Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 August 13

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 12 August	14 August >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 07:28, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Olson (activist)

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

BLP only known for one incident in 2011 of protest/graffiti that escalated into a trial and acquittal. This was covered in the news (mostly local San Diego) at the time (until the completion of the trial), and there doesn't seem to be any coverage since (and nothing significant has been added to the article). This is a single event per WP:BLP1E - and the subject "otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual". MB 23:40, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:32, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:32, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:32, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I concur with the nominator; Olson made headlines for a (frankly ridiculous) court case, but with the exception of this random quote from him I can't find a single source not directly connected to the case itself. BLP1E all the way. Primefac (talk) 01:13, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Achieved brief news coverage for one incident in 2013, nothing before or since. Clearly not a person of continuing notability even in San Diego. Plazak (talk) 02:20, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a very strong example of a BLP1E article. It also has NPOV problems. The later could be fixed, the former can not unless Mr. Olson somehow again enters the public view.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:00, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:20, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Written like an autobiography. Instaurare (talk) 04:46, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The nominator of Delete !voters here seems to get things twisted. Notability is not temporary. We do not delete articles per reasonings as IDONTLIIKEIT comments above. Thinking that someone is noted for ridiculous things is POV. clearly notable person, plenty of good sourcing. also per WP:GNG.BabbaQ (talk) 00:22, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

BabbaQ, I'm curious how you think that citing policy (BLP1E) is considered an IDONTLIKEIT !vote. My comment regarding the court case was not to suggest that the reason for his 15 minutes of fame disqualified him for a page, but simply commentary on the case itself. According to BLP1E he is not a notable person (for all of the reasons stated above) which is what I based my !vote on. Primefac (talk) 02:04, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

BabbaQ notes "plenty of good sourcing." but it is all coverage of the 2011 incident. Mr. Olson's background seems to be nearly completely undocumented. If he were notable, I would expect more media interest (and therefore sourcing) in him as a person. Plazak (talk) 04:33, 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 07:21, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Indian national congress 2019

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

WP:TOOSOON WP:CRYSTALBALL three year out elections? Savonneux (talk) 22:55, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 23:02, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:TNT and WP:SOAP/WP:COAT, too. The article seems to have been created to host "Author Point of View" (sic). Delete. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:31, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:32, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:32, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TOOSOON.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 10:11, 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. Sandstein 07:25, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Was it the Walrus

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

Only two sources that are questionable. No real indication of notability. Also page was created by user that clearly represents the band. Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 22:34, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:31, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:31, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails criteria as per WP:BAND -- HighKing⁺⁺ 11:33, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This Page does site burlington post as a source. http://www.insidehalton.com/opinion-story/6806673-longtime-friends-reunite-to-bring-was-it-the-walrus-to-the-gta/ Vancerollins (talk) 13:38, 15 August 2016 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Vancerollins (talk • contribs) appears to have a close connection with the subject of the article being discussed. [reply]

The Burlington Post is a community weekly newspaper, which is not widely distributed enough (or archived anywhere that we could still access the content if its website ever died) to count as getting a topic over WP:GNG. It takes daily newspaper coverage, and/or music magazines on the order of Exclaim!, Rolling Stone, Spin or Paste, for a band to satisfy WP:NMUSIC. It would be acceptable for some supplementary confirmation of facts after GNG had already been passed by other sourcing, but it doesn't help bring the passage of GNG. Bearcat (talk) 18:26, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Makes no claim of notability that would pass WP:NMUSIC, and isn't sourced to anything like the kind of coverage it takes to pass WP:GNG. As always, Wikipedia is not a free public relations platform where any band is entitled to an article just because they exist. Bearcat (talk) 18:26, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete It's been edited to improve neitral point of view Edited . Most indie bands on wikipedia will have someone close to the band creating their wikipidia page in order to keep content relevant. The Burlington Post is part of metroland media group media which is one of the biggest media groups in canada. This article improve Wikipedia's coverage of independent music. Carolinethivierge (talk) 13:34, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Blocked sock account - striking through !vote. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:28, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Metroland papers cannot help get a topic over WP:GNG if they don't already have a strong claim to passing a specific notability criterion, because they're locally distributed community weekly newspapers with no broad extralocal readership and no public archives where we can retrieve the content again if the web link ever dies. They're acceptable for some confirmation of facts after the topic has already been Toronto Starred, Globe and Mailed, National Posted, Vancouver Sunned, Montreal Gazetted, CBCed and Exclaimed over GNG, but an article cannot be kept if a Metroland paper in the band's own hometown is the best you can do for sourcing. Bearcat (talk) 16:13, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete. Article seems to be written in a Neutral point of view. Also This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rock music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Rock music on Wikipedia. This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia.Vancerollins (talk) 13:46, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Blocked sock account - striking through !vote. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:28, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And what's their claim of notability that would pass WP:NMUSIC? Bearcat (talk) 16:13, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE there is an ongoing investigation into three users who have voted to keep the article. At best appears to be a case of WP:MEAT. See: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Wasitthewalrus. --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 15:26, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Followup note: both of the "Do not delete" votes were confirmed to be sock puppets of the original page creator. See: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Wasitthewalrus --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 18:01, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE I am one of the band members in was it the walrus I am not here to vote to delete the page or to keep the page. This was created by a person who works for the band (Vancerollins)as part of our management team. If the community votes to keep the page, thank you. If the community votes to delete the page I will understand. All i request is, please do not penalize the band for future consideration.Jnorris walrus (talk) 19:56, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Trust me, there's nothing to worry about there. An AFD nomination is not a permanent ban on the band ever being notable enough for Wikipedia; in fact, we have lots of articles where an early version was deleted as not having established notability yet, but then six months or a year later something happened that wasn't true yet the first time (e.g. an unelected candidate for office winning the election, a band actually releasing their debut album and having a hit single, etc.), so a new article was allowed to be recreated again once that new thing, and the improved sourcing now available to support it, had gotten them over our inclusion rules. So yes, if and when something happens that changes the equation, an article can be created again at that time even if it gets deleted now. Bearcat (talk) 21:44, 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 speedy keep. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:29, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ramesh Raskar

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

hopelessly promotional The Banner talk 22:34, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Forget it, withdrawn The Banner talk 22:35, 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) 09:29, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

104.9 FM Hinton, Alberta

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

Delete. Proposed radio station which was granted license approval in 2014, but for which I cannot find any verifiable evidence that it's actually operating yet — its Recnet profile is still just listed as "Hinton 40" (i.e. a placeholder) rather than an actual CXXX-FM call sign, and the "our stations" list on the parent company's own website still fails to include it. And, in fact, technically the original license approval is now expired, but I can't find any indication on the CRTC website of an extension ever having been applied for or granted — which means that this is effectively dead if we still can't source otherwise. WP:WPRS has sometimes played fast and loose with the WP:NMEDIA criteria, letting an article stand as soon as license approval is granted but looking the other way on the condition that a station has to have established its broadcasting history by actually launching, but we have to crack down on that. The time for an article about a new radio station is once it's actually reliably sourceable as actually being on the air (or at least having a confirmed and relatively imminent launch date) — if all you can write is that a radio station has a license to eventually launch, but you can't source that it has launched, then it's WP:TOOSOON, because radio licenses do expire unbuilt far more often than one might wish. Bearcat (talk) 21:47, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 21:48, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alberta-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 21:48, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Station only existed "on paper" and did not actually broadcast. As such, article does not meet NMEDIA or GNG. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:05 on August 14, 2016 (UTC)
Delete: Apparently, although the CRTC website doesn't mention it, Newcap was granted another year to build the station in late 2015, so the permit now expires in February 2017. That having been said, the presumption of notability for broadcast stations does not apply to stations that haven't launched at this juncture, and there's still no guarantee the station will launch, and there's nothing to indicate the station has launched, so it's still too soon for an article. --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:40, 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 due consensus that there is a lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. MBisanz ^talk 21:43, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

MIKE URBAN

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

Product description from an editor who seems to be an SPA writing up a bunch of articles for one company. This has been at AfD before in a mas nomination, but that went nowhere quickly; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DHI Water • Environment • Health. A CSD for A7, G11, which seems appropriate as well, was turned down last year by Iridescent, who cited the earlier AfD--so let's have a community discussion and see where we stand. Deletion per lack of notability certainly seems like the right decision to me. Drmies (talk) 21:28, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Just to be clear A CSD for A7, G11, which seems appropriate as well, was turned down last year by Iridescent is technically accurate but a little misleading; my exact wording (after I'd speedily deleted it) was I'm undoing my own delete and declining the CSD nom on this. Given that this has previously survived AFD, I don't feel speedy is appropriate even though I can't really see how it's salvageable. Feel free to take it to AFD again. FWIW, I think the entire oeuvre of Qiy, the creator, could safely be bulk deleted as spam, but since a bulk nomination was closed as "keep all" speedy deletion isn't an option, since by definition the deletion isn't "uncontroversial". ‑ Iridescent 21:34, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Iridescent, sorry if I didn't get all the actions/edits in there. I agree with you re: the bulk deletion--that was an odd AfD, and it complicates matters for us a little bit here. But there's no rush, I suppose, and I dare predict that this and other AfDs won't be problematic. BTW, I also PRODded two related articles, LITPACK and DHI (company), the latter a new(er) article by another but equally involved editor, I think. Drmies (talk) 23:33, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Obscure software without significant coverage in secondary sources. MB 01:34, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:37, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- when I first joined the wikipedia, in 2004, our deletion policy was very clear -- deletion was to be based on the notability of the topic. By those rules, it would be largely irrelevant if the current version of the article seemed to be written by an SPA, provided there were valid references, out there, that supported the notability of the topic.
Personally, I still think following the advice of WP:BEFORE is important. I'm curious, and would like to know how many of the scholarly articles, written by independent third parties, that discuss the pros and cons of this package, in detail, our nominator reviewed.
I just checked. I thought that we had a special purpose notability guideline, that dealt specifically with software. I found an archived failed guideline, Wikipedia:Software notability. So, what inclusion standards are we using here?

Am I correct that it is irrelevant if we all agree a biased SPA inserted biased content here -- if the topic itself measures up to our inclusion standards? Isn't the appropriate response then a biasectomy, not deletion?
Are we evaluating this article on GNG? Or are there special purpose guidelines that apply?
I was quite surprised at how many hits scholar.google.com produced. A small number of those hits were due to hitting people named "Mike Urban". But most hits were about the software.
I was surprised at how many of the scholar.google hits had links to the full article. Most times I use scholar.google 80-90 percent of the hits only link to abstracts, while, for this topic, about fifty percent of the hits linked to the full article.

I added MIKE URBAN#Scholarly reviews, adding just a single reference, to the first of the hundreds of scholarly articles that talked about the package. I didn't really finish going through it, skipping ahead and taking a cursory look at a few of the other articles. One of the other of the handful of articles I looked at referenced MIKE URBAN 43 times.

It looks like a surfeit of riches.

This is a complicated topic. I think it is an example of the kind of article that can't be written about, in detail, if one doesn't really understand the topic.

I could perform a biasectomy. I could quote a few more scholarly articles, without understanding this topic well enough to cover it, in detail. What I would like to know is whether there would be any point in doing so. Specifically, what would it take to convince our nominator Drmies, and Iridescent, the nominator at the previous bulk nominations, that the topic did measure up to our inclusion standards? Geo Swan (talk) 23:28, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Geo Swan, I don't know where to start with this, so I'll just say that "Rainwater and Urban Design 2007" isn't an academic journal but a conference (organized by the International Rainwater Catchment Systems Association), and what you claim is a scholarly article is in fact a paper presentation, 8 pages long, by V. G. Mitchell, H. Duncan, M. Inman, M. Rahilly, J. Stewart et al. (it has fifteen co-authors). The link you gave is faulty, but the paper is here; conference presentations are called papers, not articles, and I guess you don't know that such presentations are not considered academic articles, in part because the threshold for inclusion is much lower--like, infinitely lower--and there is no peer review of the paper as a whole. If you're not an academic you're not required to know this, of course. Now, in this paper, Mike Urban is one of seven programs that are reviewed (this must have been one boring presentation); maybe five sentences are devoted to it. In other words, I hope that some of the other hundreds of scholarly articles are acceptable references and spend a bit more time on our subject.
As far as BEFORE is concerned: if you can't properly evaluate whatever you found through Amazon, you probably shouldn't be reading me or Iridescent the riot act. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 00:07, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- WRT "the riot act", no one read you the riot act.

Okay, you looked at the one paper I referenced. Thanks for that. I am not going to belabor this point, but it looks like you still haven't looked at any of the other hundreds of articles.

I asked you what it would take before you agreed the topic was notable, after all. I think it is a very reasonable question. I spent half an hour or so looking at the scholar.google results, and added another reference. I have to decide whether its worthwhile to go through some of those other papers.

Maybe you know some good reason why this topic can never measure up to our notability criteria? Well, if you do know a compelling reason why the topic can never be notable, don't let me waste my time working on it. Why not simply spell out why the topic can't be notable?

If your idea on whether the topic of the MIKE URBAN software was notable depends on certain conditions being met, let me repeat my request that you articulate what those criteria are. I don't think any of us should have to guess at what it would take to convince our correspondents. Shouldn't we feel we can count on our correspondents to make the effort to clearly spell out their position?

Back in 2005 I had a long discussion where both my correspondent and I disagreed strongly. But I was fair and honest with him, and he was fair and honest with me. He said (paraphrasing) I could never agree with W unless X, Y and Z were true. With a little work, I was able to substantiate that X, Y and Z were true. He was gracious about agreeing to W, and I thanked him for making me go to the effort of substantiating X, Y and Z. We both agreed that the article in question was considerably improved, due to his challenge, and the efforts I made to satisfy his concerns. As I turned away from my computer, that night, I looked forward to lots more productive challenges. Sadly, I have found that kind of cooperative disagreement all too rare. So, how about it? Could you make the effort to be clear as to what you think would make this topic notable? Geo Swan (talk) 02:20, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You gave only one example; I discussed it. If you want to give me some more of your hundreds of examples, I will be happy to look at them. If you don't give me any of the hundreds of examples, I'm going to assume you don't have hundreds of examples. In the meantime, I am happy that you acknowledge that I actually looked very carefully at your example (I even read it) and investigated its background and status; I can't escape the feeling that I did a lot more work on it than you did. As for your other question--the answer is in WP:GNG. That is all. Significant discussion in reliable sources. You say they exist, but you don't produce any of them, so I have no reason to change my mind. Why are you spending so many words in an AfD discussion on stuff that doesn't pertain? Drmies (talk) 16:26, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Geo Swan, I have no idea what "Iridescent, the nominator at the previous bulk nominations" is supposed to mean, but if you're going to make things up at least make things up that take more than two seconds to check. The bulk nomination is prominently linked in the initial statement, and you'll note that at no point does my name appear on it. ‑ Iridescent 18:58, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies, you suggested I could find the answer to my questions in GNG? Has it been a really long time since you looked at it yourself? WP:GNG#Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article says.

"The absence of sources or citations in an article (as distinct from the non-existence of sources) does not indicate that a subject is not notable. Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources ... Thus, before proposing or nominating an article or deletion, or offering an opinion based on notability in a deletion discussion, editors are strongly encouraged to attempt to find sources for the subject in question and consider the possibility of existent sources if none can be found by a search."

You asked for a list of the hundreds of RS that discuss this software? Clicking on the "scholar" link above produced 815 google scholar hits. Some of them are false positives, so I used "MIKE URBAN" rainwater OR modeling. 425 google scholar hits.

I asked you under what conditions you would agree that the topic of the MIKE URBAN software measured up to our notability criteria. In response you explained why you felt the first paper I referenced conferred only a small amount of notability, and you gave what I think could fairly be described as a vague handwave in the direction of GNG. But, GNG says you had an obligation to briefly familiarize yourself with the references out there, with web searches of your own. Since you can't or won't perform your own web search, your opinion of whether this topic measures up to GNG is, well, uninformed. Geo Swan (talk) 03:10, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

An Liu; Ashantha Goonetilleke; Prasanna Egodawatta (2015). Role of Rainfall and Catchment Characteristics on Urban Stormwater Quality (PDF). Springer Verlag. pp. 21, 30, 50, 54, 68, 69, 85, 90, 95. ISBN 9789812874597. MIKE URBAN is capable of accurately simulating hydrologic processes and requires event-based rainfall data. In terms of data import, MIKE URBAN displays strong capability for importing different types of data such as Mapinfo, Excel, and Geographic Information System (GIS) databases since the software is a GIS-based hydraulic and hydrologic model. This translates to an ease of model setup in MIKE URBAN compared with the other two models. Therefore based on a comprehensive consideration of these criteria, MIKE URBAN was selected for the research study.
An Liu; Ashantha Goonetilleke; Prasanna Egodawatta (2012-09-14). "Inherent Errors in Pollutant Build-Up Estimation in Considering Urban Land Use as a Lumped Parameter". Journal of Environmental Quality. Archived from the original on 2016-08-16. Retrieved 2016-08-16. Although MIKE URBAN does not necessarily use the concept of land use, standard coefficients to represent pollutant build-up and wash-off are used as input without considering variability within the same catchment.
An Liu (2011). "Influence of rainfall and catchment characteristics on urban stormwater quality" (PDF). University of Queensland. Archived (PDF) from the original on 2016-08-16.
Luca Locatelli; Ole Mark; Peter Steen Mikkelsen; Karsten Arnbjerg-Nielsen; Marina Bergen Jensen; Philip John Binning (2014-10-11). "Modelling of green roof hydrological performance for urban drainage applications" (PDF). Journal of Hydrology. Archived from the original on 2016-08-16. Mike Urban includes a model referred to as NAM (Nedbør-Afstrømnings-Model. In English: rainfall–runoff model), which was developed to compute the runoff from pervious areas and it is furthermore used to simulate infiltration-inflow to urban drainage systems.
Qianqian Zhou (2014-04-22). "A Review of Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems Considering the Climate Change and Urbanization Impacts". Water. pp. 976–992. Archived from the original on 2014-11-14. Retrieved 2016-08-16. Among all the reviewed models, Mike Urban has more advanced water quality algorithms in comparison to Krakatoa, UVQ and Hydro Planner. UrbanCycle and WaterCress barely cover water quality simulation in their methods.
Maria Roldin; Ole Mark; George Kuczera; Peter S. Mikkelsen; Philip J. Binning (2011-11-23). "Representing soakaways in a physically distributed urban drainage model – Upscaling individual allotments to an aggregated scale" (PDF). Journal of Hydrology. Archived from the original on 2016-08-16. The modeling package MIKE URBAN with the MOUSE engine (DHI, 2008) was selected for this as this is one of the most comprehensive urban drainage models available, capable of simulating a wide range of flow conditions.
"Available stormwater models and selecting a model". Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. 2015-12-29. Archived from the original on 2013-11-02. The proprietary shells, PC-SWMM, InfoSWMM, and Mike Urban, provide the basic computations of EPASWMM with a graphic user interface, additional tools, and some additional computational capabilities.

Comment -- The article on the company (DHI (company)) has been recently improved by editor Yngvadottir and could be a suitable target, if the article on the SW is found to be independently non-notable. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:37, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- That is a very decent suggestion. The one article linked by Geo Swan could conceivably support a sentence or two in a main article, even if the source is just a conference presentation, not a publication. Drmies (talk) 14:48, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I spot-checked a few of the sources. They appear to be committee reports which mention this software package in passing. Not the kind of in-depth coverage we're looking for. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:02, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

PS, I don't think any weight should be given to the keep close of the previous AfD. It looks to me like that was more about there being too many pages bundled into a single proposal for people to sort out than anybody specifically arguing to keep this page. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:28, 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 delete. Sandstein 07:30, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WFGM (AM)

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

Delete. Proposed radio station whose construction permit expired unbuilt, meaning it never met WP:NMEDIA's condition about "established broadcast history" (i.e. actually operating). WP:WPRS has sometimes been lax about that condition, allowing radio station articles to be started as soon as the license approval was granted, but we have to crack down on that — if a station has never launched and never will, it doesn't merit its own article. Bearcat (talk) 21:27, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 21:29, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 21:35, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Station only existed "on paper" and did not actually broadcast. As such, article does not meet NMEDIA or GNG. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:06 on August 14, 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:37, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No notability whatsoever. (In fact, I would have speedily deleted it under CSD A7.) The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:17, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; I actually had proposed it for deletion via PROD in 2014 (similarly to this AfD nomination, it was part of a series of proposals to delete articles on stations that never went to air and had their construction permits be allowed to expire unbuilt), but it was contested by the article creator, who said that more info was being sought on the planned station's apparent conflict with an existing station on the same frequency and why the FCC would allow a construction permit that would interfere with that station. Since the removal of the PROD tag, the only two edits before this AfD were by me, and to fix and update the call letters of that other station. After two years, it seems unlikely that anything that will actually establish notability even among never-going-to-launch stations will be added, and since WFGM will never begin broadcasting, the presumption of notability for established/operating broadcast stations will never apply. --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:37, 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 at least since there's not a lot of comments here but there's at least enough to suggest minimally better for now (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 21:24, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

John Susman

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

No assertion of notability, no significant coverage. Local awards only, and one short theater review doesn't equal "significant coverage." There's no citation for any award he has received. MSJapan (talk) 20:12, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:N and WP:MUSIC with little evidence that it meets WP:GNG.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:18, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Absolutely fails GNG and I don't see any indication that it would pass WP:ENT as well. Except for that one review in the LATimes, there is hardly anything else. The plays produced by the suject do not seem to be notable; a short story published on an online website is not notable either. This is a clear delete. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:25, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is part of a WP:WALLEDGARDEN. More can be seen at WP:COIN for the other article. Here's a Permalink to COI noticeboard. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:26, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete non-notable playwright and dramaturge.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:41, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Here's an article in the Chicago Tribune, that (briefly) dissuces him and is about film he was shooting in Chicago that is scheduled for 2016 release [1]. Romeo Miller is the lead. Plus coverage of his career form teh Chicago Tribune. [2]. E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:20, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bear in mind that it has been established that the Chicago area is where he works. He's getting coverage, but he's still at small theatres with brief mentions as the playwright. Many of those GHits are digests of theater performances - they're not a "review of his career", and a t best say "written by John Susman." Oh, yes, and the "Live Bait Theater" - is this. The film is an indie film, and the extent of Susman's mention is his name. That's it. He's not even talked to in the article. This isn't significant coverage. All of this is namedrops and only namedrops. MSJapan (talk) 22:39, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article I cited in fact describes Susman as "a playwright who is also one of Steppenwolf Theatre’s past literary managers." And states that hw 1.) wrote the original screenplay, 2.) is co-producing it, and 3.) that ist is a feature-length film. Yes, it is an Indie film. The third hit in the Chigago Trib search is also good, I just used it to source that play (previously sourced only to the theatre that produced it). The Chicago Tribune is a major big city/regional daily (not a local paper) and the forthcoming movie has enough coverage, and cast, to make clear that it will open. I can see why it was easy to miss him in your WP:BEFORE searches - there are other Johns Sussman - but I don't think that it would be sensible to delete this article before the film opens.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:56, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GNG is very clear that the significant coverage has to be about the subject . If we are going by GNG, this falls way off the mark. [3] This for example has exactly 2 lines about him. The articles in the Chicago tribune are routine reviews of plays which contain trivial mentions. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 02:37, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note on sources. I just added 4 reviews of one of his plays, it ran in Chicago. 3 full reviews in major Chicago daily papers, the other in the Wall Street Journal. More reviews, and other articles about him popped up in my Proquest news archive search - albeit not as many as appeared on the John Susman who promotes seafood in Australia. But this is enough to make this a keeper.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:18, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I had a look at the reviews and they only contain trivial mentions about him. Are you looking at WP:ENT here? --Lemongirl942 (talk) 02:38, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Never occurred to me. WP:AUTHOR (WP:CREATIVE]], WP:DIRECTOR is the apt category. Playwrights/authors tend to pass Criterion 3 of that category by having 3 reviews of a play or book in major media. I don't look at film directors at AFD regularly, so I'm not sure what the rule of thumb is there. I am sure that I did not scour the web looking for sources, merely found the articles I have added. I could see that there are more sources without reading the ones on the later pages of my search, or running other searches. But do note' that with a playwright, writer, (or artist,) reviews need not contain more than "trivial mentions about him." If the writer's work has been the subject of "multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." He qualifies for an article. Cheers.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:44, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@E.M.Gregory: I have to echo @Lemongirl942: here, but a bit more directly. I objectively cannot find where your above reasoning is coming from given where you are saying it can be found. Here's WP:AUTHOR/DIRECTOR/CREATIVE (they're all the same guideline):

The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors.
The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique.
The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.
The person's work (or works) either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums.

It says nothing about "trivial mentions of the subject are OK" (which would violate GNG in the first place) or "reviews of a single work meet the criteria." Nothing in AUTHOR has been established by sources or by the article. The subject also doesn't meet WP:ENT, because that applies to performers, so whatever you're basing your claim on is not from there, either. Since it's the basis of your keep vote, I'm going to request that you find the policy you're citing. MSJapan (talk) 18:04, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AUTHOR 3. "The person has created... a significant or well-known work... (that has) been the subject of... multiple independent periodical articles or reviews."E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:25, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I see. You've elided two separate requirements into one. "The work has to be significant" is one part, and "the work has to be covered..." is another - the period is important there. It's not necessarily significant because of reviews, which is what you are trying to say. Significance is shown by coverage after the fact, precisely to avoid giving significance to coverage solely within the news cycle. Well, at least I see where that's coming from now. It also doesn't indicate that trivial mentions of the writer are OK. Also, here's an interesting twist - the first hit I got for "Nelson and Simone" was nor Susman's play, which I would have expected if it was significant. What I got was this book published in 1998. So now I'm wondering if the review interest was due to the subject matter, and not the writer (of a derivative work). In any event, there's no post-run coverage on the play, so I don't think "significance of the work" has been met. MSJapan (talk) 19:07, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, I followed the standard practice her in operationalizing "The work has to be significant". How do we measure "significant"? The common practice as actually followed here with WP:AUTHORS, playwrights, and screen writers is to see whether one or more of their works has had multiple reviews in significant media outlets, plus, of course, sufficient RS to source a basic bio. I can see that reasonable people can differ on how much coverage is significant, I do not, however, think that your accusation is justified and with that you would drop the WP:BATTLEGROUND stance.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:31, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Routine reviews do not make a play significant. There has to be recurring coverage or some evidence of critical acclaim. This is sorely missing here. See below for my comment about WP:CREATIVE#3 as well. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 13:10, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note The sturm und drang on this page is most likely produced by the fact that this is one of a number of articles created by User talk:Foothillpark in a type of editing that understandably gets under the skin of editors who work here out of public spirited generosity. I think that these articles need to be evaluated on the merits, as was done with William Susman (also created by Foothillpark) which was brought to AFD and kept. The article needs improvement, and keeping is not a slam dunk; Susman is a minor playwright with his first full length Indie film said to be coming out later this year. I looked for sources, and added some to the page. I hope that other editors will now weigh in.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:15, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note while I do not know how the forthcoming full-length, Indie film will be received, do note that the actors are bluelinked. And that the article is now solidly sourced.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:34, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on my reading of all the above. And the upcoming film's premise is great, I will go see it. :) --do ncr am 04:51, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment WP:CREATIVE#3 specifically states The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. Note that none of the plays the person has written are a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. I would be glad if someone can actually show me an evidence of this. Routine reviews of a play are common - almost every play gets reviewed. That doesn't mean it is significant. Significance requires something more. The indie film doesn't seem to be significant either and in any case it has not been produced. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 13:06, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lemongirl, I and others who review AFDs on writers have long assumed that such work must have been the subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. exists for the purpose of defining what qualifies as a significant or well-known work or collective body of work.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:02, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, not all plays are reviewed. But note that one Susman play got reviewed in the [[Wall Street Journal (a New York and national newspaper) and that that I added a feature article on the play from the Chicago Tribune to the article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:16, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 13:07, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but the multiple reviews (bare minimum 3 detailed reviews in reliable sources) must be for the same play to even consider that it is significant. And even then, we actually needs multiple significant plays to consider notability of the playwright. I did see the WSJ review but this was the only one apart from the Chicago Tribune review (and falls short of 3). Most of his other plays have only got 1 review in the Chicago Tribune (which counts as a local sources). Most newspaper will review plays in the local area - so 1 or 2 reviews local to the place cannot be used as a proof that the play is significant. Over here, I see the subject as a minor playwright who has not yet achieved notability. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 14:10, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

respondThere are in fact 6 RS reviews of his 2000 play about Nelson Algren and Simone de Beauvoir now in the article, and they were there well befoere you wrote that there are only 2. It is essential to look at the article before making assertions of fact about what is in it. There is also a feature article from a major metropolitan daily about that play in the article. Plus a feature article in a major metropolitan daily that discusses him and is about an Indie film that he wrote, directed and produced that is coming out later in 2016 and that features multiple bluelinked actors. As Senator Moynihan used to say, Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts..E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:24, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note a test screening of Game Day was held schduled at Loyola University Chicago here: [4].E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:44, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Moynihan quote applies to you as well - you're getting into a bad habit of choosing only the facts that support your point of view, and ignoring all others. You haven't refuted the points made, because you're still insisting "one reviewed work = a significant body of work", but you haven't shown any lasting effects of his work. We haven't even found any of his awards. A screening announcement establishes nothing but existence. Drop the WP:BLUDGEON; it's getting tiring. MSJapan (talk) 19:00, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLUDGEON.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:01, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest that editors fresh to this page skip the sturm und drang above and simply assess the brief page on the merits.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:01, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Explanation: Why the play is not significant and neither are any of his other works The only play which has some prominence (not significance) is the play about Algren and Beauvoir. The assertion that a play is considered a significant work simply because it gets a few reviews is not true and not supported by the guideline. The guideline is clear The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. The "in addition" specifies additional conditions over significant - it does not solely define significant. (We go by the current guideline and I would suggest editors to try changing the guideline if required) If a work is really significant, it would have reviews beyond a bunch of routine reviews in the city newspapers.

Almost every single play in a major theatre gets reviewed on opening. It is also important to consider the audience of the newspaper - if the newspapers are all local to the region, it doesn't really imply that the work is significant.

If you look at the reviews, there are 5 reviews for the play (not 6) and 4 of them are limited to the same region -

[5] Chicago Tribune
[6] Daily Herald, Arlington Heights
[7] Chicago Sun Times
[8] Chicago Reader
[9] Wall Street Journal

4 of them are newspapers in Chicago. The Chicago Reader is a local newspaper published once a week. Daily Herald, Arlington Heights is limited to a suburb. Chicago Tribune and Chicago Sun Times are better sources, but still limited in focus. The WSJ is the only source which helps to support a claim of significance.

There have been notable plays throughout the ages and a good criteria is that they tend to be performed again - sometimes by the same company or adapted by a different one. Nothing of the sort has happened here. It happened once and it is gone. Nothing differentiates it from other plays in the past. (If this play is notable, would anyone be able to create a Wikipedia article on it?)

I also decide to have a look at this live bait theatre. And here it is :D This is actually a very small theatre which encourages works by upcoming artists.

The indie movie that Susman was involved in 2007 is a short (11 minutes long) and I can't find reliable third party coverage of it.

The upcoming movie (it's also an indie movie btw) doesn't seem to have been released to the public yet and there is no indication that it is a significant work. Having blue linked actors act in the movie doesn't mean the movie becomes notable.

At the moment, this is a minor playwright who has also worked as a screenwriter. Not one single notable work till now. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 02:23, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Susman is a minor playwright; minor playwrights can have articles - when they can be sourced, such articles are functional, useful to Wikipedia users. There are at least 8 printed reviews of his Nelson/Beauvoir play (Chicago Sun Times ran 2 full reviews) 8 now added to proper spot on page, there may well be more out there, there are certainly feature stories, brief descriptions in articles about broader topics, and so forth that I have not added here. I did just now add details about the development of this play, which both the Sun Times and the Chicago Tribune followed closely.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:44, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The 3 new reviews you added are in local newspapers which are part of the Chicago Tribune and one which I believe is part of the Sun Times. The specific problem here is that the diversity of sources is lacking. Attending the premiere of the play and writing a review is really common: It is when someone outside the region (like the WSJ source) takes notice, that it becomes notable. Some of the sourcing in the article btw are really trivial mentions. And all this is in the context of an individual who fails GNG. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:34, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLUDGEON, let's just let other editors weigh in.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:53, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep The sources are pretty thin, and mostly local, but sufficient. The Steve 06:56, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:46, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:47, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. has not yet directed a notable film. using the GNG to override such considerations is absurd--the GNG should rather be interpreted as saying that since sort of local coverage in the city the film is being produced in does not show notability --even if it happens to be a large city with an important newspaper, they are still not reliable for notability of local events. DGG ( talk ) 14:32, 11 August 2016 (UTC) Changed to keep, see below. DGG ( talk ) 21:12, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Revisiting because I am intrigued by the decision process on minor WP:CREATIVE. checked IMDB Pro (I am blessed with powerful web access) to see if a release date was posted, and noticed that William Susman is listed as composer. Brothers? Cousins? I have no idea.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:26, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Brothers. That's nice. [10]].E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:27, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Now the deletion nominator is deleting an opposing editor's comments! And marking it as a minor edit! This is getting towards grounds to block, or to ban the deletion nominator from AFD participation. --do ncr am 13:13, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead, but you're going to need to explain why E.M.Gregory edited DGG's comments first, which is actually why I undid the edit. You and your buddy can move along now. MSJapan (talk) 14:49, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)There was nothing wrong with that revert btw. This edit actually refactored another editor's comments (although not maliciously). If an edit even inadvertently refactors another editor's comments, it may be reverted. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 14:53, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"refactored": as in: cleaned up a couple of obvious typos.18:20, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Keep. I agree with E.M. Gregory and The Steve here - there is substantial external coverage and local sources are valid when considering notability. Since he writes and directs both films and stage drama, his notability will be pulled together from a patchwork of sources and it shouldn't be a big concern that he doesn't fit a subject-specific guideline. Deryck C. 16:12, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'm probably just passing the buck on a difficult close, but I'm going to let this run another week in the hope some consensus emerges. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:21, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 21:21, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:38, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:38, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Game Day Film Score Session at DF, July 28, 2016, by Karli Helm [11] shows that work on forthcoming film still going forward. also, I just bluelinked the theatre company - notable for premiering new plays - where one of his early plays was produced.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:27, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

New sources One of the actors in Game Day is the venerable Fyvush Finkel. Finkel just passed away. So, searches on "Game Day" now produce stories like this one form Paris: Décès de l'acteur Fyvush Finkel, discussing the fact that Game Day is Finkel's last movie role, Le dernier film dans lequel il a tourné, Game Day de John Susman. fin.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:53, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

One word mention of a film doesn't mean it is notable. The subject clearly fails GNG. And I do not see any demonstration that the subject's productions are notable. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 01:18, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The play will very clearly be notable, for there are certain to be more stories and therefore so will he. WP:CRYSTAL does not prohibit anticipating a little. DGG ( talk ) 00:37, 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 delete. Sandstein 07:30, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

KWXR

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

Delete. Proposed radio station which is technically still licensed but has never actually broadcast a signal, meaning it still has not met met WP:NMEDIA's condition about "established broadcast history" (i.e. actually operating). WP:WPRS has sometimes been lax about that condition, allowing radio station articles to be started as soon as the license approval was granted, but we have to crack down on that — if a station has not yet actually launched, then it doesn't merit its own article until it does. Bearcat (talk) 21:20, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:25, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reluctant Delete: This station does, in fact, have a license and has received a license to cover, but has never broadcast. The station was taken silent as soon it received it's license to cover. Meaning the owners of the station never broadcast a thing. Unfortunately, the page meets part of NMEDIA. Per TOOSOON, the page should be deleted until it has begun broacasting. At that time, it will fully meet NMEDIA (and GNG). This is not that time. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:10 on August 14, 2016 (UTC)
Weak delete; the station is licensed, but its broadcast history has been limited at most, as it seems to have spent the bulk of its time off the air. Its most recent request to again go silent says that the ownership has been hesitant to actually launch its two silent Wyoming stations because delays in obtaining license renewal have led to "uncertainty as to the stations' underlying viability." While they insist that "this is not the start of another long term silent period", until the station actually launches it fall short of being established enough to qualify for the presumed notability of broadcast stations, and it's too soon to tell if indeed KWXR launches before a different type of deletion comes into play — the potential of the FCC canceling their license. --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:47, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; As the above have mentioned the station never went on the air at any point to make it noteworthy. If the station actually does start broadcasting we can always recreate it with citations ḾỊḼʘɴίcả • Talk • _{I DX for fun!} 05:47, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wyoming-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:39, 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 07:29, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

KJJL

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

Delete. Proposed radio station whose construction permit expired unbuilt, meaning it never met WP:NMEDIA's condition about "established broadcast history" (i.e. actually operating). WP:WPRS has sometimes been lax about that condition, allowing radio station articles to be started as soon as the license approval was granted, but we have to crack down on that — if a station has never launched and never will, it doesn't merit its own article. Bearcat (talk) 21:16, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:22, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Station only existed "on paper" and did not actually broadcast. As such, article does not meet NMEDIA or GNG. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:16 on August 14, 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wyoming-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:39, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As the nominator notes WP:WPRS has generally allowed some latitude for these stations being established, mostly to kickstart the process and create better articles. But if the station never actually went on the air, and doesn't otherwise meet notability guidelines with sufficient coverage in 3rd party sources, then the article needs to go. RadioFan (talk) 16:28, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The Application for Review of the permit cancellation mentioned in the article was dismissed and denied in 2014. Ultimately, the station never went to air, and its construction permit expired unbuilt. Stations that never launched do not enjoy the presumption of notability assumed for established/operating stations, especially in the absence of any non-FCC information about the station. --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:10, 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 07:29, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

KGGG-FM

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

Delete. Proposed radio station whose construction permit expired unbuilt, meaning it never met WP:NMEDIA's condition about "established broadcast history" (i.e. actually operating). WP:WPRS has sometimes been lax about that condition, allowing radio station articles to be started as soon as the license approval was granted, but we have to crack down on that — if a station has never launched and never will, it doesn't merit its own article. Bearcat (talk) 21:12, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:23, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Station only existed "on paper" and did not actually broadcast. As such, article does not meet NMEDIA or GNG. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:15 on August 14, 2016 (UTC)

Delete: Agreed, remove it.Joelwnelson (talk) 01:32, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nebraska-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:40, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; the station never went to air; its construction permit expired unbuilt. Stations that never launched do not enjoy the presumption of notability assumed for established/operating stations. The only thing noteworthy about KGGG is a conflict with the Federal Aviation Administration that ultimately resulted in the entire Pacific Junction allocation being deleted by the FCC, but I don't think that's enough to keep an article about this station, especially since the article on the eventual occupant of 107.7 MHz in the Omaha market, KIMI, also mentions KGGG and its canceled permit. --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:06, 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. Clear consensus to delete. Wikipedia is not a forum for personal promotion. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:06, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Sanders (agent)

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

I came upon this article while browsing through page creations by a sock farm uncovered in Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Heathnw77. One would expect a promoter/agent to be mentioned in the news a few times, but I don't think there's enough to establish notability here. VegasNews.com looks like a one-man blog, and the News24hours.in link looks like a press release. There are a few hits at the Los Angeles Times, too, but they are not in-depth enough to satisfy me. I suspect this to be a vanity page created by a paid editor. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:52, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:13, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No significant coverage found. Regards, James (^talk/_contribs) 01:01, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The LA Times article cited in the article is basically a party announcemnt rather than any significant coverage of Sanders. BoyRD (talk) 01:05, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- a non-notable agent and the analysis by the nom on the COI aspect is compelling. None of the entities the subject is associated with are notable and my searches do not turn up anything substantial either. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:59, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable talent agent.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:25, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
justify I am the subject of this page. I am not the author and my page was suggested by a journalist that has covered my career in the 1980's where many of my notable and somewhat historic shows were promoted. The suggested writer was not a Wikipedia expert and we did hire a experienced Wikipedia writer to submit the article using Wikipedia guidelines. Although my shows have countless news stories very little was mentioned about me as I am the behind the scenes person. A few reference articles are by indepentdent journalist but they are real journalist.I knlw personal websites cannot be used but if you see thepaulsandersstory.com you will see my documented history. I am getting more well established articles published as www.thepaulsandersstory.com is getting noticed. I ask that my page not be deleted but will follow suggestions from the Wikipedia community for my page to be notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lvtalent (talk • contribs) 16:14, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Unfortunately, people who work behind the scenes often have trouble satisfying Wikipedia's inclusion criteria, which requires "significant coverage". What this means exactly is kind open to individual interpretation, which is why we have these debates here. Wikipedia's policies and inclusion criteria aren't always fair, but they're the best we've currently got. Since you're more likely aware of coverage, it would help if you could point out here any longer, more in-depth articles. If you think the article is likely to satisfy our guidelines soon due to increasing coverage, one possibility is to ask an admin to save a copy of the Wikipedia article to an area for article drafts, where it can be worked on without immediate fear of deletion. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:53, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your suggestion. Although I am not pleased to have my page deleted but do recognize and appreciate the importance of the strict guidelines and want to thank you for watching over the communities. I know many notable news publishers that covers my shows but I think it wouldn't be unethical to ask a publisher to do a story about myself. As I am getting near retirement I am getting contacted by reporters. I will take your advice and ask am administrator to save my page as a draft.I would encourage readers to read www.thepaulsandersstory.com and read about my time at The Golden Bear and The Whisky A GoGo and will see some interesting facts and documentation. I would like to employ a professional Wikipedia expert to help me publish a validated Wikipedia page. Any suggestions would be appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lvtalent (talk • contribs) 17:33, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
'Save' Once again I ask the community to save my article and motion to close article for deletion at least on a temporary basis as more notable recourses to be added.I honestly believe that you will be convinced of my achievements in the music industry.I am having high caliber journalist coming to my aid to document my history.Lvtalent (talk) 03:18, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- once these stories run in 3rd party sources then it may be time to have an article created. Wikipedia relies on reliable secondary sources to base its articles on. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:31, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 05:38, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Electronic Entertainment Expo 2010

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

Individual instances of this expo are not relevant by themselves, and adding a list of companies represented there doesn't make it so. There is an article History of the Electronic Entertainment Expo, and it is possible that some of this information can be safely placed in there, but unless we see some solid sourcing that this particular E3 is independently notable, not just a place where notable products were revealed, it fails WP:N. Drmies (talk) 20:25, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:42, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:42, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:43, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Partially because, each year, this expo gets massive amounts of coverage - it's the biggest expo for the industry in the world, surely it musters up a meager 3-4 sources to meet the GNG. The other hangup I have is how bizarre it would be to just delete this years iteration. We've got an article for every year dating back to 1995 - over 20 iterations. If we truly believe these individual articles aren't notable, there should be some massive merger discussion to merge them all back, not just delete this random one. (Its not realistic to think that this decade spanning massive expo was randomly not notable one random year...) Sergecross73 msg me 12:44, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Correction - Sergecross73, you say "We've got an article for every year dating back to 1995 - over 20 iterations." I assume you came to this conclusion because all these expos appear in the E3 template, but if you check the links, you'll see that every one prior to 2009 simply redirects to History of the Electronic Entertainment Expo. I agree with your essential point, though.--Martin IIIa (talk) 14:09, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep After working on the article for the 2016 version, each iteration (at least from the last decade) are generally all notable; all that is needed is establishing a bit more context on the general outcome/flavor of the event that puts the expo in perspective. (For this one, it's the introduction of the motion sensing peripherals for Xbox and PlayStation being the largest shakers, from what I both recall and can check on google news with a 5 minute search). --MASEM (t) 14:37, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, expanding on the 2 comments above, many tech websites write articles like this - https://www.engadget.com/2010/06/22/e3-2010-wrap-up/ - which go into great detail about the events of the show every year, both with the article itself, and tons of imbedded links to other individual articles that cover the individual announcements in greater detail. Sergecross73 msg me 18:45, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This definitely passes WP:GNG. There are more than plenty of sources discussing the convention.[12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19]. There is not only the Best of E3/Game Critic Awards,([20]) but also the press conferences, reception of the show (aka Who win E3?)[21][22]) The same goes for most other E3 conventions out there. AdrianGamer (talk) 06:53, 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 07:18, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Khojaly Massacre recognition

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

The Khojaly Massacre was committed by Armenian troops. That's a fact, and it has not been denied by any official party in the conflict. The question of responsibility in the Armenian chain of command is a completely different question which is completely irrelevant, since everyone agrees the massacre itself as having been committed by rogue Armenian troops fighting in the Karabakh war. 92slim (talk) 15:58, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge a limited amount of content into Khojaly Massacre's "Recognition" and/or "Commemoration" sections, as I don't really see a plausible stand-alone article here. The question, of course, will be how much information ought to be merged. I think it's best to omit the exhaustive detail on U.S. states and to condense portions on each country, so that the main article will not be dominated by the recognition section. GAB^gab 15:40, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Having recognitions for every massacre, crime, or murder does not make sense to me, especially when the Armenian government or related parties don't formally deny this event. This is why we have Armenian Genocide recogntion article because Turkey denies it. This does not seem to be the case here. Étienne Dolet (talk) 19:03, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, moving any statements of significance to the Khojaly Massacre article if they are not already there. The article is basically an ORish editorialised list - its sourcing is almost all primary documents, without any secondary sources to interpretate their significance, say by commenting on why and under what circumstances entities such as the House of Representatives of the State of Tennessee would bring itself to issue such a statement - and about what, if any, the significance of doing it was. There is no interpretation content at all within the list (and the few non-primary sources presented - such as [23] concerning the Foreign Affairs Committee of the Czech Parliament "recognition" - are not being used to provide that necessary interpretation. What even is that Commonwealth of Massachusetts House of Representatives "citation", with its preprinted "sincerest acknowledgement" stock text and blank space pre-provided to detail what is being acknowledged (and note the apparently non-English wording, omitting the word "the" before the words "Khojaly Massacre") Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 23:09, 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 07:26, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sanguivoriphobia

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

Vampires? Seriously? Anyway, outside of one "news of the weird" anecdote there's nothing on this except the usual "list all" websites. Mangoe (talk) 14:38, 13 August 2016 (UTC)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion_discussion_guidelines[reply]

Delete The only plausible source I can find is this book, which contains only the anecdote that there once lived a man in Ludington, Michigan who was so afraid of vampires he always slept with a piece of garlic in his mouth, and one night he choked to death. With no citations, the source doesn't pass WP:SCHOLARSHIP, let alone WP:MEDRS, which would be needed for a psychiatric topic. Any truly notable content I'm overlooking could go in a section of Vampire. FourViolas (talk) 04:08, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:32, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete and salt This is gobbledegook (see here) "fun with greek" and there are no MEDRS sources. Per our current List of phobias article which will hopefully soon be deleted, "A large number of -phobia lists circulate on the Internet, with words collected from indiscriminate sources, often copying each other. Also, a number of psychiatric websites exist that at the first glance cover a huge number of phobias, but in fact use a standard text to fit any phobia and reuse it for all unusual phobias by merely changing the name. Sometimes it leads to bizarre results, such as suggestions to cure "prostitute phobia".^[1] Such practice is known as content spamming and is used to attract search engines."

References

^ "Content Spammers Help You Overcome Prostitute Phobia". Webpronews.com. 25 August 2005. Retrieved 26 August 2013.

- Jytdog (talk) 16:00, 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 merge to List of Forgotten Realms deities. (non-admin closure) —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:26, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sharindlar

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

This character article fails to establish notability. TTN (talk) 13:31, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 13:32, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Forgotten Realms and/or List of Forgotten Realms deities. The references appear to be for the games themselves, which aren't multiple reliable sources that can fulfill WP:GNG. Sunmist3 (talk) 13:40, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge with List of Forgotten Realms deities. BOZ (talk) 14:15, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge I guess. This would be great on Wikia or similar, but not here based on this coverage. Lacking any independent sources at all, this is parallel to a commercial product listed in a catalog. Merging seems like the standard compromise, however. Grayfell (talk) 09:36, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with List of Forgotten Realms deities Atlantic306 (talk) 14:32, 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:19, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Camdy

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSOFT. I could not find coverage of Camdy in any reliable sources. The sources provided in the article are all WP:SELFPUB. Sunmist3 (talk) 13:27, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Sunmist3 (talk) 13:52, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:GNG for lack of available sources.- Mr X 13:56, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - is a good example of why software should be included in the A7 speedy deletion criteria. Even before the promotional material was moved there was not even a claim of notability. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 04:25, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Software article of unclear notability, lacking independent references. A search turned up no significant WP:RS coverage. Dialectric (talk) 15:39, 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. Alright, this one is complex and I expect it won't reach unanimous agreement (both on the discussion and my closure of it), so I shall make a few points garnered from the discussion:

It's pretty clear that the article does not meet WP:GNG - and no, as pointed out press releases typically don't count towards that for the most part.
The main argument is whether the XRCO Awards are a well-known and significant industry award for the purpose of WP:PORNBIO - a separate discussion is going on on Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)#Proposed Change to PORNBIO about that section, so the whole guideline appears to be in flux right now but leaning towards stricter standards. There does not seem to be a question about whether these awards were indeed given. I see some other awards are discussed on the article but very little (and a little ambiguous) discussion on them.
On the question whether the XRCO awards satisfy the PORNBIO criterion, most of the arguments in that regard are just assertions, or citing precedent in other AfDs in favour of keeping (some other AfDs were apparently "delete" though, as well), whether niche is a pro or a con for counting them in, or prior discussion (mostly unlinked to) on WT:BIO as against, or but the numerical preponderance is on the side of the "no" camp. Also, Steve Quinn and in lesser measure others have laid out arguments that the awards are not significant enough, with not much detailed disagreement.
Finally and perhaps most importantly, arguably meeting the PORNBIO criteria is not by default a "is notable"/keep reason, as said on WP:BIO, something also emphasized by a number of delete !voters who also noted relevant statements such as WP:NRVE and WP:WHYN, statements that have not been disagreed with, which is especially concerning on a WP:BLP about a sensitive subject matter.

Regards, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 23:23, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kristina Rose

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

In an industry that creates and promogates awards all over the place, nothing about Rose and her list of awards seems notable John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:38, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The references are a bunch of porn industry press releases about a bunch of industry backscratching awards. I think that reasonable people can conclude that a "superslut" award given out at an adult nightclub is not comparable to a Nobel or Pulitzer prize, or an Academy Award or Golden Globe. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:32, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:39, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:41, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:41, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:41, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As she won two individual XRCO Awards (XRCO which are notable and not obscure) in separate years, which is properly sourced, she meets the notability criteria from WP:PORNBIO. -- fdewaele, 5 August 2016, 14:45 CET.
Comment. The XRCO Award may not be the Golden Globes, but Wikipedia's notability guidelines don't require iconic or superlative status. The individual XRCO wins satisfy the letter of WP:PORNBIO. Niche categories like "Unsung Siren" and "Superslut" have been disputed though. However, the working consensus at recent AfDs has been that such performers satisfy the guideline and are likely notable. • Gene93k (talk) 12:49, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- despite the awards, the subject fails WP:GNG as significant RS coverage on the subject cannot be found. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:32, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per K.e.coffman. No significant coverage, just being on a list of minor awards doesn't cut it. Montanabw^(talk) 22:21, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - she won two individual XRCO Awards, she meets the notability criteria of WP:PORNBIO. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 01:33, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The PORNBIO standard requires a "well-known" and "significant" award, which is a higher standard than an "individual" award. This !vote misrepresents the applicable guideline and should therefore be disregarded. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 13:11, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment, The XRCO-awards are considered to be "well-known" and "significant", thus negating your comment. It's not necessary that every single prize in these awards is highly notable as well. In fact, if that was true, even a case could be made against various technical Oscar awards. -- fdewaele, 7 August 2016, 14:45 CET.
    - Reply. Your argument contradicts a solid, long-established consensus hammered out in the discussions which led to the last significant revisions of PORNBIO. @Morbidthoughts probably stated it most clearly: PORNBIO requires the award to be both "well known and significant". The debates or contention in AFDs/DRVs like Deauxma and Elexis Monroe have been whether their nominations are significant enough to satisfy PORNBIO simply because they are performer awards. No, they are not and consensus had made clear when we last edited PORNBIO that the category is important in determining significance.[24]. The discussions were extensive and bear careful reading (even MT's comments are only excerpted here). Other AFD discussions have concluded with deletion of performer bios where the performer had won awards that would meet your standard. In addition, Wikipedia:Notability (people), which PORNBIO is a component of, states clearly that "Failure to meet these criteria [SNGs like PORNBIO] is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included", and it is very common, under many SNGs, for lack of substantial coverage to override an arguable, technical SNG pass. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 15:15, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 02:37, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:PORNBIO with her XRCO Awards for Superslut and Orgasmic Analist, which are well-known/significant industry awards that aren't scene-related/ensemble categories. We have very recent consensus to support the inclusion of the XRCO Superslut award in PORNBIO. Orgasmic Analist is also a legitimate award for a porn industry awards show. The whole point of porn awards is to reward performances in porn films. Anal sex is a popular porn category, so it makes sense for a porn awards show to give an award to a performer they perceived to be the best in the genre that year. Mocking the names of these categories is not a legitimate reason at all to attempt to degrade their value under PORNBIO. Rebecca1990 (talk) 05:56, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment that was indeed the precedent I was referring to and which negates BBW's comment/reply. The award has been deemed to be relevant and notable enough in the recent past, although I'm not entirely certain that was the ultimate selling point for keeping that particular article vis-à-vis other media notability, so there is no reason to now have a different outcome. -- fdewaele, 8 August 2016, 10:08 CET.

Delete. A single discussion, anomalous with the broad sweep of discussions weighing lack of GNG-sufficient coverage against a arguable, narrow, technical SNG pass can hardly bind future community decisions. Montanabw sums up the case for deletion effectively. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 23:36, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:26, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I believe the XRCO Awards are well known and significant. But just as there is an Oscar for Best Actress and an Oscar for Best Original Story, we need to differentiate between the winner of the XRCO Award for Best Actress and the XRCO Award for Superslut of the Year. One helps the winner pass PORNBIO, and the other gets her polite applause. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 18:02, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The XRCO Awards are "a well-known" adult film "industry award" ceremony, but their specific award categories "Superslut of the Year" & "Orgasmic Analist" are basically niche awards categories that likely do not rise to the level of a "significant" award category. Also, the Ariana Jollee article basically passed GNG, which is apparently why it was kept recently. Guy1890 (talk) 04:33, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Guy1890, the vast majority of keep voters at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ariana Jollee specifically cited her XRCO Superslut wins as one of the reasons why it meets our notability guidelines:

Me: "Clearly passes WP:PORNBIO#1 ("Has won a well-known and significant industry award"). PORNBIO only excludes scene-related and ensemble categories. Superslut is not scene-related/ensemble."
Morbidthoughts: "I believe she passes PORNBIO not just because of her awards"
Wikiuser20102011: "While one might find the name of the awards she won distasteful (and I somewhat agree), it is an individual body of work award and has been given out for long enough to be considered well-known."
Subtropical-man: "meet of WP:PORNBIO"
SamWinchester000: "Also her serious, personal XRCO Awards are of course no fun-awards just because of their namings. Neither are they promotional as they are giving out the only independent porn critics' awards in the US. XRCO is using some figurative, let's call it, "poetic" namings for their categories like "Unsung Swordsman", "New Stud", "Orgasmic Oralist" or "Superslut". And when reading a bit into the above book sources (that moreover state her to be one of the first well known gonzo performers) one will understand why she has been awarded as Superslut: because it's perfectely hitting the truth."
Rebbing: "Her two Superslut of the Year awards—while apparently drawing the ire of some—meet PORNBIO point 1."
MichaelQSchmidt: "per meeting WP:PORNBIO through awards notable and significant"

There was only one keep vote in the entire AfD (by TM) which cited GNG and not PORNBIO/awards. Also, niche awards aren't excluded from PORNBIO, in fact, PORNBIO#2 reinforces their inclusion into the guideline ("Has made unique contributions to a specific pornographic genre"). Rebecca1990 (talk) 22:52, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The Ivotes in that prior AfD have no bearing on the, (WP:BIO), notability of this subject, and no bearing on this AfD. This is pretty much an end around action to try to add off-topic information and stack more Ivotes in this AfD than really exist. It is not appropriate. And, this comment should be ignored.

Notability is a standard reached by adhering to guidelines and policies, the core of which is the WP:GNG and expands to WP:BASIC which states:

"People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other and independent of the subject"

"If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability".

Based on this, the significance of the above mentioned awards have been over-inlfated in this AfD. First the cited sources, mentioning the subject, for the awards are not independent coverage - they are covered in the outlet published by the organization that gives out the awards [25], [26] and an in industry trade publication (a vested interest) [27], [28]. This means the garnering of these awards is not covered substantially in independent reliable sources WP:RS.

At best it can be said these awards exist; but that is not an indication of notability (these are just industry press announcements). Also, it seems verifiablity is based on finding independent sources that corroborate existence; so these sources seem questionable in that regard. Ignoring fundamental notability criteria does not work. The two sentences that comprise WP:PORNBIO do not exclusively determine notability; that is why the page is WP:BIO and not WP:PORNBIO. And that is why WP:GNG is referred to. PORNBIO does not supersede WP:GNG and WP:BASIC and is very much contingent on these as stated in the above on that page. Steve Quinn (talk) 16:46, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Based on what I wrote above, my Ivote is Delete---Steve Quinn (talk) 16:46, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Superslut my arse - no aposit there is an analist of the year award too. Doesn't change the fact that this claim to notability is a massive pile of bollocks. (superslutty bollocks of analist bollocks or not) Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:52, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That's a lot of rambling but not even an argument. -- fdewaele, 18 August 2016, 16:47 CET.

It is in fact quite an effective argument. I believe what is being said is that these are very minor awards and, at the same time, the above claims to notability are misguided and perhaps misleading.---Steve Quinn (talk) 05:06, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment there is a related AfD currently ongoing here: [29]. This is the fourth AfD nomination which includes two deletes. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 05:06, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The idea that one can't verify that a subject has or has not won a particular award by using a citation from the awarding organization is silly nonsense that has no bearing on this or any other AfD. Who would know better who won a particular award than the organization that gave out that award in the first place? There is also no blanket prohibition on using press releases as sources in Wikipedia articles, especially for non-controversial information. Guy1890 (talk) 21:23, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The subject is not significantly covered by third party and independent reliable sources - see WP:GNG, WP:BIO, and see other SNG main pages. Press releases may be fine for informational purposes after notability of the subject has been demonstrated or established. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Press releases do not indicate notability because they are not independent of the subject, are not objective due to commercial interests, they are promotional, and do not show the subject has gained significant independent recognition or coverage and so on per WP:NRV. And this is a common theme across notability guidelines per WP:NRV. This is how we write an encyclopedia. I can't see how notability can be claimed only via one or more press releases (with virtually no other sources). And the template doesn't mean anything other than it is a template - there are a bunch of those at Wikipedia:Citation templates. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 02:55, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also, as an aside, this subject is controversial as demonstrated by this AfD ---Steve Quinn (talk) 03:05, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that a person has won an award is not a controversial piece of information. Whether one thinks that winning a particular award denotes that a particular person is notable is obviously in the eye of the beholder - our long-developed set of many Wikipedia SNGs either mean something or they don't...opinions certainly vary on that topic. This particular subject's notability is "controversial" as is evidenced by this AFD here. Guy1890 (talk) 04:11, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What I see, what appears to be happening, with your most recent comment, is the SNG, "PORNBIO", is being taken out of context. Wikipedia is consistent - notability has not been established for this subject. You might be interested in the WP:WHYN (a WP:N section entitled "Why we have these requirements"). PORNBIO does not rewrite policies and guidelines. As noted above - and it seems worth repeating - "Wikipedia:Notability (people), which PORNBIO is a component of, states clearly that 'Failure to meet these criteria [SNGs like PORNBIO] is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included', and it is very common, under many SNGs, for lack of substantial coverage to override an arguable, technical SNG pass".

Keep. Seriously? And a lot of the "delete" rationales acknowledge that she won awards, so I don't know if it's WP:IDONTLIKEIT or WP:IAR, but neither fly. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 23:12, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For me it is not IDON'TLIKEIT and it is not IAR. It is Wikipedia standards contained in guidelines and policies. The award itself "Kristina Rose (Superslut)" is a niche award of the XRCO Award pantheon. Here are the listings [30]. This superslut award is meaningless compared to other larger categories such as "three XRCO Awards for 'Elegant Angel' productions, including Best Release, Best Gonzo Movie, and Best Gonzo Series". Then there is "director William H. was named Best Director" (for whatever). This is followed by "Tori Black...won her second straight Female Performer of the Year, while Manuel Ferrara was named Male Performer of the Year while also being inducted into the XRCO Hall of Fame. These are awards that make sense - these are large scale awards. The niche award Superslut hardly compares with these. Also, see comment below: Steve Quinn (talk) 01:24, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment PORNBIO states that it is being inducted into the the AVN Hall of Fame, XRCO Hall of Fame or equivalent. It doesn't simply say XRCO award.

It does say if the person won a "well-known and significant industry award" - which this person has not. If it was Female performer of the Year or Best Director or something like that I can see trying to claim some sort of notability - but far down the list "Superslut" is merely an accolade. Also, PORNBIO says "Awards in scene-related and ensemble categories are excluded from consideration". And only press releases for references is still an issue. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 01:24, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

When talking about there supposedly not being any independent sources in the article, I think you're making a mistake that a lot of "delete" !voters seem to make when it comes to adult film actors. As I stated here, the subject of Kristina Rose's article is Kristina Rose, not pornography (pornography is a category). If porn is what she is primarily known for, why wouldn't there be a lot of sources from pornography-related publications? That would be like Britney Spears' article not having any music-related sources. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 09:25, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's quite the straw man you're trotting out yet again. The real issue isn't sourcing to "pornography-related publications". It's sourcing to press releases and "articles" that are barely retouched PR copy posted by trade magazines on behalf of their advertisers. It's a very straightforward matter. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 13:09, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And how many publications do you know of whose articles are retouched after they are initially published? Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 09:36, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As you well know, that's not at all relevant. Making cosmetic changes to press releases and PR copying and labeling the result an "article" doesn't create reliable sourcing as defined/described in WP:RS. Lipstick on the pig and all that. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 12:16, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

First you said the sources haven't been touched, but now you say they have been; which is it? Anyway, the original question you ask is what isn't relevant, so let's move on. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 09:51, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I said nothing of the sort, nor did I ask a question. You are deliberately misrepresenting my statements (and those of other editors) because you cannot refute the argument that the article fails basic requirements for inclusion because it lacks reliable independent sourcing. Your behavior is dishonest and disruptive. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 11:46, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yawn...the he's-disruptive-because-he-doesn't-agree-with-me argument again.... You might as well continue battling with yourself. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 22:41, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - automatically notable under WP:PORNBIO for winning the XRCO awards. Anti-porn votes are certainly present here, and it seems their votes hinge on the argument that XRCO "aren't significant". They are, of course; they're second only to the AVN awards, and as such, Rose is notable enough for an article. ArchieOof (talk) 22:35, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- There's no such thing as "automatic" notability in this context. WP:PEOPLE, which WP:PORNBIO is a part of, says so, flat out, plain as day. There was consensus just this month to delete articles who won prominent awards in downlevel categories, because those categories fell short of the PORNBIO significance standard and little or no RS coverage of the article subject existed. Examples go back for years, under the current version of PORNBIO and even under less rigorous, older versions. Grammy Awards are much more well-known and much more significant than porn industry awards, but some winners in less prominent categories -- eg, album notes, arrangements -- aren't seen as notable. Independent, reliable source coverage matters. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 11:14, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Even accepting that the subject meets PORNBIO, per WP:BIO § Additional criteria, that "does not guarantee that a subject should be included." As the available coverage does not come anywhere near that required by BASIC or GNG, and keeping in mind the "additional criteria" disclaimer and the reasons for the notability requirement, this article should not be retained.
To save us all some time: This is not an IAR vote; it's predicated on the plain text and manifest intent of N and BIO, especially WHYN and WP:NRVE. I also have no moral objections to pornography; and, as a feminist concerned about the gender gap in Wikipedia's coverage, I would prefer to see more, not fewer, articles about women, no matter their subjects' occupations. Rebb ing 12:22, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Rebecca1990 Pwolit iets (talk) 11:25, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. the awards are apparently considered trivial niche awards, in an industry that apparently makes sure that every conceivably justifiable performer gets at least one. In all fields we have the practice of deciding which awards show notability , and I think it;s welllestablished that such awards as these do not. (but fwiw, the website of the awarding organization is a sufficiently reliable source that the awards were in fact awarded--we routinely use sources like that for all sorts of awards). DGG ( talk ) 00:57, 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 delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:31, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vian fernandes

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. Notability is not automatically inherited from membership in Thaikkudam Bridge and there doesn't seem to be any coverage of Fernandes except coverage of TB that mentions he's a member. Article is also extremely promotional. One would expect that an artist as amazing as that depicted in the article would have lots of individual coverage, but this doesn't seem to be the case. ubiquity (talk) 11:59, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:07, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:07, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and my PROD was removed without consulting, still nothing at all actually suggestive and substantial, I still confirm my PROD. SwisterTwister talk 16:18, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Does not meet WP:BASIC. Source searches are only providing passing mentions (e.g. [31]). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:31, 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 keep. SNOW keep as a withdrawal by nominator and closed IAR by him. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:59, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kelly's of Cornwall

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

Basically fleeting mentions in really weak local or barely reliable sources. Yes, we've all seen the TV ad (::groan) but not all companies with a TV ad get a Wikipedia article. And a mini demo in Westminster doesn't do it either. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:38, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep per a news search which you should have done per WP:BEFORE, article was already redlinked from List of ice cream brands which is why I decided to expand it. I have not finished writing this article yet, give me a chance. @Dr. Blofeld:, @Cassianto:, @Sagaciousphil:, can you help? Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:09, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep So notable I regularly choose this brand ;-)♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:13, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A Google news search shows plenty of coverage, in many of Britain's national newspapers, which is supplemented by significant regional coverage. As a result, passes WP:GNG. Joseph2302 11:17, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 11:18, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 11:18, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 11:18, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 11:18, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: A news search shows a number of references in reliable sources - both local and national UK press reports, which make it pass GNG. - SchroCat (talk) 11:27, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Argubaly a notable food. KGirlTrucker81^{talk what I'm been doing} 12:35, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- We have Rossi's, so why not this? Notable company for the area. I can't think why the nominator would want to delete this when they must be aware that it is going through the expansion stage? Still, it's easier to delete it than to actually help out in the research of it, isn't it? Cassianto ^Talk 12:45, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets the notability guide; looks as if it's possible to expand about the earlier company history too. SagaciousPhil - Chat 12:51, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Appears to be notable, I'm surprised that it didn't have an article before today! Good work Ritchie333. On that note, I'm just going to nip round the corner and get some! :) Jeni ^(talk) 14:32, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I may join in you in that (well, in the activity of getting the ice cream, probably not from the same shop!) Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:22, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notable from a Google news search, as echoed for many above. Also, a trout for making me miss my Cornish homeland -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 19:54, 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) 09:21, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nigel Short (disambiguation)

(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 Nigel Short directs readers to the singer, bypassing the dab and rendering it useless. Anarchyte (work | talk) 10:31, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:25, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Boleyn (talk) 11:33, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. That's the long and the short of it. Clarityfiend (talk) 15:51, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This is a textbook case of WP:TWODABS. — Gorthian (talk) 18:00, 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) 09:21, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Taz Boga

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

No indication that this newsreader meets Notability guidelines. A Web search finds just promotional material from the station, social media, and a few passing references. Gronk Oz (talk) 09:12, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable local media personality.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:29, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:16, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:16, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Not notable. Graham (talk) 05:17, 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. There are plenty of suggestions for further development below that may fix any problems with this list. After this has been attempted, Clarityfiend's concerns may be readdressed as their comment raises a potentially valid argument as to the appropriateness of the list's topic. postdlf (talk) 13:21, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of famous people who caught yellow fever

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

"Famous" is WP:POV and such a list has not been the subject of signifcant coverage, and no, that does not include a cross-referencing web tool (see the page's external links). Ergo, this list fails WP:GNG --HyperGaruda (talk) 09:07, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. --HyperGaruda (talk) 09:07, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. --HyperGaruda (talk) 09:07, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. --HyperGaruda (talk) 09:07, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I started this page and will get around to completing it with the rest of the information I have, if that's justification for keeping it. I'll complete it within a month. JuanTamad (talk) 09:14, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:31, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:31, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. "Famous" is a red herring; if someone is sufficiently notable as to merit an article, they are "famous" enough. However, catching some disease is not reason enough for creating a list. There are a few diseases which may merit lists, e.g. List of syphilis cases, because they can affect their lives/minds permanently, but yellow fever isn't one of them, so nobody seems to have split it off from diseases in general. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:33, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just rename the page so it doesn't have the word "famous" in the title, per all the lists in the category Category:Lists of people by medical condition, which this is one of. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 11:45, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The others in the category are long-term conditions. This is short-term. You either recover or you die within 7-10 days apparently.[32] Clarityfiend (talk) 15:57, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and work on a name change. The name seems to be the problem. we have Category:Deaths from yellow fever and this is just the list version which can be annotated and sorted in different ways. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:06, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is not only the name, but also the fact that the list itself is a case of WP:SYNTHESIS (see part 2 of my deletion rationale). Do you really think that there are reliable sources that give such a list? --HyperGaruda (talk) 16:21, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You can flip a coin to decide if references exist, or you can do a Google search like I just did with a random one. No one is going to bother adding references until they know that the list is staying. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:38, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't doubt that there are biographical sources supporting the entries individually, but still none that list them together as a group. --HyperGaruda (talk) 04:50, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Repurpose as List of deaths from Yellow Fever, purging those who survived it. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:30, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:21, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

James Baird (footballer)

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

WP:N, WP:V. Article claimed that he played in the Scottish and Trinidadian leagues, but there does not seem to be evidence of this. I checked the statistical sites for the Scottish clubs and there is no evidence of him playing at a first team level, let alone in a fully professional league. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 07:44, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 08:05, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 08:06, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the last AFD (nearly 10 years ago) did not provide any evidence of notability. This one now has. Giant Snowman 17:16, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's an odd article which reads like a puff piece and Azeem Azam came to mind (especially given that many of the Google hits are interviews rather than match reports). However, I uncovered these match reports from his time playing in the TT Pro League, which is an WP:FPL, so he does pass WP:NFOOTY. Pinging GiantSnowman. Number 5 7 10:39, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:32, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:32, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:32, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the last AFD clearly established played has played in Trinidad league listed in WP:FPL - so why are we here, and why has nominator not pointed out what was wrong with last AFD? TNfitz (talk) 17:05, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article, when I found it, was mostly puffery and full of made-up statistics. I don't see how it meets WP:GNG. Where is the significant coverage in multiple independent sources? Jmorrison230582 (talk) 15:59, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per Number57 passes WP:FOOTY.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 07:43, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes NFOOTY, has played in a fully professional league or in a match in the competition proper (i.e. not qualifying rounds) of a cup competition which involved two teams both from FPLs. Additionally, sources already in the article indicate likelihood of wider GNG. Agree with comments above though that it could do with some copyediting for neutrality. Fenix down (talk) 08:09, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Satisfies WP:NFOOTY and AFD is not cleanup. Smartyllama (talk) 15:55, 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 delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:22, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Debjani Ghosh

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

Cant assess notability here. Her only save here is that she was in 2013, listed by Fortune India amongst the 25 most powerful women in India Uncletomwood (talk) 07:39, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:55, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:55, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as entirely PR, this summarizes it quite clearly since the Fortune claim would still not be actuslly convincing comparably to the noticeable PR. SwisterTwister talk 21:46, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- indeed, this reads like a resume. The only claim to notability is the listing in "Fortune India's 25 most powerful women in India", but this is insufficient to establish notability. Searches do not turn up anything better. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:15, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails GNG. Just another person, doing a daily job; nothing notable about her. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 05:41, 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 speedy deleted G11 by Seraphimblade. (non-admin closure) shoy (reactions) 15:35, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rajesh Patil

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

Non Notable Business personality Uncletomwood (talk) 07:36, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:56, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:56, 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 07:31, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

EYE Magazine

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

This looks like a self published magazine and clearly WP:TOOSOON as it was apparently founded in Jan 2016. I do not see any claim of significance at least in English language sources - in fact I am struggling to find even a reliable source to verify the information. The Facebook page and Twitter confirm my view that it is not a popular well-circulated magazine. Unless someone can come up with information in Bengali, I think this is not notable. -- Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:12, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:TOOSOON and not-notable. Anarchyte (work | talk) 08:23, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:20, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:20, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:20, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:21, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Simply WP:TOOSOON. KGirlTrucker81^{talk what I'm been doing} 22:25, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: Notability is not established and simply WP:TOOSOON. ~ Moheen ^(talk) 20:34, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable and appears to be promotional. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 05:42, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:17, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

TGV (Throbbing Gristle DVD set)

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

Does not appear to satisfy the notability criteria. FamblyCat94 (talk) 06:30, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Covered by WIRE in issue 288 (Feb 2008), briefly in The Guardian, and in Marc Masters; book No Wave. Would very likely have got reviewed in several other music magazines. --Michig (talk) 20:14, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:59, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Marginal keep per Michig. Failing that, redirect to discography - David Gerard (talk) 13:29, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per the reliable sources identified above so that WP:GNG is passed Atlantic306 (talk) 15:11, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 05:44, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Crashlytics

AfDs for this article:

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

PROD removed and, unfortunately not G4 material so here we are again; there's nothing at all substantial as the sources are simply PR, trivial, interviews and other unconvincing sources; searches are not finding better apart from this. SwisterTwister talk 06:12, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:13, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:26, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:26, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:27, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Meets WP:CORPDEPTH. See source examples below, which consist of bylined news articles written by staff writers that have been published in independent, reliable sources. Note that these are not press releases, as evidenced in part by utilizing Google searches using the titles of these article, in which links are only present for these articles themselves, as opposed to press releases, which typically have the same article hosted on many various websites. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:34, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

The Boston Globe
TechCrunch
TechCrunch
TechCrunch
Mashable
TechCrunch
TechCrunch
Business Insider

Keep - clearly notable as being Twitter's largest acquisition, although it is troubling that the most cited usage statistic can't be corroborated without the company's blog post. How is this tool on two billion phones? I'm thinking the article is saying that apps using this tool are on two billion phones. One would assume Twitter is one app but it would be nice to see some hard validation of this and other apps that use the tool.Timtempleton (talk) 17:43, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A few edits have been made but the article's stunning usage claims still need to be independently sourced. Even without them I'm reiterating my keep vote.Timtempleton (talk) 18:55, 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 Thee Majesty. (non-admin closure) —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:15, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Never Wanted Jesus

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

Does not appear to satisfy the notability criteria. FamblyCat94 (talk) 06:04, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Thee Majesty. Not enough found to justify an article, but worth a redirect. --Michig (talk) 06:16, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:44, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Thee Majesty. Agreed with Michig. Does not satisfy the notability criteria, but a redirect would be worthwhile. Aoba47 (talk) 14:35, 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. SNOW, but see my comment at the bottom of the discussion. DGG ( talk ) 02:57, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Willamette Valley Vineyards

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

As mentioned with my PROD, all of this is all simply expected sources about a local vineyard, consisting of local event listings, PR, interviews, funding news, local cases of local happenings, even the "largest Riesling wine company" of that area is still questionable for making this the needed substance. SwisterTwister talk 04:58, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wine-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:01, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:01, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:01, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:01, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to closer – I was still working on adding sources, copy editing, etc., and the nominator just came along and nominated for deletion in the middle of this. It would have been nice to have had more time to work on the article. See also WP:OVERZEALOUS. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:02, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Meets WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:AUD, the latter of which per having received national news coverage, book coverage, coverage in other U.S. states, and statewide coverage in the state of Oregon. More sources are available in addition to the examples I have listed below. Also, the description in the nomination about the sources is rather erroneous, inaccurate and subjective, as is over-usage of the word "local", and is based upon favoring deletion from the start. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:25, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

"The People's Pinot Noir: Crowd-Funded Wine From Willamette Valley Vineyards". Forbes. May 6, 2016. Retrieved August 13, 2016. (WP:AUD, national coverage, not "local")
Sodomka, Dennis (January 20, 2016). "Wine Time: Willamette Valley Vineyards Whole Cluster Pinot Noir 2014, Oregon". The Augusta Chronicle. (WP:AUD: Based in Georgia)
"Tasters' choice: Willamette Valley Vineyards, Wild Horse wines - Wine Novice". The Sun. May 24, 2012. (WP:AUD: Based in Massachusetts)
"Visionary drives Willamette Valley Vineyards". The Oregonian. February 19, 2010. (WP:AUD: Statewide coverage)
Perry, V.; Vincent, J.; Schlesinger, S.; Peterson-Nedry, H. (2013). Winemakers of the Willamette Valley: Pioneering Vintners from Oregon's Wine Country. American Palate. History Press. pp. 147–. ISBN 978-1-60949-676-0. (subscription required) (WP:AUD: National coverage)
"Focused on Oregon's Great Wine Terroirs". Wine Spectator. (WP:AUD: National coverage)
Panichkul, Victor (June 1, 2015). "Willamette Valley Vineyards heads to Walla Walla". Statesman Journal.
Panichkul, Victor (August 19, 2015). "Willamette Valley Vineyards raising $6 million". Statesman Journal.
"Willamette Valley Vineyards sues Five Cent Farm". Statesman Journal. July 25, 2015.
"Willamette Valley Vineyards Files Lawsuit Over Pinot Noir Killed by Drifting Pesticides". Wine Spectator. (WP:AUD: National coverage)
Statesman Journal

Keep This is not a winery with just run-of-the-mill local coverage. This is a winery recognized regionally and nationally for excellent products and a unique funding mechanism. Very few wineries are listed on the NASDAQ. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:45, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's having its own acceptable sources to keep. Jessie1979 (talk) 13:04, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[Revert as per WP:BLOCKEVASION using strikethrough font. 21:47, 13 November 2016 (UTC)]

Keep - I am not a wine person, but I see news coverage of this publicly traded company fairly often. I know we do not have a guideline that says companies trading on the NYSE, NASDAQ, and the major foreign stock markets should automatically pass GNG, but a common sense approach is that most will pass the GNG. Aboutmovies (talk) 19:38, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - What I seeing here is expect coverage for things such as event listings, pricing and client information, funding and financing, etc. None of that is actually substantial or convincing. SwisterTwister talk 20:17, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@SwisterTwister: Request that you take a third look at this one.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:59, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is no special guideline for a WP:CORP, businesses just have to have the same range of coverage as any other entity to pass WP:GNG. This large, commercial vineyard gets a lot of regional coverage Statesman Journal, The Oregonian and so forth, but also some in out of region publications (example: feature story LATimes:[33]) , and, overall, enough pops up even in a simple news search to establish notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:18, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per WP:LISTED. A publicly traded company will almost always have sufficient coverage to meet NCOPR. Sources presented at this AfD are compelling. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:59, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per above but it is a good idea for future contributors to this article to avoid promotional-sounding content.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:45, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as satisfying GNG. In finding the requisite significant coverage in multiple independent, reliable sources, I rely primarily on the Tims^[1] and Panichkul^[2] pieces provided by Northamerica1000 above, with the remaining, possibly less significant, coverage supplying the balance.
Even though this looked to be a clear "keep," I spent about ten minutes doing my own research verifying the sources and re-reading the relevant guidelines before voting, which I suspect is far more than the nominator invested. In light of the multitude of qualifying sources presented in this discussion, many of which would have been found during a pre-nomination BEFORE, I strongly admonish the nominator to show more caution and restraint in future and to research subjects before nominating. Frivolous nominations like this waste a significant amount of the community's time, energy, and good faith.
I would also like to point out that audience (broader than local coverage) is an ORG/CORP requirement but does not apply to considerations under GNG. As organizations may satisfy GNG instead of ORG,^[3] exclusively local coverage is not preclusive of notability. Rebb ing 13:05, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the next editor along can close this WP:SNOWBALL., or @SwisterTwister: can do other editors the courtesy of withdrawing. E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:52, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment it is notable, but most of it was originally written by the firm itself and a rather obvious sockpuppet. The version they produced [34]was in my opinion a reasonable G11, and prodding it was conservative.However, NorthAmerica1000 fixed it, and that should have been realized before nominating for AfD. It's been fixed further, and it's less promotional than many of our other articles in this field, which reflects some of the manner of writing about wine in the RW. DGG ( talk ) 02:56, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Dana Tims, Visionary Drives Willamette Valley Vineyards, The Oregonian, Feb. 19, 2010.
^ Victor Panichkul, Willamette Valley Vineyards Heads to Walla Walla, Statesman J., June 1, 2015.
^ WP:ORG § Alternate criteria for specific types of organizations.

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

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

The result was speedy delete. —Cryptic 05:50, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Buggy (film)

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

No indication that this movie actually exists. Searching for "Buggy 2017 film", "Buggy French film", etc all bring up no results except the article. Possible HOAX. Anarchyte (work | talk) 03:51, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Anarchyte (work | talk) 03:51, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above deletion debate is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 21:41, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

William McBrien Building

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

Non-notable building (built for a non-notable purpose...) designed by an architect who has an article here (Charles B. Dolphin) but appears himself to be hardly notable at all. No references prove notability, and the Google hits are negligible--including Google Book hits. Drmies (talk) 01:23, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:08, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No possible notability. There will always be real estate notices for any commercial building, but few of them will actually be notable . Not worth redirecting to the architect, as it's not a significant work. DGG ( talk ) 04:33, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:55, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:55, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:55, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final Relist -- Dane2007 ^talk 03:15, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Dane2007 ^talk 03:15, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Although I am tempted to argue that a building described as a "'Stygian hellhole' with some employees working in spaces akin to 'veal crates.'" must be notable, I am forced to concede that this is just unusually colorful local coverage, and that this particular hellhole does not quite rise to the level of notability. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:54, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Gets coverage in works like The TTC Story and there seem to be plenty of alternatives to deletion. Andrew D. (talk) 17:16, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Serving as the head office of a notable government agency is not a claim of notability that hands a building an automatic inclusion freebie on Wikipedia, if reliable source coverage about the building is lacking. But there's only one reliable source here that's about the building — the other reliable source is about a tangential plan to move to another building while not really talking about this building at all, and the only other source here is a primary one — and one source is not enough to satisfy WP:GNG. I'm willing to reconsider this if somebody can pony up much better sourcing than has been shown here, but nothing present in the article as written is enough. Bearcat (talk) 17:21, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this is a historic and significant structure in the city. A Google search on the term can yield credible information, which can be used to expand the article. — EelamStyleZ (talk) 02:11, 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 redirect to Justin Mauriello. (non-admin closure) —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:07, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Justin Sings the Hits

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

Unreferenced tracklist Rathfelder (talk) 23:34, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Justin Mauriello. No real coverage found, nothing suggests an article is justified. --Michig (talk) 07:22, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:56, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:56, 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 00:32, 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 02:26, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Justin Mauriello. I looked for and could not find any material coverage that would suggest notability.--Rpclod (talk) 02:30, 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 Television crew. Per WP:NPASR (non-admin closure) —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:06, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A2 (remote television production)

AfDs for this article:

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

I couldn't verify its WP:NOTABILITY. First AfD only closed as no consensus due to zero responses. Hopefully, this time we can get it sorted. Boleyn (talk) 22:23, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:39, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:39, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Would not this be better covered under the currently-redlinked audio assistant, into which A2 (theater) could be merged? This seems like undersourced jargon, not like something made up. Jclemens (talk) 03:51, 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 00:33, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Television crew. Not notable enough on its own. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:33, 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 02:26, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - this one is difficult. I can find a lot of non-authoritative references and it seems like an article that might be of significant interest to a number of readers. But does the lack of clear authoritative references make it non-notable?--Rpclod (talk) 02:40, 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. MBisanz ^talk 21:41, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Morin

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

Fails WP:NBIO. Article has been unsourced for nearly 9 years. Unable to find significant coverage from reliable secondary sources. Note: Different person from Ubisoft developer. The1337gamer (talk) 21:34, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. The1337gamer (talk) 21:35, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. The1337gamer (talk) 21:35, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:35, 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 02:25, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Seems like a guy doing good work, but nothing notable.--Rpclod (talk) 02:43, 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. czar 03:03, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fighting Illusion: K-1 GP 2000

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

Fails WP:GNG. Unable to find significant coverage from reliable independent sources. The1337gamer (talk) 21:21, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. The1337gamer (talk) 21:21, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:35, 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 02:24, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I found no authoritative references.--Rpclod (talk) 02:46, 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. Michig (talk) 07:45, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hala Khalaf

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

Entirely promotional Rathfelder (talk) 20:21, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:34, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:34, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:34, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:34, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete She is a free lance journalist for whom there is no indication of significant impact.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:04, 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 00:36, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but with some heavy editing to remove the promotional language, and adding some sources to substantiate the only notable things in the article: that she won a prize for her journalism and that she published a book about diabetes. If there's anything else in her career that's notable then it should be included (definitely not her opinion on Arab hospitality!) but there's no need to delete when paring back will do. TrickyH (talk) 23:28, 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 02:24, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this seems to be self-promotion. No authoritative references are provided.--Rpclod (talk) 02:48, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not finding much on searches, she's young, so it;s may simply be WP:TOOSOON.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:21, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- searches do not bring up anything substantial. The subject was a contributor to the book Voices of Diabetes but that's about it. WP:TooSoon may apply. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:08, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails GNG. This article is purely promotional and has no encyclopedia value. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 05:52, 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 keep. the consensus is clear after the additional sources have been found. DGG ( talk ) 17:33, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Shelley Webb

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

Still nothing actually suggestive of convincing independent notability, I still confirm my removed PROD. SwisterTwister talk 17:41, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 17:49, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What coverage of Webb and/or her book did you find from your WP:BEFORE searches? --Michig (talk) 18:07, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:48, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:48, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:48, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:49, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable journalist and writer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:36, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnpacklambert and SwisterTwister:, would you be willing to reconsider this one?E.M.Gregory (talk)

Keep I had no trouble coverage of her and her book, plus the fact that, according to the Globe and Mail, a hit BBC series Footballers Wives was based on the book. Article needs rewrite, sourcing - what else is new? E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:19, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A confession and an hypothesis I just realized that I had keyed Webb into the search bar incorrectly: Shelly instead of the correct Shelley. This answers my puzzlement over the fact that the sourcing was incredibly persuasive, but very surprisingly scant. Correct spelling turns up copious book reviews, feature story coverage. My hypothesis is that Nom probably committed the same typo. If that is not the case, Nom's PROD and this AFD sink from extremely careless WP:BEFORE search, to utterly inexplicable editing. You do have to add a keyword because there are a lot of Shelleys Webb out there, and book, TV series were a few years ago.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:32, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Articles like this one from 1997: "Star Splits from Wife Who Found Fame on Her Own" : " AS Neil Webb's career began to wane, his wife's was taking off. Sports presenter Shelley Webb suddenly found their roles reversed as the former England soccer star, unable to hit form after a devastating ankle injury, became 'Mr Mum', staying home to look after the children while her job offers poured in...." found by clicking highbeam searchbar above.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:49, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It was neither a typo or "sinking", it was the fact that both general searches and WorldCat were showing nothing better (WorldCat only lists 95 libraries, not nearly enough). Although the article may seem somewhat better now, it's only surviving by the fact of the few pieces of attention for her book. SwisterTwister talk 16:19, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the profile cited just above, is from a profile published in a major daily paper the year BEFORE Webb's book. 2.) That libraries routinely discard popular titles after a few years, as I assume they did with this onetime hit book, a search of WorldCat time limited to ~1999 would be more useful. 3.) I appended merely a source or 2 to the article, which still needs a major edit and sourcing. All that I am arguing here is that sourcing exists. E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:00, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:37, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:55, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (strike Delete)-- yes, the book Footballers' Wives Tell Their Tales was popular and had a TV show made from it, ~~but this alone is not sufficient notability for an author of the book. She's otherwise not notable.~~ E.M.Gregory's sources sufficiently establish notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:28, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sourced article to in-depth interviews about her and her career, more or less randomly used a handful of the in-depth interviews/profiled about her. The Times, The Guardian, The Daily Telegraph more exist. as do more reviews of her book. Lots more press coverage form which article can be expanded. I used a proquest archive search since many of these article were published in ~20 years ago. Writing a popular book and having it made into a TV show that runs for several years does pass WP:AUTHOR, but do note the several interviews I have added, and the fact that more exist. Details of her life can certainly be sourced.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:53, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Looks to be the subject of at least some articles and the book is apparently notable. Not my kind of thing, but seems almost an easy keep.--T. Anthony (talk) 01:41, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Ms. Webb's book, Footballers' Wives Tell Their Tales, is "significant or well-known" as evidenced by its adaptation for a major television show. The cited Telegraph and BBC News articles, while somewhat shaky, appear to be enough to show that the book is "the subject of . . . multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." Therefore, the subject satisfies NAUTHOR point 3. Rebb ing 03:34, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the question at AFD is not "do sources now in the article suffice?" but, rather, "do the RS that exist in the world suffice?" The reviews I added are neither the sole, nor necessarily the most dispositive, of those that came up on searches, just 2 that happened to come up on a particular set of keywords and that I happened to pick. I have zero interest in this writer; less in football. I do think that some editors bring articles to AFD without WP:BEFORE, that some iVote without searching for sources, and thiat this is unfair to some subjects, such as writer's whose careers took place in the 20th century or earlier, or who have non-unique names, and who therefore may not come up on a quick google search. The implication that unless the sources are on the page, and, sometimes, that unless the article has been edited to remove the WP:PROMO aspects so many articles begin with, changes the nature of AFD. This requires an enormous time investment, an investment far beyond the relatively simple 20-30 minute process of figuring out the proper keywords to use in searching a news archives, figuring out which archives to search, and bringing a sampling of those sources to AFD or to the page itself. (see, for example, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrew Peterson (author), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Susman.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:45, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:24, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep E.M.Gregory has made a compelling case here, and I agree. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:06, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with E.M.Gregory ----Metaphorical analysis (talk) 20:24, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, concerned that once again a nom is (gently?) criticised for not having carried out WP:BEFORE, although recommended they are not actually required to do so, rather the WP:BURDEN is on the editors who add information (especially for blps) to provide sources (but coola, what about the older articles when they didn't need them? oh:)), and to be even more pedantic doesn't WP:AUTHOR point 3 talk of a significant or well-known work having been the subject of a feature-length film not a tv series? anyway, with that rant out of the way:)) this is a keep with multiple reviews/sources, reflected now in the article, thanks to E.M.Gregory (also agree with them about the time it can take to 'rescue' these articles ... if only the creators included enough reliable sourcess in the first place .. sigh ..}. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:35, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- NAUTHOR point 3 requires that the work "must have been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." My vote was predicated on the second alternative. Rebb ing 15:43, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Coolabahapple and Rebbing: Are you up for revising that guideline? To recognize that books do become notable when TV series are based on them; I would want consider how major the TV series has to be.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:04, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - I see no reason to limit the deriviative work to specific media types as long as the first work is a primary subject of the derivative work as a whole, not just a short chapter or single episode. I would support amending the language to: "In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of an independent work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but not a single episode of a television series) or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." Rebb ing 16:37, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - @Rebbing:, I like that wording. Do you want to propose it at Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)?E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:41, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        I think I will. I'll ping you two when I do. Rebb ing 00:50, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - @Rebbing:, @E.M.Gregory:, i would support such wording with perhaps a clarifying footnote that such an independent work is itself notable so in general no 2min student films. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:52, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        Completely agreed. How about: "In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work (for example, a notable book, film, or television series, but not a single episode of a television series) or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews."? Rebb ing 00:50, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I stand corrected for my failure of courtesy towards SwisterTwister.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:04, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Even if it's not actually required by the guideline ("Prior to nominating article(s) for deletion, please be sure to: . . . .[s]earch for additional sources, if the main concern is notability[.]"), I think the community expects that nominators complete BEFORE part (D) when notability is the reason for deletion, if for no other reason than to spare themselves embarrassment. Rebb ing 16:37, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - acknowledge this is so, also that editors need to heed WP:ARTN, that "Article content does not determine notability", when thinking about nominating. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:52, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - Definitely! That should be like AFD 101. I follow that advice anytime I'm at AFD except when it comes to borderline-notable subjects whose articles would need to be completely rewritten (not merely trimmed) not to be promotional: I don't think PR firms should get a "buy one, get one free" article off us. Otherwise, before deleting, I always spend several minutes with the "find sources" links (and add additional ones if the subject could be known by a different name or needs distinguishing keywords, e.g., "'Jane Smith' Ontario soccer"). I still manage to vote "delete" most of the time, but it's never based on whim. Rebb ing 00:50, 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 keep. Sources brought forward here seem to indicate notability, as does the WP:NACTOR claims. These sources should probably be used in the article, though. This was already relisted twice and the second one brought no further commentary, so another relist is probably pointless. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:26, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Godon

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

PROD removed with the apparent basis of not using PROD but he's still not notable considering there's simply nothing major listed go suggest convincing substance. SwisterTwister talk 17:41, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What did your WP:BEFORE searches find? --Michig (talk) 18:06, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:51, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:51, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete we cannot have an article sourced only to IMDb.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:54, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per lack of WP:BEFORE. I have not made indepht searches in Belgian/French sources, I only looked at the French version of the article /[35]) and it includes a half dozen articles about Godon, all of them apparent examples of significant coverage from independent reliable sources including major publications such as La Dernière Heure and Le Soir ([36], [37], [38], [39], [40]). Also, many if roles, even if rarely leading roles, are actually prominent and significant, eg. A Secret, Le Lièvre de Vatanen, Nothing to Declare, Erased, La chance de ma vie, Fishing Without Nets, The Long Falling, so I don't see how he fails WP:NACTOR requirements. Cavarrone 19:25, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:38, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Coverage identified above indicates notability. --Michig (talk) 06:25, 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 02:22, 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) Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 05:54, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Carolina Calvache

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

PROD removed with the basis of the one best news source being enough but the user must not have considered I can fluently read that article and it's simply trivial average , all of the sources listed are either simply interviews, event listings or trivial mentions thus still not enough substance. SwisterTwister talk 17:41, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Personally I find the following coverage sufficient to establish notability: [41], [42], [43], [44], [45], [46]. --Michig (talk) 18:18, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:52, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:52, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll just point out that source [4] of Michig's list is in fact a direct translation of the first part of source [5]. Nevertheless, there's probably enough in the other sources to keep the article. I had a look through the online archives of Colombian newspapers, but even the national daily which is based in her home city of Cali, El País, only mentions a couple of concert date annnouncements. Richard3120 (talk) 23:21, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:38, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per Michig. Also another source here. Plus El Diario source in article currently. She meets the WP:GNG in my view.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:43, 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 02:22, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the subject has one album and one performance. Not enough for notability.--Rpclod (talk) 02:51, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it's not about how many albums an artist has, it's how much coverage they have so they can pass GNG. She is covered internationally and over time in a non-trivial way. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 22:46, 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 Terry Poison. (non-admin closure) —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:51, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bruno Grife

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

Non-notable musician. Grife has been credited on a movie soundtrack, for which he won an award at ScremFest, a film festival of questionable notability. There is no evidence of any significant independent coverage of this artist. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:33, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: ScreamFest well known horror film awards festival with confirmed page at Wikipedia, also Bruno Idan Grife took part at one of the famous Israel band Terry Poison, he made all production there and his music took part at Warner Brother's blockbuster movie "Final Destination 5". Delorius (talk) 16:55, 30 July 2016 (GMT)

Comment @Delorius: The notability of ScreamFest LA is questionable (and the article has been nominated for its own AFD based on this). And while Grife's music may have been included in the soundtrack of Final Destination 5, it was just two of many songs used in that soundtrack. As always, the bottom line is evidence of significant coverage, and for Grife, there does not appear to be any. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:15, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:08, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:08, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:52, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and merge to Terry Poison. He is know as a member of the group. No prejudice to recreate an article, in case there will be more independent sources in the future. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 11:49, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:20, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to Terry Poison. Reference 1 from 2009 does not appear to even mention the subject. Reference 2 references "Idan Grife" and nothing indicates this is even the same person. Even, this is only once and in a list. Reference 3 mentions this subject in a list. Nothing suggests notability.--Rpclod (talk) 03:01, 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. -- Tavix ^(talk) 22:21, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vaishnavi (Kannada actress)

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

Fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 12:45, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:06, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:06, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:53, 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 02:20, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nom and no references.--Rpclod (talk) 03:03, 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. The one "keep" opinion does not cite any actual sources that could help determine notability. Sandstein 07:31, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Chiroldes

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

I speedied this twice, but it now has references of sorts. He appears to not meet Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Entertainers, but it's not a clear-cut delete-on-sight now Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:31, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:10, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:10, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:53, 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 02:20, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - does not appear to meet WP:NACTOR criteria.--Rpclod (talk) 03:06, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Has multiple references on Wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Farwest110 (talk • contribs) 06:35, 13 August 2016 (UTC) — Farwest110 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

WP:BITE Yes I am new. I have no agenda or connection to the subject. Just would like to contribute to the encyclopedia what I feel is a worthy entry. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Farwest110 (talk • contribs) 05:16, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is no bite. WP:SPA is just a normal designation for someone who has contributed primarily to one subject. FYI, multiple Wikipedia references provides no weight. Look at the WP:NACTOR criteria. If you can include some authoritative references that demonstrate that NACTOR criteria are met, the article might be saved. I think those who acted in Mr. Roger's Neighborhood are great, but - as it currently stands - there is insufficient indicia of notability. By the way, signing your comments with your registered name tends to provide credibility. Just click on the signature icon at the top of the edit box when you are done editing. I appreciate your efforts and am providing this comment in the hopes it helps as constructive criticism.--Rpclod (talk) 23:59, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the feedback. This actor has also appeared prominently on two Broadway musicals and in notable movies and television shows. He is well known and has won awards for his voice-over work by Audiofile magazine. I will edit later as I am unable to at the moment. I feel this qualifies him. Please KEEP the article. Thank you. --Farwest110 (talk • contribs) 08:37, 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 no consensus. Sandstein 07:29, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Guinea-Bissau–North Korea relations

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

fails WP:GNG. there is no evidence of significant ongoing relationship between these 2 countries. There was only one leader visit and that was in 1977. Article makes the grand claim that north Korea "provided significant military, political and diplomatic aid to the African Party for the Independence of Guinea and Cape Verde". My own searches found zero evidence of this . With search results coming back to this WP page. LibStar (talk) 10:47, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 July 30. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:03, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:10, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:10, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:10, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@LibStar: information about that significant support during the Cold War checks out and can be found exactly where the article says: Peter Karibe Mendy; Lobban Jr. (17 October 2013). Historical Dictionary of the Republic of Guinea-Bissau. Scarecrow Press. p. 172. ISBN 978-0-8108-8027-6.. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:27, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
~~Undecided~~ Delete I dunno. There's some content in sources, but it usually lumps North Korea with other communist countries (including in the Historical Dictionary linked above). The result is that we know North Korea had an Africa policy that impacted Guinea-Bissau (but more so Mozambique and others) and we know that Guinea-Bissau got aid from the various communist countries (including North Korea, but not disaggregated to any substantive extent). But: in terms of direct Guinea-Bissau to North Korea relations unique to those two countries: the content is severely lacking. My rule of thumb on applying GNG is: If a wikipedia stub/start is the best thing written on a topic, then it probably should be deleted. The content unique to the relations between these two countries does not appear to pass GNG. (Usual disclaimer: came from Africa alerts, unaffiliated editor). (EDIT: Went over it all today and do not find enough specific North Korea-Guinea-Bissau coverage to pass GNG. So yeah.) AbstractIllusions (talk) 05:40, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Foreign relations of Guinea-Bissau and Foreign relations of North Korea – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 12:19, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

merging can only have a 1 destination page LibStar (talk) 13:36, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Then merge to either and copy to the other. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:50, 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 00:53, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Soft Keep I feel conflicted on this. Admittedly, most of the sources tend to discuss North Korea−Guinea-Bissau relations within the context of Cold War geopolitics. That said, although the relationship doesn't appear to have been of compelling importance in the broad sweep of history, in the context of Guinea-Bissau, I think it might be worth noting. At the time of this posting, the article doesn't make the broad claim that North Korea was a significant player in Guinea-Bissau, so I don't think it's overstating things. It seems well-sourced and worth a mention, both within the context of North Korea's engagement with Africa, and with Guinea-Bissau's history in particular. Tigercompanion25 (talk) 04:13, 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 02:19, 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 no consensus. (non-admin closure) Yellow Dingo (talk) 07:36, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Live at the Jazz Café

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

Does not appear to satisfy the notability criteria. FamblyCat94 (talk) 07:13, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to ProjeKcts if further coverage isn't found. If someone could dig up more sources it could be kept but a merge is probably best otherwise. --Michig (talk) 15:12, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the allmusic review is a reliable source, more sources would be helpful Atlantic306 (talk) 06:12, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:12, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:54, 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 02:19, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 05:56, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

King Crimson Live in Mainz

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

Does not appear to satisfy the notability criteria. FamblyCat94 (talk) 06:53, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A quick Google search found reviews from Allmusic ([47]) and SPIN ([48]). It seems likely that more coverage exists. --Michig (talk) 15:02, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:13, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:13, 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 00:58, 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 02:18, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Don't delete, expand. A fact not included here is this mail-order only release was repackaged for sale in brick-and-mortar stores as The Collectible King Crimson Volume One ... if there is not enough to say about individual KCCC releases, maybe compile them all into one big page? but there's a lot of them by now, several dozen, so thatd be one unwieldy page J Edward Malone (talk) 15:13, 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. (WP:NPASR). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:02, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dahani

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

No references. No information can be found on the web relating to the subject while doing a search for "Dahani" or "Dahani tribe". —Latchem 05:35, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:06, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:06, 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 00:59, 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 02:18, 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. -- Tavix ^(talk) 22:15, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kiirya Eria

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

Subject doesn't appear to meet WP:NACTOR. Adam9007 (talk) 02:17, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I noticed this earlier, I frankly would've PRODed instead, nothing at all actually substantial. SwisterTwister talk 02:27, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nomination. --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 18:44, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:18, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:18, 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. (non-admin closure) —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:24, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Loryn Locklin

AfDs for this article:

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

Notability: significant RS coverage cannot be found; a stub article on a minor actress which has been tagged "Notability" since 2008. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:42, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:35, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:35, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Her major film roles may have been some time ago, but are still sufficient for inclusion and are easily verified (try Google Books). --Michig (talk) 06:21, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm not disputing that he had a major role in a movie. But the sources I see do not amount to "significant coverage" to satisfy GNG. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:33, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Entertainers for generally accepted notability criteria. --Michig (talk) 08:52, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The guidelines state: "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable (...). Additional guidelines (i.e. Entertainer): People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards. Meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included."

Note that the guideline discuss presumed notability that needs to be demonstrated though significant coverage. This coverage appears to be missing in this case; that's why I nominated this article for AfD. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:22, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Coverage is likely to exist from the 1980s and 1990s and is likely to only exist offline. --Michig (talk) 18:35, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The coverage has not manifested itself in the eight intervening years since the article has been tagged "Notability", so it's unlikely that it would. The current sources are not sufficient for an encyclopedia article. K.e.coffman (talk) 09:19, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Coverage generally does not simply "manifest itself", it requires editors to search for it, in this case in print sources from the 1980s and 1990s. --Michig (talk) 10:27, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:NACTOR criteria one ( only one criteria is needed) rs confirm the film roles, offline sources would be helpful as so much webcontent has been deleted (ie a lot of pages from NY Times) or are behind paywalls.Atlantic306 (talk) 16:23, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:17, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the rationale of Atlantic306 that she has starring roles in multiple, notable films and meets the notability guideline for Actors via criteria 1. Easily confirmed. BoyRD (talk) 03:17, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect (by nom) to Fortress (1992 film). All coverage I see on Locklin is related to this movie.

Books, such as Sci-Fi Movie guide.
Newspapers
Movie reviews.

This appears to be a case of WP:BIO1E. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:36, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes NACTOR with multiple named roles. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:14, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Easily passes WP:NACTOR requirements, which is easily verifiable: it's not just Fortress, it's also Taking Care of Business (see Arxiloxos 's sources in previous AfD), and others (eg. [49], [50], [51]). The proper place for disputing the NACTOR guideline or other SNGs is not here but the relevant guidelines' talk pages (others tried to remove the NACTOR criteria and failed, and I currently don't see any chances to have such notability criteria removed). Cavarrone 17:44, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Adequate indicia of notability, though much from AGF on print sources. Yet another example of pre-Google notability and recentism. Montanabw^(talk) 16:04, 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. Looking through the debate it really centres on the arguments of Tokyogirl79, Lizzymartin and the interjection from Spirit of Eagle. This is one of those articles that pushes the boundaries of the policies and guidance that apply, the WP:GNG, WP:NOTNEWS and WP:EP. A close reading of the debate sees Tokyogirl79 state: "In the end I'm not going to lose sleep if this gets kept", which to my mind demonstrates the grey area this article exists in. Numerous articles have been cited as examples within the debate as having been kept and deleted, so prior precedence is hard to determine, and equally should not be defined by this debate. To quote the Editing Policy previously linked, "Wikipedia is here to provide summaries of accepted knowledge to the public", and the article summarises accepted knowledge, and maintains reasonable sourcing. Wikipedia is a work in progress. Interested editors are free to revisit this article in time, and reassess the situation, and even form a consensus on the talk page as to the mooted merge discussed below. Hiding T 10:48, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

MacGyver the Lizard

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

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

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

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

I came across this as an A7 nomination by Arthistorian1977, however there was enough coverage to where an A7 didn't really apply. The article's creator (Lizzymartin) said that she was still adding coverage so I figured that I'd wait a while before nominating, assuming that no one else did.

A look at the coverage in the article shows that the coverage here was written over a fairly short period of time over the summer. The lizard is mildly popular on social media, however his fan following hasn't received enough coverage or notice to where it'd be considered the same as say, the Star Trek fandom, which is what MacGyver would need to pass that portion of WP:ENTERTAINER. There was a mention on the talk page of coverage from as early as 2012, however the only link provided was a self-published blog source and I can't find any coverage that was put out earlier than 2016.

I have no true problem with this being userfied in case more coverage becomes available in the future, but offhand this looks to be your typical news story about a cute animal/lizard that gets a small amount of coverage but not enough to warrant a Wikipedia article. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:15, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If by some chance we do have some of his fans coming in here, please understand that this isn't personal and it's not me trying to be a buzzkill, it's just that notability is extremely difficult to establish on Wikipedia, especially for animals and for social media related topics, let alone a topic that is a mixture of the two. Also, please read over WP:NOTAVOTE. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:17, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

- - I don’t want to make too big a deal about this, but the assertion that a subject of multiple catagories increases the difficulty of obtaining notebility is plainly false. You can not say about Barrack Obama: “It is difficult for a president to be notable. It is difficult for an African American to be notable. Therefor, it is more difficult for an African American president to be notable.” If all African Americans are notable, then Obama is notable. If all presidents are notable, then Obama is notable. In the worst case, the threshold of notability is the lowest threshold of any of the applicable catagories. In the best case, being the subject of multiple catagories INCREASES notability, such as in the case of Obama being an African American president. Lizzymartin (talk) 01:11, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify and wait for some additional coverage to surface. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 10:10, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:51, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:52, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:52, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:52, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep Our notability standards for YouTube celebrities seem pretty low. I see no reason why we should be stricter to lizards than to rappers and dreadful pranksters. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:53, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
keep I believe this article passes the WP:GNG. MacGyver has been the topic ("significant coverage") of multiple publications by reliable, independent, sources. I do not believe any argument can be made that this is a case of WP:ONEEVENT, as none of the coverage is related to any event. He has not gained temporary notability as a result of any event, but rather has received this coverage as a result of already being notable. In my opinion, this alone is enough for a keep vote. In addition though, I think an argument could be made that he also passes under WP:ENT (2. Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following) as well. I do not believe a standard of "Trekkies" should be applied, as absolutely nothing other than Star Trek would pass this test. A WP:ENT (3. Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment) argument is also possible, as he is the only reptile (unique) with any significant fan following as a result of creating videos (very unique) that show reptiles as cute, friendly, animals. He is well known throughout the reptile community for changing public opinion on reptiles. (Note: I am the article author. I believe I am being completely objective, but take my arguments as you will) Lizzymartin (talk) 22:18, 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 02:15, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

keep It should be clear that this article should be exempt from deletion due to WP:GNG. It is not the case that it is a WP:ONEEVENT relative to the channel - the articles do not all point to just a single video, but rather the channel as a whole. It is not the case that it is a WP:ONEEVENT relative to press coverage - news outlets each published separate articles over the course of several months. I cannot comment on the validity of the article as WP:ENT since I am somewhat unfamiliar with the fanbase, but it is not correct to set the Star Trek fandom as a minimum or even as something that MacGyver the Lizard's should be near - the Star Trek fandom is unusually large and developed as far as "significant cult followings" go. I think that it is important to weigh each of these aspects not individually, but together. The news outlet coverage of the channel, compounded with its ever-increasing popularity and fanbase, certainly qualify it as a valid Wikipedia article. 2600:8801:D304:F100:3623:87FF:FE58:1510 (talk) 22:55, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
keep Clearly passes WP:GNG New baba (talk) 20:37, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

keep This obviously meets Wikipedia notability standards. Saadsalman37 (talk) 17:27, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep nominating it under A7 criteria is utterly baseless. Whole content of page is well cited with references. The animal is significant enough that it received over 10 million view on Youtube. MacGyver the Lizard has become a public figure. The animal is covered by notable news media i.e The Daily Telegraph, Daily Mail, China Times. It must be kept from deletion. Umais Bin Sajjad (talk) 09:29, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
AfD is not the same as speedy deletion. The issue here is that the coverage in reliable sources for the lizard has been fairly recent - the coverage prior to this has been in places that Wikipedia would consider to be unreliable. Now when it comes to a cult following, the expectation is that the following will have received a sizable amount of coverage, enough to where it could possibly merit an article on its own. This has not been met with this, as there's very little coverage for MacGyver overall and his fanbase is actually quite small. I would also argue against criteria three of entertainer, as the coverage also does not establish how he has made a unique contribution to the field of animal performers. Being the first or one of the few to do something (ie, lizards on social media) is not always something that will give notability - what you need here is to show where the coverage for MacGyver is heavy and in-depth enough to show that he's notable, which again has not been established. I'll post a rundown of the sourcing in just a moment. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:21, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Below is my rundown of the sourcing.

Sourcing

Petcha.com. Per the website's about page, it looks like this is a site where just about anyone can create content. There's nothing on the author's page or on the website as a whole to show that there's any sort of editorial oversight. In other words, this looks to be a self-published source and cannot be used to show notability. Whether or not it should even be used as a source is debatable, as Wikipedia is fairly strict about being able to verify sourcing. Like many of the other sources, this was published in April 2016.
TheDodo.com. This one is written by a staff member and has an editorial staff, however it was also published in April 2016, during the same point in time as much of the other coverage. The staff oversight does make this more likely that this will be considered a RS, however depth of coverage still needs to be proven and there still needs to be evidence to show that the site is considered a RS per Wikipedia's guidelines - which are almost insanely strict.
Vice. Vice is kind of questionable as a source. I've seen more than a few people say that it's not usable, with only a relative few saying that it can be used on pop culture material. It was brought up at RS/N at one point where someone pointed out that the site has gotten facts and material wrong, which shows that they don't appear to do a lot of fact checking on a regular basis. This is why a large portion of editors tend to not use it as a source, since it's so easily questioned. This was published around the same time as the other sources, albeit a few months later in June 2016. Even if we count it as a RS - and Vice would make for a fairly weak source in my opinion - this still doesn't show a depth of coverage.
Daily Mail. The DM is a tabloid and despite it still being technically usable on Wikipedia, it's not considered to be the strongest or best place to use as a source, as this paper doesn't really do a whole lot of verification - this is because they predominantly look to sensationalize material. They might not be looking to sensationalize a lizard, however their behavior with other topics makes this a less than ideal source to use at all. Like many of the other sources, this was released in April 2016.
Daily Telegraph. This is far better and the DT is considered a RS, however the problem with this source is that it was released in June 2016, around the same time as the other sourcing. Another problem would be that the article is almost entirely images and the article itself is only a few lines long - making this potentially a WP:TRIVIAL source more than anything else.
Buzzfeed. Buzzfeed is another one that could be usable, however again, this was written around the same point in time, in June 2016. There's also a predominant focus on images rather than article content, although it's longer than the DT article.
Rare. This is better, but like the others this was released around the same time as the other news articles, in June 2016.
FuzzFix. At best this is questionable as a source. Not much information is given about the site's editorial oversight. It also doesn't really help that the company that owns the site gives off impressions that they focus on marketing and internet optimization. This is honestly pretty questionable as far as its usability goes and even if we ignore that, the article is still written in June 2016, so still written around the same time period.
Official website. This is the OW, so it's primary.
YouTube. Official YT channel, primary.
China Times. The CT can be usable, however even without translation the article is shown to be relatively brief. It's also published in April 2016, so again the issue of recentism is brought up.
Okezone. The Indonesia Wikipedia page for this site is fairly extensive - however that doesn't mean that it would be reliable per Wikipedia's guidelines. The link comes up as dead for me, so I can't really investigate who wrote this (staff or site member) or if it received any editing. However I do note per the citation on the Wikipedia article that this was published in June 2016.

In the end what we have here is a lot of coverage that happened during the same point in time, predominantly in April and June 2016. The latest source was one article in July. Some of the sources are pretty questionable as far as their overall reliability goes on Wikipedia and at least one of them, the Daily Mail, is consistently challenged as a source on Wikipedia - to the point where it's really not the type of source you want to use to determine notability. The lizard's fan following on social media is pretty slim - per one article it has 13,000 followers on Instagram and 34,000 subscribers on YouTube, which is not really all that much when you compare this to YouTubers with millions of followers. The lack of a large fan following doesn't mean that something can't pass notability guidelines, however I should also say that this number is not so sizable that this would be considered the type of following that would give notability. That sort of thing is mostly saved for things like the Star Trek and Star Wars fandoms, where there are conventions surrounding them or at the very least, multiple books and articles written about or heavily mention the fandom.

While it'd be nice if it were otherwise, there just doesn't seem to be a heavy enough amount of coverage to justify an article. This could be considered WP:RECENTISM, because despite the lizard being around for a few years it really only gained media attention this year, over a period of about 3-4 months. I have to compare it to other social media phenomenom that received far more coverage yet were still considered to be ultimately non-notable, such as the Ikea Monkey or Kai the hitchhiker, the latter of which received coverage over a longer period of time (he received additional coverage over murder allegations, but received media coverage initially over a viral video) but was still considered to be non-notable. There have been a lot of topics that have been brought to AfD after having received a spate of coverage in the media over a short period of time, sometimes even a fairly heavy amount, only for them to be deleted because the coverage was over a pretty short period of time and all tended to focus on the same thing: that the topic exists and that it's considered to be a novelty to the article writer. I just don't see where the coverage here is heavy enough to warrant inclusion here. Now it's possible that the coverage could become heavy enough in the future, which is why I mentioned it being userfied until more coverage comes available - which I honestly don't see happening any time soon unless it starts getting attention along the lines of Grumpy Cat - and even GC's notability took a while to come about.

Sometimes, very rarely, a social media or pop culture phenomenon can become notable despite having only a few months (or weeks) of coverage, however these cases are pretty rare because the coverage has to assert something incredibly rare and notable - which is not asserted here. Being one of the few lizards on social media (it's likely not the first) isn't considered to be something direly notable as far as Wikipedia is concerned. That type of distinction is usually reserved for things like winning an extremely prestigious award (think in the terms of Grammys or Nobel Prizes) or doing something so distinctive that it's mentioned in various academic texts, like Stanley Salmons' contributions to the fields of neurology, biochemistry and physiology. I'm not trying to be a buzzkill, just trying to stress how difficult it is to establish that someone or something doing something few others have done is something that would establish notability. Having a small fan following and being one of the few lizards featured doing cute things just aren't the type of things that would fall under these guidelines. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:52, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the reason I keep bringing up Star Trek is that this is the type of fandom needed to assert notability. Nowadays it isn't all that difficult to gain followers on social media. It's not as easy as breathing, but it's not so difficult that it's some impossible task that would be seen as something few can do. To put this in perspective, Wikipedia frequently deletes entries on people who have hundreds of thousands of followers or subscribers on their various social media outlets because this type of popularity is not seen as a sign of notability. This is because few media outlets really write about these or writes about them in a way that would establish that the fan following is notable. It's actually considered to be relatively run of the mill for a social media personality (or animal) to receive a small fan following, which is why it's so difficult to establish notability for social media related topics. There are hundreds upon thousands of topics with similar or larger amount of followers, so the only true way to establish notability for these topics is to show coverage over a long period of time. A handful of articles written around the same point in time just isn't enough to establish notability here. To add on to this, I have to point out PewDiePie, who continually failed notability guidelines until 2013, long after his followers numbered in the multiple millions on YouTube and social media apiece. That's how insanely difficult it is to establish notability for social media personalities and part of why I don't think that MacGyver meets guidelines at this point in time. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:03, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In the end I'm not going to lose sleep if this gets kept, rather my overly long post above is more of my attempt to explain the rationale behind my deletion. I'd probably argue for deletion even if the topic in question was a human social media personality, given the limited amount of coverage here and I've seen people with more coverage get deleted via AfD. The existence of other articles with less coverage isn't really a rationale for retention in this case. Again, I'm not trying to be harsh, just that I've seen articles deleted for more coverage (the first AfD for Belle Knox closed as a delete despite having across the globe coverage in thousands of articles, PewDiePie was repeatedly deleted until long after he became insanely popular, a Big Brother contestant was deleted despite appearing on the show and having a large social media following, and so on). If this can set precedence for articles to be kept on less coverage then that'd be great - it's just that I've seen plenty of precedent set that shows that coverage over only a few months is really not enough to show a depth of coverage, especially not when only about six of the twelve sources in the article are even remotely usable and one of those is trivial, while a few of them are questionable as sources as a whole on Wikipedia. Again, not going to lose sleep just trying to explain my reasoning here and why I don't necessarily think that this is the strongest article to use to set a precedent to establish notability via social media on coverage from a fairly short period of time. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:17, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

- I have reached out to Lumina Media LLC, parent company of Petcha, for information about their editorial process and have recieved this reply: “To answer your question, we exercise editorial control and have strict editorial guidelines for all our online publications, including Petcha. Petcha has an executive editor, two senior editors, a staff writer and a videographer on staff.” They are now in the process of updating their about page to reflect their editorial guidelines. I have also reached out to 30M about the editorial process on FuzzFix.com, and and awaiting a response. Regardless of that outcome though, I believe the other sources clearly establish the coverage required by Wikipedia’s notability guidelines. I have also reached out to MacGyver’s owners via Instagram to see if they are aware of any more coverage that I was unable to find, and it appears as though AJ+ has been working on a peice about MacGyver for a few weeks now, which will likely come out next week. The Charlotte Sun also has a peice about MacGyver, which has been backlogged by coverage of the recent accidental police shooting, but which should be coming out any day now also. Lizzymartin (talk) 00:29, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The problem though is whether or not their editorial guidelines pass muster with Wikipedia - and unfortunately it's very, very difficult to meet these guidelines. I've tried to make cases for a well known book website, only to be told that they're not ultimately usable as a reliable source except in rare circumstances, and this is for a website that was semi-repeatedly mentioned in academic sources and has their staff and editorial process laid out. It's going to be even more difficult to establish the reliability of a website that doesn't have this available, especially since Petcha does accept random user offerings. On that note I also need to say that if the website were to be considered reliable, it'd likely only be for things that are clearly marked as staff pieces - which is not the case here as far as I can tell. I'll post a note at RS/N about the sources here and see what they say there. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:23, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also, as far as the Charlotte Sun goes that might still be considered too recent - in order to really show that there's coverage over a longer period of time there would need to be coverage in RS from either 2015 or in the next year, 2017. A spate of coverage during the summer and late spring is still pretty recent. It's just that tough to assert notability for social media personalities or people known for videos or other similar media. Heck, I had DGG tell me that the article for Kai was non-notable despite the amount of coverage - and I had to agree with him on that. I just don't see where the coverage given here, at this point in time, is enough. Again, I've seen a lot of articles about topics (ie, people, animals, etc) with more coverage and more followers on social media get deleted. I do think that standards are a little strict, but I don't know that this is the best article to set the precedent that recent coverage from only a couple of months and a relatively modest amount of followers is enough to pass notability guidelines. Honestly, if this was a person the article would likely have been deleted by now. I don't know that the subject being an animal makes this that much more special. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:31, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I do not believe the result of unrelated AfD debates really has any bearing here, especially considering most of the referenced subjects were clearly related to news events, which as per multiple mentions above, this is not. To be honest, it sounds like most of these arguments are based off an interpretation of precident rather than of policy as defined by WP:GNG. Lizzymartin (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:49, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is, they kind of do. The problem here is that it's incredibly difficult to assert notability for topics that are related to social media or social media-esque topics like videos or the like. There have been many, many articles that have failed notability guidelines in the past despite having larger fan followings and more coverage over the same amount of time. I'm not sure that an exception should be made for an article about an animal with a social media following that's actually on the smaller end of the scale that has received a fairly small amount of coverage over a small point in time. My point is this: if people or topics with larger fan followings and better sourcing can't pass notability guidelines then I'm not sure that MacGyver could or should either. There might be an argument over social media personalities and coverage over a short period of time (ie, that guidelines should be made more loose to take them into consideration), however at the same time this isn't really the best case to set that precedent because the sourcing is so weak overall and there have already been so many cases with stronger arguments for notability that have failed GNG. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:02, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to try to keep from making this any longer unless new material is added since I believe that we've both said our part and at this point it's just sort of us repeating the same things over and over. I don't think that the current sourcing is enough, given that there have been so many cases in the past with stronger assertions of notability that have been deleted. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:03, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Last Word. Lizzymartin (talk) 04:50, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, begrudgingly. This falls under the peculiar-to-Wikipedia phenomenon of Internet celebrity being backed heavily by editors because, well, a lot of Wikipedia editors live on the internet. I ran into this when I nominated a stupid cat for deletion and was immediately baffled by the flood of "keep" votes. Anyway, if a bunch of cats are considered notable enough for articles, there's no way you can logically argue that this lizard isn't; he has at least as much coverage as half of those. Rockypedia (talk) 11:29, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:13, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:15MOF. Note that the article creator canvassed on my talk page. SST flyer 09:33, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I did not canvas your talk page. As per Wikipedia guidelines on attempting to get more input on AfD discussions that are getting no attention, I selected another discussion from the "list of Websites-related deletion discussions", "/r/thedonald", and used the appropriate "Please See" syntax to leave an auto-generated unbiased message on 6 users talk pages who had contributed to that discussion, 3 of whom voted keep, 3 of whom voted deleted. I went out of my way to be as unbiased as humanly possible. Please see my Special:Contributions/Lizzymartin page for evidence of it, and see appropriate methods listed in WP:Canvassing. I do not appreciate you coming in here and accusing me of canvasing as I clearly followed the guidelines in trying to get more input on this discussion. Shame on you. Lizzymartin (talk) 18:27, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Related to your actual vote, how does WP:NOTNEWS apply at all to this non-news event? Lizzymartin (talk) 18:44, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In an attempt to reach consensus and not have this re-listed indefinitly, I have left the following neutral "Please See" message on the following six users' talk pages because they have previously contributed to internet related discussions: User:JudgeRM User:Torchiest User:Artw User:Rockypedia User:SSTflyer User:IanSan5653. I randomly selected 3 users with delete and 3 users with keep recomendations from Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/R/The_Donald . Lizzymartin (talk) 21:37, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

==Discussion at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/MacGyver_the_Lizard ==

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/MacGyver_the_Lizard . Lizzymartin (talk) 21:37, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Due to lack of response thus far, and per the same criteria, I have also noticed User:SwisterTwister and User:Kabahaly — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lizzymartin (talk • contribs) 01:56, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No Lizzymartin, take a look at WP:CANVAS. You shouldn't be going out of your way to notify the same number of editors on each side. The pool of users that you send a link to should have proportionate views to the group of editors you got them from. Omni Flames (talk) 10:37, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That debate was nearly evenly split and the pool was also reflective of this Lizzymartin (talk) 18:26, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (Draft only if needed) instead as there's still not enough here, apart fron expected news, to suggest there's anything else for an actual substance, and it not being for "Social" coverage. SwisterTwister talk 02:21, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weakish Keep – Meets GNG, but a bit borderline regarding WP:SUSTAINED ~~and WP:NOTNEWS~~. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:49, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Upon consideration, I have struck part of my !vote above. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:48, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your input. I completely concur with your first two assesments: Meets GNG; would be nice if there was a longer time frame of coverage, but it’s enough for a keep. I am however, really baffled by the assessment of borderline on WP:NOTNEWS. Could you please elaborate on that a little? I would really like to reach a consensus on that point. I have read over the guidelines related to news many times and do not see any connection. It is my understanding that WP:NOTNEWS covers following points:

Original reporting: This clearly does not apply
News reports: This seems to be about events. I can see it apply to an article titled “MacGyver’s first video” or “MacGyver suprpassed some threshold of followers”, or “MacGyver eats crab”, but I don’t see how it applies to the subject himself.
Who's who: People related to a notable event are not nessessarily notable themselves - does not seem to apply here since since it’s not about an event. The only possible connection I can see here is if someone were thinking that maybe MacGyver’s first viral video was a notable event, but he himself is not. I don’t think this is the case though, as that video recieves only trivial mentions in some of the sources, and on the whole is less notable than MacGyver himself.
A diary: Even when someone is notable, every detail of their life should not be included on their page - definitly does not apply to an AfD discussion, but rather applies to what content should be kept on the article of a subject deemed notable.

As WP:NOTNEWS has been mentioned by a couple users, I have invited an expert on the subject, User:Spirit of Eagle to join the discussion. I have asked them not to vote, but only to try and offer a little insight on the relelvance of WP:NOTNEWS. Lizzymartin (talk) 08:18, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment First, I’m not really an expert on WP:NOTNEWS. I wrote an essay on it back in 2013 when I only had a few hundred edits, and have kept the essay up since I still pretty much agree with its contents. Onto the actual topic at hand, Macgyver has apparently been an internet sensation since 2012, but every source I’ve found had been within the last six months or so (I couldn’t even find local coverage on newsbank from 2015 or earlier). Furthermore, most of them are what I call “introductory” sources (those giving an overview of a subject with no development with time and which tend to duplicate every other source), and from a lot of less than optimal sources to boot (the more reliable sources are clustered around June 1, 2016). I don’t think that there is a clear-cut outcome to this AfD, since there is nonetheless coverage from reliable sources over a somewhat broader range than is typical of notnews. However, given the facts I’ve laid out I believe that merging this article with List of viral videos would be the best course of action. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 20:29, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A merge wouldn't be a bad outcome here. I'm not against this coming back, I just think the coverage here is just far too recent to show notability, especially given that the sourcing is so incredibly light. If it was far heavier I wouldn't have necessarily nominated it, but it's just that this is far too light for my comfort. If it survives AfD as its own article, then groovy - we can potentially use this as precedent to establish notability for social media personalities with far less coverage than was previously needed. It's just that I'm concerned that the coverage here won't necessarily hold up if we try to do that in the future and it'd end up with this article not only getting deleted (barring other future coverage) and it'd be twice as difficult to get that AfD overturned in the future. If this ends with a userfy or merge then that's far easier to overcome than a delete - which I think is certainly possible given how weak the coverage is in relation to articles on similar or identical topics that have had better coverage and still got deleted. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 00:25, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There are a few reasons why I don’t think a merge onto List_of_viral_videos is appropriate. To begin with, only two of the sources even mention any specific viral video (the first viral video of his back in 2012). That video only has about 400k views on youtube - its only real significance is that it is what first got him noticed. He has other youtube videos with significantly more views now. Even more than that though, he has multiple facebook videos with millions of views each, such as this one (https://www.facebook.com/MacGyverLizard/videos/vb.211549348980941/826654834137053/?type=3&theater) with over 3 million views. There are a few of his videos that have been reposted as a whole or remixed and reposted on other user’s Instagrams and gotten millions of additional views each. Snoop Dogg, for example, posted a remix of that 3M+ view video on his Instagram (https://www.instagram.com/p/BI_iGneBE7k/?taken-by=snoopdogg&hl=en) which got nearly a million views. At present, I doubt that most people who know about MacGyver have ever seen that first video mentioned in the two articles. I don’t think that reducing this article to merge based on two trivial mentions of one old, relatively unsuccessful video (compared to his others), does it justice.Lizzymartin (talk) 01:11, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Animals_on_the_Internet was an article, like Cats and the Internet, I would understand the suggestion of a merge onto that article. I would still disagree, as I’ve stated above that I think the coverage warrants it’s own article, but I would at least understand the argument. I really think that merger with List_of_viral_videos is completely inappropriate though. I can’t find an article that merging with would be a better outcome than keeping as a stand alone article. Lizzymartin (talk) 02:01, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And just for the record, lots of the articles listed in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Animals_on_the_Internet are less notable and with less coverage. Lizzymartin (talk) 03:45, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps List of Internet phenomena would be a better merge location then. I've been looking through MacGyver's YouTube page, and I agree that there really isn't a single major video to write about. Also, the fact that there are articles much less notable than this one is not grounds for keeping, although it is justification for nominating those less notable articles for deletion. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:21, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, I believe the article is long enough to qualify for a stand-alone article and not a good choice for merging. Lizzymartin (talk) 08:07, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Scrapes by on GNG. Artw (talk) 17:55, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note to admins I don’t believe further discussion will significantly improve consensus beyond this point, and it is my hope that an experienced administrator will soon close this discussion. I believe that the below summary is a pretty objective snapshot of where we are. I know this isn’t a vote, and I’m not trying to tally votes, its just that the discussion is pretty long right now and the state of things might not be easily assessed by a passing administrator. All the above opinions should still be read by the closing administrator, and this summary should only be used to help access whether it may be time to read the above statements and try to close with consensus.

Delete: 2 per WP:NOTNEWS - though it looks like consensus has been pretty clearly reached that WP:NOTNEWS and WP:ONEEVENT do not apply here. After much discussion, one editor who had previously voiced concern about WP:NOTNEWS has struck that part of his statement.

Draftify: 1

Keep: 9, (6 + 3 weak) - It appears that consensus is that WP:GNG is met. Weak !votes wish there was a longer timeframe of coverage.

Merge: 2 including nominator, who has invested significant time in detailing her position. It appears that her biggest concern is related to precedent, but I don’t want to speak for her, and her above opinions should be read for themselves. Lizzymartin (talk) 02:23, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ignore this. I thought I was being helpful but apparently not. Apologies. Lizzymartin (talk) 02:46, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

consensus is not done by !voting at afds, but by strength of argument. I don't think the requirement for being an admin even requires demonstration of the ability to do arithmetic. And as advice, I , like most admins, would regard an attempt to sum up in this manner as an attempt to add an additional illegitimate argument, and as implying we wouldn't have the intelligence to figure things out for ourselves. Ideally, we'd just ignore it, but in practice it has been known to give an unfortunate impression. DGG ( talk ) 01:07, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on sources

MacGyver has been the subject (“significant coverage”) of every source referenced.
Multiple of the referenced sources are undeniably independent reliable secondary sources: Daily Telegraph, China Times, Buzzfeed, RARE, TheDodo.
VICE - even if some people think it should not be used as a source for anything but pop culture, this is pop culture.
Some of the less know sources, FuzzFix and Petcha, do in fact also have editorial control and review, even though its hard to find out from their websites.
Even if some of the additional sources, such as the Daily Mail, are questionable, they do not make any claims that are not also supported in multiple of the other reliable sources.

If you examine the reasons for wikipedia’s policy on sourcing, WP:WHYN, you should conclude that these sources are sufficient to write an objective, balanced, neutral, non-gossip, non-hoax, non-promotional article of sufficient length based off on secondary sources and no original research. Lizzymartin (talk) 03:30, 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 delete. Sandstein 07:19, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Two Towers (MUD)

AfDs for this article:

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

Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) It was a merge candidate in 2010 and the sourcing hasn't improved since then. A redirect to Middle-earth in video games#Unofficial games would suffice. czar 06:27, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. czar 06:27, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: In 2010 I voted Keep or smerge-redirect while the AFD was closed as keep. I still feel the article can stand alone given the supporting references, however if a redirect is decided it should be performed as a proper merge, including the references because some are now hard to find online, being partly offline material published in the 1990s. The Nimrod Jones 1997 research paper that refers to this MUD is now archived here. My comment likely also applies to other internet topics from the 1980s and 1990s. -84user (talk) 08:00, 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 02:15, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The coverage available is too trivial to say the GNG has been met, and I've tried extensively to find more coverage and failed. —chaos5023 (talk) 18:33, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The sources listed in the previous AfD are really unconvincing. A brief entry in a "best of the web" book? I would categorize that as similar to a database entry at AllMusic for a garage band. Sure, we've got proof in a reliable source that it exists, but I don't see that as significant coverage. However, Tolkien's immense popularity makes research difficult, so I guess there could be something better buried there. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:52, 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. -- Tavix ^(talk) 22:18, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Shards of Ice

AfDs for this article:

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

Notability: a self-cited article on a non-notable band. Article tagged "Notability" since 2008. Article survived a prior AfD but have not been improved since, and available sources do not suggest notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:37, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 09:15, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 09:15, 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 02:13, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Returns a lot of false negatives when searching for sources, but more specific searches such as "Shards of Ice" "The Monkeys Have Landed" etc. did not bring about sources that could be referenced and subject meeting WP:NBAND. — Sam Sailor 01:51, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NBAND.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:51, 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. -- Ed (Edgar181) 10:50, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

UP Physics Association

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

Mostly promotional article written by a single-purpose account which vanished soon after. Non-notable subunit of the larger, notable University. KDS4444 (talk) 07:59, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 09:23, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 09:23, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 09:23, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is not an enrolment guide and the whole article is written as an advertising pitch. WP:NOTPROMOTIONAL Ajf773 (talk) 12:10, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:49, 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 02:10, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It is a run-of-the-mill university student organization that would require in-depth coverage in independent sources to keep. That coverage is lacking. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:13, 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 merge to List of motorways and expressways in New Zealand. (non-admin closure) — Sam Sailor 01:41, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of motorways, expressways, and highways in Auckland

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

Repeats most of what can be found under List of motorways and expressways in New Zealand and should be merged or deleted accordingly. Any entry without an article is just a busy road and is not notable. Ajf773 (talk) 10:34, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 10:36, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transport-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 10:36, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:47, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:47, 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 02:10, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. This should not be at AFD, IMHO. The two articles, weirdly, were both created in 2007 and have coexisted unaware of each other. Follow usual process described at wp:MERGE of posting merger proposal notice at both articles, giving notice to editors. If you'd done that you could be merging the two articles by now. :) --doncram 02:51, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Article is already merged. This is surplus to requirements. Ajf773 (talk) 21:22, 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) 09:28, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sylvie Collection

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

no actual evidence for notability ; I can not tell if the awards are sufficiently significant. DGG ( talk ) 20:19, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:23, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:23, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:23, 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 02:07, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- an unremarkable brand. I've been able to find listings and trivial mentions only. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:07, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable company article. — Sam Sailor 01:15, 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 keep. -- Tavix ^(talk) 00:04, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Protologism

AfDs for this article:

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

Really small article. Is this really much different from neologism? It should be deleted and redirected to neologism. Fish567 (talk) 21:01, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:22, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to neologism. Bearian (talk) 23:49, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Theres a huge difference bdetween a protologism and a neologism. A neologism is a word that is relatively new, but there is no limit on its usage. A protologism on the other hand is in the embryonic stage of usage, and has only ever been used by the original coiner. So a neologism can be found in dictionaries. A protologism has such little usage that is is not found in dictionaries. 92.6.185.38 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:06, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- I see several discussions on the term in Google books, so there's enough attention to it from RS to pass GNG and sustain an article. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:14, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:07, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This linguistic term was coined by professor Mikhail Epstein in 2005, but since then, and since the first AfD in 2006, the term has gained foothold, and the article is well referenced to reliable sources. WP:TOOLITTLE is not an argument for deletion, and as IP correctly points out, a redirect is not appropriate. — Sam Sailor 01:08, 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. postdlf (talk) 18:34, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of Winner British Academy Film Awards

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

Unsourced content fork of BAFTA Award for Best Film, BAFTA Award for Best Direction, BAFTA Award for Best Actor in a Leading Role and BAFTA Award for Best Actress in a Leading Role The Banner talk 22:02, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:28, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:28, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:28, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete: per CSD A10. —Latchem 02:36, 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 02:06, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an unnecessary CFORK. And for the WP:MOST transgression. — Sam Sailor 00:33, 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. Michig (talk) 07:01, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Bilter

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

Delete. Poorly sourced WP:BLP of an entrepreneur, which makes no strong claim of notability under our inclusion rules for businesspeople. The notability here amounts to speaking at a conference and appearing on a TV show, and the sourcing for both of those things is stacked onto their own primary source web pages about themselves rather than to any reliable source coverage about those things -- and the only other source shown here at all is a simple business contacts directory (and à propos of nothing, why am I not surprised that said directory lists his business as an SEO/social media consultancy?) None of this is remotely enough to get a person into Wikipedia in and of itself — it takes reliable source coverage about him in media, verifying a claim of notability that would objectively pass our inclusion rules for businesspeople, but nothing like that has been shown here. Bearcat (talk) 01:46, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:28, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:28, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. GNews search for "Adam Bilter" gives one hit. Everything else on the main GSearch gives social media, press releases, and generally unhelpful sources. Fails GNG and BLP. Primefac (talk) 15:54, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Concur with above, also found nothing to establish notability. MB 23:21, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable businessman/entertainer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:48, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- no claim to notability and no sources. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:36, 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. -- Tavix ^(talk) 22:12, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ikram Faizi

(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} 10:52, 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) 14:55, 1 August 2016 (UTC) Blocked sock. —UY Scuti ^Talk 14:36, 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.Black hole78 ^{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 14:36, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Note this was one of many cricket biographies created by the same user that do not meet the notability standards. Ignoring the sock in this AfD, most of the other biographies were deleted at AfD (see the now redlinks on the user's talkpage). Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 06:53, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:11, 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 Speedy delete per CSD G:11. This organisation has a claim to notability and the article had lots of sources, but it was written entirely as an ad for the organisation by a single purpose editor with no good versions to revert to.. Nick-D (talk) 23:15, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

H2 Ventures

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

Reads like an advertisement and also fails WP:CORP -- HighKing⁺⁺ 01:06, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:50, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:50, 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. As in similar cases, reliable sources especially for medical topics is not optional. Sandstein 07:19, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Peniaphobia

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

All legitimate scholarly references invoke one criminology paper which use the word in the title, and which means it in a non-clinical sense. That paper is referenced in the article, but mischaracterized. Everything else is the usual dictdef junk Mangoe (talk) 00:51, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, The term has 41,000 returns on google. Even more impressively, the concept is widely discussed even if not directly mentioned by the above term. Seeing as there is no equivalent entry on wikipedia, it would IMO be a huge loss to the wikipedia project goal which is to be the sum of all human knowledge. I think everyone knows at least one person who has a condition similar to this. Also, Wikipedia should in my opinion always give extra leeway to articles related to mental health issues and loosen restrictions and criterias. This s because even experts and professionals in medical fields will acknowledge that research in many mental health fields are still in their primary stages. Additionally funding for such research frequently is limited at best. Pwolit iets (talk) 12:39, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- many google returns is invalid argument. Did you happen to look into them? You have to cite meaningful returns. And your opinions about wikipedia disagree with consensus among wikipedians Staszek Lem (talk) 20:21, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
delete - nonnotable neologism. People may fear of every noun, verb and adjective. There is even "wikipediaphobia" in the internets :)Staszek Lem (talk) 20:21, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:34, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete and salt this is gobbledygook, which is what a badly-formatted-and-obviously-"borrowed"-from-somewhere-on-the-internet-and-never-actually-read ref from our article actually says. As the article is going to be deleted, I will add here the content I just added to the article using that ref: The term was used in a 1952 letter to the editor of the The American Journal of Psychiatry called "Gobbledygook In Psychiatric Writing" responding to a 1951 editorial of the same title, as an example of the article's title, along with the terms homilophobia (a fear of sermons), osphresiophilia (a "morbid fascination with odors"), and necromimesis (acting as though dead).^[1]

References

^ Morris Fishbein. "Gobbledygook In Psychiatric Writing" The American Journal of Psychiatry. The American Journal of Psychiatry (108):705. 1952. doi:10.1176/Ajp.108.9.705

Just bullshit "fun with greek" and not something that should be in WP. Jytdog (talk) 15:43, 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 speedy deleted by Boing! said Zebedee per WP:G3, "Blatant hoax". North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:48, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bomb Tech (Band)

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

I can't find any evidence that this band exists, or has ever existed. Many statements are also rather fishy. Adam9007 (talk) 00:46, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as possible WP:HOAX BlueSalix (talk) 01:04, 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 merge to Giant deities. (non-admin closure) Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 06:01, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Diancastra

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

This character article fails to establish notability. TTN (talk) 00:21, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 00:21, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to Giant deities. BOZ (talk) 00:43, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Annam (Dungeons & Dragons), since that's the in-universe "boss" of this character according to the infobox. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 02:21, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per the above. Jclemens (talk) 04:10, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to giant deities, as above. Josh Milburn (talk) 02:22, 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.

[1] "Content Spammers Help You Overcome Prostitute Phobia". Webpronews.com. 25 August 2005. Retrieved 26 August 2013.

[2] Dana Tims, Visionary Drives Willamette Valley Vineyards, The Oregonian, Feb. 19, 2010.

[3] Victor Panichkul, Willamette Valley Vineyards Heads to Walla Walla, Statesman J., June 1, 2015.

[4] WP:ORG § Alternate criteria for specific types of organizations.

[5] Morris Fishbein. "Gobbledygook In Psychiatric Writing" The American Journal of Psychiatry. The American Journal of Psychiatry (108):705. 1952. doi:10.1176/Ajp.108.9.705

[1]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[1]