journal+of+alternative+perspectives+in+the+social+sciences( Fajjtus (talk) 19:36, 13 August 2016 (UTC) )[reply]
  • I don't think there's any dispute that the journal exists, Fajjtus. You don't need to prove that. The issue is the journal's notability, or lack of it. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:39, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am pretty much assured that there's any dispute that the journal exists Cordless Larry. Previous comment was that the journal is not represented in the selective database, as that is seen by some as proof of notability (or not). Obviously is now that this particular journal is represented in both selective formal scholar/researcher databases (not in all, but still) and those without rigid criteria. ( Fajjtus (talk) 20:15, 13 August 2016 (UTC) )[reply]
  • Not particularly selective or reputable ones, though, so it remains a delete for me. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:19, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Terms "reputable" and "selective" through this discussion turns to be a fog or domain of mystical for me :) Something far beyond from being solid enough to libel this publication as not "notable" and deletion. Absolutely Strong Keep. ( Fajjtus (talk) 20:30, 13 August 2016 (UTC) )[reply]
  • To give you an idea, an index such as the Thomson Reuters Social Sciences Citation Index is reputable and sufficiently selective. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:34, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. We shouldn't rely too much on indexing services for journals in the humanities, social sciences, law or other non-scientific/technical/medical fields, but this journal seems too new, its title and a number of other things seem suspicious, and there is no evidence of notability. --Bjerrebæk (talk) 21:04, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • When looking a little further into this journal, it appears to have many of the characteristics of a low-quality predatory journal, although I'm not quite sure if it's technically predatory. Among other things, it lists a hotmail e-mail address as its submissions address and the website of the journal invites people to apply to become "Academician of Social Sciences" which is described as "the highest honor bestowed by the International Academy of Social Sciences and by the Journal of Alternative Perspectives in the Social Sciences." One can also apply to become a "Senior Fellow" of the "academy" and thus obtain the right "to publish opinion papers in the Journal." Its founder/owner/etc uses several noble "titles" which appear to be self-assumed; in a self-published book[70] he manages to refer to himself as "the Hereditary Baron" half a dozen times on a single page. --Bjerrebæk (talk) 07:07, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Yes, I have created two articles. On for the journal one for the IASS. No particular secret and not particularly revealing information. As matter in fact, only thing what is correct and right is merging of articles and perhaps change of concept but not deletion.( Fajjtus (talk) 06:23, 14 August 2016 (UTC) )[reply]
  • delete I think Bjerrebæk's statement says it all "it lists a hotmail e-mail address as its submissions address". As a former research student I don't see how one can take this as a credible and respected journal when submissions are made via Hotmail address to obviously someone that is not endorsed by a major research institution, university or government agency. LibStar (talk) 17:19, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. It seems there is obvious consensus to keep this article, unnecessary to leave it open for the remaining two hours. (non-admin closure) Anarchyte (work | talk) 13:04, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vancouver Whitecaps FC U-23[edit]

Vancouver Whitecaps FC U-23 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Youth sports league which fails WP:GNG and WP:BRANCH, almost all youth leagues are non-notable, and "[a]s a general rule, the individual chapters of national and international organizations are usually not considered notable enough to warrant a separate article - unless they are substantially discussed by reliable independent sources that extend beyond the chapter's local area." SanAnMan (talk) 15:29, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Keep Not a youth team. It was the name of the farm team, also known as their Reserves and later became the Whitecaps FC 2. Several senior players played on the side either as a result of training after injury or as a demotion. Walter Görlitz (talk) 08:26, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep - is this a joke? Since when was a 4th tier team not notable. Youth?1? Nfitz (talk) 17:26, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • In Canada, fourth-tier teams are usually not notable. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:34, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • 3rd Canadian tier - played in USPDL, 4th American tier, and received much more media coverage than a typical USPDL team. Nfitz (talk) 20:51, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm quite familiar with the Canadian interdependence on the US system, and it's not even the third tier in Canada because there first two tiers are American leagues (MLS and NASL respectively), but you asked when a fourth-tier team is not notable: it's in countries where the sport is not the prominent sport. However, this team is sufficiently notable. Other teams in this league are not notable. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:34, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:51, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:51, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's not a youth team, it's a reserves team, and PDL teams are notable. Smartyllama (talk) 17:50, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:31, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Edward De Valle[edit]

Edward De Valle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Biography of a businessman who does not meet the general notability guideline; the only actual claim to notability is the Top Entrepreneur of 2012 award from Hispanic Target Magazine, and I cannot find that that's a significant award per WP:ANYBIO. The article is one of a number of articles about non-notable people created by a group of sockpuppets, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/EricKamlus. This article has been speedy deleted a couple of times, as Edward De Valle II, but there's just sufficient claim of importance that I suspect an A7 nomination would be declined. bonadea contributions talk 14:38, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. bonadea contributions talk 14:41, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. bonadea contributions talk 14:41, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete - Subject is covered in reliable sources but not extensively, mostly just passing mention. Meatsgains (talk) 15:55, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable business executive.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:11, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- non notable business accomplishments, and some are not even about the subject: "De Valle's company, 3A/Worldwide, was on the Inc 500 list for 2014[2] and the 2014 INC. 5000 list of fastest growing companies.[3]" Promotional content and weak claims of notability. Nothing substantial to sustain an article. One of the sources that comes up is a press release the subject issued about himself:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Uncontested.  Sandstein  16:07, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Federal Limbuwan party Nepal[edit]

Federal Limbuwan party Nepal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Poorly translated article. Nicnote (talk) 13:16, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:44, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:44, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:44, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is indeed so bad that I think WP:TNT would apply if no one wishes to take this on. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:45, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • All of the content was copied from Limbuwan. Not sure if speedy deletion criterion WP:A10 covers this instance, as the article title indicates a different topic. — Diannaa (talk) 16:21, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think that this article may not really expand or improve upon any info contained in the copied article even though it strives to be another topic. I would argue that it is grounds for WP:A10. Best, Nicnote (talk) 19:19, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:31, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2018 Formula One season[edit]

2018 Formula One season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

<Placeholder waiting for nominator WilliamJE to insert his reasons for deletion. JohnCD (talk) 21:16, 12 August 2016 (UTC)>[reply]

  • Delete Way to soon to have this article. No source present. Little information for 2018 is known as of yet. Having one article on a future season (2017) and one on the current season (2016) is more than enough. Tvx1 23:49, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There is virtually nothing that can be said about the 2018 season with any certainty as yet. At least wait until the preceding season has begun. Eagleash (talk) 07:07, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: the consensus established at WP:F1 holds that while creating a new season article up to eighteen months in advance is acceptable, it should only be done if there is significant new content; case in point, the revisions to the engines introduced in 2014, which had been planned out years in advance to account for their complexity. Here, the article is just the standard season article lead with a few minor tweaks to update it for the 2018 season. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 11:38, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:06, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as too soon. No information about the season other than it exists. No significant rule or other changes that have generated enough content for an article right now. Joseph2302 21:55, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus.  Sandstein  16:12, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nebraska Coast Connection[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Nebraska Coast Connection (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I certainly hope we can finally get better comments and consensus since DGG's nominations here (especially since this began with a removed PROD) as my searches and examinations are still not finding anything better at all as the listed sources are simply mentions, there's no convincing substance and my own searches have also found this. SwisterTwister talk 22:57, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 22:57, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:01, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nebraska-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:02, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:02, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:15, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- partially unsourced article on an extremely niche subject with insufficient RS coverage. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:39, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 12:51, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per previous are, local news isn't necessarily unreliable. The Variety articles should be enough to establish notability.--Prisencolin (talk) 19:47, 17 August 2016 (UTC))[reply]

Keep: Additional RS: LA Times, Omaha World Herald, WOWT News, NTV News, Creighton University (Omaha)

"Keep" RS in addition to Variety, Nebraskans Hone in on Hollywood MAY 17, 2013 (National/Int'l entertainment busines news publication), are:
Alexander Payne's 'Nebraska' shows state's deep roots in Hollywood, Los Angeles Times, Nov 20, 2013 (national newspaper).
Ex - Nebraskans Hang Together Omaha World Herald, January 19, 1997, Edition: Sunrise, Section: Living Today, Page: 1E
Also 'Oz' Beckons Nebraskans, February 25, 1998, and Film Folk Talk Omaha, July 22, 1998, both Omaha World Herald);
Homegrown (four part special report) WOWT 6 News (NBC) Part 3, (local/regional television news program) uploaded Feb 29, 2016, original air date not available.
NTV News: Nebraska Coast Connection, NTV News (ABC) Mar 9, 2015 (local/regional television news program)
THE FILM STUDIES MINOR AT CREIGHTON UNIVERSITY, one page university course requirements document listing Nebraska Coast Connection as one of seven Nebraska Film Resources, Creighton Univeristy, Omaha Nebraska, US.

Snapwhirwow (talk) 08:18, 20 August 2016 (UTC)SnapWhirWow[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Uncontested.  Sandstein  16:06, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

African American Registry[edit]

African American Registry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable educational database. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 22:17, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America1000 22:53, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. North America1000 22:53, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America1000 22:53, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:15, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I found some sources to prove that it is seen as a reputable source of information (need to ctrl F for the phrase: [71] [72], [73], [74], [75], [76]). I found nada focused on the website itself, however, so at least per my googling it fails WP:GNG for significant coverage. Yvarta (talk) 22:37, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 12:50, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus.  Sandstein  16:11, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Right Services[edit]

Mr. Right Services (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

DePRODed by a user who violated his interaction ban....but here we are anyway. I still confirm both of my PRODs: here and my newest one (before I noticed this) both basically saying that all available coverage is only for press attention, news about funding and its state as a "starting company" with my searches mirroring this availability of sourcing. SwisterTwister talk 21:19, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 21:20, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 21:20, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 21:53, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Significant coverage in multiple reliable sources cited in the article, specifically: [77], [78], [79] ~Kvng (talk) 13:52, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:15, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- sources offered above are rather trivial and insufficient to meet GNG and sustain an encyclopedia article. An unremarkable tech company with sources that don't meet CORPDEPTH. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:25, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@K.e.coffman: can you give any more detail as to why the sources I've cited are inadequate? To my assessment, they seem reliable, coverage is significant and not locally oriented. ~Kvng (talk) 14:34, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • For example, one of the sources is a republished press release (no byline): "MrRight Services launches Mobile App to Hire Home Service Professionals in Delhi NCR" Republished company PR is not enough coverage to satisfy CORPDEPTH and build an encyclopedia article. Wikipedia is not news (about new services being launched) and not a web host to house a replica of a company web site. K.e.coffman (talk) 16:56, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@K.e.coffman: which reference are you referring to here? The three I posted all have bylines. Also, the availability of multiple (2 or more) qualified sources is adequate evidence of notability; You're going to have to disqualify all but one of the references cited in the article and given here in order to make a convincing not-notable argument. ~Kvng (talk) 17:08, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I was referring to financial express. Which ones did you add? K.e.coffman (talk) 17:29, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I included three new references with my keep comment above and you disparaged "sources offered above" in your delete comment. Apparently somehow we're not talking about the same sources. ~Kvng (talk) 17:51, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments on sources:
    • Link no 1 is based on the interview with the subject; "That is when he and his childhood friend Mayank Agrawal decided to work on a model where these services and servicemen would be available at “convenience and at a fixed price”. “That is how Mr Right was started, with 50-60 handymen in June 2013,” recollects co-founder Agrawal." etc.
    • Link no 2 is a rehash of a press release: "Mr. Right, an online home improvement aggregator connects homeowners to the best home repair professionals in and around the neighbourhood. According to their press release, Mr. Right, also known as the ‘Uber’ of household services, will be launching a pilot program called ‘Elite Fleet’ in conjunction with their app which is expected to standardise the unstructured and haphazard local home services marketplace at least in Delhi NCR for now."
    • Link no 3 is also an interview: ""We realised very quickly that we couldn't keep scaling with the current model, and we looked at the model of Uber and Ola to figure out the next step," he tells us. This means that the people who come to your house to deliver a service are not Mr Right employees, but contractors that the company has vetted and registered in their database." -- this is all trivial. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:54, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like a fair assessment as far as it goes. Why do you beleive these can't be used to established notability? Attention from the press is what fundamentally establishes notability and this appears to be demonstrated here. To ague otherwise, you need to show that these sources are not reliable, that coverage is trivial or, per WP:AUD (as a special condition for organizations), that coverage is solely from local media. There is nothing untoward about using an interview as an indication of notability. The interview indicates that the reporter and editors considered the subject notable enough to spend the time conducting, writing up and publishing the interview. Similar for a rehash of a press release, in some cases at least. ~Kvng (talk) 18:21, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Press releases and interviews are trivial mentions insufficient to establish notability. Just because the subject is mentioned in the press does not mean that an encyclopedia article needs to be created. Wikipedia is not news and not a promotional vehicle. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:22, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how you can read WP:SIGCOV to exclude an interview of the company founder talking about the company which is the subject of this article. I assume you're referring to WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NOTPROMOTION. If these problems exist in the article (I don't beleive they do), they can be fixed through editing. Deletion is not the preferred means of dealing with this. ~Kvng (talk) 22:02, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 12:49, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:30, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chad Anderson (executive)[edit]

Chad Anderson (executive) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This same individual had an article with what I believe is either identical or near identical contents. The result of a past discussion was get rid of that page as it was and turn it into a redirect, with some materials moved over. See: Chad Anderson (entrepreneur) & Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chad Anderson (entrepreneur) Nothing substantial appears to have changed. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 14:53, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:19, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 20:19, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:18, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 12:47, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR) (non-admin closure) Yellow Dingo (talk) 07:40, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This Is Where I Want To Die[edit]

This Is Where I Want To Die (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable, self-published video game. Except for some copyediting, the article was mainly written by the developer or a close party, presenting a WP:COI. Don Cuan (talk) 14:11, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:50, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:18, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 12:47, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz talk 21:28, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Freddie Combs[edit]

Freddie Combs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I would've frankly PRODed again if not for the fact it was deleted as Bgwhite's PROD and it was restored after a user contested and wanted to improve it; however, then and now, both shows there's simply nothing actually convincing, there's no inherited notability and there's absolutely nothing else convincing with searches simply only finding a few news mentions from that time. Notifying tagger PamD. SwisterTwister talk 06:56, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America1000 20:30, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 20:30, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This guy made an apparance and sang on a show, this is nowhere near enough for notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:58, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:23, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 12:46, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 JJ (Swedish band). Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:21, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jj n° 1[edit]

Jj n° 1 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

not referenced or notable Rathfelder (talk) 00:15, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. North America1000 02:06, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. North America1000 02:07, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:29, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Single lacks notability and there isn't much out there to expand page. Meatsgains (talk) 03:44, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to JJ (Swedish band). There's some coverage but can easily be covered there. --Michig (talk) 06:44, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 12:12, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per the fact that the single is notable. short article, one source. but article length and quality is irrelevant to wiki guidelines.BabbaQ (talk) 00:11, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to JJ (Swedish band). Insufficient sources cited for standalone notability.  Sandstein  07:52, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Only the Suzuki; no consensus about the Honda.  Sandstein  16:09, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Suzuki GSX250FX[edit]

Suzuki GSX250FX (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Honda CB250F (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete both Honda CB250F and Suzuki GSX250FX because no sources exist to meet notability guidelines, per WP:PRODUCT: "Avoid creating multiple stubs about each individual product PU-36 Explosive Space Modulator, Q-36 Explosive Space Modulator, R-36 Explosive Space Modulator, etc.) especially if there is no realistic hope of expansion." These two articles are exactly the same as the 6 deleted in the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yamaha FZR250 and should be deleted for the reasons explained there. Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:13, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (only Suzuki) The Honda article contains deep, complete and unique information for the product, and is not a stub. The Suzuki is a perma-stub, because it's essentially an alternate name for a product whose page does not exist. Jergling (talk) 18:45, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This is the ITSUSEFUL fallacy. All of the prose in the Honda article comes from unreliable, self-published fansites like hondahornet.co.uk, or is just original research. Subtract that and you have less than a stub. The rest of the article is statistics copied from Honda press releases. And the product is still non-notable, even if we could trust the information we have. Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:17, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We have articles for every vehicle under the sun, and I believe technical specifications are always worth the bits it takes to host them. Consumer vehicles are necessarily sold in such large quantities that it's pretty hard to call them non-notable; consider that we have an article for literally every phone Nokia has ever made. Furthermore, WP:ITSUSEFUL is not a fallacy - it's a laconic response to avoid when making Keep/Delete votes. I explained exactly why I believe the article should stand (It's deep, complete information about a unique product). As someone who's currently shopping for a motorcycle, Wikipedia's consistency and availability of specs has been an invaluable tool for me, as it was when I was looking for a phone before that, and a car before that. Jergling (talk) 14:16, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It is quite easy to call many models of motorcycles non-notable based the simple fact that zero reliable sources spilled a drop of ink over them. There's no way out of that paradox: saying "of course it's notable!" begs the question. If it's so notable, where is the coverage?

If we kept an article for the sake of the list of technical specs, that would violate the policies WP:NOTSTATS and WP:NOTWEBHOST. Keeping an article to maintain Wikipedia's usefulness as a shopping guide would violate the policy WP:NOTCATALOGUE. Many other sites are better suited to that job, like bikez.com, motorcyclespecs.co.za, WikiBooks, and so on. If we accepted the notability of a motorcycle model simply because it exists, that would violate the guideline notability requires verifiable evidence.

It is not true that every model of motorcycle ever made "necessarily" sold in large numbers. Many didn't sell at all. We have no evidence that the Honda CB250F sold much at all, even if sales numbers alone were evidence of notability. We'd have a better argument to write an article about every coffee maker or lawn mower ever made, since those sell in vastly higher volumes than motorcycles.

I know it looks like Wikipedia is supposed to have an article about each model of bike; I used to think that too. I don't blame anyone for that assumption, and that's why this issue keeps coming back to be re-argued.

The other stuff exists argument about Nokia phones is not a reason to keep Honda CB250F, it's a reason to delete the non-notable phones articles.

We have deleted many motorcycle model articles for lack of notability. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yamaha FZ700 was the last time we discussed the inherent notability of motorcycles, and I couldn't find a single AfD discussion where a motorcycle article was kept only because the model existed. They were kept due to evidence of notability. Many were deleted in spite of some editors saying we must have an article on ever model of bike. It always comes back to WP:PRODUCT and WP:NRVE. It doesn't matter if it's a motorcycle or a ballpoint pen. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:59, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. North America1000 04:15, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. North America1000 04:16, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:46, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 12:09, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 John Cleese. MBisanz talk 21:28, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cynthia Cleese[edit]

Cynthia Cleese (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Her notable lineage aside, she is not nor has she ever been a notable actor, per either WP:NACTOR or WP:GNG. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:52, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:53, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • And yes, there was this Daily Mail story, but tabloid items like this are not generally considered as contributing to WP:N. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:15, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It seems easy to find detailed coverage such as "People are looking to hate me". Andrew D. (talk) 18:17, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes but that is not the same person, Camilla is Cynthia's younger half-sister. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:20, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • They seem easy to confuse – you search for one and get the other – Shawn did it himself with the Mail story. This seems a good reason to have a page – to help keep things clear. And, when one is careful, it still doesn't seem difficult to find coverage of Cynthia too – "Going Her Way". Andrew D. (talk) 18:39, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • Oh my goodness you're right! Sorry. But a non-notable easily confusable ex-bit-part actress is hardly a good reason to have a permastub article, surely. A redirect, maybe? I was going to propose that or just do it myself, but then who to redirect to, which parent's article? It's why I settled on deletion as my suggestion, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:53, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:01, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment are we now suggesting that because you two have confused these individuals, it's a " good reason to have a page – to help keep things clear"? Honestly? Perhaps we need a new editing policy, WP:WHENCONFUSEDKEEPARTICLE, or similar. Extremely dubious. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:39, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I certainly agree. That said, that People magazine piece is a really good one. But that's really all I see, in the otherwise meager Gresults. After a few bit parts in her dad's films, she seems to have made good on her pledge in the short People piece to pursue a different path, and hasn't since done anything -- yet -- that would meet our notability requirements, it seems to me. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:50, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • We have lots of pages to help keep things clear; it's called disambiguation. Andrew D. (talk) 20:24, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not sure relevance that has to your claim that we should not delete this article because to keep it is "to help keep things clear". Is that a new policy? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:13, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • We use disambiguation pages for title matches. We already have Cleese, but if deleted we wouldn't keep the redirect there. So disambiguation's not really the point. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:09, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
          • The purpose of disambiguation pages is "Ensuring that a reader who searches for a topic using a particular term can get to the information on that topic quickly and easily, whichever of the possible topics it might be." As the names of John Cleese's daughters are easy to confuse and Google treats them as much the same, we have a good reason to help our readers get to the right page. Making this page into a red link would be disruptive. Andrew D. (talk) 18:45, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. While the above People (magazine) interview is significant coverage in an independent reliable source, I can't find any other such sources, so I think the subject fails to meet WP:BASIC, which requires multiple such sources, and certainly fails to meet WP:NACTOR. People wouldn't have interviewed her if it wasn't for her famous parents, and she seems to have maintained a low profile in the 19 years since. Qwfp (talk) 11:25, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep or Merge to John Cleese and link from her mom's article. Doesn't quite meet NACTOR, but a redlink is just an invitation to recreate the article. That said, the "[they] wouldn't have interviewed her if it wasn't for her famous parents" argument fails (it's third party, so NOTINHERITED doesn't apply to the motivations of non-WP sources). Montanabw(talk) 21:01, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Deserves an article in her own right.--Ipigott (talk) 10:05, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm upgrading my !vote to "weak keep," above. But cool with either a keep or a merge. Montanabw(talk) 18:07, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:46, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 12:09, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - doesn't meet WP:NACTOR criteria, having only had minor roles in a couple of her father's movies, and having just one significant article in an independent reliable source means she doesn't meet WP:BASIC either. Most arguments for keeping seem to revolve around her famous parents, but notability is not inherited. Neiltonks (talk) 12:38, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (a weak delete) Coverage includes in-depth here but mostly everything else is about her famous father or her naughty sister.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:04, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Redirect as there's by all means nothing at all substantial for her own independent notability. Thr Keep votes are not focusing with this exact matter thus they are not actually convincing. SwisterTwister talk 17:15, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus.  Sandstein  07:51, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

İstanbul (electoral districts)[edit]

İstanbul (electoral districts) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
Ankara (electoral districts) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
İzmir (electoral districts) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

After an RM, aiming at expanding the subjects' scopes, was closed without consensus, I'm nominating these three articles for deletion on the basis that there's no need for an overview article about two resp. three electoral districts each. Still convinced we should have a more general article about Politics of Istanbul, Politics of Ankara and Politics of Izmir instead, I'm however asking the closing admin to please move the articles to my userspace or to the userspace of the articles' creator Nub Cake, so they can be re-created (or moved back into articlespace) under the new title. --PanchoS (talk) 15:24, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly disagree with this proposal. There is absolutely no advantage or need to deleting these articles whatsoever. The importance of having an overview articles is reflected in several reasons, not least by the fact that a few elections ago these were single electoral districts. Historical electoral districts and constituencies have articles on Wikipedia, so by this reason alone these articles should be kept. Furthermore, they serve as a good overview over all the sub-districts within their boundaries. Finally, for presidential elections, these are still electoral districts and are not split into two or three. Therefore, I don't see any logical reason to deleting these articles and am kind of at loss as to why they were nominated in the first place. Nub Cake (talk) 18:07, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Historical districts are kept, but this doesn't mean we should have yet another layer of overview article for every split district. Otherwise we'd have to create another overview article on Bolu and Düzce (electoral districts) which IMO were only split in 1999, and many others. Your second argument also doesn't hold water. The proposed Politics of Istanbul (or Politics of Istanbul Province) article would easily hold general information about the different constituencies and links to the detail articles on the respective constituencies (legislative I, II and III, and presidential).
Actually, I simply don't get your point, but wait – I only going through the pain of nominating these in order to preserve the edit histories of your articles. Am I stupid to care? I could also say: to hell with it, and go ahead with copying the stuff I can use over to a new article Politics of Istanbul. A nice {{Copied}} badge on the Talk page, and there we are, problem solved. --PanchoS (talk) 21:56, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, you are incorrect about Bolu and Düzce. Düzce was indeed split in 1999, but it wasn't a case of one electoral district being abolished and two new electoral districts replacing it. It was one electoral district (Bolu) having its boundaries changed and one new electoral district being formed. Therefore, there is no 'historical constituency' here. Also, you are again not putting any arguments forward as to why you feel having overview articles is 'useless' in your view. They are not useless. They hold information about the boundaries of the sub-districts, election results of the all three sub-districts combined (which is far more important in the eyes of most of the electorate) and provide a good navigation tool for locating the individual sub-districts. You've failed to provide a single reason as to why these articles should be deleted, apart from apparently 'clearing the way' for a little project of yours concerning the establishment of 'Politics of X' articles. Tell me: how and in what way do these articles stop you from creating these articles anyway? An electoral district, historical or not, is entirely different from an article concerning the politics of a province. One holds geographical information used by the electoral commission to organise elections, the other details the political leanings of the province. As I said, there is absolutely no advantage or need to deleting these articles whatsoever, and your failure to provide a single argument to the contrary is a proof of this. Also, in regards to your accusations that I am only against deletion because I'm somehow being protective of articles I wrote... I only feel that this accusation only shows more clearly that this deletion request bears no rational or legitimate reasoning for it. Nub Cake (talk) 20:36, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Nub Cake: The difference between the two cases seems small. Area and population of pre-1999 Düzce constituency and (the combination of) post-1999 Bolu and Düzce constituencies remained roughly the same, didn't they? "Clearing the way for a little project of yours" is partly true, but still funny, as having a consistent "Politics of x" article scheme for countries and first-level subdivisions is not exactly my personal obsession, but a longstanding convention here.
re "accusations of protectiveness": I can't see where I accused you of anything here, though. I actually invited you to join me in turning your articles into something that IMO is far more useful and would still be based on your work.
Main argument again: an overview article aimed at covering just two electoral districts (in the cases of Ankara and Izmir) seems disproportionate, particularly given that much more relevant overview articles following our "Politics of" and "Elections in" conventions are missing for these provinces. I'm not willing to invest more energy in this useless battle though, so may the articles be kept at Electoral districts of Ankara etc., to at least cover electoral districts at all electoral levels. --PanchoS (talk) 09:28, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The difference between the two cases are huge. Bolu was and still is an electoral district. 'Bolu and Duzce' was never an electoral district. You are correct that 'Politics in X' articles are missing from the main Turkish cities but again you're not stating why these electoral constituency articles are stopping you from creating them. If you go to the Istanbul#Politics section, you'll find that it is incredibly different from the election constituency articles. Therefore I still don't see the reason why you've gone after a completely unrelated series of articles that concentrate on something governmental and structural rather than analytical. Renaming these articles to 'Electoral districts of X' is definitely a much better idea than deleting them altogether. Nub Cake (talk) 20:03, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:00, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:00, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Trying to see if there's an analogous article about federal districts in Canada's provinces and the closest I've found is List of Ontario federal electoral districts, which of course is quite a different thing. Anyway, it would be great to have a Politics of Istanbul Province main article but of course there's no deadline here. I was leaning towards keep, with the federal electoral make up of each province seeming notable to me. But the fact that it's considered a single unsplit entity for the ever-more-important/all-too-important presidential vote in Turkey makes this a slam dunk, for me. Keep. Now, maybe then the article order should be flipped, with the integrated presidential results first? But that's not a matter for Afd... Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:08, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also, trying to think, what would be the U.S. equivalent for this? Because of the presidential angle, it would be something like United States presidential election in Alabama, 2012 + United States House of Representatives elections in Alabama, 2012 (which in this case groups 7 districts) -- with the added factor that the Turkish article covers more than one election cycle. Again, I don't see why deleting this would help to build the encyclopedia. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:21, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Shawn in Montreal: Noone wants the content to go. Point is however that the article scope is synthetic and rather useless as an overview for two or three constituencies that are no different from any other constituencies in the country. Therefore the scope would be much better expanded into Politics of Ankara, Istanbul and Izmir province. However the RM failed, and copypasting the content into new Politics of Ankara, Istanbul and Izmir province articles, thereby losing the page history, wouldn't be good practice. Therefore, as explained above, I propose temporary userfication to be immediately moved back into articlespace under the expanded scope. --PanchoS (talk) 21:56, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes, I kinda made a decision to avoid looking at the RM. Guess I'll have to. But I'll ask again: is it correct that at the presidential level, a province votes as a single entity? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:46, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
          • the reason why I ask is that as a first-level administrative country subdivision, each province may well merit its own article on electoral results, akin to the US federal elections-by-state example I cited above. I honestly don't think SYNTH applies here. Turkish provinces exist as real and distinct entities. As for them being "no different from any other constituencies in the country," I see that there are 81 Provinces of Turkey and yes I suppose we could have 81 such articles, if someone wants to create them. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:51, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete We have articles on the individual constituencies for these provinces (e.g. Ankara (1st electoral district) and Ankara (2nd electoral district)) so I think these articles are completely pointless. Separate articles can be created on the historic constituencies under names like İstanbul (electoral district) but the current articles do not contain any information on them. Number 57 11:41, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Well these articles with tables and maps are serious sources for the researchers. Why don’t we keep them ? Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 13:01, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Few cities have electoral distircts in Turkey. These districts have significant impact on elections. Notable enough to be an article. Encyclopedic information is vital at this point. Researchers may inform themselves about this different situation.--Kafkasmurat (talk) 18:33, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:48, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 12:08, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No need to relist: This deletion request is unlikely to attract any more debate or reach a form of consensus. The user who nominated the pages for deletion has failed to state a clear reason for making this request, and the articles in question are both rich in original content and in compliance with WP:N and does not fulfil any of the criteria listed on WP:DELETE. The nominating user has him/herself stated that the primary reason for launching this request was to 'make way' for new 'Politics of X' articles, but has failed to state how these constituency articles are an obstacle to their creation. I therefore propose that this pretty much baseless deletion request be closed. Nub Cake (talk) 16:52, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)

2016–17 SMU Mustangs women's basketball team[edit]

2016–17 SMU Mustangs women's basketball team (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:NSEASONS - Substantial independent coverage in sources is lacking - the school and team website are not independent and do not qualify as secondary sources. Also, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball WP:CRYSTAL; a championship season or a post season is an unknown; so this is probably WP:TOOSOON. Steve Quinn (talk) 02:30, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination and close this discussion as speedy keep reason #1 and per Procedure for non-admin close on AfD page as well as this appears to be Snow Keep. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 17:12, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. North America1000 05:43, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep We've been through this, every year. Division I college basketball seasons are notable. Stop with the WP:POINT-y nominations, already. Smartyllama (talk) 17:33, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment While Division I men's basketball gets a lot of coverage, the same level of coverage does not exist for women's. Coverage of SMU's women's basketball program would need to be judged on its own merits.—Bagumba (talk) 23:20, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
KeepThis conversation has already been had year after year. D1 WBB seasons are notable as most games are broadcast nationwide and you can find a lot of sources with reliable information. D1 WBB recently has had more coverage than the WNBA. Mjs32193 (talk) 20:58, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Div 1 basketball seasons have not become notable only by people's assertions, otherwise Wikipedia would become quite the random place. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 03:34, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This challenge is a ludicrous waste of time — the current year is here, the current season is approaching, if people want to start getting these inevitable articles rolling now, more power to them. Carrite (talk) 16:14, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 12:07, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Ahmednagar Municipal Corporation. MBisanz talk 21:29, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sachin Jadhav[edit]

Sachin Jadhav (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete. Non-notable politician. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 08:46, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:30, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:30, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 12:05, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:28, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Shamsurrahman (Afghan cricketer)[edit]

Shamsurrahman (Afghan cricketer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Cricketer who fails WP:NCRIC. Has not yet played a first-class/List A game, etc. U19 cricketers don't meet the notability threshold Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 09:36, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:46, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete. Agreed. DilMendis82 (talk) 14:51, 1 August 2016 (UTC) Blocked sock. —UY Scuti Talk 14:34, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:59, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom as it fails WP:NCRIC.Blackhole78 talk | contrib 17:44, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti Talk 14:34, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 12:01, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:27, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Karim Janat[edit]

Karim Janat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Cricketer who fails WP:NCRIC. Has not yet played a first-class/List A game, etc. U19 cricketers don't meet the notability threshold. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 09:43, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:45, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete. Agreed. DilMendis82 (talk) 14:52, 1 August 2016 (UTC) Blocked sock. —UY Scuti Talk 14:35, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:58, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom as it fails WP:NCRIC.Blackhole78 talk | contrib 17:45, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti Talk 14:35, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 12:01, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:27, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ghamai Zadran[edit]

Ghamai Zadran (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Cricketer who fails WP:NCRIC. Has not yet played a first-class/List A game, etc. U19 cricketers don't meet the notability threshold. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 11:06, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete. Agreed. DilMendis82 (talk) 14:55, 1 August 2016 (UTC)Blocked sock—UY Scuti Talk 14:45, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:33, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:37, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom as it fails WP:NCRIC.Blackhole78 talk | contrib 17:47, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti Talk 14:45, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 11:59, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. This is obviously a delete consensus (if a poorly attended one). But, I'm going to push back on the argument that this should be deleted because all of the other articles created by a specific editor were deleted. Evaluate the article, not the editor. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:22, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Leon Glen Carlo[edit]

Leon Glen Carlo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Cricketer who fails WP:NCRIC. Has not yet played a first-class/List A game, etc. U19 cricketers don't meet the notability threshold. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 11:08, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete. Agreed. DilMendis82 (talk) 14:55, 1 August 2016 (UTC)Blocked sock—UY Scuti Talk 14:45, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Draftify —move to draft as it is WP:TOOSOON at present as he has not played first class or senior international, when he has the article can be moved back to mainspace.Atlantic306 (talk) 18:02, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:31, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:39, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti Talk 14:46, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 11:59, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
All of the other cricket biographies created by this user have now been deleted - see the redlinks on their talkpage. This is the last one. Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 08:02, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 List of Marvel Comics characters: B. The delete proposers make valid points, as do the keep, redirect and merge proposers. There's a clear consensus that Wikipedia doesn't need this article, but also there's a good consensus that material that's verifiable and neutral can be kept in an appropriate article. Hiding T 11:29, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Susan Banner[edit]

Susan Banner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Notability: no RS can be found & the main article Hulk does not mention the subject. Article potentially exclusively contains original research. K.e.coffman (talk) 16:06, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:39, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:39, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 11:57, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The creators, debut issue and date, and basic character info (Bruce Banner's aunt and temporary caretaker) can all be sourced to the issue mentioned. All the plot minutia can go away. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:24, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 List of demon lords. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010Talk 23:17, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Soneillon[edit]

Soneillon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This character fails to establish notability. TTN (talk) 17:49, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 17:49, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 11:57, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:51, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:24, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge notability, even in-game, is extremely minor. Hobit (talk) 03:57, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 KTIS (AM). MBisanz talk 21:30, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Faith Radio[edit]

Faith Radio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable. Ethanlu121 (talk) 21:02, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:26, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:45, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:45, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Did not find coverage by independent reliable sources. Fails WP:ORG Gab4gab (talk) 21:16, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 11:56, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge I think the most appropriate course of action would be to merge this article with its owner/operator, University of Northwestern - St Paul. Dolotta (talk) 23:42, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looking carefully at this whole cluster of articles, it would appear that this whole network consists of one originating station (KTIS in Minneapolis) and a bunch of translator stations that just repeat network programming without originating any new programming of their own; only one of said stations includes or sources any indication that it ever had its own standalone history prior to becoming a repeater of Faith Radio. (The others may also, I don't know, but their articles certainly aren't saying or sourcing that they did.) But one of the conditions for a radio station to have its own standalone article per WP:NMEDIA is that it originates some of its own programming in its own studios — a station that exists only as a satellite-fed repeater of another station gets a redirect to its programming source, not a standalone article, so those rebroadcasters have to be redirected to wherever the content about their programming source ends up. Accordingly, one possible course of action here would be to merge this with KTIS (AM) at one title or the other, with all of the "affiliate" stations except WNWW, the one which actually documents a pre-Faith history, also redirected to that title, and the other possible course of action would be merging to the university per Dolotta — although I'd prefer the first option since the rebroadcasters are almost all in towns nowhere near the university and mostly not even in the same state, and thus redirecting them there would distort their context. But either way, we definitely don't need seven separate articles about one satellite-fed broadcasting service. Bearcat (talk) 16:12, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Anarchyte (work | talk) 09:52, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sabareesh Prabhaker[edit]

Sabareesh Prabhaker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I don't think he meets notability criteria for musicians, but it isn't my field. The BBC recording seems to be a link to its music on a local BBC site. DGG ( talk ) 21:57, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:33, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:33, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep the two news sources in the article appear to be detailed profiles from major newspapers that are quite reliable [81] [82]. I don't have the ability to dig for more Indian-language sources, and it is likely that some exist. I will post at INB to see if anybody else is able. Vanamonde (talk) 16:45, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the source article in thehindu.com seems enough to meet the General Notability Guideline if anything else exists, and the volume of results in a simple name search is large enough to make it very unlikely that suitable references in languages other than English aren't numerous. BoyRD (talk) 03:23, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 11:55, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 07:05, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Office of the Procurement Ombudsman[edit]

Office of the Procurement Ombudsman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Relatively minor Indian government bureau. Entirely based on first party sources. DGG ( talk ) 22:38, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:32, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:32, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 13:12, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – I assume you mean "Canadian government"? Graham (talk) 04:35, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete without prejudice to recreation based on reliable sources. In addition to it being based entirely on primary sources, there's some problematic close paraphrasing, too. There are some sources, but I'm not seeing quite enough to feel sufficiently confident in its notability to try to make improvements. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 13:12, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 11:54, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, without prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody can find reliable source coverage in media to support it; primary sources like these are not how a government department gets a standalone Wikipedia article. Bearcat (talk) 18:07, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Idaho USA. (non-admin closure) Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 09:04, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sade Aiyeku[edit]

Sade Aiyeku (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Aiyeku is only notabel for being Miss Idaho USA. The only coverage we have of that outside of pageant-related media is an article from her home town paper in Walla Walla, Washington. This is just not the level of coverage we need for an article. John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:36, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Idaho-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:27, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article now meets GNG, since I have a reliable sources to establish notability. The article might need further editing, but it is not a junk bio and is best kept. Deletion should be a last resort. Eruditescholar (talk) 07:35, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per WP:HEY and WP:BARE. Bearian (talk) 22:41, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 11:54, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America1000 06:17, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America1000 06:17, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Miss Idaho USA; the subject is otherwise not notable, but I believe there's some "list notability" since the article exists and the subject is mentioned there. Individually, she fails GNG due to lack of significant coverage. The coverage is only local and rather trivial. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:59, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have added another reliable source. I deem the Miss USA contest a notable American pageant, including prelimnaries to the Miss America contest which she also contested in. Besides, there are many other articles on former Miss USA contestants following the year she contested. The article also passes WP:ANYBIO because she "received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for others several times". Eruditescholar (talk) 09:30, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Any biography[edit]

Shortcut
  1. The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for one several times.
  2. The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field.[1]

References

  1. ^ Generally, a person who is "part of the enduring historical record" will have been written about, in depth, independently in multiple history books on that field, by historians. A politician who has received "significant press coverage" has been written about, in depth, independently in multiple news feature articles, by journalists. An actor who has been featured in magazines has been written about, in depth, independently in multiple magazine feature articles, by magazine article writers. An actor or TV personality who has "an independent biography" has been written about, in depth, in a book, by an independent biographer.
  • Above is from ANYBIO, which is relevant here. Further, applying ANYBIO #1 to a state-level pageant win seems like a stretch as these are no "widely known and significant award". If they were, there would have been coverage sufficient enough to establish individual notability of a winner. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:05, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, I deem existing online sources sufficient to establish notability. Besides, I am sure there will be other offline sources somewhere. Moreover, I consider a state-level peageant winner an achievement in it's own right, but considering a delegate to a major national pageant as non-significant? I don't think so. -Eruditescholar (talk) 19:55, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment –If found to not be independently notable, redirect to Miss Idaho USA as a valid search term, and the subject is mentioned there. North America1000 16:48, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now. Discussion about notability guidelines has already started on the Talk page for the Beauty Pageant project. No harm will be done by closing this nomination as "keep" and letting the project-level discussion take its course. NewYorkActuary (talk) 03:57, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  Sandstein  07:20, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

L'entrevue des deux rois sur l'île des Faisans de 1660[edit]

L'entrevue des deux rois sur l'île des Faisans de 1660 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article on a non-notable copy by a non-notable (perhaps barely notable at a stretch) artist, with a title not in use outside Wikipedia. An article on the original, at the right title, may be useful, but it would be better to start from scratch. Fram (talk) 11:51, 12 August 2016 (UTC) *Repurpose to a little article on the event. The images are interesting as they apparently contain a portrait of Velasquez, acting as a courtier. Easy to do. Johnbod (talk) 11:57, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    • That would be Treaty of the Pyrenees, where a paragraph on the confirmation of the Treaty with this meeting should be added. Fram (talk) 12:03, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Nah, Meeting on the Isle of Pheasants now up. Do what you like with this. Johnbod (talk) 12:32, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • They met on 6 (or 7, sources disagreee) June 1660 (after the ministers had created and signed the Treaty), not 7 June 1659 (which would have been before the treaty). Anyway, I suppose that this article can be deleted and the AfD closed? Keeping it as a redirect seems not useful, it's not really a normal search term. Fram (talk) 12:57, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Right, thanks, done. Many of these articles are remarkably poor. Johnbod (talk) 13:20, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I just deleted the page (thinking that this could be treated as an expired prod), but realised to late that I was not the person to delete it even in that case... So, I restored it again and will let someone else do the honours instead. I plead short-term insanity ;-) Fram (talk) 13:33, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:56, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:56, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is merely a formality at this point. Nothing is lost and everything in the right place. Mduvekot (talk) 23:14, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:26, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ann Gervasoni[edit]

Ann Gervasoni (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

fails WP:PROF. not even the top academic level in Australia of professor. Her awards are minor. Created by a single purpose editor , possible autobiography LibStar (talk) 11:46, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:42, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:42, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:42, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There's nothing in the citation record, minor awards, academic rank, or anything else to suggest a pass of WP:PROF, so I think we should look to WP:GNG instead. But of the two independent news stories cited as sources in the article, the Paramatta Sun one ("EDUCATION WEEK: Help with numbers for Glenwood pupils") doesn't even mention Gervasoni, whileThe Australian ("Teach children to master maths, then count economic blessings") is labeled as an editorial and mentions Gervasoni only trivially in one sentence that also makes clear that it is not written independently of the subject. ("We designed the program with Bob Perry of Charles Sturt University and Ann Gervasoni from Mon­ash University, to support the mathematical knowledge and skills of three to five-year-olds from disadvantaged backgrounds as they prepare to start school.") So she doesn't pass GNG either. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:22, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Despite the large amount of text written here, it's really just a very small number of people, rehashing their original opinions, with nobody seemingly able to convince anybody else of their point of view. As this has already been listed for a month, I can't see how relisting it again would do any good.

I will state that the current title, Hokkien, Hoklo, and Minnan people and language in the United States seems like a really bad compromise. It may meet various political objections, but it certainly doesn't meet the WP:CRITERIA for a good article title. But, that's not an official part of the AfD consensus, just my personal opinion. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:26, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hokkien and Hoklo Americans[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Hokkien and Hoklo Americans (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete or merge to Chinese Americans or Hoklo people. If this page is created, then to be fair we should create pages for Shanghainese Amercians, Wu Americans, Gan Americans, Mandarin Americans, Xiang Americans ... and many more, and it could go on and on. Should we create an article for all the Chinese varieties that's in the United States? Balthazarduju (talk) 19:53, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I searched these terms, Hokkien Americans and Hoklo Americans, on Google Books, and found no results. --Balthazarduju (talk) 00:38, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Most books about Chinese or Taiwanese Americans should have information about Hoklo people, just probably not referred to as "Hoklo Americans"--Prisencolin (talk) 06:29, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Then merge the information about Hoklo people to the Chinese American and Taiwanese American articles, but don't create an article where the terminology don't even exist in English sources.--Balthazarduju (talk) 07:05, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps the page should be renamed. Anyways though, is there any reason why we can't have an article on the intersection of the two, since Hoklo people exists? There are also many Hokkien people in America who have connections to other countries.--Prisencolin (talk) 15:50, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Prisencolin: Keep. But the title should be modified, since Hokkien and Hoklo are largely synonyms. It should be either Minnan Americans, Hoklo Americans or Hokkien Americans, with the others as redirects to the page. I personally would prefer the first two, as Hokkien literally refers to the entire region corresponding to today's Fujian, which includes other Min languages.
Whether Balthazarduju wants to be "fair" and to create a page called "Mandarin Americans," I don't see how it can be used as a reason to delete the page in discussion. Lysimachi (talk) 12:33, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The problem I am concerned about is that there are actually no scholarly work abouts "Hoklo Americans". The term is purely conjectural. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 00:48, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:22, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States-related deletion discussions. --Prisencolin (talk) 09:14, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. --Prisencolin (talk) 09:14, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. --Prisencolin (talk) 09:14, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. --Prisencolin (talk) 09:14, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti Talk 15:17, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:GNG and has sources. Retitling is a legitimate discussion though.--Prisencolin (talk) 17:33, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Prisencolin, it might be better to note that you are the creator of this article "Hokkien and Hoklo Americans".--Balthazarduju (talk) 05:23, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
To respond to "has sources". Yes, this article does contain sources, but these sources are about Taiwanese Americans and Chinese Americans, and the Hokkien/Hoklo speakers amongst them. These sources does not support the concept of "Hokkien and Hoklo Americans" on itself.--Balthazarduju (talk) 05:23, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that is precisely the problem. The sources are not supporting the exact content and I see this as a WP:SYNTH the way it exists now. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 00:51, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:GNG. Retitling may be needed. It should be noted that the article is not just about speakers of particular language in the USA, but people of the same origin. Lysimachi (talk) 16:46, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Lysimachi already voted keep above.--Balthazarduju (talk) 22:45, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Same comment I made at Hakkas American's AfD. It'd probably be best to open up a WP:RM rather than deleting the article entirely. Meatsgains (talk) 14:36, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am also unsure about some of the facts. For example, Annabel Chong is listed as a "Hoklo or Hokkien American" when are no citations to show that. (I'm assuming that the ethnicity has been inferred from her family name "Quek", but this is still original research). I'm leaning towards selectively merging the content to suitable articles --Lemongirl942 (talk) 00:58, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This article is supposed to be about a particular group of Chinese people and/or Chinese-Americans, and they're not the same groups. The article almost immediately veers off into talking about people of Chinese descent who came to America from Taiwan, Indonesia, etc., and then says "these people don't identify as Hoklo." So if they're not Hoklo, what's the point of mentioning them? That I can answer - because there are "sources" that can be claimed for the article as a result. There are in fact two sources for "Although around 70% of Taiwanese people in Taiwan are Hoklo, there are slightly more Taiwanese Americans who are Mainland Chinese (waishengren) most of whom are not Hoklo" - again, "not Hoklo", thus not pertinent. "Chinese Filipinos are one of the largest overseas Chinese communities in Southeast Asia." - that's great, but that's not America, and former territory or not, Filipinos don't identify as American, nor is it indicated that the Chinese immigrants to the Philippines identify as Hoklo, either. This is indicative of what is going on in the whole article - random sources about Chinese people who aren't the people named in the article title for one reason or another. The "list of notable people" entries are partially not Americans either, but of those that are, Jay Chen is Taiwanese-American, after the article got through saying most of that group aren't Hoklo. Amy Chen's parents are ethnic Chinese from the Philippines. So I'm trying and failing to see what this article is accomplishing from an informational standpoint, or of what benefit this information would be elsewhere if merged, because it is not saying anything substantive. MSJapan (talk)01:59, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • This article needs some work, that for sure. In its current state it mostly fails to emphasize what this group has in common, and that is a common ancestral and cultural background. That being said though, there admittedly aren't many Hokkien cultural traits shared by these people, but the same can be said about many ethnic groups such as German Americans or Irish Americans, and we have articles on those. As for Taiwanese people not identifing as Hoklo, perhaps an expert on the subject coukd shed some light on this but there is substantial evidence that Taiwanese identity is a relabelled version of Hoklo culture, for instance Taiwanese language is what most parts of the world would refer to as Hokkien. I digress but the point is that this article isn't original research or synthesis, it's just WP:COMMONSENSE in putting 1 and 1 together.--Prisencolin (talk) 06:43, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to point out that you, the creator of the article, are saying the article is poor, and it fails to address its subject. You're also indicating you don't have the expertise needed to improve the article. Clearly, then, it should not be live, should it? You are also failing to notice that by "putting one and one together" on Wikipedia when it hasn't been done elsewhere, you are engaging in WP:OR. This is not a debatable matter - polices are clear on both quality of articles and sourcing, and you've just explained that neither of those policies have been adequately met. MSJapan (talk) 18:44, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
WP:AFDNOTCLEANUP, all I will say is that this article shouldn't be deleted. There is evidence that there are Hoklo people in the United States, and this article should at least be kept based on this fact. See this quote: ""the immigrants to America were increasingly benshengren (people from this province), that is, people born and raised on Taiwan, especially those whose fore-bearers - overwhelmingly Minnan with a Hakka minority and a small population of indigenous peoples""[1]--Prisencolin (talk) 01:40, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • One key difference here is that "Hokkien Americans" is a wholly contained subgroup of Chinese Americans. As far as I am aware, we don't really create article on intersection of a sub-ethnic group and nationality (particularly when an article about the intersecion of the ethnic group and nationality is also present). For example, Slavs are divided into East,West and South Slavs but we only have 1 Slavic Americans. We don't have East Slavic American or West Slavic American for each of them. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:15, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You're making the assumption that there is only one Chinese ethnicity and that culturally, ethnically etc. this group is uniform across all of China/Taiwan/SEA etc. As research shows, this is not necessarily true.--Prisencolin (talk) 01:29, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Per WP:NOTNEO No scholarly work even uses the term "Hokkien American" and "Hoklo American". When we have intersections such as these, we need reliable sources to back it up - and we need reliable sources to address the exact topic directly and in detail.
  2. Nobody seems to have actually defined the term "Hokkien American" or "Hoklo American". There needs to be at least one definition in a reliable source. I cannot find any. Without such a definition, this would be WP:OR and a shaky foundation for the article.
  3. I also see this as a "kind of" POV Fork (and that too a WP:FRINGE one) from Chinese Americans (although to clarify, the content is not NPOV). Chinese Americans refers to Americans of Chinese ancestry (regardless of the nation of origin - this includes Chinese from Taiwan, Hong Kong, Singapore etc). Hokkien Americans are part of it. I see no reason why this shouldn't be covered in that article.
  4. I do not see sources specifically distinguishing between Chinese Americans and Hokkien Americans. Hokkien Americans are also ethnically Chinese Americans. I have yet to see someone who claims to be Hoklo or Hokkien and yet they claim to be not ethnic Chinese.
  5. Whether an ethnic identity of "Hoklo Americans" exists is questionable. I do not see any scholarly works showing evidence of a sense of distinct identity among "Hokkien Americans" - to be honest, I have never heard of Americans self identifying as Hokkien Americans. (You can contrast this with Singapore, where Hokkien and Teochew people often identify with their dialect. They are still classified as Chinese Singaporeans).
  6. I am also concerned with the factual accuracy of the article. Annabel Chong is considered in the list, although no reliable source says she is Hokkien American. Same with Robin Lim. This is essentially original research.
  7. There is a lot of WP:SYNTH and WP:COATRACK in the article. For example, 1 source says that "Indonesian Chinese migrated to US" and another says "Many Indonesian Chinese are Hokkiens". Unless a reliable source has actually strung these together, we are not supposed to do it either and imply that Chinese Indonesian immigrating to US were Hokkiens.
  8. Overall, the sources do not address the topic at all and this is not encyclopaedic. Redirect or delete, either is fine with me. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 10:46, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  1. WP:NOTNEO does not require scholarly works.
  2. This is no WP:OR. The idea already exists.
  3. This is your POV that Hokkien Americans should not have its own article. Should German Americans be redirected to European Americans?
  4. According to polls, > 60% of the Taiwanese people do not identify themselves as Chinese, while 70% of Taiwanese are Hoklo. That means there must be some Hoklos that do not think they are Chinese.
  5. There is an association for them. No identity?
  6. An article should be redirected just because there might be something that needs to be improved in the current content?
  7. same as above. Lysimachi (talk) 17:29, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'll post a full response later but as for point number 6, my understanding is that most of the "Fujianese" or "Fukienese" associations in the US actually serve Fuzhou people, which are a distinct Han Chinese subgroup from Hoklo, despite being both in Fujian province.--Prisencolin (talk) 01:34, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Addressing your answers. My main point remains. The WP:BURDEN lies on you to show that "Hokkien Americans" or "Hoklo Americans" are widely used terms in academia and general usage; it should also be shown that sense of distinct identity (as implied) has been extensively studied and conclusively demonstrated.
  1. WP:NOTNEO requires significant coverage of the exact topic in multiple reliable sources. And we usually look for scholarly works here because that means the topic as been accepted by academics. Nothing of the sort is happening here.
  2. This is the Fukien American Association. Just because an association exists, doesn't mean an identity and official classification exists. (also read my point below)
  3. You are comparing German Americans to European Americans have a look at the Google scholar search of German-Americans to see the abundance of sources which address the topic in detail. If this was not present, we shouldn't have had an article on German Americans either. Can you show me similarly abundant work specifically using the term "Hokkien Americans"?
  4. According to polls...there must be some Hoklos... Again, original research and synth here. Show me sources. The burden lies on you.
  5. Anyone can create an association but that doesn't mean there is an identity. I could create an "Antartican American Association". Does it mean that there is an "Antarctic American" identity? No. Again, "Hokkien Americans" has to be mentioned in reliable sources (and reliable sources must specifically say that it is a distinct identity).
  6. That's just one of the reasons. We often merge and redirect articles if the content can be explained elsewhere and no good sources exist.
  7. Yup same. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 23:51, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
On point 4, Freddy Lim is an example who accepts the identity of Hoklo, but not Chinese. To be honest, none of the above points are required by English Wikipedia policies. What is "scholarly" and "official"? You are setting standards that Wikipedia does not have. Should Cossack Americans be deleted because there is no similarly abundant work specifically using the term "Cossack Americans" as German Americans? Lysimachi (talk) 16:31, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Freddy Lim is not American - point moot. And yes, scholarly works are required, particularly for topics like these. This entire article is synth. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 23:55, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The point is that some Hoklo Americans may share Freddy Lim's opinions and identify as Hoklo but not Chinese. Of course this is just conjecture for now until I can find a source that says this.--Prisencolin (talk) 01:17, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And yes, if there are no sources addressing Cossack Americans in detail, it should be deleted as well. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 00:12, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There is definitely a distinct culture in southern Fujian, see [83] [84] [85] etc, and it has its roots as a synthesis between the Baiyue peoples who inhabited the region before being and the Han invaders, see Southward expansion of the Han dynasty and the book: 島與陸: 唐山過台灣, 台灣進唐山. In any case, Hoklo/Minnan culture can hardly be seen as "the same" as Chinese culture. As for German American, most people of German descent in the US today no longer identity as German Americans and has completely assimilated into the White American population, so should we just stop adding people to Category:American people of German descent? Further, German Americans also encompass Ethnic Germans who immigrated to American from parts of eastern and central Europe, like the Volga Germans. Similarly this article encompasses Hokkien people who went to other countries in Southeast Asia, so a redirect of this page won't do it justice.--Prisencolin (talk) 01:40, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yes, I'm aware of Fujian having a distinct identity (in Singapore for example, we have the Singapore Hokkien Huay Kuan which is a clan association for emigrants from Fujian province and who speak Hokkien). I'm not discounting that. What I'm saying is: we have 2 separate concepts here - 1. Hoklo people and 2. American people. But we cannot intersect the 2 and create a new identity unless reliable sources have already done so (and this has been widely accepted). The identity "Hokkien American" has not been discussed in reliable sources so this becomes a WP:NEO and a fringe one at that. I also don't understand when you say this article encompasses Hokkien people who went to other countries in Southeast Asia, so a redirect of this page won't do it justice. I thought the Article was specifically about Hokkien "Americans" - not about Hokkiens who went to Southeast-Asia (we already have Hoklo people for that). This actually reinforces my view that the foundation of the article is quite weak. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:10, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think that in many places, Singapore in particular, Han Chinese subgroups are written off as mere linguistic distinctions, and I think this is simply untrue, at least not until recently, but this is a discussion for another time. The point of including information about the diaspora in other countries is to point out major sources of immigration of Hokkien people, which is not just southern Fujian. Many Polish Americans have ancestors who came from countries other than Poland, since the Polish state did not exist for all of the 1800s. Also, the Jewish diaspora came to American from many different countries as well, and we don't just lump them all into Israeli Americans.
In any case, AfD is WP:NOTCLEANUP, and while many of the of the paragraphs in this article may need to be removed, that's a discussion for the talk page. There is more than enough WP:VERIFIABLE evidence that Hoklo people are in America, as you can see in the sources, the the following from Chinese American Names: "Many Chinese family names were Hispanicized in the Philippines, according to the writer Lynn Pan, and tend to end in "co" — as in Cojuangco. This stands for the Chinese word meaning “elder brother,” which the early Hokkien emigrants used in addressing one another. Some of these surnames have been brought to American in recent decades". There is also Minnan cultural contribution that exists in America, dishes like Geng can be found in Chinese, Malaysian, and Taiwanese restaurants in the States. --Prisencolin (talk) 16:18, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The problem lies in the fact that the topic is OR and Synth - and it can be adequately covered in Hoklo people and a bunch of other articles. You need to find sources which address the topic directly: we do not synthesise bits and pieces from multiple sources like origin of names and Filipino migration to US and come to a conclusion. (For example, find some good quality sources like the ones which exist for "Jewish Americans"). A research work has to specifically address the topic and that is not done here. Till the time that is done, this remains a WP:FRINGE topic --Lemongirl942 (talk) 00:10, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The topic itself isn't OR, Synth or any other violation of wikipedia guidelines. A lot of the page this page's content may be problematic, but not the article itself. There are certainly Hokkien speakers and people of Hokkien ancestry in the States, nobody can deny that even if you consider Minnan only a dialect of Chinese. This enough to make this not WP:FRINGE, but I'm posting in the Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard just in case.--Prisencolin (talk) 01:10, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Taiwanese Americans. FYI I will be pasting the same rationale to the current AFD for Hakka Americans. The 3 academic sources I found that specifically mention Hoklo immigrants in the U.S. all said that in Taiwan and in the US, the Hoklo and the Hakka self-identify as "native Taiwanese". For example, this 2006 journal article by Christine Avenarius, who seems to be an authority on the topic, was the most in-depth coverage I found on Taiwanese subethnic groups in the US, and according to Avenarius (with my emphasis):

    "Immigrants interviewed for this research were...able to identify who was Hoklo, Hakka or a Mainlander among the members of their social networks. However, in their comments on social life in Taiwan and California in general, all informants grouped Hoklo and Hakka people together, referring to them as native Taiwanese (bendiren)...Given the small number of Hakka informants in the sample and the common practice of all immigrants from Taiwan to group both Hoklo and Hakka together under the label 'native Taiwanese' (bendiren) as introduced above, I aggregated Hoklo and Hakka informants in the analysis."

    In reference to the Hoklo people in Taiwan, this source says: "The term 'Hoklo' has never been used by people of this linguistic group to refer to themselves."(p.150)
Relevant quotes from other academic sources
  • Lien, Pei-te (November 2008), "Homeland origins and political identities among Chinese in Southern California", Ethnic and Racial Studies, 31 (8): 13811403, doi:10.1080/01419870701682253
    • That the nature of ethnic identity is fluid and multi-layered is observed by anthropologist Franklin Ng (1998, p. 118) who comments that, like Chinese from elsewhere, migrants and their descents from Taiwan can consider themselves as Taiwanese American, Chinese American, Asian American or American, and the identity choices depend on the situation, the community and the individuals involved.
    • Despite the improvement over previous means, this categorization scheme is not able to capture the full spectrum of the nuanced effect of homeland socialization context because of the lack of a measure of parental lineage and their time of entry to Taiwan. In contemporary Taiwan, those who were born in Taiwan but with parents born in China were considered ‘mainlanders’ and they tend to identify themselves ethnically as Chinese rather than Taiwanese, an orientation that has been observed to be different from that of other Taiwan natives whose parents were born in Taiwan. However, research on public opinion in Taiwan shows that it would be a mistake to treat the two groups of Taiwan natives [Hoklo and Hakka] as completely distinct in their orientation on the independence issue and their socialization experiences.
  • Ma, Laurence J. C.; Cartier, Carolyn L. (2003), The Chinese Diaspora: Space, Place, Mobility, and Identity, Rowman & Littlefield, ISBN 9780742517561
    • The Hoklo speak Min-nan hua, or Southern Min, the same dialect still found in Fujian, but typically referred to in Taiwan today as (imprecisely) the 'Taiwanese' dialect or language...For the sake of simplicity, and for political differentiation, the Hakka and Hoklo have been lumped together in post-1945 Taiwan as the collective 'Taiwanese.' to distinguish them as the 'native' Chinese of Taiwan as opposed to the more recent Han Chinese immigrants (the 'mainlanders') of the postwar era. This classification of the 'Taiwanese,' which has both ethnic and political overtones, was a creation o the mainlander-run ROC government, but was accepted and even embraced by most Hakka/Hoklo Taiwanese in the harsh political climate of post-1945 Taiwan. (p.165-166)
I can't find enough coverage that's actually on this topic to be able to write an article without original research/synthesis. Reliable sources don't use the term Hoklo to describe Taiwanese immigrants in the US and members of that ethnic group don't use it about themselves, so doesn't make sense to use that article title. The article that already exists, "Taiwanese Americans", seems to be the common name. There are a lot of extraneous details that aren't directly related to the topic in the current version of the article, so once that's all cleaned out, it won't be long enough for its own article and what's left can easily be merged into a new section of Taiwanese Americans. —PermStrump(talk) 09:00, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hoklo is just an exonym for the people, yes. However we WP:USEENGLISH to describe things, and also we use terms like Chinese people, German people, even though these groups themselves have never used these terms in their languages.--Prisencolin (talk) 16:51, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently in English we refer to them as Taiwanese Americans, as per the few reliable sources on the topic. What reliable sources cover the Hokkien/Hoklo people in the United using the current terminology? This source you cited calls them Taiwanese: "Hokkien-speaking Taiwanese-Americans" —PermStrump(talk) 07:40, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm renaming the page Hokkien, Hoklo, and Minnan people and language in the United States in order to increase the scope of the article and probably address the problems you brought up. Not the most wieldy title, but we can fine tune it later. As for original research, on page 652 of Youth Cultures in America, it mention that Hokkiens are part of the Malaysian Chinese population, within the context of Asian American.--Prisencolin (talk) 23:43, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@PermStrump: Which source says they are "apparently" all Taiwanese Americans? Lysimachi (talk) 09:00, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References[edit]

  1. ^ Lai, Him Mark. Becoming Chinese American: A History of Communities and Institutions. p. 243 (Google books isn't show the preview right now)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 11:45, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Anarchyte (work | talk) 13:02, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Clemson University Tiger Band[edit]

Clemson University Tiger Band (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Previously tagged for CSD but declined by my good friend and colleague DGG (we don't have to agree on everything) with the suggestion that following a review of the sources , it could be sent here. Those sources appear to me to be simple listings or the bands own newsletters & other primary sources, and I haven't been able to find any that aren't. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:18, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:41, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:41, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:41, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Rather than deleting, at a minimum it would be better to redirect to List of marching bands, where the band has already been listed. I have just created a List of collegiate bands in the United States redirect to a section in that list, and may start a table there. The topic could redirect to the Clemson University Tiger Band row in that table.
However, I believe the band is notable. I read in a Google book snippet from the South Carolina encyclopedia that (approximately) the 25 seconds while students run down to rub some rock while the band plays the Tiger Rag are "the 25 most exciting seconds in collegiate football". I just added this CBS Sports' news article(? or blog-like entry?) about Clemson's 2013 tribute to Nintendo characters. The band existed since before 1937, there are going to be dead-tree sources. One of its directors wrote one of the main instruction books on marching bands. --doncram 01:24, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - largely agree with doncram. There is a snippet view of the band performing for JFK here [86] and this book mentions the football team's entrance also [87]. I think it is likely that other print sources are likely to exist also. shoy (reactions) 15:24, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was procedural close. Article was created by a confirmed sockpuppet, and has thus been deleted per G5. (non-admin closure) JudgeRM (talk to me) 19:15, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Katrina Palaaway[edit]

Katrina Palaaway (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't assert notability, and possibly doesn't exist. Using multiple search engines, I was unable to find any reference to "Katrina Palaaway", "Katrina Quarrelsome", or "Katrina the bully" besides Wikipedia. I searched the website in the article, but it doesn't seem to be mentioned there either. Sunmist3 (talk) 08:56, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • speedy delete - This article should be created of sock puppet User:Creative raymark. Oripaypaykim (talk) 10:31, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - My googling came up completely blank, so even if there is material in other languages for a translation of the title, the Wikipedia page would still need to be completely reworked and rebuilt. As a side note, I went to the website linked. Just looking at the episode screenshots, I think this might make a bid for the most dramatic soap opera of all time. It seems the main character joins a prison gang, gets pregnant, has a baby I think, stabs somebody I think, falls in love, has a catfight, goes to court for I suppose stabbing somebody, and joins a sexy dance class. And then her boyfriend/maybe brother dies in a hospital bed, everyone is crying for twenty episodes, and then she strangles someone. The only English words I could find in the captions were "temporary restraining order." Hmm. Yvarta (talk) 10:55, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural note I've speedy deleted the article under G5 criteria as it was created by a confirmed sock account.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 17:21, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz talk 21:33, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Habib Construction Services[edit]

Habib Construction Services (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence of any notability here. All the refs are own web-site and article editing history has blocked editors and what look like block evading editors. No trace of WP:GNG  Velella  Velella Talk   08:41, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - I made found several trivial mentions [88], [89], [90], [91], but every other source was simply a home website or business listing. Fails GNG per nom. Yvarta (talk) 11:08, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Because what it needs is improvement not deletion. It is one of the Pakistan's top construction companies. --Captain Assassin! «T ♦ C ♦ G» 16:08, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A very easy and understandable mistake for newcomers to make, but note that votes on discussions like this are generally disregarded if the account name hints at a conflict of interest (COI). Users with COI are still highly welcome to contribute, but note that direct edits to a page you have a bias on can result in close scrutiny, and sometimes reversions. If the page is deleted, note it can re-uploaded later once new references and newspaper coverage have appeared, so don't fear that deletion is permanent. You can ask or a deleted page to moved to a draft as well, if you would like to work on it in an interim.Yvarta (talk) 18:04, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz talk 21:33, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The List (2015 film)[edit]

The List (2015 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG. No significant coverage found noq (talk) 08:16, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete This and the AfD for Submission (2017 film) were both created by the WP:SPA user:Lauraleepryor, who also created the article for Scott Pryor. These are all connected and are an attempt (IMO) to promote a group of non-notable articles. Pryor's biography should also be deleted. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 13:33, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All three should have been bundled into one AfD but at the moment Submission (2017 film) has its own AfD and probably too late to include Scott Pryor in either. This group is part of a promotional walled garden with no notability individually or as a group.Peter Rehse (talk) 11:14, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NFILM. There is no coverage of it that merits an encyclopedia article.--MarshalN20 Talk 22:37, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  Sandstein  07:49, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Submission (2017 film)[edit]

Submission (2017 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable film in pre-production. No significant coverage in independent sources. noq (talk) 08:07, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete This and the AfD for The List (2015 film) were both created by the WP:SPA user:Lauraleepryor, who also created the article for Scott Pryor. These are all connected and are an attempt (IMO) to promote a group of non-notable articles. Pryor's biography should also be deleted. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 13:33, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All three should have been bundled into one AfD but at the moment The List (2015 film) has its own AfD and probably too late to include Scott Pryor in either. This group is part of a promotional walled garden with no notability individually or as a group.Peter Rehse (talk) 11:15, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  Sandstein  16:11, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of Valve Corporation[edit]

Timeline of Valve Corporation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unnecessary chronological timeline of the company history of Valve Corporation. It retells the company history in a chronological fashion, unnecessary and redundant. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 07:56, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete' per nom. It is an unnecessary article. Most information from this timeline is covered in the main Valve article. AdrianGamer (talk) 08:12, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 08:36, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 08:36, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 08:40, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete article if there is nothing to be merged. Anarchyte (work | talk) 08:52, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect, since it's an unnecessary split, but it's plausible that someone would look for the phrase. --Izno (talk) 11:18, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:LISTN and WP:Stand-alone lists, timelines are a type or list articles. The history section at Valve Corporation#History is not written in chronological order, so this list provides a better explanation of the timeline of the company, and per WP:SPLIT it's OK to have dependent articles providing additional detail of the information at the base article. Diego (talk) 11:24, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge to Valve Corporation. So far, I do not see any policy-based arguments for deletion. Timelines are a valid and accepted type of list-based article on Wikipedia; see Wikipedia:Timeline and Category:Timelines for examples. This particular timeline article is well referenced by RS and so this seems a well-formed article with verifiable content; there is no reason for deletion. While there is a little overlap, I don't see any organized timelines in Valve Corporation, so don't understand the claim that this article is redundant. Indeed, this article is the main article for the Valve Corporation#History section. Hence I am inclined to keep the article. I would not be opposed to merging this article back into Valve Corporation, but merging isn't deletion. --Mark viking (talk) 11:35, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
WP:Timeline says "Timelines describe the events that occurred before another event, leading up to it, causing it, and also those that occurred right afterward that were attributable to it". This is a chronological history of a company, not an event. Why should there be a timeline-like article on a company, when there already is a Valve Corporation#History section? soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 13:44, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And before I start butchering the article, what makes a moment in the company's history notable? Currently, it says that on October 9, 2007 Portal was released - when did development start? How was it received? Or is that actually part of Valve's history, or part of the history of one of its products? In May 2008, Valve announced that their games will "soon" sell more through Steam than through retail sales. What does that mean? How soon? And what were the sales, digitally and through retail? And is that announcement notable to begin with? On July 10, 2008 GOG.com was released - how is that part of Valve's history? It's a competitor, sure, but in this timeline, it doesn't seem to have any impact on Valve. In March 2012, Valve hired Yanis Varoufakis to study in-game economies - why, for what purpose, and how did that turn out? soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 13:54, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There shouldn't be a "main article" to a subsistantial part of the actual article. The timeline lists out the original history in table form, not more. Lordtobi (✉) 13:03, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Why should there be any more content? All timeline articles contain information that is available in their respective "topic" articles. What is not available, and the timeline provides, is the ordering that is not present in the original article. If there's no agreement for a stand-alone article, the timeline should be definitely merged back to Valve Corporation, not deleted. Diego (talk) 13:17, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Redundant and unnecessary. There's no reason to merge the timeline either as this content should be covered in the prose of the Valve Corporation article, which at the moment is in need of a significant rewrite. Also a large portion of this timeline is already contained on the timeline in the Steam (software)#History, giving less reason to keep or merge this one. --The1337gamer (talk) 17:01, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or redirect. Article is a WP:REDUNDANTFORK, and doesn't provide any additional information compared to Valve Corporation. While displaying the events in chronological order is useful, a seperate article isn't need to do so. Sunmist3 (talk) 10:33, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Sunmist. This is a needless content fork with not insignificant editorializing with its decision to include certain events. Axem Titanium (talk) 16:28, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this article is redundant and does not have enough weight to stand alone. ZettaComposer (talk) 16:16, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- is there a term "corporate cruft"? :-) On a serious note, this is a needless content fork as pointed above and this chronological presentation is unnecessary. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:03, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - All of the (notable) info should be written in prose in the main article instead. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 07:54, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:23, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Austin Pack[edit]

Austin Pack (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested prod with no reason given, original concerns still stand. Fails NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 07:52, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Fenix down (talk) 07:53, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  Sandstein  08:06, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Transhumanist art[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Transhumanist art (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

An ill-defined WP:OR essay piece that has been marked as having severe issues with sourcing and notability for several years now. I previously culled a pile of terrible sources (see the talk page), but nobody seems interested in or able to fix the page's issues. It's unclear this constitutes any sort of art movement, genre or style that is its own entity that could be written about; "art by transhumanists" or "art with transhumanists in" likely isn't worthy of any separate article. Before the clearout it read like a publicity piece for Natasha Vita-More; as the talk page notes, quite a lot of the stuff the article went on about at length had no evidence in the wider world of its existence even in third-party unreliable sources, let alone reliable ones. I am willing to be convinced there is a "there" there, but this doesn't do it. David Gerard (talk) 17:15, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Notability not established. The strongest source, a Wall Street Journal article, did not seem to be about the topic at all. Kitfoxxe (talk) 21:07, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 06:38, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable enough, see: [92], [93], [94], [95], [96]. And it probably read like that because Natasha Vita-More published the Transhumanist Arts Statement in 1981 (and could be said to have started the idea). If anything it could be merged into a section of Transhumanism but I don't think that's necessary. --Fixuture (talk) 21:46, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • The first is literally a blog post, the second is a rambling opinion piece, the third fails to mention "transhumanist art" or variations thereof, the fourth mentions "transhuman" as an adjective but not "transhumanist art" or any reasonable variant as a noun, I'll need a translation on the fifth. None of this appears to address the criteria for notability at all - David Gerard (talk) 23:31, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • I wouldn't call the 2nd a "rambling opinion piece" - not sure what your issue with it is? The third does mention transhumanist art, see: [97]. And the fourth also source also discusses transhumanist art, see: [98]. I can read the 5th source which in well-researched manner discusses the topic - it starts from a historic perspective on how transhumanist art started & developed and then shows a handful of examples, lists some transhumanist interpretations of artworks, transhumanist topics in films and some transhumanist artists. Imo it is the most high quality and lengthy source of the ones I listed which probably aren't all possible refs. Anyway these do address the criteria of notability in that they established it. I agree that the notability isn't as clear as in many other cases but it's enough for an article (and more sources on this topic are to be expected so it makes no sense to delete just to later recreate the article). --Fixuture (talk) 18:33, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It does not seem to have the level of notability or even consistent meaning needed for a WP article.Thoughtmonkey (talk) 15:58, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti Talk 15:03, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The main problem with the article as it currently stands (and I admit there are several problems) is a general lack of content. To put it another way, it's not just a lack of reliable sourcing, it's a lack of content to source. It pretty much just says that transhumanist art is art informed by transhumanism. There's nothing in this article that couldn't be said in an aside on the transhumanism page. If in future someone had more to say on the topic (and with better sources), I would not be averse to a "transhumanist art" page, but as it stands it lacks content and proper sourcing and fails to meet to prove subject's notability. Tigercompanion25 (talk) 04:30, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It seems easy to find sources such as Transhumanist Arts. Andrew D. (talk) 05:53, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:16, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  07:45, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete 'Transhumanist art' is a suggested search from google when I type "transh" in the search box, whether logged in to google or not. When one uses google image search, the vast majority of images return (every single one that I've seen so far) have transhumanism as a theme. This tells me that it is a thing, and that it's a coherent thing that's searched for by enough people that google can predict it from "transh". So I'm okay with having some information about it on the site. But it doesn't seem to even remotely deserve its own article.
Right now, it doesn't have a single good source. The WSJ source is about a couple who happened to be both transhumanists and artists who got swindled by Bernie Madoff. The HuffPo article is about transhumanism in general, and barely mentions transhumanist art in passing. The Anders Sandberg source is just the artwork of a notable person who happens to be a transhumanist (it's exactly on point, but as it only established the artwork of one person, and does not do anything to suggest that person is notable because of the artwork, it's synth to use it to support anything but a statement that this particular person creates transhumanist art in his free time). The final source seems good enough, as it talks about transhumanist art in a more or less neutral voice. Except it's a blog. By a non-notable person, who only seems to blog about (drumroll, please)... Transhumanism. And when I flipped my google search back to the "all" filter, I could find no independent, reliable sources. So it might be possible to source this article, but I doubt it. I'd suggest a merge & redirect, but there's already several paragraphs about the subject at transhumanism. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 15:06, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:25, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

17.5mm film[edit]

17.5mm film (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article makes no assertion of notability and merely states that film of this dimension exists. Graham (talk) 05:58, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Assertion of notability is a speedy delete topic. There is quite a bit of information about this film [99] [100] etc. It was apparently quite popular in post war japan and there is tons of technical information available about it.--Savonneux (talk) 06:38, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 07:17, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 07:17, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 07:18, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've added it to Template:Film formats. That should get some more eyeballs on this. It's definitely covered in a number of Gbook results. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 07:31, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • If obscure enough, we may want to merge to List of film formats. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 07:34, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment No, it is not. It was quite popular in time, and no it is continued to be used by old equipment and historical techniques enthusiasts. You can even find quite a lot of those in Ebay. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 11:36, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It was quite a popular format in time. Article is a stub, but I don't think it's a reason to delete it. I'll try to dig and add some information. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 11:19, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Yes, the Gbooks results are actually quite plentiful, whatever the state of the article. We only have a snippet view of this one but the Google search results pulls this passage: "17.5 mm film conceived by Pathe Cinema more particularly for the needs of the teaching cinema and for rural dissemination, as indicated by the name "Pathe-Rural" under which it was launched, in 1927..." It seems to have been a notable format of the period. The other language wiki articles have a lot more detail, all readable with Google Translate. The Japanese one is especially detailed -- a 17.5 mm format seems to have been known globally -- though in all cases sourcing does seem to be a problem. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:39, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have removed "weak" from my !vote. Arthistorian1977 has started improving the article and this one from an (apparently minor) Australian film and television museum indicates that there were no less than eight different types or brands of 17.5 mm film. I daresay there'll be enough notability for an article, if all permutations of 17.5 mm film, in various countries, are considered. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:54, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- sourcing and substance are both adequate at this point. Passes GNG. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:09, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdraw – As the article is no longer merely stating that film of this dimension exists, I withdraw the nomination. Graham (talk) 22:31, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. I disregard three votes which are not policy-based. The person can very well be notable, but for the time being we have no evidence for that. If someone wants to re-create the article writing it according to the policies (WP:N is relevant), WP:AFC is likely the best way to proceed.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:28, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Amy Osmond Cook[edit]

Amy Osmond Cook (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable; though her father is. Her two books have lessthan 50 library copies each and are therefore trivial, her company is not notable. This is one of a group of apparently promotional articles--see the previous afds. DGG ( talk ) 05:01, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 05:50, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 05:50, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As much as I feel that in general Latter-day Saint women are under-represented in Wikipedia, Osmond Cook just does not pass notability guidelines. America's Junior Miss is not a title that makes someone notable. Her books have not received enough coverage for her to pass the notability guidelines for writers. Most groupings of x number of notable CEOs under y age are also not enough to grant notability. There might be a possibility to redirect this article to the article on her father and mention the books she wrote there, but I do not think a seperate article is warranted.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:04, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Hello, it's Amy Cook. I would like to address editors' concerns with my notability with the following explanations:

1. America's Junior Miss is a major national title that has been received by notable celebrities such as Diane Sawyer. The organization, while its name has been changed, has its own wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distinguished_Young_Women. Other similar national winners, such as [|Sharlene Wells Hawkes], have received notability status based on one national title. More information on the nationally televised event can be accessed in my interview and performance in the Music City Tonight archives.

2. This article has been listed for months, and I have been referenced in Wikipedia for many years.

3. I don't believe that "copies currently in the library" should be the criteria for the success of the book. The books are several years old, and they were impactful. "Why They Believe" was a foundational argument for a major legal case against the FLDS church in Utah. "Full Bloom" was the nationally sponsored book of the Distinguished Young Woman program. It appears that an editor used industry access to access private accounts to make this judgment based simply on current copies in the library.

4. It was also stated that Osmond Marketing was not notable. No reasons have been provided here. From my perspective, this company is notable, especially in the senior care industry, as we serve over 300 senior care clients who do billions in revenue in the industry. Osmond Marketing was also recently featured in the Huffington Post as an innovative business model.

5. There are other aspects of notability that have not been updated on the page. As it states in the Wikipedia guidelines: "Notability is a property of a subject and not of a Wikipedia article. If the subject has not been covered outside of Wikipedia, no amount of improvements to the Wikipedia content will suddenly make the subject notable. Conversely, if the source material exists, even very poor writing and referencing within a Wikipedia article will not decrease the subject's notability." Therefore, I believe I should reference them here.

a. Influential voice in senior care as Executive Director of the Association of Skilled Nursing Providers, a nonprofit 501(c)3

b. Entrepreneur Magazine contributor

c. Daily Herald Health and Wellness Columnist

d. OC Register Health Columnist

e. KSL Contributor

f. Caring.com Partner

g. Senior Scene Contributor

h. Publisher of 39ForLife.com

i. Cupid's Pulse columnist

j. Host of Good Day, Orange County, a morning talk show for Laguna Woods Village, one of the largest senior communities in the United States.

k. Family Share Contributor

Other notable events unrelated to the senior care industry include:

a. Regular performer at the Osmond Family Theater in Branson. As a violin soloist, I performed with my family, The Osmonds, who were listed on this talk page as notable. While there, I was awarded the "Newcomer of the Year" for all Branson Theaters.

b. Producer and soloist in Nativity, a harp and violin album. This album sold tens of thousands of copies and continues to sell.

c. Actor in full-length feature film, Side by Side

I hope that some of these would rise to the level of notability and that I would be considered for undeletion. Thank you for considering this. Amyosmondcook (talk) 08:50, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Amyosmondcook has made few edits outside of this discussion. Cabayi (talk) 08:40, 21 August 2016 (UTC) [reply]
  • Keep I am a friend of Amy Osmond Cook and a former journalist who supports keeping this entry. At the time this entry was flagged for possible deletion, I believe the entry was out of date and focused too much on childhood accomplishments. I updated it to focus more on her recent professional accomplishments. I believe the updated entry meets Wikipedia's "notability" criteria: The article relies primarily on reputable, independent news sources that published non-trivial coverage about her without incentive, promotion, or other influence by people connected to her.

In full disclosure, I've done consulting work for her company; however, when Amy mentioned to me that her Wikipedia entry had been flagged for removal, I felt such a decision would be unfair and took it upon myself to update her entry on my own time. I did my own research, added additional citations, and did not discuss my edits with her. Thank you for considering my perspective. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scottmartindale (talk • contribs) 22:02, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Scottmartindale has made few edits outside of this discussion. Cabayi (talk) 08:40, 21 August 2016 (UTC) [reply]
  • Delete Does not meet notability guidelines. Was deleted previously, noted in an edit summary when it was added again that should be the case again. ChristensenMJ (talk) 00:53, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Cconner01 has made no other edits outside of this discussion. Cabayi (talk) 08:40, 21 August 2016 (UTC) [reply]
  • Delete non-notable, perhaps WP:TOOSOON. Judging by the keep !votes she's notable only among her friends & family and the guy who was paid to write the article. Can I go supersize on this delete !vote? for (;;) (talk) 08:18, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete I tried to source it, and failed. Most of the few hits that I got were to a handful of op-eds she has written.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:35, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments. Ordinarily, a person who received such kudos might be notable, although the sourcing is terrible. FWIW, I am representing the estate of a borderline notable LDS jurist. Bearian (talk) 17:26, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:22, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Westwood[edit]

Ryan Westwood (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

noin notable entrepreneur. Essentially none of the sources are reliable, and even the Forbes source as oneof the 10 fastest growing in Utah is best interpreted as " not yet notable" I think we should no longer count such local listings of fastest growing or the like as a even a slight added factor to notability. The other Forbes item is a columnist, not one of the editorial staff,. The claimed book is not even in Worldcat. DGG ( talk ) 04:59, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 05:49, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 05:50, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- entirely promotional article on a non-notable entrepreneur and "speaker". Searches only bring up trivial mentions. Possible COI editing. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:45, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:03, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable. for (;;) (talk) 08:05, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:21, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Amada Senior Care[edit]

Amada Senior Care (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

non notable company; sourced to press releases and mentionsz. DGG ( talk ) 04:46, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 05:46, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 05:46, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions.Lakun.patra (talk) 05:46, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable advert. for (;;) (talk) 08:07, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- a non-notable franchise. Searches bring up press releases and other trivial mentions. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:18, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Roberto Esquivel Cabrera[edit]

The result was Merge to Human penis size. Article has been merged by its creator. (non-admin closure) FiredanceThroughTheNight (talk) 18:14, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Roberto Esquivel Cabrera (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete. Single sourced WP:BLP of a person notable only for having a really big penis. Nothing in Wikipedia's notability guidelines confers a special inclusion freebie on people for the size of their body parts in and of itself, and with only one source here he fails to pass WP:GNG. This kind of thing poses WP:BLPPRIVACY issues when the subject is not otherwise a public figure, so we shouldn't be doing it. Bearcat (talk) 03:39, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disability-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 07:23, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 07:23, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 07:23, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 07:23, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz talk 21:34, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Leomaster[edit]

Leomaster (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Still no actual substance for convincing independent notability, I still confirm my PROD. SwisterTwister talk 03:17, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 03:19, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 03:19, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 03:19, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 03:34, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – This was listed under the Software delsort, which I removed (diff, diff), because this is not a software company or provider. North America1000 03:36, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – While there are multiple sources for their "LeoPrivacy" app, Leomaster doesn't inherit notability from their app. Sunmist3 (talk) 09:22, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America1000 11:02, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.  Sandstein  07:56, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

African Journal of Neurological Sciences[edit]

African Journal of Neurological Sciences (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I still confirm my PROD since I have not found any third-party or significant coverage. SwisterTwister talk 03:17, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America1000 03:23, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America1000 03:23, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America1000 03:23, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. North America1000 03:23, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. North America1000 03:23, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:52, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As I explained in another journal we need not follow commercial indexing sources like scopus, ISI Web of Science, EBSCO etc. The era of these monopoly indexing will go away. Pleas watch for few more years. This is my opinion, experts can decide on "keep or delete". This journal producing acceptable science from last 33 years and supported by Pan African Association of Neurological Sciences (PAANS).Jessie1979 (talk) 06:23, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[Revert as per WP:BLOCKEVASION using strikethrough font.  21:57, 13 November 2016 (UTC)]
  • Weak keep, even though I disagree absolutely with the preceding !vote. I get it you don't like "commercial indexing sources", but there are also non-commercial sources (like MEDLINE - this journal is not in it) and, in any case, we do need sources to base our articles on, as we cannot just use our subjective impressions. As for "Pleas watch for few more years", please read WP:CRYSTAL and WP:TOOSOON. However, this journal is included in Scopus. Although I personally am starting to attach less and less value on the selectivity (or rather lack thereof) of Scopus, this is generally considered sufficient to establish notability. I've added this info to the article. --Randykitty (talk) 09:20, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – Included in Scopus per Randykitty above, which is an indicator of meeting WP:JOURNALCRIT #1. North America1000 09:25, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I agree with Randkitty that inclusion in Scopus does nudge this into notable territory. Scopus is probably the least stringent on journal inclusion criteria, so my general rule is that if it's not included in Scopus, then it's likely not notable. Kingofaces43 (talk) 03:28, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  Sandstein  08:05, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hari clan[edit]

Hari clan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Lacks notability. All the clan articles in the category of 'Jat Clans of Punjab' face the same issue. Most of them are as if there are listed in a clans directory, WP:NOT. Regards, KC Velaga ✉ 02:33, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. North America1000 03:38, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America1000 03:38, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. North America1000 03:38, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, pending evidence of non-trivial coverage from reliable publications. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 20:32, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  Sandstein  08:05, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hansra[edit]

Hansra (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Lacks notability. All the clan articles in the category of 'Jat Clans of Punjab' face the same issue. Most of them are as if there are listed in a clans directory, WP:NOT. Regards, KC Velaga ✉ 02:32, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. North America1000 03:39, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America1000 03:39, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete pending evidence of non-trivial coverage from reliable publications. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 22:45, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz talk 21:34, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rory Diamond[edit]

Rory Diamond (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete. WP:BLP of a city councillor in a city of just 7K. As always, a city councillor does not pass WP:NPOL just for being a city councillor, except in internationally recognized global cities on the order of New York City, Los Angeles or London -- for anything below that rarefied level, a city councillor gets a Wikipedia article only if he can be demonstrated and sourced as significantly more notable than the norm. But what we've got here is an article that reads like it could have been posted to his own website (firstname instead of WP:LASTNAME in body text, natch), and is referenced to a combination of primary sourcing and WP:ROUTINE local coverage not even slightly out of the ordinary level of local press coverage that all city councillors always get, which means that none of this is enough to make him more notable than the norm. Bearcat (talk) 02:28, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. North America1000 03:39, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America1000 03:39, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. North America1000 03:39, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. I did not realize inclusion in the Dictionary of New Zealand Biography was notable. (non-admin closure) Gestrid (talk) 20:32, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

M. H. Holcroft[edit]

M. H. Holcroft (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This person does not seem to be particularly notable and does not meet the general notability guideline of significant coverage by reliable sources. Gestrid (talk) 02:12, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • keep the article should explain more of his writing style and the novel. since he had won 2 awards suggest to keep advice the author to improve more Maximpoudje (talk) 02:20, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America1000 03:40, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. North America1000 03:40, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. People with entries in the Dictionary of New Zealand Biography are generally considered notable (with a very small number of exceptions who have articles there as representatives of society; this does not apply in this case).-gadfium 04:38, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Notes: As noted above, DNZB entries are usually considered notable. Although not directly pertinent to this discussion I note that the creator of this article Pohick2 (talk · contribs) was indef blocked for Copyvio. A few months later 7Lawrence (talk · contribs) was created with the apparent express purpose of expanding this article and the creation of the recently deleted (see WP:Articles for deletion/Christopher Holcroft) and then userfied User:7Lawrence/Christopher Holcroft. A cynic might conclude that there is some COI going on here. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 04:53, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, a discussion at WP:COIN#Christopher Holcroft led me to the article which I then AfD-ed. -- Gestrid (talk) 04:58, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as there's a ton of precedent on DNZB bios. There is community acceptance that a DNZB entry infers notability, with about a dozen exceptions for representative entries (and this isn't one of them). Schwede66 09:54, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. I do not see consensus, and I doubt further discussion will produce one DGG ( talk ) 21:13, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Brizzly[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Brizzly (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Notability: Launched in 2009; acquired in 2010; shut down in 2012, resulting in an article on a non-notable company and a defunct product. I believe the article has outlived its usefulness. I would argue that the notability was not there at the time of the 1st AfD. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:24, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:15, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:35, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep  Notability is not temporary.  Nothing has changed since the last AfD, since as per the article the shutdown was in March 2012, and the AfD was in October 2012.  We don't delete topics because they are old, we don't delete topics because they are defunct, and articles don't outlive their usefulness.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:03, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: the current sources do not suggest notability required for an article; with the product defunct, it's unlikely that sourcing would be improved in the future. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:59, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The previous AfD found otherwise, which means that there is no need to improve the sourcing.  Unscintillating (talk) 04:43, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I see that the comments were a mixed bag. Consensus can change, too. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:23, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The previous AfD was something not mentioned in the nomination.  Unscintillating (talk) 23:25, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Is this required? The page very obviously displays the prior nominations, so I assumed it was not needed.
On the comment here, I'm going to quote ST from another thread: "This comment is not keeping to mind WP:CCC especially given the we have changed regarding advertorial and questionable articles since then, and this vote is also essentially WP:LASTTIME, not actually clarifying or stating how the article should be kept now. (I certify that I'm not ST's sock and that we have no connection; I just liked the language :-) ) K.e.coffman (talk) 03:32, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It didn't seem to have a major impact in social networking and their only real notability was that AOL scooped them up. Yes, there are some sources but sources alone doesn't make something notable Callsignpink (talk) 19:48, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep We have many, many articles about websites and software that are no longer in operation or popular. We're an encyclopedia, not a directory, which means that notability is not temporary. Steven Walling • talk 06:49, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What we have here is essentially a Wikipedia:Permastub that cannot be improved due to the company/product being defunct. I would argue that sources currently listed in the article are not sufficient to demonstrate notability and sustain an encyclopedia entry. K.e.coffman (talk) 10:27, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Permastub" is an essay, not a part of deletion policy. Steven Walling • talk 16:21, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It is a part of the notability guideline. See WP:PAGEDECIDE. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 02:12, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as I've waited to comment, but considering this seems to be boiling to a closer one, I'll comment and say the listed sources are still not actually as convincing as they could be; they're all either expected coverage or not entirely in-depth to the levels of substance. SwisterTwister talk 01:18, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect (nom's comment) -- an alternative to deletion could be a redirect to List of Twitter services and applications where Brizzly appears. There's a blurb provided there. That's probably sufficient for this entry. Brizzly may have "list notability" but not sufficient for a stand-alone article. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:29, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – See WP:NEXIST. Topic notability is based upon the existence of suitable sources, not just listed sources, which were provided as examples. More examples have been provided below. North America1000 03:55, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 02:09, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This vote is not substantiating themselves with how they feel the commentators' concerns are against the listed sources, thus simply claiming notability is not alone enough. SwisterTwister talk 05:10, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – Additional sources are available. The ones I provided in my !vote above are examples, but more are available. For example, see these additional sources below, which should be considered in addition to the ones I provided above. As I stated above, the topic passes WP:GNG. North America1000 03:40, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment to closer - Analyzing the links above found that the SFWeekly seems hintingly paid-for PR since it's too close to puffery; the Twitter book, although not first available, seems to only be a guidebook. The 2 TechCrunch sources are simply a few paragraphs talking about the company; the LaptopMagazine source, although informative, as it may be, would still need to be accompanied by better substantial sources. SwisterTwister talk 05:10, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – For starters, here's the full link to Twitter Tips, Tricks, and Tweets. It provides background coverage about the topic itself. It is also a preview, and is essentially paywalled, so additional coverage is available in the source that I am unable to view. The SF Weekly article is a bylined news article written by a staff writer, and is not a press release, as evidenced in part by utilizing Google searches using the title of the article and content within it, in which links are only present for the article itself, as opposed to press releases, which typically have the same article hosted on many various websites. I see no evidence whatsoever that this source is PR, because simply put, it is not at all. Subjective statements of asserting sources to be public relations content without proof of such claims carries no weight. Conversely, the research I have performed to verify that the source is not PR does carry weight, because it is based upon facts, rather than speculation. North America1000 06:09, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- SF Weekly is a free weekly publication of local importance. The book devotes 2 paragraphs to Brizzly: link, plus a picture (I can see it all if I search for Brizzly in the search box in the lower left). So it still feels rather insufficient, and I still advocated a redirect. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:38, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of Twitter services and applications - This is one of the numerous Twitter apps released everyday but was noticed and taken over by AOL and then killed off. Technology companies tends to receive a lot more coverage than others precisely because sources like techcrunch, mashable, gizmodo and numerous others specifically focus on it(which probably contributes to the WP:SYSTEMICBIAS on Wikipedia). Which is why it is important to see stuff in perspective. If you look at the sources, the app received a lot of initial publicity in 2009 when it was launched and later in 2010 when it was acquired by AOL. The next bit of news coverage it received was when AOL killed it off. (Some of the coverage btw deals more with the company not with the app; this article btw is solely about the app not the company). If we do the WP:10YT, is this app really significant in the grand scheme of things? For an app with such a short lifespan and whose sole claim of significance is that it was an app for Twitter, I would like a sentence of two of this to remain in the encyclopaedia, but there isn't enough for a page solely for itself (See WP:PAGEDECIDE). A mention at a it of Twitter services helps to improve that page. I would suggest a redirect and selective merge to List of Twitter services and applications. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:31, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of Twitter services and applications. Lemongirl942 is spot-on with her comments about the over-coverage of tech companies and how that feeds our bias towards writing about them. Yet another flash-in-the-pan twitter add-on which provided a few minor features. A stand-alone article gives WP:UNDUE weight to their importance. One short paragraph in the target list will say everything that's worth saying about them. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:15, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. postdlf (talk) 15:20, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of law enforcement agencies in Ohio[edit]

List of law enforcement agencies in Ohio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Granted, the list is incomplete, but it is currently serving little purpose. It's a parking space for red links. For example, the section for sheriffs is a list of 86 redlinks and 2 agencies with articles. If it were the reverse, I'd probably ignore it, but 86 to 2? write the article first. If all red links and not at all linked agencies were removed, it would be about 6 agencies. Probably just a case of being too soon for this list. Since a list should really be an aid to finding things on Wikipedia, and so few of these actually exist on Wikipedia, the list seems premature. At this point, it's essentially just a directory.Niteshift36 (talk) 17:29, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 06:33, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 06:33, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 06:33, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep unless anyone can show me where having redlinks became a deletion criterion when I wasn't looking. Jclemens (talk) 06:41, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The redlinks aren't the reason to delete. They do show that the topic isn't nearly as notable as we're trying to make it. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:48, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment WP:CSC WP:SALAT It doesn't matter if they are redlinks (although it would probably look better if they were just names). The topic of the list "Law enforecement agencies in X" which presumably enforce the law in throughout the entire state is sufficiently narrow, well defined, but important enough to be a stand alone list.--Savonneux (talk) 08:41, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • If there was enough to merit a list, it would be a notable topic. This isn't much different than writing an article about the 2025 Super Bowl. It will undoubtedly be a notable topic when there is enough information, but at this point, there isn't enough to merit writing about it. I'm not saying the topic isn't ever going to be notable, just that it's too soon. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:18, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • You quoted WP:TOOSOON so from that essay: "require that the topic being considered be itself verifiable in independent secondary reliable sources." All those links are verifiable from secondary sources. I'd say not all of them are notable but notability of list members isn't part of the criteria for inclusion in or of a list.--Savonneux (talk) 05:56, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I actually didn't quote it. I referenced it. Almost all of those entries are referenced by primary sources. Will you be adding those reliable secondary sources? (I'm guessing no) And the part you are quoting is not just referring to verifying existence. I've removed the link to it and reworded the nom for you. Happy now? Niteshift36 (talk) 17:23, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's awesome that you can Google. Wonderful and rare skill.....but can you go ADD THE SOURCES to each one of those redlink agencies? In other words, are you willing to do some work on it or just vote keep and leave it as the mess it currently is?
  • You essentially have voted when you start citing content guidelines and make a statement that this list meets the criteria. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:48, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti Talk 15:03, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 02:07, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America1000 03:40, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

NO, don't delete Professor Alessandro Orsini's page, please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.183.58.139 (talk) 16:15, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 two "keep" are qualified as weak, and the second does not even make an argument.  Sandstein  08:04, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alessandro Orsini (sociologist)[edit]

Alessandro Orsini (sociologist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article lacks of notability and a neutral point of view. On notability: the individual has no particular notability and his biography is of little to no interest to the general public. On the neutral point of view: the only reference is taken from the personal website of the subject of the article, which clearly doesn't give a neutral point of view and should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.51.79.141 (talk) 08:21, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Completing nomination on behalf of above IP. As for my own view, it looks like A7 speedy bait to me. --Finngall talk 17:29, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. He has published at least one book (Alessandro Orsini (23 February 2011). Anatomy of the Red Brigades: The Religious Mind-set of Modern Terrorists. Cornell University Press. ISBN 0-8014-6139-1.), but the lack of Google Scholar profile makes citation calculations beyond my abilities, so ping User:Randykitty for his take on this. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 19:42, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete does not meet any notability guidelines for academics. Having one book for a sociologist is not enough to make them notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:38, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep No GS profile, but the highest cited publications has less than 30 hits, which is not really enough for PROF. However, there several reviews of the book mentioned by Piotrus have been published ([108],[109],[110]), one of them in the Times Higher Education. I'd say that an article either on the book (briefly mentioning the author) or on the author (but concentrating on the book) would be justified, but not 2 articles. --Randykitty (talk) 20:10, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:49, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete has already been deleted on the Italian wikipedia as non-notable. They would be in a good position to find material demonstrating notability that English speakers might miss; if they haven't found it, it probably doesn't exist. Furius (talk) 01:36, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:45, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Furius, that was in 2007, before his book and the sources that I listed were published. --Randykitty (talk) 06:26, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 06:27, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Fair point. This seems to be his current faculty page [111]. Furius (talk) 09:07, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

`Weak keep if the article is properly expanded. DGG ( talk ) 22:32, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 13:25, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. MBisanz talk 02:06, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 02:06, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:09, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz talk 21:35, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Allen Gina[edit]

Allen Gina (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Mid level official. Routine awards, promotional writing with a great over-emphasis on his importance. The sources are all of them unusable for notability, most of them just announcements. DGG ( talk ) 02:06, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to contest the mid-level official statement. To be at the position of Assistant Commissioner, you must first be a part of the senior executive service. Also, his importance is to trade individuals and customs officials where he is often asked to speak. The language can be toned down, but he developed and implemented many trade programs that have benefited the U.S., such as the Centers of Excellence and the National Targeting Center (which should be a page too). For people who don't know, the centers of excellence are designated ports of entries where all imported goods of a certain type go. Prior to this, all imported merchandise were processed at whatever port of entry they were coming through. This allowed for specialization of import inspections (and purchasing the appropriate equipment). The National Targeting Center also helps find suspect imports and puts them on a watchlist for scanning prior to their arrival. -jbernardo1993 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FB90:5430:2489:DCB6:3D20:1A57:7486 (talk) 11:50, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:10, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:10, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:10, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:17, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • To article creator, User:Jbernardo1993 to keep this article on wikipedia, we need evidence that, beyond being a well-regarded public official and security consultant, Gina is demonstrably notable. This, according to standards imposed on all articles, can only be established by demonstrating that significant profiles and/or articles discussing his work in substantive ways have been published in reliable media outlets, (such as Wall Street Journal or Washington Monthly) Other standards can be found by following the links in the Articles for Deletion page.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:14, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete on the basis of inadequate sourcing.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:14, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus.  Sandstein  07:55, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hippie Sabotage[edit]

Hippie Sabotage (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails Wikipedia:NMUSIC. The article itself, says they will be they were on Next Big Sound chart. The sources for fight with security is not notable. scope_creep 17:08, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete fails WP:NMUSIC standards. - SanAnMan (talk) 18:00, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep I'm the page creator. I wrote about the subject's notability on the talk page. IMO, the subject's borderline; so, I'm interested in how this AfD would go. If you do a Google News search (with quotes) for the subject, there is 3,160 results. I haven't gone through all the results and only added a few of them that had relevant information that could be used in an encyclopedia; so, there might be more notable, reliable sources in the pile -- maybe enough to meet §1 of WP:NMUSIC.CerealKillerYum (talk) 03:51, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 08:10, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America1000 04:15, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:37, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep There's lots of coverage out there, which on the surface looks like a clear-cut keep. On further inspection, however, it seems to either mostly be about the security incident or is the usual music blogosphere and regional press sort of stuff. There's just about enough of it, however, to justify inclusion. I'm also going off their social numbers a little bit, which are in the region of sufficiently famous and don't appear to be purchased. KaisaL (talk) 02:49, 4 August 2016 (UTC) Strong keep Per the point made by Launchballer. I'd completely missed it, but a top-ten UK hit - they were credited as an artist - is an absolute, clear-cut, stonewall inclusion under WP:NMUSIC. There shouldn't be any real argument here. KaisaL (talk) 03:16, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as there is still not nearly convincingly enough, the listed award is trivial. SwisterTwister talk 03:02, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:MUSICBIO#C2 - they had a #6 hit on the UK Singles Chart with Habits (Stay High). This is a pathetic excuse for an entry, though.--Launchballer 16:49, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify, I meant their article was poor quality - this wasn't an attack on this nomination - I meant that the article doesn't even care to mention its chart placing, and barely mentions Tove Lo.--Launchballer 12:16, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (strike Delete) -- despite the chart placement, RS coverage is not there to demonstrate notability. Per #1 chart placement and association to the Tove Lo subject as noted below. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:21, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A top ten placing on a major national singles chart should make any need for this extended coverage moot. It's a clearly established point of WP:NMUSIC and it's not like we're talking about a marginal lower reach of the chart, #6 is a very high placing. KaisaL (talk) 03:18, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As well as being #6 on the UK Singles Chart, Hippie Sabotage are also credited with a number-one in the Dutch Top 40, the top five of the Australian Singles Chart, Belgian Top 50 and New Zealand singles chart, the top ten of the VG-lista (Norway) and the top twenty of the Swedish Singles Chart. It would go against all established precedent to delete this. KaisaL (talk) 03:22, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 02:04, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:18, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Smiedt[edit]

Richard Smiedt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Neither he nor his product is notable. This is essentially advertising. Both Crains and Inc. are publicity, not actual reporting. DGG ( talk ) 01:54, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:11, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 03:41, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. North America1000 03:41, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:18, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kelley Weaver[edit]

Kelley Weaver (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

It is possible that the product is notable, but she isn't. This is basically advertising for a publicist DGG ( talk ) 01:52, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:11, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:11, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as I also concur, entirely PR with none of it actually being substantial. SwisterTwister talk 03:10, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 03:42, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable fashion industry figure.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:24, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- strictly PR and nothing suggests individual notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:29, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:TOOSOON. Cute invention, but I'm not seeing evidence that it's taking the world by storm. If an article on the Pursecase existed, I'd suggest a merge, but one does not, so... Montanabw(talk) 16:16, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:18, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sleepless Night (visual novel)[edit]

Sleepless Night (visual novel) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable, self-published video game. As with This Is Where I Want To Die, the article was mainly written by the developer or a close party, presenting a WP:COI. Don Cuan (talk) 16:37, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:50, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:17, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:49, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - searching for notability on this subject is impossible because the author has plastered the internet with the same spammy article about his game. Nothing suggests that anyone independent has written anything critical about the subject or otherwise suggested its notability.--Rpclod (talk) 02:03, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nothing on the VG/S search, indicating this object is not notable. Delete. --Izno (talk) 14:43, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Uncontested.  Sandstein  07:56, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kepler-153b[edit]

Kepler-153b (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No claim to notability in the article and I couldn't find any coverage beyond lists and database entries. See WP:NASTRO. Lithopsian (talk) 13:07, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:21, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:19, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:49, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  Sandstein  08:06, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hairbond[edit]

Hairbond (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable brand. Sources are: #1 Passing mention, not a reliable source; #2 Promotional "interview" (advertorial), no authorship info; #3 Routine announcement; #4, #5 minor industry / TV awards. No independent in-depth coverage. The brand has a bazillion Google hits, but they seem to consist of webshop descriptions, listings and other promotional mentions - I haven't checked all 200,000+ hits though ... I would expect atleast 1-2 independent articles or non-promotional expert reviews to establish notability. GermanJoe (talk) 08:35, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. GermanJoe (talk) 08:49, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. GermanJoe (talk) 08:49, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:22, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:48, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- non notable brand. No indications of notability and coverage is trivial. Awards are trivial as well. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:22, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Given the lack of commentary, this counts as WP:SOFTDELETE Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:17, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tatiana C. Gfoeller[edit]

Tatiana C. Gfoeller (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

fails WP:BIO. there is no inherent notability of being an ambassador even if you're from the USA. the coverage merely confirms her as ambassador or making a statement on behalf of the US Government but is not indepth about her. LibStar (talk) 08:09, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America1000 20:29, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. North America1000 20:29, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 20:29, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:22, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:48, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 19:42, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of extreme temperatures in Europe month for month[edit]

List of extreme temperatures in Europe month for month (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article uses primary sources to claim that each of the temperature recorded in each month is indeed the highest temperature ever recorded in Europe, even though no published sources for it existed. It also uses the disputed 48.5 record which has not been resolved yet (I could not find reliable published secondary sources that recognize the 48.5 reading as the highest in Europe, only the 48.0 in Athens from WMO, a reliable secondary source. A simple search using Google indicated a lack of reliable sources on this topic. Therefore, it is mostly original research. The article was also created after an edit in which the editor inserted in the disputed 48.5 record was reverted in the next edit, suggesting a POV fork as well. Ssbbplayer (talk) 01:21, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. North America1000 02:13, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. North America1000 02:13, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America1000 02:13, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:17, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:47, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Some claims of monthly temperature record are sourced (the sources are in Italian) and explicitly stated so there, but I don't know if http://www.meteogiornale.it/ is a reliable source. So the article topic is not WP:OR, although the unsourced statements may be. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:44, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The majority of the data appears unsourced, which begs the question as to why one would create a list (of all things) consisting of mostly unreferenced statements. As it is, this is a big blob of unreliable information.-- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 09:29, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- mostly unsourced so we don't know where the data comes from and why it should be trusted. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:08, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Given the lack of commentary, this is a WP:SOFTDELETE Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:17, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rockers United[edit]

Rockers United (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

In evaluating the notability of this topic, I was only able to find three (!) reliable sources cover the subject at all. The most direct source is from Loudwire ([112]), which devotes one of six paragraphs to it, but that hardly counts as significant coverage. The remaining sources all barely address it.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 08:13, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 02:09, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:27, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:47, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz talk 21:35, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bin Tere[edit]

Bin Tere (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article has no references since the page was created in 2011. Manoflogan (talk) 04:44, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. North America1000 05:40, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. North America1000 05:40, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:46, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It is not clear as to why this series is notable. It has no references since the page has been created in 2011. I strongly believe that this page should be deleted.Manoflogan (talk) 03:32, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Given that only one person commented, this is a WP:SOFTDELETE case. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:14, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hanane El Khader[edit]

Hanane El Khader (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article about a reality-show contestant who also has a part in an upcoming TV series. This does not reach the notability standard of either WP:MUSICBIO or WP:ENTERTAINER. Her career may in future develop to the point where she qualifies for an article, but this is much WP:Too soon. JohnCD (talk) 17:36, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Morocco-related deletion discussions. JohnCD (talk) 17:37, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. JohnCD (talk) 17:37, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. 17:37, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. 17:37, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:45, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:12, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cydia (disambiguation)[edit]

Cydia (disambiguation) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per WP:TWODABS, disambiguation pages with two entries are discouraged when there is a primary topic, as is the case with this dab. A hatnote at Cydia directs readers to the genus, bypassing the dab and rendering it useless. -- Tavix (talk) 19:33, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:12, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:44, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete - As per nominator, if only two dabs exist, a hatnote at primary topic is enough. {{other uses}} or {{other uses2}} may be used for this. Regards, KC Velaga ✉ 01:41, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  Sandstein  08:02, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of Transformers supporting characters[edit]

List of Transformers supporting characters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a redundant character list. The series has various series-specific character lists. While I didn't check every single entry on this list, as far as I can tell, those individual series character lists already cover these all characters in enough detail. There is no need for this article when those individual lists cover them well enough. TTN (talk) 23:46, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 23:46, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:39, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:40, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom, no need to have individual lists and a master list. While this list appears to be separated, it's still a mess. The first section (Transformers) mixes the original show characters with the original comic characters for some reason. Even then, the first entry jumps from the comic to another universe. This list seems hopelessly mixed up. Argento Surfer (talk) 20:53, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:09, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Elida Loci[edit]

Elida Loci (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
  • Delete. Poorly sourced and advertorially toned WP:BLP of a poet and fashion model, with no strong evidence of notability under our inclusion standards for either of those careers. The sourcing here is entirely to photographs of her rather than reliable source coverage about her, so WP:GNG has not been met. Also probable WP:COI, as the article was created by User:Inpicture. As always, Wikipedia is not a free promotional platform for people who are looking to commit acts of public relations. Bearcat (talk) 01:33, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Perhaps too early in her career. Reads like it was written by an agent about a wannabe model. References are minimal and do not indicate notability.--Rpclod (talk) 01:53, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable as a poet or in her other roles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:17, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  Sandstein  08:01, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jürgen Kießling[edit]

Jürgen Kießling (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:BIO1E. Apparently did nothing except commit suicide after the 2006 World Cup, and we needed four sources for this. Ten years later, no further information. MSJapan (talk) 01:16, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:13, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:13, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:13, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, one event, no further coverage. If this page should survive AfD, it will also need history merging from Jeurgen Kiessling, but of course this and other redirects should just be deleted. —Kusma (t·c) 09:46, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I admit that this article, as written, looks bad. But Berlin is a state of Germany in its own right, which makes the subject a state legislator who cleanly passes NPOL #1. And while I'm not able to read German and hence not able to directly aid in cleaning this up, a simple Google search plainly reveals that media coverage of him in his legislative role does exist before his death — I'm finding hits dated 2002, 2003, 2004 and 2005 — which means that the sourcing necessary to fix this does exist. Keep, and flag for cleanup. Never mind, I appear to have misunderstood the phrase "representative of the Berlin Senate" — which is certainly ambiguous, and can mean a serving senator. But following Kusma's comment below I ran some of the articles through Google Translate, and it does indeed appear that the guy was a bureaucrat appointed by the Senate rather than a representative in the Senate. That changes this to not enough to warrant an article, because civil servants do not automatically pass a Wikipedia inclusion guideline the way elected politicians do. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 02:49, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think he was ever a state legislator. I understand that he was the leader of the sports office of the Berlin government for quite some time (as an employee of the city government), and had media mentions in the context of the World Cup and probably in the context of Berlin's attempts to host Olympic Games. This is an article mentioning him before his death; the football team he played for (in the 50s? 60s?), Wacker 04 Berlin was not professional at the time he played there as far as I can tell. —Kusma (t·c) 13:28, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies, looks like I misunderstood the phrase "representative of the Berlin Senate". Bearcat (talk) 14:15, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- a non-notable spokesperson who, sadly, committed suicide. This does not make him notable. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:34, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Music of Kentucky. MBisanz talk 21:35, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Central Kentucky Youth Orchestras[edit]

Central Kentucky Youth Orchestras (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article does not show notability when searching for Reliable Sources, most of the pages that come up are from their own website or minor musical festivals. In addition this article was created primary by two editors,Ckyopence and CKYO1947, probably sock puppets who clearly have a Conflict of Interest. VVikingTalkEdits 14:13, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • If you have evidence of sock puppetry, this is not the page to discuss it, and it has no relevance to the topic being discussed.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:04, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:47, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:47, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:05, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:08, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Harvey Kaltsas[edit]

Harvey Kaltsas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

NN acupuncturist. There's no assertion of notability, and too much garbage and promotional material here to waste time rewriting it. I'd've maybe let this slide because it said he wrote a number of books, but not a single one is listed. Almost all the sources given personally involve the subject as an author, and if they don't, they're one-off local-only coverage. MSJapan (talk) 00:51, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Pretty much a long, long WP:RESUME with only a select pool of editors making any contributions (and I suspect they're all one in the same). Nate • (chatter) 03:45, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 07:56, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 07:56, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 07:56, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable acupunturist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:21, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per User:Mrschimpf's reason of WP:RESUME. -- Gestrid (talk) 21:33, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The sources provided show that he owns his own acupuncture clinic and has held written a few books and also published some articles in alternative medicine journals. The only source that I could identify as being coverage in a reliable source was the Sarasota Herald-Tribune article from 2004, which appears to be on account of a bank approving a large loan to him for a condominium project. Given the inclusion of claims around his use of acupuncture to treat stroke, WP:FRINGE may well apply here. I don't see that notability has been established according to WP:GNG. Drchriswilliams (talk) 10:21, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz talk 21:36, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Laith Abu Joda[edit]

Laith Abu Joda (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete. Completely unsourced and advertorially-toned BLP of a musician, whose only discernible claims of notability are "competed in a reality show but didn't win" and "garnered X number of hits for a YouTube video". As always, these are not claims of notability that get a person into Wikipedia; it's reliable source coverage verifying a claim of notability that satisfies WP:NMUSIC or bust, and there's no RS or NMUSIC shown here. Bearcat (talk) 00:25, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete non-notable musician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:25, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Only verifiable detail is that this guy does have a verified youtube account with a music video with over 1.2 million views. KalamCStone (talk) 19:45, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 with no prejudice against recreation with proper sourcing. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:06, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Brooke Heller[edit]

Brooke Heller (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete. Poorly sourced WP:BLP of an A&R executive, whose claims of notability are far more inherited (i.e. "notable because his firm has worked with so-and-so and such-and-such") than organic. Most of the sourcing here is for crap -- including two glancing namechecks of his existence in blog entries about other people; one band profile which completely fails to verify that he had anything to do with their success; and his inclusion in a simple PR directory to which he was able to add himself. The only source that counts for anything at all is one album review on AllMusic from when he was a musician before he went A&R, but that source actually fails to verify the album's claimed chart success -- and without proper verification of the chart success, the album's mere existence doesn't give him an automatic WP:NMUSIC pass either (it takes two albums to pass NMUSIC on "just because the albums exist" grounds.) No prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody can write and source something better than this, but nothing claimed or sourced here is enough. Bearcat (talk) 00:07, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America1000 03:42, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America1000 03:42, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America1000 03:42, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep, the sources dug up by Cunard have convinced later participants that notability exists Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:03, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Johnn[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Kevin Johnn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A general search for sources does not bring up anything very convincing. Only three hits on Google News, all pretty trashy-tabloid-press mentions of his role as Gabi Grecko's ex boyfriend (whoever she is). Google Books only calls up one interview(?) in Elle from 2005, which can't be previewed; and a tiny little namecheck in another trashy book about Heidi Klum's divorce. Much of what else I see is advertorial/PR coverage and photos of his designs, some interviews in seemingly unreliable sources, but very little actually about him as a designer or as a person. I do find that strange, as if he's been around so long, there ought to be coverage beyond blogs/PR, but it really doesn't seem to be easily accessible if that's the case. Mabalu (talk) 10:39, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:39, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable fashion designer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:51, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did some more investigating. According to HighBeam, he only rated one significant mention in Women's Wear Daily, in 2005, if you can call a long sentence in one of 19 long sentences on different designers significant. There is a second mention in another article in 2007, but all it really says is that "a former "Project Runway" contestant" showed dresses in black, white or red. Only eight Highbeam hits overall, three from local newspaper. One of those articles, from 1989, does contain a drabble-length piece about how Johnn was asked to design a dress for the Absolut vodka poster campaign, but again, it's very slight and largely based on a press release. Sorry, Kevin Johnn, but I really did try. Mabalu (talk) 09:25, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America1000 06:13, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America1000 06:13, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 06:13, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - No references in reliable sources found. Even the "Press" on his own website can't be verified. [1] BoyRD (talk) 03:02, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. Vartanian, Chris (1988-06-08). "Free-wheeling designer shifts gears". Chicago Sun-Times. Archived from the original on 2016-08-10. Retrieved 2016-08-10.

      The article notes:

      Kevin Johnn Scheppman pops a wheelie on a freestyle bicycle as he points to a sexy black dress on a dressmaker's form in his lofty River North studio.

      Scheppman, 25, made the transition six months ago from designing freestyle bicycles and racing clothing to fashion, and recently turned out his first super-sleek women's ready-to-wear collection for fall under the Kevin Johnn label.

      ...

      Scheppman had fun designing clothes for some friends who were models, and last year produced a small menswear collection under the Artafactica label that sold out a month after it hit the store.

      Scheppman likes the contrast of luxury fabrics worked with industrial materials in unconventional combinations. For example, an integral part of his designs can be seen in his use of neoprene (usually associated with scuba gear) with delicate silk georgette. "It's as if you would put a beautiful flower with a piece of concrete," says Scheppman.

    2. Levine, Lisbeth (1989-09-20). "Fashion Group salutes Weinstein". Chicago Sun-Times. Archived from the original on 2016-08-10. Retrieved 2016-08-10.

      The article notes:

      Chicago designer Kevin Johnn Scheppman, who designs under the label Kevin Johnn, has been tapped to create an outfit for the Absolut vodka ad campaign. Past Absolut ads have featured designs by such talents as Marc Jacobs, Stephen Sprouse and Carmelo Pomodoro.

      At Absolut's request, Scheppman sent in five sketches. The design that Absolut favors is a long body-hugging dress made of nude-colored stretch fabric, the same fabric used in the back of bras. The Absolut letters will look like a body tattoo, Scheppman said. The ads will run next spring, according to a spokesman at Absolut's advertising agency in New York.

    3. Elsworth, Catherine (2005-10-18). "The Daily Telegraph: In LA, even the models don't know how to walk". The Daily Telegraph. Archived from the original on 2016-08-10. Retrieved 2016-08-10.

      The article notes:

      Kevin Johnn, the celebrated New York designer, described the models on offer in Los Angeles as "slim pickings".

      "It's hard to find girls in LA,"he said. "They're less experienced. The walk in LA isn't as confident."

      This is a passing mention but it is noteworthy that The Daily Telegraph calls Kevin Johnn "the celebrated New York designer".
    4. Costantini, Lisa (2005-03-21). "Kevin Johnn of "Project Runway" has big designs". Entertainment Weekly. Archived from the original on 2016-08-10. Retrieved 2016-08-10.

      The article notes:

      Maybe losing isn’t such a bad thing. Despite being booted after Wendy Pepper backstabbed him in episode 7, Project Runway’s Kevin Johnn has been getting some high-profile design assignments recently from none other than Runway host Heidi Klum. He outfitted the recently betrothed supermodel for both the Vanity Fair Oscar party and a Feb. 23 Today show appearance. But Johnn has even bigger designs: He’s hoping that ”some wedding” — as in Klum’s to Seal — ”is in the future for me.” Ooh, Wendy would hate that.

    5. Khederian, Robert (2013-07-18). "Throwback Thursday: See Where Your Favorite Project Runway Contestants Are Now". PopSugar. Archived from the original on 2016-08-10. Retrieved 2016-08-10.

      The article notes:

      Kevin Johnn, Season One

      Kevin lives in New York City and currently designs a high-end line called the Kevin Johnn Collection, as well as KJeans&Knits, premium denim and a contemporary knitwear line. Kevin has created a diverse clientele including Mary-Kate Olsen, Penélope Cruz, Ivanka Trump, Cameron Diaz, Jessica Alba, and Drew Barrymore.

    6. "L.A. Fashion Week Spring '06: Kevin Johnn". California Apparel News. 2005-10-28. Retrieved 2016-08-10.

      The article notes:

      New York–based designer Kevin Johnn said he felt it was important to show the second season of his line at Mercedes-Benz Fashion Week at Smashbox Studios in Culver City, Calif., because the Los Angeles area is an entertainment-driven town. Capitalizing on his own brush with fame as a contestant on the first season of the hit TV reality show, “Project Runway,” Johnn hoped to draw a big crowd for his derby-themed Oct. 17 show.

      For his Spring ’06 collection, Johnn reworked classic equestrian looks and offered spectator fashions reminiscent of the 1920s. The designer showed snug riding pants paired with silk and leather jockey jackets, shrunken polo tops, printed tulip skirts, cropped tweed blazers and mod dresses. Dropped waists and slouchy shapes hinted at a bygone era while a knitted silk tape sweater dress acted as a cover-up for a brown one-piece bathing suit.

      Here is more information about California Apparel News:
      • Plunkett, Jack W. (2008). Plunkett's Apparel & Textiles Industry Almanac 2008. Houston, Texas: Plunkett Research. p. 77. ISBN 1593921101. Retrieved 2016-08-10.

        The almanac notes:

        Apparel Resources

        'California Apparel News

        110 E. 9th St., Ste. A-777

        Los Angeles, CA 90079-1777 US

        Phone: 213-627-3737

        E-mail Address: [email protected]

        Web Address: www.apparelnews.net

        Apparel News is a newspaper that covers the fashion industry in California.

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Kevin Johnn to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 07:21, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm impressed. These sources are more convincing, although I'm not convinced that a newspaper calling anyone "celebrated" without real qualification is anything other than a peacock term or journalese - we wouldn't be allowed to put that in Wikipedia, so just because one source says it with equally little qualification should be just as questionable, unless there are others regularly saying the same thing. But yes, I am impressed. Good work. I'll let the AFD run through, though, unless someone is prepared to fix the article itself as what's currently up is so poor. But I can't in good faith withdraw a nom when the existing article is so bad. Mabalu (talk) 10:46, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to allow time to evaluate the sources presented here. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:04, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 00:04, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Cunard's sources. Definitely multiple, and at least 1, 2, 3, and 6 are reliable; several short paragraphs in each isn't a ton, but it's significant. FourViolas (talk) 02:00, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Cunard and FourViolas. --doncram 02:34, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
  1. ^ http://www.kevinjohnn.com/press/
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2016_August_12&oldid=1142623736"