Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 August 14

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 13 August	15 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--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 17:16, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

History of Atari ST games[edit]

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

This article is written like a personal reflection on Atari ST gaming. It has been flagged as as not having any sources since 2007. Dgpop (talk) 03:08, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:33, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:33, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge - Between List of Atari ST games and Atari ST#Games, this topic is pretty well covered, but the information from this could be added to the Games section of the Atari ST page. Margalob (talk) 15:19, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unreferenced content isn't worth keeping. Chris Troutman (talk) 23:48, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If the topic of gaming on the ST overtook Atari ST, this would be a credible split. However, this seems more of a blog entry than an encyclopedia article. It would be better to start over from scratch if we were going to have an article like this. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:00, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- unneeded content fork and unreferenced essay. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:44, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No apparent need for the subject to be broken off as a separate article from Atari ST. Also no sourced content worth keeping.--Martin IIIa (talk) 14:02, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:43, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ClanBase EuroCup[edit]

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

Non notable online sports competition. Given sources do not indicate notability for the subject. Previous AfD failed for lack of participation. Subject fails WP:GNG. Safiel (talk) 23:56, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails GNG, not significant coverage etc. No idea why there was no quorum from the later AFD.--Prisencolin (talk) 00:02, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Subject lacks significant notability and coverage in reliable sources. Meatsgains (talk) 00:04, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:03, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:55, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Brenda Leipsic[edit]

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

Notability: no significant RS coverage can be found. An unremarkable city manager. Update (Aug 16, following discussions with Bearcat): The prior consensus was established with the understanding that Winnipeg was a global city (I've located the listing in the article on global cities, 2015 version). While acknowledging that consensus formerly accepted Winnipeg as one of the cities where a city councillor was accepted as notable under NPOL #2, I believe that it shouldn't anymore because Winnipeg is listed under "Category 6 (Sufficiency)". I believe this is insufficient to qualify it as a major international hub of business and political power, where a city councillor could be presumed to be notable:

Alpha++ cities are London and New York City, which are vastly more integrated with the global economy than all other cities.
Alpha+ cities complement London and New York City by filling advanced service niches for the global economy.
Alpha and Alpha- cities are cities that link major economic regions into the world economy.
Beta level cities are cities that link moderate economic regions into the world economy.
Gamma level cities are cities that link smaller economic regions into the world economy.
Sufficiency level cities are cities that have a sufficient degree of services so as not to be obviously dependent on world cities.

For comparison, other North American cities in the last category as Des Moines, Greensboro, Sacramento. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:10, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:18, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Manitoba-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:18, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable and only something of a passing or local interest at best. Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Kierzek (talk) 23:32, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Winnipeg has traditionally been one of the cities where serving on the city council is considered an adequate claim of notability to pass WP:NPOL, because it's in the global city category (admittedly the gamma, i.e. lowest, subclass of that club, but still in it.) And since the subject has not held office (or even still been alive) since 2008, significant coverage would not be expected to be locatable via Google News — rather, improving the sourcing would require digging into news databases like ProQuest. And neither does Wikipedia have any requirement that the news coverage be current or web-accessible — we can source stuff to print-only older newspaper content. Keep, and I'll take a stab at reffing it up via ProQuest in the next few days. Bearcat (talk) 18:31, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Following some discussion with K.e.coffman to clarify our respective issues, I see that he's now revising his nomination rationales to accommodate my primary concerns — as noted, I'm not wedded to the idea that Winnipeg's city councillors need to be kept as notable, but simply objected to the fact that some editors seemed willing to simply ignore the fact that the prior consensus ever existed at all. If any prior consensus could be erased simply by refusing to acknowledge that it existed, and didn't require any actual discussion and debate about the reasons why it should possibly be changed, Wikipedia would instantly become a giant pile of anarchy. An argument formulated this way, however, I can agree with: the "sufficiency" class of cities should not be considered notable enough to hand its city councillors an NPOL pass anymore, and Winnipeg is not for any substantive reason a city where broad national or international reader interest transcends its relatively low class of "globalness" the way a national capital might. Accordingly, I support the nomination as now formulated: my issue was the way in which the argument was being conducted as if no consensus for these ever existed in the first place, not any strong belief that Winnipeg should retain that status permanently. Bearcat (talk) 17:45, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete City councilors at this level are not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:33, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - barring a clear change in consensus, she was and is still notable. Bearian (talk) 23:48, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Noms comment: Consensus can change applies. Also, looking at the prior AfD, it appears that the argument was that they are presumed to be notable. But the actual notability still needs to be demonstrated via significant coverage in multiple RS. I just don't see those for the subject. None have been presented at this AfD either to meet GNG. No one is "automatically notable". K.e.coffman (talk) 17:38, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As I noted at Mark Lubosch, a presumption of notability remains active until it can be definitively demonstrated that improved sourceability doesn't even exist. GNG does not depend on the quality of sourcing present in the article, but rather on the quality of sourcing that it's possible to locate — and in ProQuest's Canadian Newsstand Major Dailies, Brenda Leipsic gets 176 hits, which is more than enough (half of that would have been enough). And finally, as I also noted at Lubosch, while it's true that consensus can change, it changes by virtue of a discussion which establishes the new consensus, not by virtue of one user simply decreeing that the old consensus never existed in the first place. Bearcat (talk) 20:04, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Only for NYC and Chicago have we considered them necessarily notable, because of uniqueky large political roles in those two cities. There is no general consensus this applies anywhere else. DGG ( talk ) 00:31, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, the consensus has never been that these are permissible only for New York City and Chicago and nowhere else; the consensus has always been that they're permissible for any city in the global city class. San Francisco, Los Angeles, Seattle, Vancouver, Toronto, Montreal, Calgary, Edmonton, Washington DC, Boston, London, Paris, Ottawa and San Diego, for starters, are just some other examples of cities where the city councillors do routinely have Wikipedia articles because city councillor in and of itself. If a new consensus can be established that Winnipeg should come off the list of cities whose councillors qualify, then that's one thing (and not even a thing I'd necessarily disagree with) — but past consensus was established that Winnipeg was on it, so you need to make a case for why Winnipeg should be removed from the established consensus, and can't get these deleted just by making false claims about what the existing consensus even is. Bearcat (talk) 17:27, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Winnipeg City Council (by nom): Per DGG, it appears that the consensus has indeed changed in the intervening eight years. Indeed, I don't see Winnipeg on the list of Global cities; here's a ranking of top 40 cities from 2015: link. And we still don't know which (if any) substantial sources are available via ProQuest; these could be routine city business related announcements. As an option, I believe a redirect may be appropriate as the subject appears on the list in the target article. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:16, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I almost closed this as delete, but given that this would be a significant change from the previous AfD (which had some of the same particpants!), it's worth letting this run another week -- RoySmith (talk) 23:54, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 23:54, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Serving on the City Council in Winnipeg is not significant enough to qualify for notability. Meatsgains (talk) 00:08, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Winnipeg has well under 1 million people in its metro-area. I see no reason we should consider it to be a "global city" where all city council members are presumed notable. This is just not a truly internationally prominent city.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:18, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Global city" status is not, in and of itself, dependent on population per se; a metropolitan area of more than a million people can be not a global city (cf. Indianapolis), and a metropolitan area of less than a million people can punch well above its population-weight for political or economic reasons. Whether you understand why or not, Winnipeg was listed in our article about global cities when that article actually contained a list, because it was sourceable as belonging to one of the classes of cities that were listed there — a case could certainly be made that the weakest classes of cities in those lists (the ones that were classed as not especially inspiring adjectives like "sufficiency", rather than as Greek letters) should be removed from the established consensus, but that's still a very different argument than simply denying that the established consensus ever existed in the first place or misrepresenting what cities it was deemed to cover (it was "any city listed in that article, regardless of class", not any specific arbitrary population cutoff.) And yes, the fact that the lists have since been removed from the article is in and of itself a reason why we should establish a consensus to formally define a new standard for inclusion, since we no longer have a set list to consult — but because "is listed in that article" was the consensus standard the last time one was agreed upon, "was listed in that article when that article contained lists" still has to stand until a consensus is established to set a different standard. Bearcat (talk) 17:06, 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--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 17:23, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

J Gramm[edit]

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

Fails WP:BASIC. Almost no coverage in reliable secondary sources. Just scant mentions of his name. Fails WP:ANYBIO. Unable to confirm his Grammy nomination (though notability requires multiple nominations). NOTE: record producers are not mentioned in WP:NMUSIC. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:19, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable record producer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:01, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:34, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:34, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:34, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:34, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. The YoRapper and Complex references don't even mention J Gramm, and they are just about the two best sources in the article. As far as I can tell, the "Grammy nomination" is for Wiz Khalifa's Blacc Hollywood album... but the link is tenuous – J Gramm was one of many producers who contributed to the album, and his contribution consists of co-writing and co-producing a bonus track on a limited edition of the album that was exclusively released through Target stores. I don't believe this confers enough notability to be considered a "Grammy nominee", particularly as the nomination is for the album and the performer. As has been stated above, the other mentions in the sources amount to little more than "produced by J Gramm", and are not RS. Richard3120 (talk) 17:32, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing here is a strong pass of WP:NMUSIC (being a producer of one track on a Grammy-nominated album is not a claim of notability in and of itself, if the subject is not personally a listed nominee for the award for Best Producer), and none of the sourcing is solid enough to pass WP:GNG. Bearcat (talk) 18:48, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 00:44, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ram Lakhan (2016 film)[edit]

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

no relevant sources, crystal ball, looks as created by the production company The Banner talk 02:46, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:24, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:24, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know that it was necessarily created by them. In any case, I found mentions about a remake of the older film by the same name, but they appear to be completely separate films. ([1], [2], [3], [4], [5]) I'm mentioning this here mostly because it would be easy to confuse the two. I myself thought that it might be the same film but with a different director brought on board until I saw the news story about the casting for the remake, which is completely different from the casting for this film. If we had a good redirect target I'd endorse a redirect, but there doesn't seem to be one - the person formerly linked to from the article is a political figure, not a director. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:25, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 16:08, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - ~~I'm not sure I'd instantly taint this with the COI brush.~~ I initially missed the edits on Nirahua Entertainment Private Limited which, along with this article, make up the majority of this contributor's edits. That page in particular is promotional in tone. However I thought Times of India was a reliable source? Not sure how the infobox has been populated - far too much unsourced info in there. Rayman60 (talk) 18:54, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:NFILM. Note it mentioned as a Bhojpuri language language film as per the The Times of India this ,this and this. Note this is different from Ram Lakhan a 1989 popular Hindi film.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 15:54, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dane2007 (talk) 21:33, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final Relist -- Dane2007 ^talk 22:23, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Dane2007 ^talk 22:23, 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 no consensus. Sandstein 06:50, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Aras Corp[edit]

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

I myself was about to speedy as G11 but I noticed the other AfDs, which I find unbelievable that they closed as Keep considering my examinations of both the listed sources here and also the AfD simply found press releases, interviews, trivial coverage including about the company's funding and finances. Considering how we have changed since 2012 (especially about advertising), this certainly needs better attention now. SwisterTwister talk 22:19, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 22:19, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 22:19, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 22:19, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The nomination does not cite any policies or make a deletion argument. Is this a WP:NOT issue? Unscintillating (talk) 00:28, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I quickly found a 2012 source on a WP:BEFORE check in Google news from the Boston Globe, [6], that states, "Since [2007], Aras’s revenues have increased 50 percent each year, on average; client downloads of Aras software are up tenfold, to more than 1,000 companies each month, from 100 in 2007." Since the nominator's preparation missed this article, and the nomination dwells on incredulity and unsourced claims such as how Wikipedia has changed since 2012, I tend to assume that WP:BEFORE was not considered to be important to the nomination. Then I glanced at the first AfD and found mention of awards and saw an article from the Wall Street Journal, and then I opened the 2nd AfD, which is a mass of sources. One editor there has found sources from 15 different publishers. A glance at the article shows that the company is multi-national. I also checked investing.businessweek.com and found [7]. The two articles I have cited are sufficient to pass WP:GNG. I looked for WP:NOTPROMOTION without really seeing what they want changed. If anything, company funding and finances would improve the article. It is certainly not a deletion argument. Unscintillating (talk) 00:28, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dane2007 (talk) 06:31, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Now that this has been relisted, which it should have been, I will note that both the sources above and this article itself still have no actual convincing substance. I will note that Keep vote essentially bases that news focusing with funding and financing are acceptable, but these in fact simply emphasize PR, not substance. SwisterTwister talk 07:43, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You've been asked a question to explain if your nomination was a WP:NOT issue, yet your nomination still doesn't seem to have a policy-based argument. "Substance", for example, is not a policy-based argument. "Actual convincing substance" is verbiage for "substance". At Wikipedia, we don't tell reliable sources what they can talk about. This is fundamental to the way that Wikipedia operates. Otherwise, we'd have editors arguing about what Wikipedia should cover based on their personal opinions. One of the sources your post just panned, Bloomberg, has an army of reporters, and reliability is essential to their business model. At Wikipedia, we consider them to be a reliable source. The other source your post panned, The Boston Globe, our article states, "The Boston Globe has consistently been ranked in the forefront of American journalism." Reliable sources remain reliable sources when they discuss funding and financing. Unscintillating (talk) 08:45, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment One does not have to explicitly quote policy when nominating an article to AfD (but it helps). Indeed anyone not being obstinately obtuse would read substance as more than a trivial mention (which is part of WP:GNG). It also doesn't matter if the company is multinational or whatever. All that matters is the depth of coverage. Which it seems this company has, but your line of reasoning is flawed.--Savonneux (talk) 10:35, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the evidence to support this interpretation of another editor's word choice. This diff uses the phrase, "this article hardly had any actual substance", where "substance" is not being used as part of a WP:GNG argument (WP:PROMO was cited for a deletion argument, diff). We should be able to agree that "substance" is not a policy-based argument. Unscintillating (talk) 09:03, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Focusing on the issues: WP:CORPDEPTH, as well as WP:AUD and WP:CORPIND, is satisfied by the Boston Globe, InfoWorld, and MSI. FourViolas (talk) 14:23, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- does not meet CORPDEPTH. InfoWorld is a trade publication, potentially non independent from the tech industry. Boston Globe alone is not sufficient as "significant coverage" (one article). The article reads as an advertorial for the company; this information can easily be found on the company's web site and is not sufficient for an encyclopedia article. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:57, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Pruning comment -- I trimmed the article a bit by removing unneeded section breaks and self-cited material. I also removed intricate detail cited to a directory listing (potentially non-independent source) and another's company's corporate blog: see diff. There's no depth here. Still delete. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:07, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Meets WP:CORPDEPTH, although on a weaker level, per a review of available sources. See source examples below. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:58, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

Computer World
Info World
The Boston Globe (subscription required)
MSI (subscription required)
Boston Business Journal
Design News
Engineering.com
Product Lifecycle Management in the Era of Internet of Things: [8], [9], [10]

Comment: the coverage appears to be trivial; for example, the Boston Globe article appears to be based on the interview with the CEO: "Frustrated by the slow pace of business, founder Peter Schroer had a realization: "Selling corporate software was not profitable, and the scalability of the business was limited to the number of feet on the street."" Etc. The last entry, which looks like it comes from a book, is the collection of conference proceedings from IFIP PLM conference. Since none of the authors are recognized experts in the field, I believe this should be considered to be a self-published source that does not carry weight. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:06, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I myself examined these and they are not convincingly substantial. SwisterTwister talk 19:54, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per a handful of the sources found by posters above. I don't think all work, but there is some significant coverage here: [11], [12], [13], and [14], and [15], which is enough on its own to pass WP:GNG, and I haven't even done a google search yet. I also don't quite understand the earlier argument against InfoWorld. Seems a fine and reputable trade publication to me. Yvarta (talk) 11:27, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on the sources offered by Yvarta just above:

Bizjournals -- not a top tier pub at all
Interview with CEO
Same Boston Globe article already discussed
Retelling of a customer case study / press release
Very same Boston Globe article

All of this is essentially PR for the company with no substance. I don't see how this passes GNG or CORPDEPTH. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:07, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Info World article is not an interview. It has quotes, but is not entirely an interview. The Computer World article is not a retelling of a case study nor is it a press release at all. When reliable sources report about topics, it's not all automatically somehow "PR" by default. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:11, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For CORPDEPTH, I would expect to see (1) consistent coverage in local press; (2) mentions in business press (i.e. Business Week); (3) financial press ( i.e. Fortune); and (4) attention from academia (ideally).

In the case of Aras, we get some minor coverage in the local press, plus some mentions in trade press, which is fluffy and is clearly PR driven. It really does not tell us much about the company, its success, its strategy, its role and position in the industry, etc -- insufficient to build an encyclopedia article. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:24, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's unclear why you're providing commentary about the notability of a different subject (AAON) as some sort of comparison, which may confuse those readers who may only skim through the discussion here. This discussion is about Aras Corp. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:30, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I redacted above to make the comment more general. Overall, the coverage listed does not show an independent interest in the company; it's all local or trade press driven by self-promotion. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:35, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You speculate and theorize that "all" of the sources are "driven by self-promotion", but provide little proof for such assertion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:45, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Correct, but this could also be called "editorial judgement" that we are expected to exercise, right? In short, not much of the coverage is independently verifiable. For example, the assertions, republished by Boston Globe ("Since [2007], Aras’s revenues have increased 50 percent each year, on average; client downloads of Aras software are up tenfold, to more than 1,000 companies each month, from 100 in 2007") are just claims by the company. It's doubtful that The Globe got access to the company's audited financials to have been able to draw these conclusions independently. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:52, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Um... like 90% of reputable articles are just journalists reporting on press releases, quarterly reports, SEC releases, and "insider" management gossip (this includes Forbes, Business Insider, and the New York Times), so in the end, are we only supposed to rely on articles based entirely on Freedom of Information requests? Because even that information is usually redacted to the point of being near useless, excluding journalist commentary. Yvarta (talk) 15:49, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, as per your argumentum ad absurdum, casting aspersions on the fact-checking of reliable sources is not a pathway to Truth^TM. Unscintillating (talk) 21:47, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There are still many issues being discussed here. Relisting to give more time for discussion and a clearer consensus. -- Dane2007 ^talk 22:12, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Dane2007 ^talk 22:12, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment No need for a relist, consensus has not changed since the unanimous "Keep" at the last AfD. Unscintillating (talk) 00:47, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to closer - The still questionability of all of this is still not actually substantial as all sources have essentially been based from PR and PR-like sources. Commentd suggesting this should automatically be kept is not meeting WP:CCC, thus, as always, keep votes can be disregarded if not substantially convincing. SwisterTwister talk 02:37, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Assertions of sources being based from public relations sources should be backed up with objective evidence for such claims, rather than proof by assertion alone. The articles I provided above are (except for one, and the book source, which is a book) bylined news articles written by staff writers that have been published in independent, reliable sources. 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 11:44, 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 redirect to List of Ace Attorney characters#Apollo Justice. MBisanz ^talk 00:44, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Apollo Justice (Character)[edit]

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

Duplicates some content at List of Ace Attorney characters and should be merged there in my opinion. -- Dane2007 ^talk 21:54, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Article Creator Blocked I don't know anything about video games, so I won't just delete this article, but this article was created by an editor who has been dicking around here for a while, and who is now blocked. So there's a decent chance that it's some kind of weird fanboy vandalism. Although maybe it's a damn fine article, stranger things have happened I suppose. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:49, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, you're on the right track. Not vandalism, but written informally from an in-universe perspective, consisting mostly of regurgitated plot-summary, and containing zero third party references - basically the type of fan-stuff that WP:VG keeps trying to eliminate from the project for failing the WP:GNG. Sergecross73 msg me 20:52, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article only contains 2 references, and since the creator has been blocked, I doubt anyone is going to the time to approve it. JDDJS (talk) 22:58, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or merge to List of Ace Attorney characters#Apollo Justice. This character exists, although it isn't particularly notable on its own. AdrianGamer (talk) 14:30, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video games-related deletion discussions. AdrianGamer (talk) 14:31, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. AdrianGamer (talk) 14:32, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect or Delete - per my comment above. "Redirect" because it is a plausible search term, but delete more because the disambiguation is both unnecessary (there's no other "Apollo Justices" to be written about) and incorrect (there's no reason to capitalize "character"). So, I'm fine with a redirect, but a redirect just at Apollo Justice (which already exists.) Sergecross73 msg me 20:52, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A redirect from Apollo Justice (character) to the Apollo section of the character list makes sense to me - I would expect Apollo Justice to lead to the video game Apollo Justice: Ace Attorney, which clearly is more notable, so I'd say the (character) disambiguation is a valid search term when looking for information on the character.--IDV^talk 09:27, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It already is a redirect and has been for 5 years. The article here is at (Character), note the capital C, not (character).--67.68.161.51 (talk) 19:03, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know. I was just saying that a redirect pointing to the Apollo Justice section of the character list seems desirable, and that since Apollo Justice should (as it does) point to the game's article, one using a lowercase (character) disambiguation would be good.--IDV^talk 19:15, 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 Delete--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 22:08, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of potato delivery services[edit]

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

NO evidence that such a list has any notability. References are trivial and generally appear to be based on press releases and each seems to address only a single supplier and not the notability of the concept. List also contravenes WP:DIRECTORY. The individual entries are generally only referenced by their own web-site. Overall fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 21:52, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:37, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:37, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:37, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Drop this like a hot you know what. A directory of obscure companies, only one of which has an article, is a major fail. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:22, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Gently scrub and wash, then delete - and suggest making a draft like Draft:Potato Delivery Service, because the general PDS "industry" just might be notable according to wikipedia standards. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 16:00, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
¯\_(ツ)_/¯ - whatever works. I figure we'll hash it out.--☭🎆🌎🎼🎺🐦 00:58, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Mash Nice looking effort by the 42nd Doctor, but no. The draft idea sounds OK. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 20:48, 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 speedy deleted G4 by DGG. (non-admin closure) shoy (reactions) 15:17, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of systems biology research groups[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Per WP:DIRECTORY . all injstitiutions listed are by means of external links. No evidence that such a list has any notability. Identical ist previously deleted Velella ^{Velella Talk} 21:46, 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. Soft deletion MBisanz ^talk 00:45, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Acidoacida[edit]

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

Tracklist with no references or evidence of notability Rathfelder (talk) 22:13, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:00, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:00, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:08, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dane2007 (talk) 19:22, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, jcc (tea and biscuits) 21:45, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 22:40, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Deceived Ones[edit]

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

No indication of significance and no sources at all. Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 21:43, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Did you fail to notice it's a source for Shakespeare's Twelfth Night and with that alone qualifies as more notable than 50% of Wikipedia articles. Try a google search. • DP • ^{huh?} 00:21, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@DionysosProteus: The article claims that but has zero sources to back it up. As for a google search, I find a reference to the article here on wikipedia and then a bunch of links to songs called The Deceived Ones. That's all I find. --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 02:42, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but again, it's poor research to just search for the translated English title. This is a 16th century Italian work. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:50, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Zachmann08, using google books or google scholar is the usual practice in such instances (webpages are going to be of limited value for sources) and searching for orig. lang. and author would also be common practice. Given that you did notice that it's a source for Shakespeare, then you should be aware that a request for verification is the appropriate response, not a proposal for deletion. You waste our time, otherwise. • DP • ^{huh?} 11:08, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Yes, I'll link to just one book ref here. It's clearly a notable work. Not enough WP:BEFORE work has gone into this nomination, I daresay. (I searched for the original Italian title, btw) Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:45, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:46, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:46, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:46, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep - a few seconds on Google Books finds reliable sources that confirm notability. I've added them in and put in a redirect from the Italian title "Gl'ingannati" which is a likely alternative search term. Blythwood (talk) 23:24, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, absurd AfD. As said above, it requires literally a few seconds to find tons of sources in Google Books (eg. 25 pages of analysis in Performing Theory: Gendered and Erotic Complications in Cinquecento Comedies, and Some English Reverberations by Catherine Scott Burriss, about 20 pages in Shakespeare, Italy, and Intertextuality by Michele Marrapodi, or 11 pages on Renaissance Comedy: The Italian Masters, Vol. 1 by Donald Beecher). How being a source for Shakespeare's Twelfth Night is not an indication of significance is beyond me. Cavarrone 12:41, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- several sources discuss the subject's relationship to The Twelfth Night: Google books preview. Sufficient sources are out there to improve the article. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:47, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, although having sympathies with the nom in that the WP:BURDEN was on the article creator and it has been around for five years without any references, when it comes to a book like this, WP:OLDBOOK applies and with the pedigree of being a Shakespeare source (although unsourced), a bit of WP:BEFORE would have been appropriate. oh, and it is a keep, as it meets WP:GNG, article now has plenty of references. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:02, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- The main source for a Shakespeare play is certainly notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:17, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 07:28, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Scopely[edit]

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

Frankly I would like to think this is in fact actually speedy and PROD material as all of this is simply for either funding, "Companies to Watch and See", press releases and other puffery sources; this company apparently is still being funded and supported by finances because searches are simply finding exactly this, local press releases, advertorial and PR-speak, funding and financing puffery and nothing at all actually substantial outside of this. SwisterTwister talk 20:02, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 20:03, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 20:03, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:56, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:57, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Passes WP:CORPDEPTH per coverage in bylined news articles written by staff writers that have been published in independent, reliable sources. Also passes WP:AUD per national-level news coverage. The article would benefit from copy editing, because it reads as a press release in areas. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:08, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

Shields, Mike (September 2, 2015). "How Scopely and PewDiePie Got Four Million People To Download 'Walking Dead' Game in One Week". The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved August 1, 2016.
Boorstin, Julia (March 8, 2016). "Scopely aims to build new kind of mobile game business". CNBC. Retrieved August 1, 2016.
LaPorte, Nicole (September 24, 2013). "Scopely Finds Hit Apps The Same Way Hollywood Lands Blockbusters". Fast Company. Retrieved August 1, 2016.
Times, Los Angeles (July 26, 2016). "Scopely, Kite & Lightning and Masterclass among week's L.A. tech highlights". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved August 1, 2016.
Takahashi, Dean (March 23, 2014). "How Scopely is building a hit factory, one mobile game at a time (interview)". VentureBeat. Retrieved August 1, 2016.

Delete -- that's a tough one as they are generating headlines, but CORPDEPTH is still not there: "Scopely aims to build new kind of mobile game business". Could be a flash in the pan and not sufficient to sustain an encyclopedia article. I'd say WP:TooSoon. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:21, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- The "aims to build" language doesn't mean the company doesn't actually exist. It's language meant to describe the goals as aspirational, not to suggest they don't actually function as a business. Steven Walling • talk 07:29, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - I was suggesting that the company would be truly notable when they would have "built a new kind of mobile game business". For now, they are just building it and aspiring to revolutionize etc etc. The coverage reflects that, i.e. fluffy pieces with not enough depth. That's why I felt this subject may not yet be ready for an encyclopedia article. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:41, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - All of the sources I have provided above provide significant coverage, which is the very basis of WP:CORPDEPTH. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:37, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Needs cleanup, but clearly passes the general notability guideline and WP:CORPDEPTH in terms of sourcing. Steven Walling • talk 07:29, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dane2007 (talk) 21:29, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - All of the listed links are still only talking about the company's finances and investing including how it's getting its investors, simply none of that is still actually substantial and convincing. The last one, by all means is an exact interview. Also, this would not fix at all the current article which is not only still advertorial, but still too fluffed and puffed with advertising information such as its clients, products and funding.... SwisterTwister talk 05:46, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – The sources I have provided above within this discussion provide a great deal of background, historical and contemporary information about the company, and do not only provide only information about the company's finances and investing. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:55, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- it's not clear to me why the company is notable. For example, I attempted to edit the lead but I'm stumped at this statement: "Scopely partners^[how?] with game developers and global entertainment companies to bring distribution and monetization technology^[vague] to free to play games^{[needs copy edit]}." K.e.coffman (talk) 06:06, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Northamerica1000. Sources provided show notability. They've been getting significant coverage on their activities from RS for nearly two years now. [16] ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 08:10, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, jcc (tea and biscuits) 21:07, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The VentureBeat article from 2 years ago (referenced by Patar Knight) is strictly PR: "[Scopely nabs $35M to build its mobile gaming ‘touchscreen entertainment network’"; VentureBeat is essentially trade press for the venture capital backed companies, and thus fails SIGCOV as I understand it. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:11, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I concur, it's all still PR from when I first saw it hence my nomination. SwisterTwister talk 21:25, 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 no consensus. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:31, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Carrie Morgridge[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Promotional article about a member of a rich family, who engages in routine philanthropic activities, and has press releases to match, and the expectedtributes given to anyone who gives money. . DGG ( talk ) 02:02, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note that previous AFD closed as Keep in 2015.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:08, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- promo content on a non notable subject. The amount of red links is alarming :-) . K.e.coffman (talk) 06:58, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable director of a family foundation.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:36, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non notable person who apparently does some good work but nothing that rises to be more than of a passing or local interest and Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Kierzek (talk) 17:13, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I'm not seeing anything at all for example establishing her own notability. SwisterTwister talk 17:15, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Numerous sources can be found here including an interview here and in-depth here and in-depth here and getting several paragraphs and a photo in the NY Times and major coverage here and being a keynote speaker here and coverage in Public Radio here so did any of you people, like, do any research before posting Delete? Hmmmmm? Or is it more the case that you don't like her, or don't like philanthropists, don't like rich people, or just think Wikipedia has too many articles in it? I'm curious.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:59, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The coverage does not appear to be substantial -- i.e. these are interviews and other trivial mentions. For example, the NPR interview is: "Morgridge spoke with Aspen Public Radio’s Elise Thatcher about whether it’s easier to say all donations are helpful when it’s possible to give millions of dollars". The subject of Carrie Morgridge is not covered in depth. If Morgridge Family Foundation was a notable organisation, I would say "Redirect" there, but for now it appears that neither Ms Morgridge nor the foundation are worthy of note to be included in an encyclopedia. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:09, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note, however, that the article is sourced ot in-depth coverage of her childhood, young adulthood in articles that ran in the Denver Post, and a couple of other places.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:05, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I had origially closed this as delete, but discussion on my talk page convinced me that further debate would be useful, so I'm backing out my close and relisting this for another week. I offer no opinion one way or the other on the final outcome.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 21:05, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nominator, head of a foundation that gets the required press releases and trivial mentions. VViking_TalkEdits 13:48, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But these are not mere echoed press releases, They are feature stories and news stories. And they are can by no means uniformly be characterized as "trivial."E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:46, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because sources exist to pass WP:GNG; New York Times; :[17]; Reuters: [18]; Aspen Public Radio: [19]; a name check in The Villager:[20]]; and CBS-News Miama because, yes, she and her husband gave money to the MiamiDade school system, [21]. Does she get covered because she is a rich philanthropist? Yes; Here's her book on a Wall Street Journal list of the 10 best beach reads for rich people: [22]; the Denver Post covers her intensively [23], and she gets covered incessantly [24]. Bottom line: she's rich (her husband is rich, the parents are rich) and they give away a lot of money. so interviews happen and article are written. But here's the thing: once the articles are published in mainstream sources, we consider the subject notable. I may have an aversion to Paris Hilton and to Keeping Up with the Kardashians, others appear to have an aversion to rich philanthropists who give interviews. But our personal preferences are not the metric of notability. The metric is RS coverage that is substantive and extensive; she has it.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:43, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It astounds me how often philanthropists are dismissed in AfD discussions as people who "throw" money at causes. Philanthropic work is more than throwing money at causes and being covered for this kind of work is no less important than covering a musician, politician, etc. Philanthropy has, in fact, changed the face of the US, as any librarian would know. Philanthropists like Andrew Carnegie ensured that public libraries were built across the nation. Would anyone say Carnegie was just "throwing money" at a project? This rant aside, there is plenty of good coverage about the subject of the article. She passes GNG. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 22:53, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on the extent of the philanthropy. We have probably ten thousand bios claiming philanthropist in the lede sentence and the infobox on the basis or really routine charitable activities of a few thousand dollars. Even a few million dollars is relatively trivial. Endowing one college chair does not make someone a philanthropist. Probably her activities qualify for the title, but comparing her to Carnegie is an example of WP:EINSTEIN. Carnegie was one of the three richest people in the world in his time a/c List of wealthiest historical figures (modern equivalent $300 billion or 5 times Bill Gates) and he eventually donated about 90% of it, and essentially invented modern philanthropy. What's more, like Gates and unlike Morgridge, he made the money himself. He didn't just spend it. DGG ( talk ) 02:29, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, it doesn't depend on the "extent of the philanthropy", it depends on media coverage. Wikipedia's guideline reads People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources...; the guideline does not say "Let's rely on DGG or Tomwsulcer or any other Wikipedian to decide which philanthropists are notable". And Morgridge is clearly notable based on numerous sources.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 10:26, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Tomwsulcer. Notability does not "depend on the extent of the philanthropy..." The extent of the Olympic career... The extent of the acting career... Or on the EXTENT of ANY career as a metric. (except, of course, insofar as longer careers attract more RS attention). Notability depends on the extent of reliable coverage of any career. We make no private exception for philanthropists.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:51, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

True, the length of an Olympic career is irrelevant, because anyone who ever appeared in even one has been considered notable here. One RS for verification is enough. The other SNGs sometimes extend, sometimes restrict. I do agree that extensive coverage of anything can produce notability --subject to the limits at NOT NEWS and BLP1E. The way that in practice we make these two views compatible is to adjust the interpretation what we consider "substantial" "independent" and " reliable". In any borderline case I can argue it either way on that basis, and most of the discussions at AfD relating to notability are disagreements about just such interpretations. In this case, promotional sources are not truly independent and do not prove notability.

I also point out the AfD is not only about notability , but about any of the reasons in WP:NOT (which., unlike notability is policy). I would not have nominated this article on notability grounds alone, but on the combination of borderline notability with promotionalism . I consider that, and many AfDs have also, as an equally good reason thanc lear lack of notability . Small variations to the notability standard either way do not fundamentally harm the encycopedia, but accepting articles that are part of a promotional campaign causes great damage. Once we become a vehicle for promotion, we're useless as an encyclopedia. In this case I have decided not to withdraw the AfD-- the2 decent sources do not counterbalance the promotionalism . DGG ( talk ) 17:39, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What? "Promotionalism"? There's nothing being promoted.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:10, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - My rule-of-thumb measure for WP:GNG is whether the article is about a subject which is the main focus of at least two substantial, reliable and notable independent sources. While I also have concerns about the fawning nature of some of the sources, that's my own problem rather than an issue with the individual at hand or any Wikipedia policy. So as the Reuters and Denver Post articles meet those criteria comfortably, I'd suggest that we should keep this. Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 19:09, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The Denver Post article is discusses the subject's life (I can't really say that it's "in depth", as this is fluff piece) but it's a local paper; Ms Morgridge is a figure of local significance, so it's expected that she'd be covered there. Reuters is an interview; the subject is talking about herself. There's no independent inquiry. Separately, Ms Morgridge is not a philanthropist; she managers a charitable foundation set up by her father-in-law (he's the philanthropist in this case). She's business manager and she wrote a book; most of the coverage seems to be stemming from the book promotion. I thus confirm my "Delete" vote. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:24, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Puh-leeze. The Denver Post is a "local" paper? It has 400,000+ weekday circulation. It is one of the top 12 newspapers in the United States. And, of course Morgridge is a philanthropist; her philanthropy does not depend on the money's source but on giving it away -- which she does bigtime. She could have spent money on yachts, excursions, shoes if she had Imelda Marcos tendencies, but she didn't -- it is a full time profession, requiring lots of work and energy and traveling and speeches -- and she's good at it, which is why the media covers her in-depth.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:28, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Denver Post is a major metropolitan and regional daily. Some major regional dailies have a series of suburban, small city, and metro editions. Coverage in such sections can be regarded as "local." But coverage in the "regular" paper is coverage in a major media outlet. It is also important to note that we are not discussing a single story, but,rather the fact that over the course of several years her activities have bee covered regularly, and in some of stories details of her personal life have been covered.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:14, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As to the extent of the philanthropy, it's interesting that the article presented Ms Morgridge as personally donating the money; please see the diff for my adjustments. For example:

From "As vice-president of the Morgridge Family Foundation, her charitable contributions have been in the tens of millions of dollars..." to "She is vice-president of the Morgridge Family Foundation, funded by an annual grant from John P. and Tashia Morgridge’s TOSA Foundation. The foundation's contributions have been in the tens of millions of dollars..."
"She gave $10 million to the University of Denver..." to "The foundation gave $10 million to the University of Denver..."

K.e.coffman (talk) 21:39, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Irrelevant. Wording doesn't matter. She's a major player in the foundation, deciding where the $$$ goes, how much, etc.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:49, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Umm, that precisely means she is not independently notable of the organization. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 01:53, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note that In fact, in the U.S. major donations are overwhelmingly made by Foundations, and a great many of these foundations are wholly controlled by individuals or families. There is a segue such taht some large, enduring Foundations become wholly independent of the founding family, but in general, this is simply the way charity is done. For may reasons. Note, just for example, that The Clinton family has just announced that they will actively transition the Clinton Foundation form family control to the control of an independent Board of Directors if Clinton wins in November. At present, Clinton Foundation, like Mordridge, is run the usual way family foundations are run - by the family.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:22, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've worked on the article a bit, and I'm coming to a conclusion that the article could be moved to Morgridge Family Foundation with perhaps a section on Ms Morgridge as the public face of the foundation. The biggest section in the article is about the foundation. It is also discussed in the lead. The subject does not appear to be independently notable. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:10, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Suppose person X works for organization Y. There is plenty of media coverage for both. Both X and Y meet the general notability guideline. There is no Wikipedia policy that I know of saying that X must be moved into Y because of the connection. Policy suggests, then, that there should be articles on both.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:24, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

While I still think that the coverage - that it may be fawning is not relevant - makes CM notable, it is the case that she probably only scrapes in at the minimum levels that we require and that an article on the foundation might be of more use and interest. We should keep the article for now, but I can see how this course of action could occur after the AfD, though I think given the AfD it would have to go through the proposed moves process. --Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 08:47, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- On second thoughts, I'm not convinced that the Morgridge Family Foundation (MFF) is that notable. I looked at the article for the father-in-law, John Morgridge (whose foundation funds the MFF), and he donated $50M to the Morgridge Institute for Research, and $175M to the Fund for Wisconsin Scholars (of his own money, I might add). The fact that the MFF donated "tens of millions" over eight years does not seem that significant in comparison. The coverage is mostly "trivial mentions" pertaining to the donations that the foundation made, without in-depth coverage of the foundation itself. So I take back what I said about the MFF. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:39, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: There are plenty of secondary sources to establish her notability -- I have seen as few as two as being sufficient and there are many more than that. Anything else is personal opinion. Ngriffeth (talk) 21:17, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, there are reviews of Morgridge's co-authored book Every Gift Matters by Publishers Weekly - "While Morgridge’s philanthropy far exceeds what most individuals can afford, she persuasively argues that donating wisely at any level can bring about big change. Readers will find her astute guidance a valuable tool in choosing where to give."[25], and Midwest Book Review - "An extraordinary and highly recommended addition to both community and academic library collections"[26]; it won a 2016 Next Generation Indie Book Award for General Non-fiction[27], a 2016 Independent Book Publishers Association Benjamin Franklin Award silver winner in the Political/Current Events category[28], and appeared on the 2015 JP Morgan reading list - "If you're trying to get in the mindset of business leaders, entrepreneurs and the big-wigs this summer, consider sifting through JPMorgan's summer reading list. The banking giant released its annual 2015 list on Monday, curating 10 titles aimed at its wealthy clientele."[29], so it meets WP:NBOOK (and could have its own article:)), also with this Morgridge arguably meets point 3 of WP:NAUTHOR and point 1 of WP:ANYBIO, with the article references (some but not all may be deemed trivial) she meets WP:BASIC and WP:GNG so is a keep.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:14, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:14, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:46, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Muffin (Bubbe's Boarding House)[edit]

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

Just a puppet character with no sources provided, Fails WP:GNG. KGirlTrucker81^{talk what I'm been doing} 21:02, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete I'd suggest a main article for Bubbe's Boarding House if it is notable. Also note Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anton (Bubbe's Boarding House) and Bubbe's Boarding House (theme song). Mr. Magoo (talk) 10:05, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:58, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The mystifying Bubbe's Boarding House (theme song) is a recorded song and can be speedied. I'm trying to now. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:08, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Unsure Ok, so Bubbe's Boarding House appears to exist as a Jewish-themed puppet show--either that or it is a very well promulgated hoax, because there's even a Rotten Tomatoes listing (but no reviews) for one of their holiday specials. I'm wondering why we have articles for these fictional elements but not the main show. Jclemens (talk) 17:38, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Can I just not see the deletion log as I'm no longer an admin, or did a main article never exist? Jclemens (talk) 17:35, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If a main article ever existed, the red link would still bear an indication that it was deleted. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:26, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think the reason for that is because it seems to have only been a Sesame Street / Muppets "special episode." Mr. Magoo (talk) 14:36, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:39, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable, and per Mr. Magoo. Yoninah (talk) 14:10, 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. MBisanz ^talk 00:46, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vishal Naresh Jethwa[edit]

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

WP:TOOSOON and WP:NACTOR: Nothing much independently in reliable sources. GSS (talk) 16:03, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 16:03, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 16:03, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello i am Hagoromo's Susanoo founder of this article Vishal Naresh Jethwa. I kindly propose to the wiki administrators and users that they don't delete it as i gave reliable sources. I will also give more soon. Kindly do not delete it for sometime. In the meantime, i will try to find sources. I await your reply. Thanks and Regards, Hagoromo's Susanoo (talk) 03:26, 25 July 2016 (UTC)Hagoromo's SusanooHagoromo's Susanoo (talk) 03:26, 25 July 2016 (UTC) Kindly reply — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hagoromo's Susanoo (talk • contribs) 16:10, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:14, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Sam Sailor ^Talk! 22:57, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, jcc (tea and biscuits) 21:00, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- As per nomination. — Sanskari ^Hangout 16:19, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 00:46, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Milken Educator Award[edit]

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

non notable award. Article by ed.working almost exclusively on Milliken family articles, but with an adequately declared COI. No refs except for local notes about he award being given to a local teacher. No reason to really expect anything Part of an series of promotional POV articles about the man and his charities. I'm trying to fix what I can of them, since he himself is unquestionably notable & some of his charities may be also. This one is unfixable because the award is simply not important enough DGG ( talk ) 13:59, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Numerous reliable-source articles turn up, including this Washington Post one. The award is extremely unusual because it is set up to be a surprise award, and the $25,000 amount of unrestricted funds is substantial for the teachers who are recipients. It is like their winning a lottery, because there must be a high degree of random chance in these particular ones being selected to win. This is brilliant in terms of garnering publicity, and for having impact. The intended impacts, I presume, include 1) to promote the idea that teachers (these ones, and others) are valuable contributors to society and are worth rewarding, and 2) to encourage other committed teachers by in effect putting them into a lottery each year that they might win. This seems to me comparable, marketing-wise and news-wise, to the various publishers' Sweepstakes#Sweepstakes in the United States awards during the 1950s/1960s that delivered news on TV (exciting at the time) or at homes of winners. These included awards by American Family Publishers Sweepstakes, Publishers Clearing House and Reader's Digest Sweepstakes, and were all great marketing programs but were all eventually determined to be illegal lotteries (though the marketing benefits were so good that at least one persisted and simply paid the fines that accrued). I don't otherwise know about any surprise awards nowadays. Perhaps for good reason, as bringing cameras and regional or national attention to unprepared "winners" can easily be a severe invasion of their privacy, and in fact be hurtful psychologically and literally putting them into danger of being robbed or otherwise victimized, laying them out like targets for police to enforce any prior escaped criminal justice system penalty, etc. Maybe the $25,000 amount is not so much, and maybe the school assembly-type settings here are less intrusive, so this is okay. It may be that the intended impacts, per my guesses here, are not explicitly stated, but that does not mean they are not real. It would be interesting, no doubt, to find a learned research article in Marketing Science or other academic journal which evaluated this program, but we do not need to find such an article before we recognize by our own reasoning that this is a program notable for its clever marketing.

Anyhow, it is unusual, and it is garnering frequent hits in newspapers, and Wikipedia needs to have an article explaining what this is. Kudos to the brilliant family foundation/charity schemers who back us into that position. --do ncr am 17:04, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:15, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:31, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:31, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Sam Sailor ^Talk! 23:01, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, jcc (tea and biscuits) 21:00, 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. MBisanz ^talk 00:48, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Anton (Bubbe's Boarding House)[edit]

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

Just an puppet character with no sources provided. Fails WP:GNG. KGirlTrucker81^{talk what I'm been doing} 20:55, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:42, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete I'd suggest a main article for Bubbe's Boarding House if it is notable. Also note Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Muffin (Bubbe's Boarding House) and Bubbe's Boarding House (theme song). Mr. Magoo (talk) 10:06, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:38, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable, and per Mr. Magoo. Yoninah (talk) 14:09, 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 no consensus. Has been rewritten close to the end of the AfD; if still deemed problematic may be renominated. Sandstein 07:15, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Candice Kumai[edit]

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

No external references. Promotional Rathfelder (talk) 21:30, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:31, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:31, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:31, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete overly promotional. Other than her website the only source is IMDb, this is not enough for an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:02, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, found a review, of Pretty Delicious in LA Weekly - "This is the sort of cookbook to be approached like a blind tasting of wines with really silly labels. It might be a good book (or wine) if you could get rid of your inevitable preconceived notions when you see a recipe with a title like "dill-lite- full cucumber tea witches" or "sexy strawberry cheesecake.""[30], and The Wall Street Journal calls her a "digital influencer"[31], but more is needed for notability. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:57, 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 00:35, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can find nothing that established notability for the subject of the article - I did a quick google search, and the hits were rather sparse in regards to the depth of coverage - her personal webpage, collections of her recipes, Twitter, Instagram and Facebook were the major hits. The article has no sources, and the primary contributor appears to be a SPA. Based on this information, I believe it it needs to be deleted. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 10:04, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- a non notable wellness journalist. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:23, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: LA Weekly above is a cookbook review (not about the subject) and WSJ appears to be a trivial mention. I found this from Vulture: "Where Do Most Runners-up on Reality Talent Shows End Up?: "Write a cookbook: Angelo Sosa, Mike Isabella, Hall, the Voltaggio brothers, Talde, and Viviani all have cookbooks to their name. Antonia Lofaso (season four and All Stars) wrote The Busy Mom’s Cookbook, and Marisa Churchill (season two) authored a dessert book, Sweet and Skinny. Candice Kumai (season one) has fashioned herself a health-food expert as the host of Lifetime’s Cooking Yourself Thin and author of multiple books, including Clean Green Drinks and Cook Yourself Sexy." All rather trivial. So still delete. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:22, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply - Reviews do not not establish notability as they fall under WP:Routine. Additionally, even if the book were notable it would not confer that notability onto to its author per WP:Notability is not inherited. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 07:12, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - Jerem43, you are incorrect. WP:NAUTHOR states that under criteria 4c, an author may be notable for significant critical attention of their work. "The person's work (or works) (c) has won significant critical attention". Megalibrarygirl (talk) 19:21, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - Reply - Megalibrarygirl, a review in a publication that falls under WP:Routine is not a critical review even if the reviewer is identified as a "critic". That would be the case if her books were on par with a publication like Mastering the Art of French Cooking, which is considered a milestone cookbook that altered the culinary landscape of the United States and in turn vaulted Julia Child to celebrity status. A standard, routine review in the Bakersfield Times, the New York Times or other newspaper, major or minor, by no means is considered receiving critical attention as required by part 4 of WP:Author. By critical attention as stated in that part of the WP:Notability guidelines, means that actual study of the works of the creator must be in depth regarding the work and its effects in society. While you will find lots of critical works on Ms. Child and her works, I believe you will have a considerable larger task in locating a true critical assessment of Ms. Kumai's work. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 07:08, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        Reply Jerem43, a "critical review" does not have to be a scholarly treatment of the subject. Reviews in the NY Times for example, are acceptable. Reviews in the news, magazines or journals are hardly "routine": only books that receive significant attention for various reasons are reviewed--I know: I'm a librarian. BTW, the term "critical attention" is not mentioned once on WP:Notability, nor is it specifically defined in WP:NAUTHOR, leaving it to the AfD participants to weigh and evaluate the info provided. Anyway, that's a little off-topic, but I think important to clarify. The subject of this article passes GNG for coverage under reliable sources which I added to the article. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:21, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sources include in-depth here and in-depth here and here and in-depth here and in-depth here and here. That said, the current article could be improved, but that is not grounds for deletion, since she easily meets the general notability guideline.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:26, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- I would not call this in-depth coverage. These are articles related to the subject's promotion of her books, such as #1:

"Chef Candice Kumai is a health food wunderkind and the author of New York Times bestsellers Cook Yourself Thin, The Skinny Bitch, Recipe Rehab and more. She currently serves as the food-editor-at-large for Shape and Men's Fitness magazine and has a new book, Clean Green Drinks, available now. So, in celebration of all things Earth Day, we tapped Candice to dish on her healthiest (and yummiest!) juices and smoothies. Keep reading for her favorite recipes! And be sure to tune in to E! News tonight at 7/6c to see Candice make a perfect Earth Day-worthy drink." Etc. --

Recipes and/or interviews follow. The subject of Candice Kumai does not receive substantial coverage; these are mostly trivial mentions, insufficient (in my view) to establish individual notability and sustain an encyclopedia article. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:44, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 20:36, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and I wish I had commented before, all of it PR and the sources are basing with PR also, and that's expected with someone at this occupation. Nothing else suggests the needed substance. SwisterTwister talk 20:44, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We don't delete because an article is "promotional." That's not what AfD is for. She is covered under several reliable sources and Coolabahapple found reviews of her work. I'll go ahead and add to the article. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 19:24, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've rewritten the article and added RS. Please take a look. I also deleted the promotional material. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 22:36, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kudos to Megalibrarygirl -- the article is in great shape now.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:02, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article is an improvement, but the coverage and achievements do not yet add up to an encyclopedic notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:04, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. This can be revisited in a few months to determine if, for example, the incident has received ongoing coverage and analysis as per WP:SUSTAINED, or conversely, if a lack of said ongoing coverage and analysis is evident, then WP:NOTNEWS may be applicable. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:10, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ASL Airlines Hungary Flight 7332[edit]

Note:Article has been moved by someone, now at ASL Airlines Hungary Flight 7332. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:05, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved the AfD to match the new title of the page. Class455 (talk) 00:12, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

WP:NOTNEWS. Minor aviation incident. Runway overruns are very common. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 22:33, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 22:34, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 22:34, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 22:34, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 22:34, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No one was even injured, nor did that crash seem to pose any threat to anyone else at that moment. I really can't see how this would be notable even in the short-term. Parsley Man (talk) 22:38, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep – The runway overruns are not really that common for commercial airliners. This incident is pretty similar to Southwest Airlines Flight 1455 and Southwest Airlines Flight 1248 incidents and especially since a fair amount of damage has been sustained (possibly even a hull loss) it deserves its inclusion. cherkash (talk) 23:34, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Runway overruns are very common: TAP Portugal Flight 425, American Airlines Flight 1420, Southwest Airlines Flight 1455, Lion Air Flight 538, Garuda Indonesia Flight 200, Air Canada Flight 189, China Eastern Airlines Flight 5398, TAM Airlines Flight 3054, American Airlines Flight 331, Red Wings Airlines Flight 9268, Air India Express Flight 812, TAM Airlines Flight 3054, Delta Air Lines Flight 1086. 80.2.106.75 (talk) 13:16, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Compared to the sheer number of successful daily commercial flights, any incident is uncommon. Also interesting to note: of the 12 flights listed above (TAM Airlines Flight 3054 is listed twice), 11 were passenger flights, and the other one (Red Wings Airlines Flight 9268) was a was a repositioning flight by a passenger airline. Sario528 (talk) 13:39, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Totally non-notable with no serious consequences or changes to procedures, legislation etc. etc. Fails WP.GNG--Petebutt (talk) 12:33, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not significant event. -Varmapak ^(talk) 18:14, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per Cherkash. - EugεnS¡m¡on 20:33, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, a relatively minor accident with no fatalities and a cargo flight with just 2 persons onboard, thus unlikely to receive a significant coverage in reliable sources. Could be merged to 2016 in aviation, for example. Brandmeister^talk 18:26, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Sorry to say, but a plane with a small runway overrun with no fatalities is not going to significant to Wikipedia, especially after... 5-10 years. All other runway overruns on Wikipedia actually have a significance. Get Air France Flight 358, for example. The accident was (and still is, but in smaller numbers) widely noticed in Canada for having a serious Airbus A340 accident with no fatalities. TAM Airlines Flight 3054, on the other hand, is widely noticed for being the deadliest aviation accident in Brazil (as of 8 August 2016). However, this crash, really doesn't show significance, it's just an incident with no major significance. Redolta📱 ^Contribs 00:10, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note This AFD was closed a few hours ago as "The result was Delete per WP:SNOWBALL". However, the consensus at the ANI discussion here is that this was premature, so I've reopened this AFD discussion. It's only been closed 10 hours or so, so I think it's fine to leave it in the 8/5 log, and not restart the AFD from scratch. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:00, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - this was an unusual event in Europe, not every day an big airplane lands in the middle of a highway. It could end very bad if in that time there were people in cars. Gsvadds (talk) 06:35, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the event itself should be notable enough to sustain an article as the aircraft is almost certainly a write-off. That it was a freighter and not a passenger aircraft should not be a deciding factor. However, if people do not care enough to write decent articles when there are plenty of sources available to do so, such as this article, it is very difficult to argue that the article shows said notability. Mjroots (talk) 06:56, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Improve - the article as it stands describes a non-notable event that fits WP:SNOWBALL. This AfD discussion contains more information about the event, than the article itself. Without any evidence or even statements backing up the arguments in this discussion (all of which are uncited), the article is an easy delete: we're not here to catalogue every low-impact excursion, especially of DHL flights. If this isn't a routine cargo flight excursion, the article is completely misrepresentative. Leondz (talk) 08:14, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - improved, well-sourced; hull loss of a major aircraft, very unusual, likely to lead to operational changes. Leondz (talk) 18:07, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep (an update to the vote above) – The article was clearly created as a stub for a subsequent expansion. As mentioned, the event itself is notable enough and deserved its article per notability criteria. Mjroots has pretty much said this above. There are already plenty notable sources such as Guardian, etc. mentioning the event and its aftermath. So let's keep and expand rather than arguing that the length of the article itself is too short (this can easily be fixed, and most certainly will be in the near future, by myself and other editors). The length of the article itself should not be grounds for deletion, especially for a new article! cherkash (talk) 22:59, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Addition – The article has been further expanded with details added. Clearly, as the event is very recent, some details will only be becoming available in the months to come. cherkash (talk) 00:10, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have voted twice, so I've took the liberty to strike the second vote. Brandmeister^talk 07:34, 11 August 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 August 12. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:09, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve- Aircraft was written off, so seems notable to me, however it is in need of some improvement. Class455 (talk) 00:10, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, both as WP:NOTNEWS, and because such events are neither particularly unusual, nor particularly interesting. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:03, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 20:33, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable accident with no injuries, consequences, meaningful/notable changes to procedures. Fails WP:GNG, WP:NOTNEWS etc. etc. etc..--Petebutt (talk) 09:06, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - article has been improved since I commented earlier, but it could still be a lot better. Mjroots (talk) 18:34, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Agree, the article needs further updates and revisions, as new information becomes available. Please also note that quality of an article has nothing to do with notability; in this case, the event is notable and this is a strong enough reason to keep it, regardless of the current quality of the article. cherkash (talk) 04:24, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While it does appear that the incident received some coverage in reliable independent sources, there is nothing about this event that seems to make it worthy of being the subject of a standalone article. Yes, a plane had a bad landing; yes, this was reported in some newspapers, mostly because the photographs of it appear to be dramatic. Does that fact warrant inclusion in an encyclopedia? Unless the incident is being shown related to a larger series of accidents by this carrier, or someone was injured or killed, or something meaningful changed as a result, then... Why? Because it "happened"? That doesn't seem a convincing argument to retain it. KDS4444 (talk) 14:00, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- I can see a few reasons why the accident is significant:

There was bad weather and late at night. A lot of discussion is taking place about pilot work hours and training, both of which may (or may not) be contributors in the accident. Recording this accident is interesting in that context. It would be interesting to see the decision making.
There was a write-off and substantial property damage. There was a significant amount of excess energy involved (stopping 520 meters past the runway), not quite a wheel coming off a taxiway into grass.
Accidents like this are infrequent, especially in Europe. Aviation safety in Europe is generally regarded as being very good. Global aviator (talk) 19:29, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I think we have to draw the line at crashes where no one is hurt. Every single fatal car crash is arguably more notable and important than this. Herostratus (talk) 19:25, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:49, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

CIBI-FM[edit]

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

The station apparently never went to air; its authorization expired unbuilt. Recent consensus seems to be indicating that stations that never launched do not enjoy the presumption of notability assumed for established/operating stations — and as a Weatheradio Canada station, its notability may have been limited at best anyway. The article was actually redirected to Weatheradio Canada back in 2010, but an IP editor reverted that in 2015 — and only then was it ever noted in the article that the station never launched. Not sure if restoring the redirect is best or if the article should go entirely, hence this AfD. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:53, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:54, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:25, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:25, 14 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 • 20:37 on August 14, 2016 (UTC)
Delete. Thanks for the catch; I missed this one in my recent batch of unlaunched never-wases, as I was concentrating on Category:Proposed radio stations and didn't go through other categories to scan for stragglers — as noted, this never actually launched, and therefore fails to have an "established broadcast history" as demanded by WP:NMEDIA. In general, individual weather radio transmitters should actually not be presumed individually notable, as they're notable only as an aspect of a larger topic (i.e. the overall national weather radio service operator) rather than as individual standalone topics — this discussion last year reaffirmed that these should all be merged into a single list of weather radio transmitters (either in the parent service's article or as a "List of..." spinoff) rather than existing as separate articles, per our rules about how to handle "stations" that exist only as a rebroadcaster of a larger service or network than as standalone originators of programming. I note that as of today that still hasn't actually happened in the US, and I just now dealt with redirecting the Canadian ones. And, in fact, there's a verifiability problem as to whether it really died unlaunched or not, as one very germane thing happened to Canadian weather radio transmitters between 2003 and now: they became exempt from having to have CRTC licenses at all because low-power and non-commercial, and thus now occupy a category very much like USian Part 15 stations. So the non-existence of a current CRTC license doesn't prove the non-existence of the transmitter in and of itself, but does make it essentially unverifiable regardless of whether it existed or not — so there's no value in keeping this as a redirect if we can't actually verify whether it exists or not. Bearcat (talk) 14:41, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:54, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Aickarakonam[edit]

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

Unsourced stub. We normally keep stubs about geographical locations even when they're unsourced, but in this case I was literally unable to verify that the place even exists ---- I literally couldn't find Aickarakonam on a map. —S Marshall T/C 18:56, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Agreed, there is nothing out there confirming this location even exists. It isn't even on Google maps. Meatsgains (talk) 19:04, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:27, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:27, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Punalur. I haven't been able to find it on a map either, but it does have mentions as Aikarakonam: for example this survey on iodine deficiency in Kerala and this newspaper article on suspension of school principals. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:53, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Even typing in the coordinates that the article claims this "village" is located, there's nothing resembling the name Aickarakonam at this location. The location is Punalur, but I don't know even re-directing to that is appropriate. I'm going to say Delete unless someone can prove it's a place. --Oakshade (talk) 06:11, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe the sources I found and cited above prove it's a place, but it's a village within Punalur. Hence my suggestion of a merge; it's conceivable someone might search for it, but there doesn't appear to be anything useful to be said about it except that it's part of Punalur. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:21, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I could not find this village, or anything remotely spelled like this village, in the Indian 2011 Census report for Punalur; hence, probably not legally recognized and fails WP:GEOLAND. I looked at the English version, maybe a search of the native language version would turn something up, hence not advocating deletion due to my lack of language skills. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:10, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @Carlossuarez46: Did you look at the spelling Aikarakonam? See my point above; we appear to have it at a misspelled title. If it is a legally recognised place, we are almost bound to keep the stub; it's on the assumption it isn't that I suggest a merger. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:05, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - In the Indian Census of 2011, there is nothing reported with Aikarakonam, Aickarakonam, or anything similar. see [32], the page says its a municipal ward possibly one of the dozens identified solely by number on pages 57 through 59 of the pdf file. Even if so, it would be no more than a neighborhood. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 03:56, 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) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 22:42, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jen Robertson[edit]

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

Only one of these three dab entries is even close to the title: Jenn Robertson, the Canadian actress. The other two are OR guesses. Clarityfiend (talk) 18:26, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:30, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep disambiguation pages make sense in sorting out possible confusion of names. I would actually advise relinking everything to Jennifer Robertson, and then using that as a disambiguation page to the 4 potential links here, and just ignoring Jean Robertson.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:03, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this is useful disambiguation. If a person types "Jen Robertson" it is conceivable that they could be looking for any of these persons. --LukeSurl^{t c} 10:14, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's the title that's wrong rather than the dab, but this was a difficult one to give a title. Jenny and Jennie are both probably Jennifer on their birth certificates, but we don't know that. I rearranged the intro to make it clear this dab is for Jen, Jennie, Jenny and Jennifers. I would recommend a move to Jennifer Robertson (disambiguation), and it could still include the Jenny/Jennies as variants of the name. I used the searchbox and dabfix and added 6 new entries. There were easily another 20meeting MOS:DABMENTION. Boleyn (talk) 09:14, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:50, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sultan Ghani[edit]

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

Keep - Sultan Ghani Ahmadzai is part of the presidential family of Afghanistan, many sources in reference to him are in Pashto ^[1]. His father has recently given him the position of President of the Ghani Group, a multinational corporation with subsidiaries located in Dubai, U.A.E as well as Afghanistan. His role within the conglomerate entitles him authority to over see Mosahib Int' Legal & Consulting Services ^[2] Ghani was also featured in GQ in the late 2015 (Sultan Ghani GQ) ^[3] Confusion arises when an individuals mix up with another Sultan Ghani, a Pakistani actor. Habib787 (talk) 05:02, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No assertion of notability, fails WP:NPEOPLE and WP:NOTINHERITED applies - the article claims he is a businessman, but someone took that info off his LinkedIn. Rather, it seems he is inheriting based on his family relationships, because his company is here, and he's not on the board. MSJapan (talk) 18:07, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Most news articles aren't related to this Sultan Ghani. Subject lacks notability. Meatsgains (talk) 19:06, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This may even be a candidate for speedy deletion per WP:A7. I could find no sources, reliable or otherwise, that discuss this individual. The sources cited in the article don't even discuss him; with the exception of the Afghan-Bios source, which includes a one-line mention, the sources talk about his relatives. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 19:17, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin. If this article is deleted, please also delete the Sultan Z. Ghani redirect (WP:CSD#G8). That is currently nominated at RfD so wont show up as a redirect on whatlinkshere. Thryduulf (talk) 21:41, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:42, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:42, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:42, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NPOL and WP:NOTINHERITED. Further he is not on board in his Company.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 13:12, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to University of the Philippines Diliman. MBisanz ^talk 00:50, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

University of the Philippines College of Music[edit]

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

Some of this article was apparently copied and pasted from here, I've revision deleted the suspect material for now pending the outcome of this afd, which seeks to establish whether the University should remain on Wikipedia. TomStar81 (Talk) 08:41, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. — Sam Sailor ^Talk! 12:37, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. — Sam Sailor ^Talk! 12:37, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:49, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The University is, I believe, notable, but not this particular college which is only a subunit. WP:BRANCH lays it out pretty clearly. KDS4444 (talk) 21:31, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: KDS4444 has said it all – universities are usually notable, but departments within a university rarely are. And this one, completely unsourced, definitely isn't. Richard3120 (talk) 21:02, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jujutacular (talk) 18:01, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BRANCH, although the content (with a source) could be merged into the main article. Blythwood (talk) 21:42, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect as usual in such cases. There's enough to merge, if we properly rewrite some material added as copyvio from official site. DGG ( talk ) 22:14, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Even giving full weight to all commenters, there is no consensus as to whether the subject's underlying notability is sufficient for an article. Default to keep, but the article could be renominated in the future if concerns about excess promotion are not addressed. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 13:38, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rami Ranger[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Promotional article, for businessman active in several non-notable companies. The awards given do not show notability. (MBE and OBE do not show notability , though the higher ranks do; Queens Award for enterprise is not suficiently discriminate) I'm award of the honorary doctorate from University of West London--but this very low ranking university is essentially a business college & its honorary degrees should not be considered to show notability DGG ( talk ) 17:23, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- sourcing does not suggest notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:29, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:33, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:33, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:33, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:43, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The subject meets WP:BASIC per a review of available sources. Source examples include, but are not limited to those listed below. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:35, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

The Times of India
Hindustan Times
The Economic Times
NDTV
The Economic Times
The Times of India
Giving is Good For You. pp. pt149– . (subscription required)

Comment: I looked at the above coverage and it's mostly interviews or news releases, including:

"LONDON: Mahatma Gandhi's grandson Gopalkrishna Gandhi and NRI businessman Rami Ranger have joined the UK-based Gandhi Memorial Trust as trustees.

The trust has been set up by NRI economist Lord Meghnad Desai to raise funds for the Gandhi statue to be unveiled at Parliament Square here early next year.

"The Trust is expanding its work and vision. Even after the sculpture is established we will continue to be guided by our valued trustees, especially by Gopalkrishna Gandhi, to spread the message of Mahatma Gandhi in the UK," said Desai in a statement.

It's not clear what makes this subject notable. There are some awards, in 3rd and 5th grade, Member of the Order of the British Empire and Commander of the Order of the British Empire but I assume if this was a notable achievements, this would have been covered in publications other than London Gazette, which appears to be a primary source (a government publication). K.e.coffman (talk) 01:28, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sources that contain quotes are not interviews by default. I can't access the The Times of India article right now, but all of the other articles atop are not interviews. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:43, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Then it's just a retelling of a press release, which makes the coverage more trivial in my view. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:15, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article should not be deleted as he is a notable figure in the UK and in various other countries. The content is factually correct and open to scrutiny and amendment in case any Wiki users believe it to be incorrect. IT is not in the interests of the wider Wiki community to remove this entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harmeetahuja (talk • contribs) 10:36, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm not sure if the above vote should be counted as this account only edit the article in question, so appears to be an SPA for this subject. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:37, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and I've been watching this AfD, and still none of it actually amounts to actual and convincing substance to suggest a convincing and independently notable article. SwisterTwister talk 02:00, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wikipedia is an open source centre for information and the subject is a person who is in the public eye and the UK. There is evidence of people using search engines to find out about him and Wikipedia is a very useful source of information for such users. To remove him would be removing this and would in fact take the subject out of a field of open scrutiny and instead into a private source of information which cannot be good. The style and substance of the article can be amended by those critical of this page and should further sources be required then these can surely be provided or researched. Himanshu Darji ((talk)) 12:56, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: the !vote above comes from the editor who only edited the article in question, and probably should be discounted. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:16, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep** the last comment states that I am the editor and I confirm this. However, you have not asked why I support the view I have taken. I am frequently contacted by newspapers and TV companies for information on the subject page and Wikipedia is an open source which can be questioned and challenged by anyone and information added as appropriate. My vote should not be discounted at all. It should have extra weight as I am directly affected by this and very much aware of the importance of this page remaining on line. Other users should empathize with this situation and the genuine benefit this page provides to all users. Harmeetahuja 13:43 12 August 2016 UTC —Preceding undated comment added 12:45, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jujutacular (talk) 17:57, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that the creator of the article admits to needing this page for promotional purposes. I.e. it's helpful to have a wikipedia article in responding to media requests -- ? (If I'm reading this right). The editor also created the Sun Mark article (the subject's company), so this is probably a walled garden situation as well. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:20, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Sirs, I have not admitted any such thing. I have merely stated that there is a need for information on Dr Rami Ranger and that Wikipedia is a credible source for this. It is all the more credible as people such as yourself help to ensure the validity and accuracy of the information. There is no admission or discussion on self-promotion here and I firmly reiterate that the page should remain to support the availability of information on a public figure. Harmeetahuja 15:11 15 august 2016 [UTC] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harmeetahuja (talk • contribs) 14:13, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Basing this on the sources found by NorthAmerica (above). These aare RS in major media, some of the jurnalists interviewed the subject, others covered events (the New Year's honro lost and photo of him shakinghnds with Elizabeth II.) These are emphatically NOT press releases. An editor above appears to confuses the fact that these are the sort of things about which a PR professional undoubtedly did send out a press release, with the reality that journalists are innundated with press releases, but when they choose to respond by writing an article about the topic it is called RE secondary coverage - even though it may hve been inspired by a press release. This is NOT the same as a news google hit on a press release.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:45, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I can access Times of India and the articles are (1) NRI Rami Ranger honoured with honorary doctorate; (2) Indian-origin businessman on Britain's New Year's honours list. These do not appear to be notable awards. Shaking hands with the Queen does not make a person notable. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:22, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. nn spam, COI Jimfbleak (talk) 06:30, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Paranormalproof[edit]

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

This is basically a YouTube Channel but it isn't sufficiently notable for inclusion. Looking for Google hits is a bit tricky because "Paranormal Proof" is a fairly common phrase but if you add the name of the show's founder (either his first name Dacomb or his last name Bierton) searches come up empty. Pichpich (talk) 17:11, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Dschslava^Δxparlez moi 17:30, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as lacking assertion of significance. --bonadea contributions talk 18:15, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per above. Non notable, promotional and COI. 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 19:15, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:33, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:33, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:33, 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. Apart from the creator and two new accounts with likely WP:COI/WP:SOCK issues, everybody thinks this is WP:OR. Sandstein 06:47, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Electron internal structure[edit]

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

No indication of notability, massive NPOV problems and the very existence of the article contradicts scientific consensus on the nature of the electron. I just don't see how to keep this article. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 16:42, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, my preferred course of action is to Redirect and merge to Electron. Some of the material seems worth keeping. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 16:53, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Since the point Theory of the electron is limited to three dimensions and Williamson model is in 16 dimensions, then like String theory it may be compatible. No?

On having read Dr. Williamson and Dr. Van Der Marks papers, what precise paragraphs to find objection to? Shurly you not saying that this work contradicts scientific consensus without specific points of contention when the authors seem to promoting this work as being an enlightenment to QED.--Pete.delaney (talk) 18:28, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect and Merge Quite clearly. WP:FRINGE, WP:NPOV, WP:GNG. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 20:24, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:33, 14 August 2016 (“The evolution of the physicist’s picture of nature,” Scientific

American, vol. 208, no. 2, 1963.UTC)

~~Redirect and marge~~ Delete ~~to Electron per nom.~~ Definitely not mainstream and I can see no prospect of the creator allowing appropriate material to exist on Wikipedia. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:32, 14 August 2016 (UTC).[reply]

I'm trying to explain the value of this work and it's presentation on Wikipedia. I'd prefer to make a complete presentation in this article, which support from the experts that are developing it. So far I haven't even seen a detailed argument against their work. To be fair I think we owe Dr. Williamson, Dr. Van Der Mark, and Dr. Leary the benefit of the doubt and read their work before throwing stones. In the FRINGE argument I doubt our Universities frequently accept Ph.D. Dissertations on Fringe Theories without any merit. I don't see any thing in Google showing that Universities are giving out PhD. in physics on Fringe dissertations. Are there many/any? Lets gets some professionals in this field agreeing that the University of Glasglow has accepted a PhD dissertation on mere Fringe idea and why they think the ideas are so weird. My reading of their work is that it's a beautiful theory that's deriving things like the electron rest mass and charge from 1st principles.--Pete.delaney (talk) 23:14, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You fail to understand the nature of Wikipedia. It is an encyclopedia of knowledge found in secondary sources. It is not a forum for discussing the validity of new theories WP:No original research. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:22, 15 August 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Pete, whether we have an article on this or not really has nothing to do with the validity of Williamson's work. He could be completely right, and we could still not have an article on it. Or he could be completely wrong, so wrong as to be ridiculous, and we might still have an article on it (for example; flat earth). Please check out The Five Pillars of Wikipedia, which will help you understand what our mission is here. Also, please read the link Xxanthippe provided. It's extremely important, as well. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 02:04, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per OP.74.70.146.1 (talk) 02:53, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless evidence is provided that this new model has gained significant notability within the relevant scientific community. As far as I can tell the references for the new model are conference preprints, personal essays, and one paper in a journal having an impact factor of about 0.4. Not a promising start. Perhaps better citations will be forthcoming, but until then Wikipedia policy requires that the article be deleted. Useful material within the article can, of course, be ported into other articles as appropriate. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:04, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The topic of this wikipedia page to to summarize the various theories on the internal structure of the electron. The point charge with a cloud of photons, electrons, and positrons buzzing around the charge is the most common theory. I'd like to present the highlights of this theory more. There are additional theories, for example Dr. Mills work on the Grand Unified Theory of Classical Physics that I'm considering. I thought I'd put the leading theories at the top of the wiki page, and have less promising theories, like Mills, near the end or perhaps not at all. I've discussed Mills theory with a Quantum Mechanic and he wasn't impressed. There are quite a few theories out there, and so far I'm mostly impressed with the Theory proposed by Williamson et.al. Perhaps you guys have some additional theories that we can discuss. Feels to me that it's worth having a wiki page that collects the various theories together, discussing their good and bad attributes. I'm discussing your Notability issue with Williamson et. al. --Pete.delaney (talk) 03:48, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Steven's external was then head of the department of Mathematics at Imperial. He was well-tested! He claims though this was as nothing to the grilling he had had the day before from Martin Van Der Mark. Tested by one of the worlds best physicists and one of the UK's best mathematicians. Must be ok then! --Pete.delaney (talk) 05:45, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just the paper John and Martin published by the Louis de Broglie foundation in 1991 has received a respectable number of citations (46). Dr. Williamson latest papers are much more rigorous. His citations in other journals they are way ahead of the journal average, even for the most prestigious journals such as Phys Rev Lett. This is how journals gain impact factor: by publishing authors like Dr. Williamson who produce work that gets lots of citations.The present work, however, is way beyond the quality (and eventual impact of those). These are very early days and it is quite normal that revolutionary stuff has difficulty at the beginning. The new theory (beyond the semi-classical model of the 1997 paper) only really came out last year! --Pete.delaney (talk) 06:02, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The new theory has inner complexity beyond current string theories it differs in several crucial ways. Firstly string theories are non-perturbative - which means that one cannot calculate with them to give such things as the electron charge. Further the extra dimensions in string theories are considered hidden, non observable then. Very convenient! Not subject to the scientific method then. These dimension are just added to deal ad-hoc with difficulties as they arise.

Our "extra dimensions" are just such things as elementary areas and volumes. They are all derived directly from just the four dimensions of space and time. Secondly the "inner structure" in competing theories is purely mathematical. In ours they are purely dynamical, governed by a set of first order linear differential equations just like Newtons laws, Maxwell's equations (which they contain), or the Dirac equation (to which the present approach is very similar). Quite different kind of beast altogether. This should be said, and linked to!

Martin and John are working on several articles at the moment with a view to submitting them to prestigious journals.

Wiki should really have some discussion about what is in the electron to give it its quantum spin and extended wave properties in atoms, molecules and the solid state. This is considered to be a hard discussion, but does not mean it should not be out there.--Pete.delaney (talk) 06:12, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pete, a couple things.

First, this much text is not likely to be read by most people. Most people will see it and simply scroll past.
Second, if this theory contradicts string theory, and produces predictions similar to it, then it is not a theory of the electron, but a theory of everything. It is, at least, a particle theory.
Third, your critiques of string theory here are not entirely accurate. For example, you say string theory is "non-perturbative" because it cannot predict the charge of an electron. This... doesn't make sense. The goal of any theory is to find a non-perturbative definition for one thing (because that would allow precise predictions which can be tested), and for the other thing, there's no 'calculating' the charge of an electron: It's negative. If it were not negative, it would not be an electron. You may mean to say that string theory does not predict the existence of a negatively charged particle with a very tiny mass, but this would be incorrect. As another example, you said that the extra dimensions of string theory are untestable, when in truth, there is no fundamental reason why that would be so. They may, in fact be untestable, but to the best of our current understanding, that would be due to the limits of technology; a fact which which invalidates your criticism.
Finally, the mainstream consensus is that there is no internal structure to the electron. The reasons for this can be rather complex in detail, but can be summed up by pointing out that there's only one kind of electron, hence there's no reason to suspect an internal structure. Atomic nuclei come in different forms, hence why we have searched for (and found) an internal structure of the nucleus.

This is why I suggested we merge this page to electron. I see no way to give adequate coverage of the mainstream consensus view of the electron's structure in that article with the weight it deserves. How much text can one devote to saying "there is none"? Not much. You might be able to work a 30-word sentence out of that, at best. It's just not feasible to have an article on this. Now, one could have a subsection in our electron article titled "Theories about a possible internal structure of the electron" under the "Characteristics" section that could contain a brief overview of this work. But again, it would need to be brief, and it would need to emphasize the mainstream view. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 13:44, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In just a few sentences, what is the internal structure of an electron according to string theory?
I was mostly quoting Dr. Williamson, let me ask him and get back to you on that.
The page on an electron says that but it seems to me that a point is an internal structure, thought very very simple. I thought Dirac claims it is a point, not just that he assumed it was a point. I thought this point assumption was part of the need for re-normalization. No. Want to clarify? --Pete.delaney (talk) 02:31, 16 August 2016 (UTC) (signature added by MjolnirPants)[reply]

Pete, this is now the third time I've told you that you may not edit other user's comments. You must stop this, you can be sanctioned for not respecting other editor's messages. You not only inserted your responses inside my last comment, you erased part of Shock Brigade Harvester Boris's comment. I've explained to your how to quote another user to respond point by point; you need to do that instead of editing someone else's comment. Now, as to your questions, you also need to know that this page is not for discussing the differences between Williamson's theory and string theory or the standard model. It is for discussing what we should do with the page in question. That being said, I will give you a brief answer: A structure is, by definition in both physics and common usage, an arrangement of different parts. In string theory, electrons have no structure, because they are composed of a single one-dimensional, vibrating string. In the standard model, they are composed of one single, infinitely small zero-dimensional point. Neither of those two descriptions is a 'structure'. They are fundamental objects. Now, we need to return to the topic of what to do with this page. I believe I've given my thoughts on that already. If you don't have anything to add (about what to do with the page), then I suggest we let this thread die. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 05:30, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete per WP:TNT - this is a work of WP:OR. I suggest the creator check out WP:EXPERT, especially the 2nd bullet in the advice for expert editors section. Writing an encyclopedia is very, very different from writing a review article or anything else that academics usually do. We generate content by summarize existing reviews created by experts in the field and that get published in the literature - we don't create reviews ourselves by summarizing the primary literature here in WP. We should not ever cite a PhD thesis which by definition has to break new ground. Jytdog (talk) 06:46, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If this article was review or summary of different theories postulating inner structure of electron (string theory, preons etc.) it could work but at present state it simply advocates one theory. Also in that case caveats of each theory should be mentioned alongside with good sides. When it comes to user MjolnirPants claim that there is no consensus on electron structure – that is certainly true – but one has to keep on mind that were talking about theoretical physics. The other previously mentioned issue is notability of this theory. Hypothesis/theories such as string theory, loop quantum theory have been thought by multiple authors and been referenced in others works. As an analogy it resembles corporations creating articles about their own products in advertorial manner.--Fisuaq (talk) 18:02, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That was my thinking also, and I proposed this morning to the group that the wiki page focus a lot more on the primarily accepted theory that the charge in electron is confined to a point and the tricks that Feynman et. al. had to make to deal with the divergences. I also thought the other theories of the internal structure of an electron should be presented. There are many theories on the internal structure of an electron, and it's likely difficult as the electron structure likely must exist more than three dimensions to accomplish the 720 degree spin. Also the measurements of spin seem to be unusual. requiring the Clifford Algebra that classical QED and Robinson et. al. are using as the foundation of this work. I got a copy of Stephen Leary PhD thesis today and hope to find some references in his work and understand Clifford Algebra better to better present both the Classical QED (or Quantum Field Theory) perspective as will as the rather enticing model that John, Martin, and Stephen have been developing. I agree that the purpose of Wikipedia is enlightenment and don't want to lead anyone away from the truth. I'm going to browse Stephan's work some and wait to see what the rest of the group thinks on broadening the presentation to include both the establish point model as well as other models that I've been reading about. The area seems large enough to warrant a wiki page with a summary on and reference on the 'Electon' page as well as other that refer to the point charge model. These models for QED have almost 100 years of development and it takes a while to understand them. I'll update this discussion once I hear from the guys in England this evening. --Pete.delaney (talk) 00:10, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete --- There are a number of peer-reviewed published theories have proposed internal structure of the electron (most of them ruled out by data). An article that details that history would certainly be valuable but, as written, this page is obtuse and incomprehensible with occasional real science quotes and vocabulary sprinkled in to make it sound plausible. The page is definitely written to promote a particular view and it does so incoherently. Jason Quinn (talk) 14:51, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've been thinking of how to extend this further to include more electron models and to present the material in a more coherent format. If you have some proposed theories that you know of that haven't been ruled out by data and I don't include them I'd appreciate hearing from you on what they are. Dr. Williamson assures me that their theory has not been ruled out by data.--Pete.delaney (talk) 09:59, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Williamson's and Dr. Van Der Mark's 1st paper "Is the electron a photon with toroidal topology?" has in fact cited 46 times (including self-references), see: ^[4] --Pete.delaney (talk) 12:05, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- That's not a lot of cites, really. (GS says that 33 of my papers have been cited at least 46 times and I'm a nobody.) Given the consequences this idea would have if it were accepted -- it might even be Nobel-worthy -- 46 cites is very little attention. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 13:38, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep --- I am a software engineer and studying Dirac/Clifford Algebra and I think that Williamson's group work on the internals of the electron has plenty of citations and is worthy of keeping --Arradis (talk) 20:53, 20 August 2016 (UTC) — Arradis (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Dr. Williamson's 2014 paper ^[5] comes up with 10 citations ^[6] on Google Scholar.--Pete.delaney (talk) 07:15, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Williamson's latest paper "On the nature of the photon and the electron"^[7] already comes up with three citations, but one is by John and the other by Martin, so I suppose it's only fair to count the one article by Atkins, Gauther et. al. but even that paper was contributed to by Martin and John. --Pete.delaney (talk) 07:15, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep --- I am a scientist with a Ph.D. in theoretical astrophysics, and have published work, such as at http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1086/508708, which involves atomic and molecular physics. A suitable understanding of the internal structure of the electron is critical to our understanding of the role the weak nuclear force plays in the early universe, and why the universe is dominated by matter, rather than equal amounts of matter and antimatter.--Niedergeislbach (talk) 02:06, 22 August 2016 (UTC) — Niedergeislbach (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:51, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Eniko Parrish[edit]

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

as per WP:NOTINHERITED . All the coverage about her is because she is the wife of Kevin Hart. And that's the only reason she's famous. LibStar (talk) 16:08, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per WP:NOTINHERITED. Even her own Wikipedia page describes her as an "aspiring model" — at nearly 32. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:50, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 17:30, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 17:30, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article admits that Parrish only reached the public eye after she began dating Hart, but does not present evidence that it has risen to the level that she is independently notable. Anything that needs to be said of her can be said in the article on Hart.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:00, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- only notable because of marriage to Eniko Parrish, in which article she is already mentioned. Possibly redirect to that page? K.e.coffman (talk) 04:12, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

do you mean Kevin Hart ? LibStar (talk) 15:59, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. for (;;) (talk) 07:34, 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. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 14:54, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Deans[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Problematic WP:BLP, with some overtones of advertorial/PR spin, of a university student whose main claim of notability is that he won a couple of youth science awards for inventing a device that, as of today, is still not actually available on the market as a consumer product. The referencing here is fully two-thirds to primary sources, like corporate and organizational press releases, that cannot support notability -- and the few pieces of reliable source coverage sprinkled in among the self-promotion are virtually all the same pieces of coverage that were deemed not enough to get him over WP:GNG the first time an article about him came up for AFD two years ago. And the other, potentially more serious, problem here is that virtually the entire substantive edit history has been at the hands of 17 newly-registered WP:SPAs (the creator, 15 more followup editors and one more who added Deans to a list of people but never edited the BLP itself) that have existed only to edit this article -- these editors almost certainly represent a coordinated puppet campaign (of either the sock or meat varieties) by one or more people with a direct conflict of interest. As always, Wikipedia is not a place where anybody is entitled to keep a LinkedIn-style profile for promotional or public relations purposes. It's an encyclopedia, where certain specific quantifiable standards of notability and sourceability have to be demonstrated for an article to become earned -- but nothing written or sourced here suggests that the subject belongs in an encyclopedia yet, and SPA puppets don't get to make up their own special rules for their own pet topic. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 18:28, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting read. On one hand, this person has clearly amassed a great deal of noteworthy accomplishments - at face value, he would seem to fulfill GNG. However, it does read as self-aggrandizement. This is a borderline case, but I'm leaning delete per nom. He's really not that significant in the grand scheme of things, and his invention hasn't actually been marketed for public consumption. Kurtis ^(talk) 18:47, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

*Interesting discussion - I contributed at one point to this page and agree that at its current state reads slightly advertorial. I also recently removed the last "media" section which seemed superfluous. That being said, I agree withKurtis that Mr. Deans's accomplishments exceed GNG requirements. This person is notable for an encyclopedia, so I vote keep, though would suggest some small re-writes in section 2014-present to align with more encyclopedic language. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marialaee (talk • contribs) 19:15, 11 July 2016 (UTC) [reply]

- Please note that SPI/CheckUser has confirmed that virtually all of the substantive editors to this article, including Marialaee, are indeed sockpuppets of a single user and have been editblocked. Bearcat (talk) 00:05, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Possible technical reason for deletion: This page had previously been deleted twice, once by AFD, once by speedy. Given that all the major editors were sock puppets, that means that the person who created this third edition is the same as the creator of the second edition, User:Markus1463, which means that in effect he undid his own speedy deletion, which is a no-no. (Actually, there may have been one more edition than I was counting; I see that the first take was marked to be speedy-deleted, and I don't have access to information about whether the speedy was declined, or whether it was accepted, the article quickly rebuilt, and then AFD.) Perhaps User_talk:Alex_Deans should have been included in the sock investigation? --Nat Gertler (talk) 01:35, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The speedy on the first version was declined, which precipitated it being taken to AFD. For what it's worth. Bearcat (talk) 03:21, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - While this is burdened with promotional fluff, it's a very clear GNG keep based on sources showing. Don't let WP:IDONTLIKEIT get in the way of your judgement on the matter. Needs some editorial weed-whacking, for sure. Carrite (talk) 16:02, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fully two thirds of the sourcing here is the primary sourcing kind, and the remaining third is the same set of sources that were deemed not sufficient to get him over GNG the first time. So where's there a GNG pass here exactly? This isn't about me liking or not liking the subject — I hate Donald Trump, but he's clearly notable, and I love my six-year-old niece, but she's clearly not notable. This is strictly about the level of sourcing present, which is simply not where it needs to be. Bearcat (talk) 16:53, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Which leaves 1/3 of the sources as okay and you need 3 decent ones to meet GNG. Carrite (talk) 01:20, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Which part of "the remaining third is the same set of sources that were deemed not sufficient to get him over GNG the first time" did you miss? There's not a single reliable source here, including the ones you point out below, that wasn't already considered, and discounted as not enough, the first time — two of the three sources you singled out below, frex, are local coverage in his own hometown, where human interest coverage of "local teen wins teen achievement award" is pretty common and WP:ROUTINE. (I was the subject of that many local media pieces in 1989 after I did well in a high school poetry contest — but that's not nearly enough by itself to make me a notable poet.) Bearcat (talk) 16:11, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(1) Windsor Star, "Inventive Windsor teen named 'future leader' by Maclean's magazine." (2) Canadian Broadcasting Corp., "Alex Deans Wins Ontario Science Center Award...". (3) Toronto Globe and Mail: "Young Inventor Inspired to Give Back." Multiple, independently published sources of presumed reliability dealing substantially with the subject. GNG is met, we are done... Carrite (talk) 01:27, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. The independent sources point to someone who is on the way to notability but not quite there. One of them says he hopes to be able to market his invention within a couple years. If it sells well, that might get him up to GNG. At the moment all we have is a guy with a few "he has potential" mentions trying to sockfarm an article about himself onto Wikipedia. INeverCry 00:26, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 03:11, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is borderline and doesn't really pass GNG. I'm also leaning delete per WP:NOTPROMO and WP:NOTDIR. The subject is locally notable for participating in science fairs and winning awards - but quite a few kids have won such awards. The product he is working on hasn't really developed so I don't see what kind of lasting notability the subject would be known for at present. It should also be remembered that GNG is simply a presumption of notability - not a guarantee. Wikipedia is not a directory of kids winning science fairs (even kids winning multiple science fairs). Neither is it a platform for promotion. The multiple bad faith attempts at trying to create this article show that the intent is to promote a non-notable subject. A clear delete from my side. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 11:15, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I understand and share some of your concerns (even if I have a different idea of what should be done about them) but I do want to register that I think the "Wikipedia is not a directory of kids winning science fairs" is off-base for this. For one, Wikipedia actually is a directory of kids winning spelling bees, and an Intel prize is considerably more consequential going forward even than Scripps is. IMO, the problem really isn't that this couldn't be encyclopedic; it's only whether there are enough sources to develop a valid rather than promotional entry. Have posted more to sourcing question below. Innisfree987 (talk) 20:44, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's actually a list of kids winning spelling bees. These kids don't have their own individual articles. Similarly, if the subject's name was added to the list of winners, I wouldn't mind. But I frankly don't think it deserves its own article. The facts in the sources btw are largely primary, having been gleaned from interviews with the subject and the sources are local. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 01:06, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Lemongirl941, and for being the recreation of a page deleted by deletion discussion that does not fix the reasons for deletion. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:37, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Sorry, but I'm seeing substantive coverage in multiple reliable sources, and obviously not press releases either. That sockpuppets are putting their oars in, that this was previously up at AfD, that the article was written in a promotional style, none of that matters -- those are content disputes that aren't within AfD's purview. I'm also unimpressed with Lemongirl's reasoning: indeed, the GNG is not a guarantee, but it sure as hell isn't optional, and I want rather a better reason to blithely ignore it than that some of you don't think the kid is old enough, or famous enough, or hasn't "earned" lasting notability. Baldly put, so what? Nha Trang ^Allons! 18:05, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GNG is not really met here - quite a few of the secondary sources are local news and if we consider local news, then it would be quite easy for many individuals to have articles. WP:NOTDIR applies here as Wikipedia is not a directory of kids who have won science fairs. And WP:NOTPROMO applies here as well - the intent is clearly to promote the subject. If the GNG isn't a guarantee that indeed means that it is "optional". --Lemongirl942 (talk) 15:09, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree on the GNG not being met: we're not talking about local supermarket weeklies, we're talking some of Canada's most prominent papers, and there is no guideline or policy debarring local papers being used for a source. As far as the "intent" goes, you are not a mindreader, and neither am I: we have no idea, actually, whether the "intent" in creating the article was promotional or not. Your application of NOTDIR is just plain baffling: this is an article sourced to reliable sources with significant coverage of the subject, and there's nothing debarring Wikipedia from having an article on a kid who won science fairs. Your argument sounds like a giant honking WP:ITSNOTIMPORTANT deal. Nha Trang ^Allons! 14:48, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is an example of "local news" in an otherwise respected newspaper. And the intent here is promotional: they have been using multiple accounts to get this article up on Wikipedia. AGF only goes so far. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 11:02, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You can also see this Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Markus1463/Archive for their intentions. Nobody abuses a bunch of accounts to productively contribute to the encyclopaedia. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 11:04, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody ever said local media was always inherently invalid sourcing. But local media cover local people accomplishing things of no encyclopedic significance all the time — local teen wins science fair award, local teen wins local poetry contest, single mother opens new furniture store on Main Street, city councillor holds press conference to demand new traffic lights at the corner of Dewey Boulevard and McDonald Drive, PTA president denounces plan to close local elementary school, nine-toed teen tries out for high school football team, etc. — so local coverage can be deprecated as not able to assist passage of GNG in and of itself, even while still being valid for supplementary confirmation of facts after GNG has already been satisfied by stronger sources. It all depends on whether the context in which said coverage is being given constitutes an encyclopedic claim of notability or not. If a person satisfies an SNG by virtue of a specific, quantifiable and notable accomplishment (mayor of a city large enough to get its mayors over NPOL, winner of a notable national literary award, etc.), then we don't care how local or non-local the sourcing is because that accomplishment covers off the notability question in and of itself — but if they haven't, and instead you're shooting for "notable because media coverage exists", then localized sourcing doesn't assist GNG and can only serve as supplementary verification of facts after GNG has already been met elsewhere, because local media frequently devote coverage time to local people of no wider encyclopedic interest. Bearcat (talk) 15:58, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I'm simply still not seeing enough for a comfortably confident substance for his own notability. SwisterTwister talk 21:22, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The subject has received significant coverage in this 2012 article in The Globe and Mail, this 2014 article in Maclean's, and this 2015 article from the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation among the other sources listed in the article. These three sources are all national publications, not local publications. They cover the subject over a period of three years, demonstrating that has received persistent coverage. He easily passes Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Regarding the concerns about promotion, Wikipedia:Editing policy#Wikipedia is a work in progress: perfection is not required and Wikipedia:Deletion is not cleanup.
Cunard (talk) 06:36, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The news is specifically from the "local" sections. And GNG is a presumption, not a guarantee. We often delete articles due to WP:NOT and over here WP:NOTDIR applies. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:34, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The CBC source is from CBC Windsor (see the "windsor" right in its URL), not the CBC's national news division — so it's local coverage in his own hometown, where "local teen does stuff" coverage is expected and WP:ROUTINE. The Maclean's is a "several young future leaders" listicle, featuring barely 100 words about Deans, and therefore not substantive. Those sources would count toward supplementary confirmation of facts after GNG had already been passed, but cannot bring the GNG in and of themselves. Which leaves us with just the Globe and Mail, which leaves us with GNG not met because one GNG-qualifying source is not enough to pass GNG. And just like I told Carrite above, all three of those sources are among the set of sources that have already been looked at and found to be not enough the first time. If you want to show that he passes GNG, you need to show new sources that haven't already been considered and discounted, not just repeating the same inadequate sources over and over again. Bearcat (talk) 15:50, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Ongoing news coverage of him. Seems to be a leaning the youth of the subject as a partial reason to delete. I see more reasons to keep the article than delete. Karl Twist (talk) 10:23, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I certainly agree there are problems with the entry, but since "Notability is a property of a subject and not of a Wikipedia article" (emphasis in the original), and I see cited sources from the Globe and Mail, the Independent, the CBC, and then here's more attention from:

...I feel comfortable saying GNG is met. Innisfree987 (talk) 20:27, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think you may be the first established editor in Wikipedia history to try putting forward Upworthy as a reliable source (which it's not.) Bearcat (talk) 17:59, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Update I've taken a pass at reorganizing and cutting out a lot of the promotionalism. Plenty more where that came from, truth be told, so if anyone else wants to hop in please do! In meantime I hope it's A, somewhat improved, and B, a little easier to assess for what more legitimate aspects there might be. Innisfree987 (talk) 01:49, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 02:28, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 02:28, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 02:28, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 02:28, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 02:28, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 07:04, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clear pass of the GNG. Claiming sources are "local" doesn't really mean anything to me. The New York Times, our gold standard, is "local" to New York. Should I discount the NYT as a source because its obviously local? The Steve 07:53, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Depending on the context in which coverage in The New York Times is being given, the answer to that question most certainly can be "yes". The NYT, for example, does not get the owner of a hipster foodie chip stand in Williamsburg into Wikipedia just because it got a restaurant review in the NYT's food section; the NYT does not get unelected candidates to New York City Council into Wikipedia just because the election campaign got coverage in the local news section. And on and so forth; the coverage still has to be in a context that makes the topic more than just locally interesting. Bearcat (talk) 18:01, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bearcat, the kinds of examples you give of course would not be sufficient to establish notability but as I understand Thesteve's concern--or, the concern that I have here and often elsewhere is not whether the source suffices, but whether it is automatically excluded from contributing toward notability at all, on the basis of localism. For instance, I think we'd almost certainly consider the NYT write-up of a hipster chef (just to keep it in BLP territory, for consistency) in Williamsburg alongside other sources if others exist? It could go toward, for instance, the "multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability" at WP:BASIC, no? Or to take a different example, we wouldn't insist that only commentary in non-New York media count toward assessing the notability of a Broadway performer, right? If we literally only had New York sources, then that could be a problem, but if we have some from elsewhere and some from New York, we'd count them all together, no? Innisfree987 (talk) 18:25, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Innisfree is exactly right. Lemongirl says "quite a few of the secondary sources are local news and if we consider local news" - of course we need to consider local news. We can certainly give local news less weight, but it must still be considered. Add Macleans + Globe and Mail + "quite a few local sources" and the GNG is met. The Steve 23:10, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And as I've already noted above, the Maclean's reference is a blurb in a "several young people to watch" listicle, so it's not substantively enough about Deans to help get Deans over GNG. None of the other people profiled in the listicle have Wikipedia articles, and none of them would get articles just because listicle either. And the Globe piece, while longer, is a fluffy human interest piece which simply isn't saying anything about him that would constitute a notability claim for the purposes of an encyclopedia if it's the strongest source anybody's been able to come up with. Bearcat (talk) 16:11, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The claims made in the article are outrageous. According to the Windsor Star he was supposedly an "inventor, scientist, artist, athlete, politician" at 16 years old. He's none of those things per our guidelines. He has no career as an artist; he fails WP:ARTIST in every conceivable way, and similarly fails WP:ATHLETE, WP:ACADEMIC and WP:POLITICIAN. If age shouldn't matter, and I agree it shouldn't, then we should not hold children and adolescents to lower standards than adults, as the Winsor Star does. To say that he is an artist on the basis of a statement that "he’s been teaching himself the art of portraiture" completely invalidates the source. He's a promising young man, but until he has actually fulfilled that promise, he's not yet notable. Mduvekot (talk) 14:04, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm wondering if you have any thoughts on GNG and the other sources beyond the Windsor Star Mduvekot? Innisfree987 (talk) 16:23, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not convinced that WP:GNG applies. The article is a WP:BLP, so WP:BIO applies, or any of the other subject specific notability guidelines I mentioned above. The CBC and the Globe and Mail are usually reliable sources. The problem is not the number of sources, but what notable accomplishments they support. As far as I can tell, that amounts to winning the Intermediate $1,000 award at the Canada-Wide Science Fair in 2013 and the Second Award of $1,500 Intel International Science and Engineering Fair. The iAid has not been built, and has not yet proven to be something that has actually helped blind people. When the iAid is in production and has been demonstrated to make a significant improvement to blind people's lives, and when peer-reviewed papers about his work are published and widely cited I'll consider him a notable scientist. If his figure drawing is exhibited in a solo-show in a major art museum and a monograph is published about his art, I'll consider him a notable artist. But until then, the press he has received amounts to reporting on someone who is known for being a promising student. Mduvekot (talk) 03:03, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, ok so guideline's really straightforward on this count. You're right, we're talking about a biography, so from WP:BASIC (in broader article, WP:Notability_people): "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 you believe "The CBC and the Globe and Mail are usually reliable sources. The problem is not the number of sources," then the entry passes our notability guidelines, unless it "fall[s] under exclusionary criteria, such as being notable only for a single event, or such as those listed in What Wikipedia is not." The next section, on SNGs also cautions: "Failure to meet these criteria 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. A person who fails to meet these additional criteria may still be notable under Wikipedia:Notability." This is a matter of consensus, that if sufficient secondary sources giving notice to a topic exist, we don't go on to second-guess whether the accomplishments they are covering deserve their attention. That would be gravely at odds with WP:NPOV. WP:WHYN reminds us of the same: if you read through its reasoning, it's all about whether enough sources exist to develop a balanced article on the topic. That's our question here at AfD: do sufficient sources exist to write that article? Not even, are they in the article yet (WP:ARTN), or, does the content meet other Wikipedia standards like due weight. Those would be questions for the talk page or edits directly to the article (which I encourage you to join in on, I def agree the article still needs a lot more work!) Innisfree987 (talk) 17:29, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you believe "The CBC and the Globe and Mail are usually reliable sources …" then the entry passes our notability guidelines No it does not. The coverage still needs to be substantial. Mduvekot (talk) 19:12, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I did not say that it was strictly a matter of reliability. I was pointing out that you said both 1, that the sources are reliable and 2, that the number of them is not the problem. ~~I am trying to assume good faith here, but~~ (I apologize to Mduvekot, I was wrong to suggest it might not be in good faith!) Innisfree987 (talk) 16:29, 11 August 2016 (UTC) When someone points out to you that there being an adequate number of reliable sources means that a subject gets an entry, and then you change your mind about whether it is an adequate number of sources, it really starts to feel like WP:IDONTLIKEIT. But maybe I am misunderstanding your argument, I really apologize if I'm getting it wrong here. And for what it's worth, I'm not even saying it'd be a bad opinion to hold, simply to think this isn't the sort of thing that ought to be in the encyclopedia. I see the argument for that POV. All I'm saying is that I think the census guidelines have different inclusion criteria, and I think we should strive to apply them as evenly as possible. I don't see how this entry clearly meets any of the exclusionary categories; I do think it meets BASIC standard; and I don't think our personal opinions should override that. Innisfree987 (talk)[reply]

Innisfree987, I think it would good if we took a moment on either your talk page or mine to figure out if you are accurately representing my position. I don't think that discussion ought to be part of this AfD Mduvekot (talk) 21:06, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing Mduvekot--if I've misunderstood or mischaracterized or both I'd def want to correct it here too (would certainly be germane!) but I'm happy to discuss wherever you think it'd be most productive. I'll ping you now. Innisfree987 (talk) 23:56, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The problems remain that the CBC source is not the CBC's national news division, but its local bureau in the subject's own hometown. So because CBC, it would be perfectly acceptable for some additional confirmation of facts after GNG had already been met — but because local CBC rather than national CBC, it can't help to carry the passage of GNG. It can be the icing on the cake; it cannot be the cake itself. And The Globe and Mail remains (a) the only genuinely strong source that has been offered at all, and hence not passing GNG all by itself, and (b) a fluffy, non-substantive human interest piece in the Life section, which fails to say anything about him that would confer passage of any SNG as an alternative to passing GNG on volume. Bearcat (talk) 19:29, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Are you kidding us? I'm aware that here on Wikipedia there's a lot of self-referential navel gazing, but damn: are you seriously suggesting that people aren't permitted to be inventors, scientists, artists, athletes or politicians if they don't meet our self-created notability criteria for the same? Nha Trang ^Allons! 14:50, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I neither said nor suggested that "that people aren't permitted to be inventors, scientists, artists, athletes or politicians if they don't meet our self-created notability criteria for the same". I do, however in all seriousness suggest per our policies, that articles about people who fail the notability criteria for their professions ought to be deleted. Mduvekot (talk) 23:26, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Er, no, a person's allowed to be anything they want to be. But they don't get a Wikipedia article about them doing their thing until they've met our notability criteria for it. Have we become some kind of virtual reality universe where not having a Wikipedia article somehow makes a person cease to exist? Bearcat (talk) 14:05, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What I understood Nha Trang to be saying is, or at least the part of the argument that also occurred to me was, SNGs don't apply to statements in an entry, only to the subject, and only if GNG/Basic hasn't already made them moot, as I was just saying to Mduvekot above. I realize your view is that Basic isn't met anyway. All the same I think Nha Trang is correct that not meeting a given special notability standard does not automatically disqualify a claim in an article, per WP:NNC. George W. Bush is not wiki-notable for being a painter but I definitely believe the entry should mention him being one, all the same! Innisfree987 (talk) 17:49, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. What I was refuting was Mduvekot's indignation at the Windsor Star making claims for the subject that flout various SNGs. I continue to maintain that the Windsor Star (or any other reliable source, hopefully) doesn't give a good goddamn about our opinion, and might well continue to call people inventors, artists or just about anything else without seeking the permission of Wikipedia authors to do so. Nha Trang ^Allons! 19:14, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And with all due respect, that's not at all what Mduvekot said. He can be an amateur artist all he wants, and the Windsor Star can say he's an amateur artist all it wants — but that doesn't make him wiki-notable as an artist until he objectively passes WP:CREATIVE for something related to art. Bearcat (talk) 17:08, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet WP:BIO notability, just a handful of human interest stories typical for this sort of topic. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:24, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The coverage of the science fair win is a clear instance of BLP1E, and in my opinion, an excellent example or why we need that policy--to prevent attempts at encyclopedic coverage of what gets some human interest coverage tat the time, but is of no actual importance as judged in a broader perspective. BLP1E was adopted as policy because it is specifically intended to over-rule the GNG guideline, where it applies. DGG ( talk ) 14:20, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Where, exactly, do the words "No Human Interest Stories" appear in our General Notability Guideline? Carrite (talk) 15:33, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The context in which the coverage is being given very much matters to GNG. Lots of people have been the subject of human interest pieces in The Globe and Mail or The New York Times without qualifying for a Wikipedia article because of it — the coverage has to be about them doing something that constitutes an encyclopedic notability claim in order to count toward GNG. Bearcat (talk) 15:57, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 13:42, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- the arguments for the deletion have been convincing. All of the coverage seems trivial (aka human interest stories) and is not yet sufficient for an encyclopedia entry. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:34, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep After reading the delete arguments, which I initially thought were strong, I was inclined to lean delete. However, upon closer inspection I realized that those delete arguments were unfounded so I discounted them. We're struggling here over whether Deans i) meets GNG and 2) if he has enough significant non-'local' coverage. Cunard shared Globe and Mail article, Maclean's article, and this 2015 CBC article...Bearcat continued to argue: "All three of those sources are among the set of sources that have already been looked at and found to be not enough the first time". The last AFD wrapped up by the 29th of August, 2014. The Globe and Mail article was published on the 26th of September 2014, while the CBC article was published in 2015. It is abundantly clear that both of those articles were published after the last debate had ended. More specifically, 17 out of the 28 shown sources were published AFTER the last debate finished, so it's not even possible that they were considered in the last AFD.
I see comprehensive and in-depth coverage(and not just human-interest stories) from (1)the mentioned Globe and Mail article (2) The Independent, (3) CBC/Radio-Canada which is NOT the same article which was discounted before, (4)this CTV national article and interview and (5)this article from Postmedia Network, one of the largest Canadian news distributors(publishing under Canada.com online). These articles were all written after the last AFD, are NATIONAL (and international) publications (so the argument of being 'local' can't even apply here) and are significant, in-depth articles, detailing Deans' work with the blind community and his efforts about working with young people on a national level. This is a clear meet of GNG, and with 5 very strong sources with plenty more of supporting ones, this seems like a no-brainer. IamNate (talk) 21:33, 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. MBisanz ^talk 00:51, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of Network Ten slogans[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Very few references, original research, see Articles for deletion: List of Seven Network slogans and Articles for deletion: List of nine Network slogans. All created by User:Eddie Blake. Kernosky ^talk2me! 12:55, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:46, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:13, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- indiscriminate collection of information. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:56, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:40, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete every TV network has slogans. But it's simply not encyclopaedic. LibStar (talk) 08:56, 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. MBisanz ^talk 00:51, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wartenberg Trust[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Wartenberg Trust (2nd nomination)

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

This is a very good article, but the company is a private office and it is not notable enough to have its own Wikipedia entry Claralopezrichmond (talk) 11:57, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:03, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:03, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - reminds me of Alta Advisors, I used to vaguely know someone who worked for them. Unfortunately, it's hard for this kind of "company" (really effectively a very big joint trust fund) to get notable since they have few or no public shareholders and are answerable only to the families on whose behalf they operate. So they can only be notable for the investments they make, and few will be able to make the kind that generate articles very often. The content might be mergable with an article on the family, but there doesn't seem to be one. Blythwood (talk) 21:51, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- I cannot find any coverage or indications of notability. There's a brief mention in a 3rd party research report: "Mark Zapletal, adviser at the Wartenberg Trust, says: “Quite simply, our clients favour assets they can touch.” (Stonehdge Flemming), but that's it. For a private and (I assume) secretive fund, this is to be expected. At the same time it means that the sources would not be out there to build an encyclopedia entry. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:05, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- I know vaguely of the FO and having worked in the industry I know that most family offices hate all publicity (good or bad). Wartenberg Trust is known as a very powerful FO in terms of influence and assets. They invest in "big name" companies through complex arrangements including SPVs, trusts etc. I doubt that we would be able to get reference materials for the firm. Frankly, I am surprised that they allowed FT to use the quote.141.92.19.35 (talk) 14:57, 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. "Having sources" does not by default mean that an article topic is notable; as pointed out these sources need to satisfy certain criteria (such as independence and WP:SIGCOV) and the thrust of the discussion - both numerically and in terms of arguments being made addressing individual points - on the specific sources appears to indicate that they don't. Likewise no indication that WP:ARTIST is satisfied and mostly reasonable counterarguments e.g by DGG. The AfD descended into bickering a week or so ago but that doesn't change the outcome. A merge suggestion wasn't picked up, so going for delete here. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 13:19, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

David G. Williams[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

fails WP:BIO and WP:ARTIST. last 2 AfDs were no consensus despite only 1 keep !vote last AfD LibStar (talk) 12:06, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are sufficient independent references provided that establish WP:GNG, whilst these are not mainstream newspapers etc, as a comic book artist most sources are always going to be comic industry related. In accordance with WP:GNG sources may encompass published works in all forms and media, and in any language. Dan arndt (talk) 12:27, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:34, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:34, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:34, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sources already found satisfy WP:GNG. Unscintillating (talk) 20:29, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Williams may have worked on some notable projects, but that does not automatically confer notability on him, especially not when it is unclear what his contribution to those projects was. Unless it can be verified that he created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work, he fails WP:CREATIVE. The one project where he verifiably did play a major role, The Legend of Spacelord Mo Fo is not notable, as it has not received significant critical attention from mainstream or specialized publications. Mduvekot (talk) 20:38, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per sources. Artw (talk) 20:36, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Artw: I'm curious which sources in particular you think make this a strong keep. GCD and Lambiek are known for being the IMDB of comics and not reliable for much. Ditto for Amazon. Did you look at ref 1? It's user generated and doesn't even mention the subject's name, let alone his birthdate or partners. The Verve reference [4] doesn't even mention the subject. References 6 and 7 are for his collaborator on a comic that's not notable enough for its own article. Reference 8 shows his collaborator was on the Babylon 5 show. Reference 15 is self published. Ref 16 is quite possibly the silliest thing I've seen on a creator's article in recent memory. "He had a table at a convention." Those tables can be purchased by anyone and mean nothing in terms of notability. Refs 17 through 20 are proof of existence only. That leaves 9, 12, and 13, all of which are about the subject's web comic, not him. Maybe @Dan arndt: or @Unscintillating: could help explain? Argento Surfer (talk) 13:00, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as several of the listed sources are not to the levels of acceptable and convincing, I certainly know that listing Amazon.com is not; this could at best be improved, but with no actual improvements made, this is best Drafted at best, so as to remove from mainspace and perhaps moved again if ever better. SwisterTwister talk 07:21, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the Amazon reference was simply there as evidence that the individual was the author of those particular books. If that's an issue can change it to another source. Interested to hear what improvements you consider need to be 'made'. Dan arndt (talk) 07:27, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak keep~~ - I found this to be "marginally notable" when I removed the {{notability}} tag back in May. ~Kvng (talk) 14:23, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

please explain how this person meets notability. Rather than saying WP:ITSNOTABLE. LibStar (talk) 23:05, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I trust my own judgement but I am unable to remember my reasoning from May. On re-review, I find [33] to be suitable evidence of notability but I know multiple sources are required to establish it. I have clarified that my !vote is a weak keep. ~Kvng (talk) 15:30, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The sources you cite is "powered by WordPress" which is a blog site. Blogs are unreliable sources as per WP:SPS. LibStar (talk) 15:44, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, I am unable to establish that this is a reliable source. I withdraw my keep vote. ~Kvng (talk) 20:13, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for the same reason I gave on the 2nd nom - sources are proof of existence, not evidence of notability. Argento Surfer (talk) 17:55, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: So far, we have a number of assertions that the sources establish notability, but no specific sources cited. It would be most useful during this next week if people concentrated on evaluating specific sources, to show why they are, or are not, sufficient. -- RoySmith (talk) 11:03, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 11:03, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gonna go Keep on this. It lists twenty separate sources, it's pretty well written and it informs people. On the off-chance someone wants to find out about this person, Wikipedia can tell them about him, in a neutral, verifiable way. That's a good thing. No harm done. delete I can't really turn up a good merge target, O apologies. I thought we had better lists. If one does turn up I'll do the right thing by the licence. Hiding T 11:20, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Hiding: Did you review the sources? Most of them don't even mention the subject. See my comment above for more detail. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:45, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

They work for me. I'm failing to see your name in the edit history of the article, any reason why you haven't fixed the perceived issues? Why wasn't a merge and redirect considered? Hiding T 12:57, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOHARM is not a reason for keeping . And as argento says the quality of sources is questionable. The number of sources is irrelevant. LibStar (talk) 12:48, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My opinion is that the article should be kept because it is reasonably well written and sourced and helps us serve our purpose. The sources verify the information provided. That's what we ask for. Hiding T 12:57, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Hiding: What do you mean by "They work for [you]"? Do you mean that they are functional websites, or that the content on them provides the information they're being used to cite? This source is used to cite "Williams was born in Armidale, New South Wales". Would you please copy/paste the section of the source that confirms this? Because all I see is a user-generated page that says "Barossa Studios comic book group" and, through a link, mentions Glenn Lumsden as an associate.

I found no viable merge target. The only page linking to this one (that isn't DAB or a list) is David de Vries (which also has questionable sources). If you find one that makes sense, name it and I'll be happy to reconsider.

"any reason why you haven't fixed the perceived issues?" My 'perceived issue' is that no notable sources discuss David G Williams. A quick google search turned up self-published sources and/or user-generated sources. The fix is to delete the article. Argento Surfer (talk) 17:05, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See below for suggested merge solution. Hiding T 22:20, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll repeat what Argento said earlier. I doubt you have even looked at the sources.

you look at ref 1? It's user generated and doesn't even mention the subject's name, let alone his birthdate or partners. The Verve reference [4] doesn't even mention the subject. References 6 and 7 are for his collaborator on a comic that's not notable enough for its own article. Reference 8 shows his collaborator was on the Babylon 5 show. Reference 15 is self published. Ref 16 is quite possibly the silliest thing I've seen on a creator's article in recent memory. "He had a table at a convention." Those tables can be purchased by anyone and mean nothing in terms of notability. Refs 17 through 20 are proof of existence only. That leaves 9, 12, and 13, all of which are about the subject's web comic, not him.

LibStar (talk) 13:01, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked at the sources. I've got no problem merging the article, but it can't be done while the afd is on. If only someone had done it instead of nominating for deletion we wouldn't need to be here. You doubt I looked at the sources, I doubt you have read the Wikipedia:Deletion policy. Hiding T 13:56, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You really looked at the sources? So did you pick that some don't refer to the article subject and others wouldn't qualify as reliable sources. Of course I've read the deletion policy asking me about that is merely trying to deflect from your non examination of sources. None of your comments actually refer to any of the specific sources provided which is why it is natural to draw the conclusion you hadn't looked at actual sources. LibStar (talk) 14:04, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

comment it's plainly obvious that 2 of the 3 keep voters here have not even looked at the sources and the Relisting comment was done on the basis to allow keep !voters to examine the sources. One keep voter has now withdrawn his vote. Don't think more needs to be said about the strength of the keep arguments. LibStar (talk) 13:46, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not a vote, and I'd question whether those commenting to delete have considered a merge, which should call into question their opinions. Hiding T 13:56, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your arguments for keep are being called into question and you still haven't referred to specific sources. LibStar (talk) 14:05, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

LibStar I realise that this is typical of your approach at AFDs, bullying and harassing editors who disagree with your point of view but in this case some of us consider that the article is worth keeping. Dan arndt (talk) 14:09, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

saying an editor is "bullying and harassing " is a personal attack. If an editor claims to have read sources in an article up for AfD I expect them to justify that and not pretend it. Your personal attack has been noted for future reference. LibStar (talk) 14:13, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't expect anything less from you based on your past behaviour. Dan arndt (talk) 14:24, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your above statement sounds like you feel justified in making clear personal attacks. LibStar (talk) 14:26, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

the fact you have to use a personal attack to somehow sway the keep argument back in favour says it all. LibStar (talk) 14:27, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's just an observation, which anyone can check by looking at your past history. Dan arndt (talk) 14:31, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

An "observation " is not a defence for a personal attack. LibStar (talk) 14:31, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

if I have a history of bullying and harassment take it up at WP:ANI. I'm guessing you won't. LibStar (talk) 14:35, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

LibStar I'm not particularly interested in you or your behaviour and will leave it up to other editors to make up their own minds. Dan arndt (talk) 14:41, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So you make an accusation of "bullying and harassment" and won't back it up? That's clearly a personal attack. LibStar (talk) 15:03, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm beyond getting involved in your obvious baiting. Dan arndt (talk) 15:16, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You've made an obvious personal attack which you have tried to pretend it's an "observation" LibStar (talk) 15:20, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Hiding: is there a specific target article you'd propose to merge this material into? ~Kvng (talk) 14:34, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My memory may not be what it was, best I can do is List of American comics creators, which could maybe take a section on foreign authors that have worked on US Comics. I thought we had better lists than that, but it may be they've gone, the Canadian ones have been redirected. It wouldn't be too much work to make the list better serve the purpose of holding stub articles. Hiding T 22:20, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a logical merge target but am interested to see what Hiding suggests. LibStar (talk) 14:37, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're describing List of comics creators. I guess I wouldn't resist if his name were added, but I'd prefer to see some evidence of notability first. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:20, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- I don't see any indications of notability. The sources in the articles are primary / non RS / give a trivial mention, and I'm not finding anything better on the subject. K.e.coffman (talk) 16:37, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide an example of what you consider to be a "trivial mention". Unscintillating (talk) 01:00, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Unscintillating: I would prefer you provide an example of a non-trivial mention, as requested in my comment above. Argento Surfer (talk) 20:54, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

By that argument you seem to indicate that this is a hoax made up on three continents. Unscintillating (talk) 04:44, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I do not see evidence of any specific particular important work, just contributions of unspecified importance to various works for whichothers have the primary a responsibility. Appearing at a convention is not enough for notability in any field whatever. DGG ( talk ) 01:12, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. MBisanz ^talk 00:52, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Southern Festival of Speed[edit]

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

No substantial coverage in the media. A previous event which has barely been covered in the past. Not an encyclopedic topic. Poppy Higgins (talk) 18:39, 20 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 20. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:03, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not a notable festival in terms of sufficient independent sources. Ajf773 (talk) 09:16, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:55, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:55, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:55, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:55, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As per nom, clearly fails SIGCOV. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 11:13, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a significant event on the NZ classic car racing calender and includes international drivers. The article is very poor and needs significant rewriting. There is enough information, even in a Google search, to meet SIGCOV. The interest group is fairly specialised to a particular form of motor racing. There is also a merge request with Dunedin Street Circuit that has not been addressed. Also with a bit of work WP:GNG should be quite easy to reach. The event also covers a significant period of NZ motor racing history from the 1950's to date NealeFamily (talk) 23:59, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I did a quick search before commenting my opinion and found nothing of any significant non-local coverage. Could you demonstrate that sources exist which are significant enough for this article to pass notability? Ajf773 (talk) 11:53, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I also did a search on Startpage looking for non-local, significant coverage. I only found six paragraphs in the Ontago Daily Times and one sentence in the NZ Herald hence my request for the article's deletion. If it could be merged to a larger article on NZ car racing then all well and good, but sitting by itself it doesn't seem to me to be an encyclopedic topic. Poppy Higgins (talk) 20:47, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply Thank you both for your comments. Much of the content for this article will need to be retrieved from magazine articles that are archieved as they stretch back to the 1950's. I will also need to head for our library sources as the races are covered in a number of publications. Until I do so I can't address Ajf773's valid concern. From past editing, there seems to be very few if any NZ motor sport editors in Wiki and I will need time to address the articles short comings. Can I plead for clemency to give me time to sort it out, with a review in say, a couple of months? I am happy to submit it to you both for review once I have done so.

As to the online content - this gives some background on the event, its place in the current events, and this UK published article, although it appears to be a promo article and therefore not up to WP:RS NealeFamily (talk) 10:25, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 13:38, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep at its peak, this event attracted teams from many countries. I added content from a 2002 magazine article describing 20 teams from outside the country to participate in the event. It has multiple independent reliable sources so meets WP:GNG. Royal broil 03:37, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 10:59, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as reliable sources references have been added to the article so that this pre-internet subject passes WP:GNG

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 22:44, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Erin McGathy[edit]

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

PROD removed with the basis of adding sources but none of those are actually convincing as they are an interview and a local news story, there's still not enough confirming the needed independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 16:42, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:56, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:56, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I found this: [34]. I'm not yet convinced of notability but we'll see what others can come up with. --Michig (talk) 07:34, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: While notability is not inherited, she has got a pretty decent list of credits. The article needs more sourcing. But I am not the person with the time to do so, thus for now I am simply !voting based on current content and a cursory google search. Montanabw ^(talk) 22:45, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:34, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Sources here although many are just mentions in connection to her union/disunion with Dan Harmon, plus sources here identify her as a podcaster and comedian. Not much in-depth but there is ink.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:56, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - There is still noticeably not a lot, as suggested here, to actually suggest emphasizing her own actual substance for independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 22:50, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Anarchyte (work | talk) 10:56, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: I believe there's enough coverage to qualify her for inclusion, which has been pointed out by others in this conversation. She does share press with Dan Harmon often, and while "being the wife of a notable figure" doesn't qualify, it's worth noting that she was an active participant on these shows, with writing or acting credits. We should be careful not to overreach against those contributions simply because she created / developed them alongside her husband. --Owlsmcgee (talk) 22:41, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - sufficient coverage as noted by others to support WP:GNG. Article could use expansion, not deletion per WP:ATD. Hmlarson (talk) 20:21, 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. MBisanz ^talk 00:53, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Beyond Life[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

All but unreferenced since creation in 2008; this page is the only evidence on the web for the existence of the claimed award, let alone the claimed NVidia involvement; no evidence of notability. Previous AFD was closed "no consensus" with various cleanups proposed that nobody acted upon; the article hasn't improved since then. David Gerard (talk) 10:31, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 10:33, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per David Gerard, a good nomination. I found not even trivial mentions in reputable sources on google, so I'm not sure it is even notable enough or a common enough search term to warrant a redirect. Yvarta (talk) 03:13, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It was that I couldn't find even much in the way of unreliable sources that really did it for me - David Gerard (talk) 07:12, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per David Gerard and fails WP:NSOFT. Note even FPS Creator does not have a article and was deleted.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 11:31, 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. MBisanz ^talk 00:55, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kritik[edit]

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

This is apparently a term used in U.S. college debating, which is a sport or something in the U.S., I guess? I am unconvinced that it is a notable concept. All references derive from http://debate.uvm.edu, which at an (eye-watering) glance seems to be a self-published website (WP:SPS). A Google search for "Kritik debate" does provide indications that there may be something to the topic, but even if we assume the topic is notable enough, the article would need rewriting from scratch: it reads as completely incomprehensible to me, as an essay packed with impenetrable jargon, such that any substance can't be distinguished from original research. Sandstein 21:01, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dane2007 (talk) 04:51, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Logic-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:43, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:43, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:51, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:06, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete clearly fails WP:GNG. Gnews shows no significant coverage of this term. A few German media comes up but obviously not in the context of US College debating. LibStar (talk) 16:14, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It might pass WP:GNG, but it's certainly an awful lot of unsourced text here. It's an interesting subject. I came to it via this Radiolab episode. I will say that while some of the papers are hosted at the uvm site, that includes publications in Rostrum, a journal published by the National Forensic League. I'm also seeing some other sources that I'll retrieve if I decide to argue for keeping. As it stands, this is just way too much based on way too little, and I'm not convinced it couldn't just be included elsewhere (a critical theory- or debate-related article). Possible also to userfy if the article creator wants a chance to improve it to work within Wikipedia's sourcing policies. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:27, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:53, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Altaf Malkani[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I frankly would've PRODed if not for that 1st AfD, my own searches including at native Pakistani news sources are not finding anything else actually better aside from passing mentions such as this. Notifying the only still active users J04n and Thomas.W. SwisterTwister talk 05:36, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:37, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:42, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:42, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:43, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:12, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:12, 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 07:51, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He looks plausible, so I searched, in English. I finally got a hit on a Malkani here [Fazal, T. (1999). Religion and Language in the Formation of Nationhood in Pakistan and Bangladesh. Sociological Bulletin, 48(1/2), 175-199. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/23619935], but it turned out to be a different Malkani. I cannot locate sources to support an article. Perhaps more appropriate wo Wikipedia in Sindhi.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:28, 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. MBisanz ^talk 00:53, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sun Fajing[edit]

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

Non-notable player. No ATP tour main draw entries, no minor league Challenger tour titles, no Davis Cup. Futures tour is the minor-minor leagues and never notable. Fails WP:NSPORT and WikiProject Tennis guidelines. When he starts playing on the ATP tour or wins a minor league event we can re-examine, but nor before. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:38, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My argument would be that Wikipedia is a place for information and just because he hasn't won an event, this doesn't mean people aren't interested in him — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.155.20.246 (talk) 10:08, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:29, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:29, 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 07:50, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Wikipedia is not a place for all information indiscriminately. There are standards, and he doesn't satisfy them. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:36, 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. As an article about the case. Sandstein 20:43, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rupan Deol Bajaj[edit]

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

Though a subject matter of a significant and landmark Supreme Court of India case, can't assert any other notability for the subject matter. Uncletomwood (talk) 11:14, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:36, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:36, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:37, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:37, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to keep. ~~Selective merge to Kanwar Pal Singh Gill,~~ whose #1996 conviction for sexual harassment duplicates most of the encyclopedic material. The paragraph in Bajaj's article about the Padma Shri award is the only meaningful new info, and it should go to that section or to Kanwar Pal Singh Gill#Awards and honours. I've removed information about her son's booking on a murder charge, which did not result in a conviction, per WP:BLPCRIME. FourViolas (talk) 14:39, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Agree with FourViolas. Selective Merge. Uncletomwood (talk) 15:22, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Rupan Deol Bajaj case - see google search results - [35] and google book [[36] resutls. This would be similar in line with Ruchika Girhotra case, Category:Violence against women in India I think rename would be proper as most people search by Rupen Deol Bajaj case - Jethwarp (talk) 04:32, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - have moved page to Rupan Deol Bajaj case - editing and further improving contents and references. Jethwarp (talk) 05:32, 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 07:38, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per Jethwarp's efforts. GNG is satisfied with a half-dozen targeted RS, and their verifiable encyclopedic material (mostly still not in the article) well exceeds what WP:BLP would allow to be kept at the defendant's article, with pro- and anti-Gill lobbying, Bajaj's later calls for medal-stripping, and the Ruchika Girhotra case connection. FourViolas (talk) 04:03, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as per renamed article,(sorry forgot to vote earlier). Jethwarp (talk) 05:07, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:57, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody Likes You[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBOOK. No sources are included in the article, and I cannot find significant coverage of it in Google News or the NYT. Synopsis is a copy and paste job from the publisher's website. My Pants Metal (talk) 16:31, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:54, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:54, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It seems sources were added to the article after I nominated it for deletion. I'm still willing to have a discussion to see if other people think this book is notable enough for inclusion. --My Pants Metal (talk) 00:32, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:17, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:17, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: the synopsis is copied and pasted from the summary on Amazon, so that's WP:COPYVIO and should be deleted immediately. Once that's been taken out, what are you left with? Unless somebody finds and adds some critical reviews of the book, I'm not sure what else you can say about it. Richard3120 (talk) 15:27, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Commnet: @Richard3120: Per your comment, I've removed the synopsis since it is a WP:COPYVIO. --My Pants Metal (talk) 13:21, 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 07:37, 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 delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:56, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Loreto Parisi[edit]

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

non-notable engineer The bloomberg source has no mention. Marvellous Spider-Man (talk) 18:19, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:40, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:40, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. — Sam Sailor ^Talk! 11:11, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- the subject is cofounded and head of apps development at Musixmatch which appears to be a company of very minor note (30 employees) and could stand to go through AfD itself. I cannot find any other indications of notability or significant coverage, and thus suggest deleting this article. Note: the article appears to have been created by the subject himself: Special:Contributions/Loretopar (going by the user name). K.e.coffman (talk) 05:05, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:22, 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. Nobody contests deletion. Sandstein 07:17, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

QuoteWizard[edit]

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

I frankly would've PRODed but it may simply be drive-by removed so here we are; my own searches are finding nothing else but PR and trivial coverage which is essentially what this exact article is, the awards are also trivial themselves, basically expected for a starting company like this. SwisterTwister talk 19:30, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 19:31, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 19:31, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- typical advertorial on an unremarkable private company. Coverage does not meet COPRDEPTH. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:52, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't view the article as being an advertorial. The article does not use promotional language, peacock language, extol the benefits of the company, and does not encourage readers to do business with it. Sometimes when articles state accomplishments that have been realized, it is a credible claim of significance or importance. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:18, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:37, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:44, 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 07:16, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- I trimmed the article of the unreliably cited material and the article is in A7 territory. The only claims to notability are minor awards; both of which are trivial. One of the awards is given out by a dubious industry group:

Earlier in its life, QuoteWizard was listed on the Deloitte Fast 500, the Fortune Inner City 100.^[8]^[9] It also won a 2013 Leader award from the Leads Council industry group.^[10]

References

^ http://regionsandfaces.com/
^ http://milcservice.com/
^ http://www.gqindia.com/get-smart/personalities/these-rich-arab-kids-instagram-make-ambani-look-hermit-gq-india/#sultan-z-ghani
^ https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0,5&sciodt=0,5&cites=13219624178901164014&scipsc=
^ http://ffp14.cpt.univ-mrs.fr/DOCUMENTS/PREPRINTS/WILLIAMSON_John_preprint.pdf
^ https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=%22A+new+theory+of+light+and+matter%22&btnG=&as_sdt=1%2C5&as_sdtp=
^ http://eprints.gla.ac.uk/110952/1/110952.pdf
^ "Technology Fast 500 2013 ranking" (PDF). Deloitte. Retrieved 2 July 2014.
^ "Inner City 100, 2013". Fortune. Retrieved 2 July 2014.
^ Ferree, Michelle (12 February 2013). "2013 LEADER Awards Announced". Leads Council. Retrieved 2 July 2014.

My searches do not turn up anything better than what's in the article. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:07, 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. MBisanz ^talk 00:55, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Platformic[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Certainly time for another AfD especially how Wikipedia is not what it is since 2010, my own searches are not finding anything actually convincing and there's essentially nothing else better. SwisterTwister talk 21:13, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 21:14, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 21:14, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it certain that it is time for an AfD? What has changed since 2010? Unscintillating (talk) 23:12, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- a micro-stub of an advertorial on an unremarkable private company. Coverage does not meet COPRDEPTH and nothing there to sustain an encyclopedia entry. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:54, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:00, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:00, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment --Network World appears to be the most in-depth coverage, but it's still insufficient for an encyclopedia article. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:42, 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 07:08, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Editors may consider a possible merge to the parent article through normal channels. postdlf (talk) 19:42, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Danja production discography[edit]

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

please see this list and pass judgement.
I think it was worthy of a prod but just wanted to check the consensus.
this artist is not notable enough to have this ENTIRE extended discography hosted in a separate article. It's poorly formatted & poorly referenced. 2 of the 7 are primary, 2 are discogs, the other three are just about sales certifications of 2 of the songs. I couldn't find notability criteria on such articles, but I wouldn't consider this encyclopaedic. This belongs on discogs or elsewhere. Not sure where the line is drawn but this feels far from it. Rayman60 (talk) 23:54, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:54, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:54, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dane2007 (talk) 04:48, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:59, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:22, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Anarchyte (work | talk) 07:04, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:58, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ambassador of Iceland to Serbia and Montenegro[edit]

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

Iceland has never had a resident ambassador to Serbia . Clear consensus is that we don't create ambassador articles for non resident posts. If you translate the official website for the ambassador you will see he was located in Sweden [37] LibStar (talk) 15:48, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 18:59, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iceland-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 18:59, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 18:59, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dane2007 (talk) 21:42, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Not much to add, really. No such user (talk) 11:18, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Its true the Icelander Ambassador with residence in Stockholm was regularly coacreditated in Belgrade, but if you delete this article you would neglect something i would like to describe as impact per capita. Reg west (talk) 20:26, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Reg west: Care to explain what "impact per capita" would be? No such user (talk) 20:45, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Keep Notability is not temporary. Undoubtedly the office was notable when it was extant, therefore, it is notable now. Further, there's nothing to suggest this post might not be refilled at some point in the future. The article's existence isn't promoting a product, hurting anyone, and provides solid information for anyone looking for information on Icelandic diplomatic relations with Serbia and who may not know Svavar Gestsson. Changing !vote per arguments advanced by LibStar and Reyk BlueSalix (talk) 01:09, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The office was never notable. It wasn't even a resident ambassador. WP:NOHARM and WP:ITSUSEFUL are not reasons for keeping and you've supplied zero evidence to prove WP:GNG is met. LibStar (talk) 08:31, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Undoubtedly the office was notable when it was extant – it would be nice if you offered any proof to that effect. "Undoubtedly" does not count. No such user (talk) 20:45, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

it was never notable because it failed WP:GNG back then and does now. As a keep voter the onus is on you to demonstrate actual significant coverage which you have failed to do. LibStar (talk) 05:34, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:40, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Another "Ambassador of country X to country Y" article without any actual content, or evidence of notability. It's a bad idea to create tens of thousands of these contentless microstubs just for the sake of completionism. Reyk _YO! 09:34, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

furthermore the ambassador was never based in country Y and my guess only visited once to present credentials. LibStar (talk) 10:14, 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. MBisanz ^talk 00:59, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

World Technology Award[edit]

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

One third-party RS in 12 years; checking for more sources, all news coverage is either press releases from winners, or articles on Vitalik Buterin that mention the WTA in passing. There is actually nothing I could find about the WTN or WTA itself apart from passing mentions in X-Prize-related articles from 2004. This really looks very like an award that exists to publicise itself, and there is no evidence the award is actually a notable thing.

I PRODed it; Kvng deproded it noting "Deletion is potentially controversial", but, per talk, was unable to provide any existent rather than hypothetical sources. This suggests the controversy may also be hypothetical. I marked everything in the article that needs a citation, which is pretty much all of it. I'm willing to be convinced, but so far there's nothing to do that - David Gerard (talk) 15:13, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:32, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:32, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessarily hypothetical. Research is required. There are, for instance, 93 HighBeam hits to sort through. ~Kvng (talk) 18:29, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- You're offering hypothetical references rather than actual checkable ones. If you have actual verifiable third-party references that satisfy WP:RS, the actual references should be presented, rather than vaguely waving in a direction where some might or might not be found. Actual references will constitute convincing evidence of notability. I'm willing to be convinced, and actual WP:RSes is the way to do that - David Gerard (talk) 18:48, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - I agree, just haven't gotten to it yet. My experience is that with this many hits and incoming wikilinks there's a reasonable possibility of finding evidence of notability. How's that for a hypothesis? ~Kvng (talk) 22:25, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - I think it's an unconvincing one in the face of the absence of actually existing references - David Gerard (talk) 23:12, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Significant coverage in multiple reliable sources: [38], [39], [40], [41], [42], [43], [44], [45], [46]. Please note that, through redirects, this article covers three related topics: World Technology Award, World Technology Network and World Technology Summit. A finding of notability of any of these topics is reason to keep the article. Although this is not direct evidence of notability, please note that this article has dozens of incoming links many from highly notable subjects. Deleting this article, even if consensus finds it to be a non-notable topic, would create a lot of redlinks and this would not be an improvement for the encyclopedia. There is a lot of tagged and poorly cited or uncited material. The article can be improved to correct this but even if this is an immediate concern deletion of the article is not necessary; The offending material can be deleted from the article. ~Kvng (talk) 17:16, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Most of those are about the individuals, not the award. The Thomas Burton one is a reprinted press release. What information about the WTN, WTS or WTA do they supply? That the WTN X-Prize got coverage is already in the article, but none of those articles say anything about the WTN.

Look at the current article text. If everything uncited was removed from it, it'd be about two lines (and will be if this article is kept). Can you, Kvng, actually apply these sources to the article in a verifiable manner? If so please go for it. Note that this is rather more work than cut'n'pasting press release results from a web search - David Gerard (talk) 18:12, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry if I included any unreliable sources in my list. Establishing notability requires only two reliable sources and that requirement is clearly met. Notability also requires significant coverage. Significant coverage does not require sources to be primarily about the subject. Most of these sources include a paragraph or two giving background information about the award and/or organization and so are not "trivial mentions". If you do not have HighBeam access, I can quote what's included for you. As for your requested article improvements, respectfully, AfD is not for cleanup. ~Kvng (talk) 15:47, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and this should've been deleted by PROD, saving us an AfD, nothing at all convincing and substantial. SwisterTwister talk 07:46, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dane2007 (talk) 21:44, 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 06:39, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete An award cannot inherit notability from its winner. I could start an award myself and present it to existing noble laureates and claim that only the best receive it. It requires significant coverage in reliable secondary sources discussing it. I do not see that here. We need sources which are independent of the awarding organisations and independent of the winner. This is a recurring event and if truly notable, there would have been multiple reliable sources covering it over an extended period of time (WP:LASTING). That is clearly not satisfied here. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 04:51, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- This precisely nails my issue with the article: the winners are notable, there's very little evidence the award is - David Gerard (talk) 13:20, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Most of the the sources I've cited are independent of the award and its winners. The sources are generally covering the winners and include a description of the award. Notability is established by the fact that there's independent reporting of the receipt of individueal awards and inclusion in those reports of a non-trivial explanation of the award. ~Kvng (talk) 14:31, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Most of the sources you cited are press releases concerning the individuals - not independent of them at all - and don't give any information about the award. They don't constitute third-party coverage of the fact of the recipient winning the award. I did look before nominating, and the only exception was Vitalik Buterin, and that in the Bitcoin blog sphere - David Gerard (talk) 15:27, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - Please explain what leads you to believe that these bylined reports are press releases: [47], [48], [49], [50], [51], [52] ~Kvng (talk) 15:43, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Umm, "Non trivial coverage =/= Significant coverage". The topic, that is the award itself, needs to be mentioned directly and in detail. For example, in case of notable awards, the coverage is centred on the award and lists the winners. Here, the award is mentioned alongside the winner. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 16:19, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - From WP:SIGCOV, "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." I don't read the discussion of the award in coverage of award winners as "trivial mentions." In each case there is at least a sentence explaining the award; In some cases more than a paragraph. I hope we can agree that these are not trivial mentions. I suppose we can still disagree about how much more than trivial mention is required to constitute significant coverage. Any amount? A sentence? A paragraph? Half the article? ~Kvng (talk) 17:07, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. clear consensus it does not meet the established standard DGG ( talk ) 01:13, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Modern phytomorphology[edit]

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

Article PRODded with reason "Non-notable journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG." PROD removed by article creator with reason "I believe that there no strict background or any reason to consider Modern Phytomorphology as non-notable, and because I added links and list of databases". None of the databases listed are selective in the sense of NJournals, so PROD reason still stands. Hence: Delete. Randykitty (talk) 12:31, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article creator just copied the contents of a long discussion from their talk page to here, which I have reverted. The discussion can be seen here. --Randykitty (talk) 15:12, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Dear Randykitty, please do not delete my posts, they are not only for you. "None of the databases listed are selective in the sense of NJournals"? There no clear criterion which databases are selective and which not. Moreover, User:Randykitty in talk before agreed that such databases as DOAJ, Index Copernicus and some others in which journal is indexed/abstractred are "less selective" than such giants as Scopus or TR. However, where is limit between "less" and "more"? I did not find any criteria for such delimitation of databases in WP:NJournals. So, I belive that this journal is enough notable to stay in WP. Our discussion with Randykitty from out talk (here) with more arguments from my side. Thanks all for help and taking a part in this discussion. Artmarichka (talk) 15:48, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Artmarichka, you cannot just copy a discussion from someplace else and dump it here (and I've reformatted your link, which is not a reference. The correct procedure is to link to it. I don't think that Index Copernicus is selective at all, it's a highly suspect database. DOAJ is selective only in that it only includes a certain type of journals (OA, peer-reviewed), but then tries to include each and every journal that falls in that class. It does not select from among all the journals in that particular class. As for what is selective enough, I have directed you before and do it again to the explanations given at WP:NJournals and to the archive of previous journal-related AfD discussions. --Randykitty (talk) 16:10, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, editors can "just copy a discussion from someplace else" if they properly identify the material and give proper attribution for the source of the comments. As stated above the "Save Page" button, "By clicking the 'Save page' button, you agree to the Terms of Use and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the CC BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL with the understanding that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient for CC BY-SA 3.0 attribution." Unscintillating (talk) 23:24, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please have a look at the history. The fact that it is compatible with the terms of use does not mean that it is proper procedure to copy a large discussion from one's talk page, including signatures and time stamps, and dropping it here as if that discussion took place here. A simple link does the job, too. --Randykitty (talk) 05:22, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would like to hear oppinion of other community members. Your oppinion,Randykitty, I already understood and not agree with it. Artmarichka (talk) 16:22, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:46, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:46, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:46, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:46, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As per the article, "Modern Phytomorphology is indexed and/or abstracted in several databases, including...: Index Copernicus,[2] Polish Scholarly Bibliography,[3] POL-Index,[4] Directory of Open Access Journals,[5] EBSCO Host,[6] CAB Abstracts,[7] and CNKI.[8] It is also included in such taxonomical databases as AlgaeBase [9] and The International Plant Names Index.[10]" In addition, this source states that it is indexed in "Genamics, Google Scholar, and ICI Journals Master List". Google Scholar probably needs some extra mention, as it is cited as part of the WP:BEFORE process, yet WP:NJOURNALS discounts Google Scholar because "Google Scholar includes many sources that are not peer-reviewed", which is not the case here. The primary source, [53] has a yet longer list, "Indexed/abstracted in algaeBASE, CABI, CiteFactor, CNKI Scholar, CORE, DOAJ, DRJI, EBSCO, E-journals, EZB, Genamics JournalSeek, Global Impact Factor, Google Scholar, Index Copernicus, IPNI, JIFactor, JournalRate, OAlib, PBN, POL-index, PubAg (Agricola), Ulrichsweb, Vifabio, WorldCat, WorldWideScience." Unscintillating (talk) 23:24, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Questions If a subject is included in Google, does that mean that it meets GNG? If not, then why does being included in GScholar convey notability? (Note that NJournals explicitly states that GScholar is not selective enough to indicate notability). Would you mind telling us which one of the databases that you mention you consider selective in the sense of NJournals? Please note that GScholar and several of the other databases (JournalSeek and WorldCat, for example) listed above strive for complete coverage, meaning that they are not selective at all. Please also note that some of the databases listed (like CiteFactor, Global Impact Factor, Journal Impact Factor) are known bogus indexing services (see here and here). Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 05:22, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment We can't decide prominent indexing databases for journal(s). Some of the indexing databases popular in respective subjects. I hope based on the popularity we can include or exclude. Jessie1979 (talk) 13:31, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[Revert as per WP:BLOCKEVASION using strikethrough font. 22:02, 13 November 2016 (UTC)]
- CommentAbsolutely agree with you! List of databases will clarify "the minimum criterion" for inclusion into WP and will exclude subjective factor, I think. Artmarichka (talk) 19:21, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Question - who exactly publishes this journal? Currently the article lists the publisher as "A. Novikoff, State Natural History Museum NAS of Ukraine" but while that may have been true initially it now looks as though an independent organization named "Modern Phytomorphology" was created to handle publishing the Modern phytomorphology journal in addition to books and hosting scientific events such as the International Conference on Plant Morphology and Ranunculacean International Seminar and hosting a classification system for embryophytes. I ask this because I was initially going to suggest if this were to be deleted that it instead be merged into its publisher's articles, but now since it appears to be its own publisher perhaps that is not an option, although if that is the case then perhaps notability of the organization should be considered in addition to notability from the journal. Here Modern Phytomorphology is described as a "project" that consists of the conferences, journal, society, and laboratory, which the site says they use to fulfill their objectives including organizing Ukrainian botanists, facilitating the distribution of botanical work from Ukrainian scientists to the rest of the world, and work on clarifying taxonomy. M. A. Bruhn (talk) 23:03, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- AnswerLet me explain. I am Andrew Novikoff and actually it was me who established this journal and who supervise MP project in general. This journal has been established in 2011 and firstly published in 2012. First issue of the journal was jointly published by Biology Faculty of Ivan Franko Lviv National University and State Natural History Museum of NAS of Ukraine because I worked in both this organizations in 2011-2013. There were also Lviv department of Botanical Society of Ukraine, Institute of Ecology of Carpathians and Chernivtsi National University who also supported the first issues of the journal; however they were not mentioned as publishers. The reason for such complicated publishing scheme was simple - all this organizations also forced the international conference with the same title Modern Phytomorphology (in Ukrainian - Suchasna Fitomorpfologia) which firstly held in early 2012 in Lviv on the base of SNMH and Lviv University. However later it became too complicated to manage the work of all institutions at the same time, and we decided to exclude Chernivtsi University of Yu. Fedkovich. Later Lviv University was also excluded from publishing process because I was not employed yet at these organizations. So, finally, several last issues of the journal are published by me on the base of SNMH, where I am currently employed. Such publishing scheme is not perfect, but it is the only possible way to keep the journal alive because no one of mentioned institutions did not support journal or conference financially and they were only a platform for work. Nevertheless, in the same 2011 there established team of people from all these different institutions who did all the work corresponding with organization of conference and publishing of the journal. We decided to entitle us in the same way - Modern Phytomorphology group, however this group is not constant and all the time people are changed, because they also working as volunteers and have no any benefits from this work. There are only few core members who are working for all this time - me, Prof. Tasenkevich, Dr. Odintsova, Dr. Danyliuk, and MSc. Chervoniy. Once again, even these core members changed the places of work several times, and therefore MP society exists now as closed group with main place at SNMH. There also exists laboratory of plant morphology which I built and established on the base of the same SNMH. So, it is the main reason why MP is mentioned rather as project, because it covers not only publishing of the journal. What’s more, in 2013 me with my colleague from Cracow Pedagogical University Prof. Barabasz-Krasny decided to prepare the new handbook on plant systematic. In this year we started work and in 2015 the book has been published. How we did this under MP, while we publishing only journal? We signed contract with other Lviv publisher Liga-Press and printing house Prostir-M (actually this house is printing all issues of the journal for us) for publishing the book under the MP brand. Next book was also published in the same outsourcing way. The big crisis became to the MP in 2014 after Russian invasion in Ukraine, as a result we lost about 35% of our conference participants and authors. The project was near the death line. As a result, it was decided to freeze the organization of the conference and only journal was published from my own money. Only in 2016 we organized small Ranunculaceae international seminar (RISE) with only 12 participants. The most work during last two years was focused on developing of the journal - we changed platform, website and consulting with TR to be included into Emerging Source CI. However it is really not easy because the only one stable financial source of money for the whole project is me, and I am neither businessman nor reach man, I am just regular PhD with regular salary of about 80 USD per month who makes most of the work by himself and by asking people for volunteer help and searching for any other sources of financial support. In fact, if elucidate some small aspects, MP is my indie project targeted onto establishing of good practice and contemporary OA scientific publication principles in Ukraine. It is the first such project in my country, and maybe the last, because it is really non-profit and absolutely not commercial. It is also a reason why in some moments it looks strange - we trying different schemes and searching for different ways to develop. It is, in particular, answer on the comment of Randykitty why the journal is listed in some bogus databases - we did not know that they are bogus when agreed to be listed in, we just searched for ways of promotion and developing of the journal. The knowledge became with experience, and, of course, we should fix this. Speaking more, for example, this year I obtained Fulbright scholar for developing of my project and implantation of OA in Ukraine. Under this scholar I will study OA scientific publishing at Emerson College in Boston. I hope that it will help us to develop the journal more and finally we will be included into Scopus and TR. In particular, I hope to transfer the journal on OJS platform and to introduce DOIs. For the last task, we obtained permission from Zenodo and will using their DOIs. To finish, did you thought about how much money you should invest to develop the journal at least to such level as our and how more you need to invest to be included into TR or Scopus? Unfortunately, we have no such money and just trying to do our work as best as possible. So, if our journal will stay in Wikipedia - it will be great honour for us and for me personally, if not - then you really should think about unequal opportunities in different countries and about clear list of databases for inclusion in Wikipedia. Thank you all, who read me and for your opinions and comments! Sincerely, Andrew. Novikoffav (talk) 13:21, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep I do agree with Novikoffav. As I explained in another journal we need not follow commercial indexing sources like scopus, ISI Web of Science, EBSCO etc. The era of these monopoly indexing will go away. Pleas watch for few more years. This is my opinion, experts can decide on keep or delete. Jessie1979 (talk) 06:08, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[Revert as per WP:BLOCKEVASION using strikethrough font. 22:02, 13 November 2016 (UTC)]

Keep - Thank you for taking the time Novikoffav to expand on the journal’s history, and for allowing us to catch an interesting glimpse at the processes and context underlying its development. It is a known problem that Wikipedia lacks coverage of many significant subjects outside of the English-speaking world (primarily America) due to language barriers including lack of coverage in English-speaking sources, and lack of editor interest/background in these subjects. I found an article by very well-respected comparative developmental biologist Donald R. Kaplan on plant morphology and it appears to be one such subject which has been overlooked in America due to the difficulty in translation as well as cell and molecular techniques coming to prominence in the biological sciences in general. In some ways the policies here are reflective of the cell and molecular approach to biology, with deletion discussions focused on small, quantifiable markers like presence in selective databases. Looking through the journal I am impressed with the rigorous detailing of plant morphology which I would love to see applied elsewhere such as in tumor morphology. The journal provides, in English, a scholarly look at region-specific botany in a field of study that is known to be under-represented in English sources, and apparently many indexing services can't even operate with Cyrillic. Such considerations should be taken into account. In my opinion WP:NPOV and WP:NOTE are in conflict here, and that the former should in this case be given preference over the latter. M. A. Bruhn (talk) 02:59, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I get it that you like this journal, but !votes that are not based in policy are likely to be ignored by the closing admin. --Randykitty (talk) 09:41, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - does not meet WP:NJournals, and I hope that the opinion expressed above that the journal featuring in Google Scholar results means it is notable is given the weight it deserves - that would make pretty much every journal notable. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:19, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:37, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sorry, this fails WP:JOURNALCRIT. I do not see any evidence that the journal is influential in its subject area or that it has been cited multiple times in reliable sources. Neither do I see anything significant in its brief history. Fails WP:GNG as well. Wikipedia it not a directory of all journals: we do need to have a mechanism for selection. For this we rely on other reputable publishers which have a track record of verifying the influence of journals before indexing them. This journals is possibly a case of WP:TOOSOON and hasn't been indexed in any of them. While I sympathise that the journal is from Ukraine, this is an academic related topic and we cover it only when the community notes that the journal is making an impact. Till that time, delete. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 12:53, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Lemongirl1942. I sympathize with several of the justifications for the keep voters above, but I can't find any evidence that this journal meets WP:NJournals which is the current consensus for how we determine which journals to have articles about in the encyclopedia. It sounds like some of the voters above have concerns about that guideline, but perhaps that's a discussion better held at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(academic_journals). Ajpolino (talk) 20:20, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Just a pedantic point. Although it is treated like a guideline, it is in fact an essay. M. A. Bruhn (talk) 00:06, 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. MBisanz ^talk 00:59, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

PhpWebSite[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I frankly would've PRODed if not for the 2007 AfD which clearly cannot be taken seriously, my own searches have found nothing better at all and there's essentially no actual substance. SwisterTwister talk 21:47, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 21:50, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 21:50, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:39, 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 06:37, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Most of this article consists of feature lists, with a non-encyclopaedic advisory 2nd person tone. A parallel article in the German Wikipedia was deleted in 2009 because it was not demonstrating notability [54]. There is some coverage in TechRepublic from 2006: inclusion in a product list (now added as a reference), then some how-to items on installing and customising. However I am not seeing anything that rises above the instructional to demonstrate attained notability. AllyD (talk) 08:02, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:00, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Independent Living Center of the North Shore and Cape Ann (ILCNSCA)[edit]

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

This was a recreated speedy article. A google search turns up no sources for the place outside of the business itself. Fails WP:CORP Church talk)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:17, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:17, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disability-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:17, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ILCNSCA represents the voice of those of all ages living with disabilities of all types. We are roughly 20% of the US population. We have only been recognized as having some civil rights as of 1990, with the passage of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). ILCNSCA is an agency run by and for those of us living with disabilities, we meet all the federal standards and assurances of an independent living center put into Federal Law, the Rehabilitation Services Act, written by the efforts of the disability rights movement of the 1970s. Today there has been some opportunities for those living with disabilities to live in our own homes, to be employed, to be married, to vote, to be active members of our communities, and to live with whomever we choose, yet many of us are still discriminated against every day, forced to live in institutions (group homes, nursing homes, homeless shelters, jails, prisons instead of given access to the same rights as non-disabled citizens. As one of more than 400 centers for independent living across the US, all funded with federal tax dollars, and consumer controlled with a majority of our Board members those who self disclose they have disabilities and a majority of our staff living as well with disabilities, we hold to tenets of choice, self-determination, dignity of risk, and empowerment. As fundamentally a civil rights/peer support agency, ILCNSCA ask Wikipedia to help us stop the unconscious and systematic oppression of people with disabilities and assist us in our social justice battle for all citizens to have full access to our communities and cultures opportunities. And if you do not have a disability today, you at some point in your life will for a disability, short or long term, as disability is a part of our natural lives, as our functional abilities all shift as we age. Be a part of the solution for inclusion of all Wikipedia, include ILCNSCA page and other disability rights pages, such as the National Council on Independent Living in your information pool. Photomhs (talk) 18:16, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
— Photomhs (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Delete - No evidence subject has received significant coverage in independent sources. --Hirolovesswords (talk) 19:53, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 01:00, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GRADES[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Insufficient reliable secondary coverage. Laun chba ller 01:33, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:44, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:44, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep has received independent coverage from multiple sources (Ministry of Sound, HungerTV) and has worked with multiple notable artists, in addition to being a notable, signed solo act. SFB 12:52, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The two sources you just added are interviews and don't count towards notability, notability is not inherited, simply being signed is not enough per WP:MUSICBIO.--Laun chba ller 12:55, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Independently published interviews are a form of secondary coverage. SFB 16:57, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Sam Sailor ^Talk! 23:13, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Lots of sourced references and plenty more come up with a casual search -- subject is the producer on a major record that launched just a week ago and there's no shortage of coverage around. A Train^talk 11:36, 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 06:22, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No evdivence of any notabilty. KGirlTrucker81^{talk what I'm been doing} 12:28, 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. No arguments for deletion other than the nominator's in three weeks. Sufficient consensus that the coverage that exists establishes notability. Michig (talk) 07:31, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Maia Wilkins[edit]

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

PROD removed with the basis of adding sources but all of those are actually trivial, simply consisting of interviews and local news stories. SwisterTwister talk 16:44, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:43, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:43, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:43, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:35, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The subject meets WP:BASIC, although on a weaker level from sources I have been able to find. See examples below. Perhaps other users can locate additional sources? North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:30, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

"Joffrey’s Maia Wilkins: Born to be Wild". Dance Magazine
"Gerald Arpino and Maia Wilkins: Creating legacies". Chicago Tribune
"Joffrey Ballet to lose 2 of its principal dancers". Chicago Tribune
"A graceful return". The Union. (Includes content about the subject's work with her husband, Michael Levine, and discusses matters the couple are both involved in)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yellow Dingo (talk) 06:17, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes GNG, appears often in Dance Magazine. I'll add sources to the article. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:18, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Covered in the New York Times, the Chicago Tribune, the Los Angeles Times and the Washington Post. While some of these are simple mentions in the context of the Joffrey Ballet, she was a principal there, which is a big deal, and the additional coverage in the professional specialty press (Dance and such) adds up to significant coverage from multiple sources independent of the subject. Clearly meets GNG. Montanabw^(talk) 16:02, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:55, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mike O'Shaughnessy[edit]

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

Article on a local councillor, failing both WP:GNG and the subsidiary WP:POLITICIAN. For procedural reasons it is not eligible for PROD (having been proposed and declined on an earlier occasion), but there seems nothing here that meets the notability requirements. Hence the AfD. -- Euryalus (talk) 05:46, 14 August 2016 (UTC) Euryalus (talk) 05:46, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable city council member.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:25, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Winnipeg City Council: These used to be routinely kept (~2008), but, per DGG (discussed here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brenda Leipsic (2nd nomination)), the consensus has changed in the intervening eight years. Indeed, I don't see Winnipeg on the list of Global cities; here's a ranking of top 40 cities from 2015: link. I believe a redirect may be appropriate as the subject appears on the list in the target article. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:01, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DGG was wrong, for the record, about what the existing consensus is. It is not "NYC and Chicago, and nowhere else"; it is "all global cities". There once was a time when Wikipedia's article on global city directly contained a list of all cities which were so ranked, and Winnipeg was in it — the criterion for "global city" was not "within only the Top 40 highest global cities by power ranking, with anything ranked #41 or below out", but "named within our article about global cities at all, regardless of where it ranks in a higher-lower list". Again, I'm not necessarily opposed to a consensus being established to remove Winnipeg, and the "not alpha, beta or gamma class" cities in general, from the list of cities whose councillors qualify — but simply misrepresenting the fact that an existing consensus explicitly established that they did qualify is not the way to get there. What it requires is a discussion that centres on specific reasons why the existing consensus should be changed, not simply handwaving the existing consensus away as never having existed in the first place. Bearcat (talk) 17:39, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Update (Aug 16, following discussions with Bearcat): The prior consensus was established with the understanding that Winnipeg was a global city (I've located the listing in the article on global cities, 2015 version). While acknowledging that consensus formerly accepted Winnipeg as one of the cities where a city councillor was accepted as notable under NPOL #2, I believe that it shouldn't anymore because Winnipeg is listed under "Category 6 (Sufficiency)". I believe this is insufficient to qualify it as a major international hub of business and political power, where a city councillor could be presumed to be notable:

Alpha++ cities are London and New York City, which are vastly more integrated with the global economy than all other cities.
Alpha+ cities complement London and New York City by filling advanced service niches for the global economy.
Alpha and Alpha- cities are cities that link major economic regions into the world economy.
Beta level cities are cities that link moderate economic regions into the world economy.
Gamma level cities are cities that link smaller economic regions into the world economy.
Sufficiency level cities are cities that have a sufficient degree of services so as not to be obviously dependent on world cities.

For comparison, other North American cities in the last category as Des Moines, Greensboro, Sacramento. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:59, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@K.e.coffman and Bearcat: It seems questionable that we would assess the notability of a municipal politician based on their city's "connectivity measured through 'advanced producer services': accountancy, advertising, banking/finance, and law." While I see the rationale behind having different criteria for "global cities", I don't know that this is the right way to go about it. Graham (talk) 21:22, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:02, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:03, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:03, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Following some discussion with K.e.coffman to clarify our respective issues, I see that he's now revising his nomination rationales to accommodate my primary concerns — as noted, I'm not wedded to the idea that Winnipeg's city councillors need to be kept as notable, but simply objected to the fact that some editors seemed willing to simply ignore the fact that the prior consensus ever existed at all. If any prior consensus could be erased simply by refusing to acknowledge that it existed, and didn't require any actual discussion and debate about the reasons why it should possibly be changed, Wikipedia would instantly become a giant pile of anarchy. An argument formulated this way, however, I can agree with: the "sufficiency" class of cities should not be considered notable enough to hand its city councillors an NPOL pass anymore, and Winnipeg is not for any substantive reason a city where broad national or international reader interest transcends its relatively low class of "globalness" the way a national capital might. Accordingly, I support the nomination as now formulated: my issue was the way in which the argument was being conducted as if no consensus for these ever existed in the first place, not any strong believe that Winnipeg should retain that status permanently. Bearcat (talk) 21:37, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Mondegreen. MBisanz ^talk 01:07, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of mondegreens[edit]

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

Most of these are WP:OR and completely pulled out of the reader's ass ("run naked through water" in Hunter Hayes' "Wanted"? Really?). Most of the ones that are sourced are to unreliable sources, like YouTube videos or fansites. This seems to be little more than a place for people to dump their own personal mondegreens. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 05:26, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: if the WP:OR was removed there wouldn't be enough left for an article. Not really an encyclopedic subject, either. Really a better subject for an English usage blog. - Ahunt (talk) 10:24, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retain: Deletion would be an extreme insistence on WP:OR. The article is, on the whole, well-written, well-structured and it serves a useful purpose. Arrivisto (talk) 19:38, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- — Note to closing admin: Arrivisto (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:27, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Arrivisto:: See WP:ITSUSEFUL and WP:PRETTY. Not at all valid excuses. I could make a useful, well-written, well-structured article on my own ass; does that make it notable? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:45, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@TenPoundHammer: (i) They are reasons, not excuses; (ii) if the parent page, Mondegreens, is notable, then its list might be too; (iii) in the manner of Oscar Wilde, let's call a spade a spade and call an arse an arse (and not the milk-livered "ass")! Arrivisto (talk) 09:25, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Arrivisto: How is "I misheard this song lyric" notable? I misheard a lot of lyrics growing up; should I add them to the list? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:16, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@TenPoundHammer: First, an individual's mishearings are indeed "not notable" (even if amusing); but since the parent page covers a notable topic, it cannot be improper to provide a reasonable number of examples of the more common mishearings. Secondly, (see below), I do not object to a merger. Arrivisto (talk) 08:57, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:12, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:12, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:13, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with parent article, Mondegreen, but trimming trivial examples. There's some duplication already, but both articles are quite small, so the parent can be expanded, while refraining from turning it into an Example Farm. - BilCat (talk) 12:03, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would not be unhappy with a merger. Arrivisto (talk) 09:25, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, maybe merge some of the better documented ones into mondegreen. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information; this kind of stuff belongs on TV Tropes. Eman 235/talk 02:14, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Snowball clause closure - All votes have been for keep with strong rationale that WP:NOTNEWS does not apply here. (non-admin closure) -- Dane2007 ^talk 07:01, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2016 Milwaukee riot[edit]

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

WP:NOTNEWS — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 05:09, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable and ongoing riot situation with lasting notability. Juneau Mike (talk) 08:56, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Do tell, how do you know that an event not even 24 hours old has "lasting notability"? — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 13:14, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Covered by national/international news agencies. That satisfies the notability inclusion criteria for events. Also, the event is one of political/socioeconomic issues and is likely to have lasting effects for the city. (cf. 2015 Baltimore protests) -- Veggies (talk) 14:16, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:57, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep is notable, has coverage. (See also: WP:RAPID) D3RP4L3RT (DERPALERT) (talk) 15:41, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - Notable, has sustaining coverage, and is connected to the Black Lives Matter movement. I'm sure we'll learn even more once the identity of the deceased person and/or the officer who fired the fatal shots is/are revealed. Parsley Man (talk) 16:44, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Another criminal championed by the terrorist BLM movement and its resulting riot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dinosaurdracula (talk • contribs) 16:53, 14 August 2016 (UTC) — Dinosaurdracula (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep. Sufficient media coverage. Zaostao (talk) 17:50, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
merge and redirect into Black Lives Matter - Sadly, Police killings of young African American men with guns are becoming too commonplace. Not all of them are notable or should have articles since there are thousands of them a year in the US. The riot may be notable but only if it persists like what happened in Ferguson, MO. As it stands it's just a blip on the radar. 166.70.213.246 (talk) 19:59, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Note None of the events in Milwaukee have been linked in any way to the Black Lives Matter movement. We would, in effect, be merging two unrelated articles.Juneau Mike (talk) 21:47, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sufficient information on subject. Mangokeylime (talk) 00:51, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Large media coverage, and a very notable topic. No idea why it's being suggested for deletion. Ghoul flesh talk 03:21, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Event is notable and as historic as any of the other police shootings that have their own Wikipedia pages Shooting of Walter Scott Shooting of Samuel DuBose -- Viperstick (talk) 04:55, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Do we really have to do this every time now? It is obvious that this meets guidelines for widespread notability and there is no chance of this being deleted at this point. ProfessorTofty (talk) 05:00, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - National coverage of the event. Plenty of people reading this article shouldn't have to see this notable event being tagged for deletion. —SomeoneNamedDerek (talk) 06:52, 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 Miss Nebraska USA. MBisanz ^talk 01:07, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Meagan Winings[edit]

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

Winings has won state titles in both the Miss USA and Miss America systems. This alone however is not enough to make her notable. John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:56, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Miss Teen USA & Miss USA not Miss America. Curious as to why you didn't just redirect this like the rest of your targets. PageantUpdater (talk) 22:40, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As I noted at the recent Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Courtney Barnas (2nd nomination) discussion, I would love to propound even a modest argument for notability with a forceful voice on behalf of any Miss USA state titleholder, but none seems to exist at this time.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:48, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- a non-notable state-level winner. This does not meet ANYBIO1. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:07, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:06, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:06, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nebraska-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:06, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Miss Nebraska USA as a valid search term, and the subject is mentioned there. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:07, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now. Discussion about notability guidelines has already started on the Talk page for the Beauty Pageant project. No harm will be done by closing this nomination as "keep" and letting the project-level discussion take its course. NewYorkActuary (talk) 05:27, 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. MBisanz ^talk 01:08, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Greg Bell (radio host)[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a satellite radio personality, which is based entirely on primary sources and blogs with not one shred of reliable source coverage shown at all. A radio personality does not get a free pass over WP:CREATIVE just for existing, but must be the subject of enough media coverage to satisfy WP:GNG. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 02:51, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:55, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:55, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:55, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nothing at all suggestive of his own notability. SwisterTwister talk 01:41, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Sam Sailor ^Talk! 23:15, 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 04:44, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:10, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

European Gaming League[edit]

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

mentioned in a few sources but the overall notability of this organization is questionable WP:NORG Prisencolin (talk) 19:16, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:40, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:40, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:40, 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 06:57, 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 00:57, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- a micro-stub article with insufficient RS coverage to meet GNG. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:28, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:35, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:35, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: this is the best I've been able to find: "Esports: How to make money from gaming", but it's rather trivial and insufficient to meet CORPDEPTH or GNG. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:23, 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. Michig (talk) 07:22, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Visual TimeAnalyzer[edit]

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

NN product. All three books cited are published by the same indie e-book publisher, and the first and third books are the same material with different chapter reference numbers. I'm into download links on the first page of GHits. MSJapan (talk) 04:10, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - David Gerard (talk) 12:36, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:41, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:41, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable software fails WP:NSOFT and even the company article was deleted.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 13:02, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is quite easy to find online coverage for a software. In this particular case, I found is really hard. Fails WP:NSOFT and WP:PRODUCT. There have been numerous time analysers, I don't see any particular reason to see this one as notable. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 01:42, 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) 07:19, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Security Task Manager[edit]

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

NN product. Sources given in the article are a blog, a news site that returns a press release from 2004, and one mention in a free e-book. PC World did a one paragraph review, and that's about it. Company itself was deleted as NN. MSJapan (talk) 04:06, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - David Gerard (talk) 12:35, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Dialectric (talk) 16:17, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- a non notable SW product. If the company were deemed notable, it could have been a redirect. Not notable individually. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:11, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable software fails WP:NSOFT and even the company article was deleted.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 12:47, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is quite easy to find online coverage for a software. In this particular case, I found is really hard. Fails WP:NSOFT and WP:PRODUCT. The PC World article is simply inclusion in a list of software which I consider routine coverage. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 01:42, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus defaulted to keep. (Actually, pretty close to keep, we have some delete votes based on the old version). We need to take a break and go on. Thanks for expending the article. If move is still needed, RM can be started any time.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:07, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Nur Shams[edit]

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

After stripping out copyvio for the third time, I figured out there is a fundamental factual error. I don't know what this is called, but it's certainly not called "The Battle of Nur Shams" anywhere else but here, and certainly not in the sources the material was lifted from, so for factual inaccuracy alone this should be deleted. MSJapan (talk) 03:56, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A Google search provides no evidence of such a battle, at least not under that name. Not to say that there isn't such a battle, but either the given name is wrong or the battle is so obscure that it can only be found in written sources, rather than online. But with no way to establish notability, no option exists other than delete. Safiel (talk) 04:16, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On reconsideration changing to neutral Improvements in the article in the 10 days since I gave my previous argument/vote have invalidated my previous argument. However, I am really not sure on keep/delete, so I am changing to neutral. Safiel (talk) 05:58, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I was unable to find any sources on EBSCO, Gale, or Google. The location itself wasn't even established until the 1950s. I have a feeling that this is a case of mistaken name, but unless the real name can be found and the battle verified, I'm afraid there is no other choice... -Pax Verbum 04:53, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the best I can figure is that a series of minor skirmishes involving different people in different places has been combined and vastly overblown into a named battle in a single location. MSJapan (talk) 16:09, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:40, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:40, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Pernom. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 15:08, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep after reading E.M.Gregory arguments and improvements to the article. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 12:27, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Arthistorian1977 and Pax85: request that you take a look at completely rewritten sourced article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:03, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep looking back to an old version [55] of the page establishes that a small battle (all battles in this war were small) took place. Here: [56] is a reliable contemporary news account. It was an attack on the armed forces of a legal government in peacetime, what we would nowadays call a terrorist attack and should be renamed, improved and kept.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:07, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Except there was no "battle." Several incidents in different places and times were reported in news articles, yes, but there's no historical basis to call this a named battle. I'm not sure why you want to bother to keep an article that you also want renamed and rewritten - that's effectively a deletion. Moreover, title aside, on what basis is this not falling under WP:NOTNEWS? It was reported in the news cycle, and that was it. We have no other sources available other than single articles contemporaneously written. The case for its "notability" was made by an editor who did nothing but copy and paste the entirety of the material into the article, and editorialize as to why it needed to be there; that editor also made up the name. There has been no historical review or other third-party source that ascribes any notability to any of these disparate incidents, nor gives these incidents a name. This is WP:ROUTINE, and that's just the way it goes. Your personal opinion and inappropriate usage of historical transposition doesn't change that. MSJapan (talk) 17:26, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:HEYMANN; sourcing and expanding article now.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:45, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Adding soruces now.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:47, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See also coverage at Anabta, where this ambush is mischaracterized.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:49, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rename article 1936 Anabta Ambush.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:45, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and MSJapan. I also read that linked article, and on a side, am appalled at the dismal reporting. "Arabs" attacked? The reporters couldn't even figure out the actual nationality of the attackers? They also write in with a complete Jewish/"Arab" binary, forgetting this took place in an area known for having mixed-religion families and communities. wtf. Talk about simplifying a conflict to an almost offensive level. Yvarta (talk) 17:49, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, ~~the~~ this article when I came upon it actually referred to the location as a "refugee camp" (as though there were refugee camps in Palestine in 1936). "Arabs" is simply the word used by all media sources covering this incident in 1936. "Palestinian" is an anachronism in this context.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:07, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I meant this one, actually. The one you referred to as "reliable" earlier :b Yvarta (talk) 18:23, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake, same one. Is there a reason this incident in your mind wouldn't be worth covering in a blanket topic on the British conflict in Palestine? If it isn't notable enough to include on that larger topic, that might be a hint there isn't a coverage to support an independent page. Yvarta (talk) 18:25, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This was an attack on a convoy of civilian buses by armed militants (the New York Times news report on the incident called it "terrorism" ) in which 2 soldiers guarding a civilian convoy and 10 (or 11, reports vary) Arab fighters were killed. We should treat it in exactly the same manner that we would treat such an event if such an attack happened today.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:33, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

- I fully agree with you. The way we treat event articles is if they meet WP:NOTNEWS and fail WP:EVENT is to delete them. Your actual statement implies that you think all terrorist attacks are worthy of articles, and as long as you edit according to your personal opinion as opposed to following policy despite your various "feelings", "opinions", and "fascinations", you're going to continue to be a problematic editor. You apparently have yet to figure out that your opinion does not matter on Wikipedia if it isn't supported by fact. Also, before you turn around and complain, you placed yourself into this Afd after I specifically told you to stay away from topic interaction with me, so I don't want to hear it. MSJapan (talk) 19:58, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please look at the sources that I have brought to the totally re-written page, or, if you prefer, run your own searches for it in RS. I acting here in a transparent manner. I found an article at AFD. Sourced it, and re-wrote it as per RS.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:00, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article was on a list of Palestine-related AFDs that I regularly check. I clicked, and found an extremely odd stub. I am not defending the original article, a cut and paste monstrosity, but it had been edited down to a 1-sentence stub that included the bizarre assertion that an attack had taken place near "a Palestinian refugee camp." In 1936 - a decade before such camps existed. All that I did was look back at the original article, and with clues I found there I searched with keywords to see what did happen on this site on that date. It was not at all difficult to discover a large scale ) 60-70 armed militants ) terrorist attack on a civilian bus convoy that rapidly escalated into a "fierce battle." I suspect that other editors will be able to find more sources and improve the article over time, but I have expanded this into an interesting short article that includes quite an early air attack on militant/terrorist fighters in the Middle East.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:18, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note That the JTA article linked above refers to the location of this ambush as 3 miles east of Nur-el-Shems, Our Nur Shams, Tulkarm article obviously needs improvement.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:07, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note that at least 2 pre-existing WP articles discussed this battle, I have now linked them (Ibrahim Nassar, and Anabta).E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:30, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:56, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:56, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:56, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, and possibly rename, per the convincing arguments made by EM Gregory , who has since added numerous sources to the article which now easily satisfies WP:GNG Firkin Flying Fox (talk) 21:10, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The criteria for events is WP:EVENT. And this fails WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE and WP:LASTING. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 22:52, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: probably should be renamed to something like "Anabta school bus ambush" or something similar, but overall I think it is a viable topic following the addition of sources by E.M.Gregory. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 03:53, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a newspaper. We don't report every single incident. Firstly, no "battle" occurred. And secondly, the "ambush" doesn't seem to qualify as a notable event. I had a look at the sources beyond the paywall and it is clear that this will fail WP:NEVENTS

The sources are characteristic of the news-spike which happens during an incident. All of these are WP:PRIMARYNEWS and I'm sorry that doesn't satisfy WP:DEPTH.
I don't see WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE being satisfied here. I don't see any sources analysing this particular incident in detail and showing any importance.
I don't see any WP:LASTING effects either - or secondary news sources would have discussed this battle years after it happened. (Which they won't because this was some minor skirmish).

Overall, I don't see a reason to keep this. The coverage is expected coverage but no indication that the event is notable. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:00, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lemongirl's assertions are simply incorrect, as demonstrated by sources discussed below.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:54, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Umm, no. I can see one source that too a print source no one can verify? And a pro-Israel advocacy website? Please, we need better sources than this. I will recommend you to read WP:EVENT again. It seems you don't understand the guideline very well. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 20:09, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from above as the editor hasn't, despite being requested twice. Was placed in between my !vote --Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:27, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Major news sources now cited in article call it a "battle" and describe it as a notable "battle" because it marked a significant escalaiton at that point in the 1936 Arab Revolt.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:17, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I added a university press book to satisfy this demand.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:18, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

At least one lasting consequence now sourced on this page and on Abd al-Rahim al-Hajj Muhammad.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:30, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep To refute the WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE argument of the previous editor, there are sources from 2015 and 2016 in the article. The article should be renamed, but that should be discussed on the talkpage. Debresser (talk) 18:13, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Debresser: No, there are not - there is one academic article in a historical journal from 2015 talking about the events of 1936 as a whole. Everything else is 1936, except for an undated book with no author. That's not the same kinsd of coverage as is required in WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE. I think you must be misreading retrieval dates as writing dates? MSJapan (talk) 21:58, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Where are these sources from 2015/2016? I can't see them at all. The journal article btw doesn't mention the incident at all. I have removed it from the article. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 22:49, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So sorry. You are right. Retrieval dates. Debresser (talk) 23:42, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

However, AFD is not a question of what sources are already on the page, see below.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:54, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 11:33, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- If the engagement took place, we could potentially have an article on it. I suspect that virtually every engagement of the Arab uprising was in the nature of an ambush, so that it will be small scale. The question is probably more one of what the article should be called and whether it was big enough to be notable. I observe that this is (so far) the only battle of the uprising to have an article. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:54, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note on post 1936 references. ~~I am finding little reference to this incident in Zionist sources after 1936.~~ I have not checked Palestinian Arab sources, although I expect that it can be found there, perhaps by searching with keyword Ibrahim Nassar (and variant spellings of that name) since the WP article on him that discussed this incident before the article under discussion here was created. I have linked the article to a Zionist website [57] unitedwithisrael.org, that posted a discussion about this battle in June 2016. Mostly, however, academic discussions of this battle are found in sources covering the use of air power by the British in the interwar (between WWI andWWII) period, by scholars such as David Omissi, Thomas Mockaitis, and Charles Townshend.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:56, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sourced - update that Note Took a minute to pull a likely volume down from the bookshelf (checking a bound codex, imagine that). have now sourced discussion of this battle to a 2012 University Press book. I'm sure there are other sources, but, as early editors commenting above suspected, there are somany variant names applied to this battle on the Haifa Tel Aviv road on 21 June 1936, that an online search on the wrong keywords can make it appear to an editor that sources do not exist.@Peterkingiron, Debresser, and Lemongirl942: E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:25, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have not checked Palestinian Arab sources, although I expect that it can be found there and I'm sure there are other sources. Umm no, WP:NOTABILITYISNOTCONJECTURED. This is a pretty clear cut fail of WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE. The fact that only advocacy websites (that too only pro-Israel ones) are mentioning this is a pretty good reason not to keep this article. The diversity of sources seems to be lacking here. And that's ignoring the fact that after a lot of search one contemporary source could be located - which btw is a print source and I have not been able to verify it. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 20:07, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please specify where you have done "a lot of search(ing)"?E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:50, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note I have NOT looked exhaustively; merely I sourced an orphan I found at AFD. I suspect that there are Palestinian or pro-Palestinian sources covering this because I found unreliable sources celebrating this incident as a victory over imperialist and Zionist forces (in the sense, I suppose, that Palestinian fighters held a substantial contingent of British regulars in check for many hours for what appears to have the first time), and I suspect that anti-Israel sources that can be cited on WP exist because the contemporary source I added is by a Palestinian writer, and appears in a book edited by an anti-Israel academic. I suppose that this ambush is unlikely to be written up much by Zionists because no Jews were killed although this was a summer large numbers of Jews were slaughtered in Palestine in a series of anti-Semitic attacks and pogroms. What I can see that it is covered by some of the British military writers I mentioned, although I have not gone to those books and articles to source it. I may make time at some point when I need to be in that archive for some other purpose (these are hard copy military histories) Although I rather hope that those sources will be added by someone with an interest in and knowledge of the use of air power in counterinsurgency warfare in the 1930s.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:42, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I also suspect that all bios of Abd al-Rahim al-Hajj Muhammad discuss this battle, although I have sourced to only 1, article length discussion of his role, I have now liked this article to his page where this battle is discussed as a significant moment in his career as an insurgent commander.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:40, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing editor each of the faults LemonGirl found in the article have been addressed, and sources provided. Nom and editors who iVoted early in this discussion were operating under misimpression caused by the multiple names (and alt. transliterations) given to a battle that began as an ambush on a road near but not in several settled places. Note also that several wikipedia pages already discussed the battle, and now link to it.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:34, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing editor Umm, no my concerns haven't been addressed haven't despite E.M.Gregory's attempts to WP:BLUDGEON. Sorry but there is a failure to demonstrate where is the WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE and where is the WP:LASTING effects as well as WP:DEPTH. Continued coverage is clearly not satisfied with one source. No modern source discusses the event in detail. In fact, the modern source E.M.Gregory is talking about discusses it within 5 sentences. Heck, and that's like the only coverage if you discount the "Pro-Israel" advocacy website. Sorry, but this "battle" needs better sources than that. In addition, if reliable sources cover an event briefly in the context of another event with a wider timeline, so should Wikipedia. If reliable source deem a battle as less than important, so should we. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:15, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the book again, this incident is discussed again later in that book. But this solidly sourced article does meet WP:GNG.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:47, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

E.M.Gregory Please do not ever modify my comments. Your comments are not supposed to be placed in between mine. This is called refactoring. Please remove your comments which you added in between mine. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 01:40, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

E.M.Gregory, could you remove the comments you placed in between my !vote? --Lemongirl942 (talk) 00:33, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the sources dug up by E.M.Gregory look like a very good start to me and passes the coverage requirements in WP:GNG for mine (multiple newspaper sources at the time and coverage in recent academic works etc). There may or may not be an issue with the name but that is for discussion elsewhere. Anotherclown (talk) 22:51, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on the basis of the excellent work and arguments of E.M.Gregory DGG ( talk ) 01:18, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep due to work done on article. Hiding T 09:50, 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. MBisanz ^talk 01:09, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Right Angle Sports[edit]

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

Article is self promoting. No notability. Sources are not reputable. Paininthegain (talk) 20:30, 9 August 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 August 14. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:55, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:57, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:57, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as PR by all means, nothing at all actually convincing or substantial. SwisterTwister talk 21:44, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:39, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Sources listed are namedrops at best. shoy (reactions) 19:27, 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 Hernando County, Florida. The nose count is about even, but most of the keep arguments don't impress me.

The best argument on the keep side is from User:Nicjec, who (thank you!) provides some sources, but User:John from Idegon makes a pretty good argument as to why those sources are inadequate. User:Bearian's keep argument has me a bit perplexed; he argues that we should keep articles about the larger departments, yet I see no reason that description applies here.

On the delete side, User:DGG's suggestion to delete before redirecting didn't gain any support.

-- RoySmith (talk) 12:00, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hernando County Sheriff's Office[edit]

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

This article does not come within a mile of meeting ORG. Again, this is a local law enforcement agency with 0 widespread media coverage. If you can point me to reliable sources that discuss the agency in detail, at least one of which is geographically separate from the department's locale, I'll be happy to withdraw this. Police agencies have no inherent notability. It has to be shown. There isn't even much of the typical coverage for police on this department (that being personnel changes and stories on crime, neither of which satisfy the coverage in detail required). John from Idegon (talk) 00:35, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: A police agency that covers an entire county in the State of Florida certainly does have notability. There has been widespread media coverage on this agency in the past. This article can be cleaned up, modified, and additional information regarding the agency's history can be added. A quick search of international media websites revealed that there has been national coverage of this agency and I have referenced a few. In my opinion, additions are necessary to this article; however, in its current state, this article is in compliance with ORG. ^[1] ^[2] ^[3] --Nicjec (talk) 00:40, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3303936/Husband-arrested-1981-cold-case-reality-TV-credited.html. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
^ http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/mum-arrested-child-abuse-after-5219524. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
^ http://www.13wmaz.com/news/crime/police-florida-dad-on-meth-drags-children-into-the-woods/280029696. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)

So where in any of those references is discussion in detail of the subject of the article? They are stories about crimes that happened to occur in their jurisdiction. Compare that to the article on sheriff offices that are notable such as Cook County, Illinois or Los Angeles County, California. There are copious amounts of material actually about the departments, not about the crimes they are supposed to interdict in. Have you ever looked to see how many sheriff departments actually have articles? There is a reason there are so few. The fact of the matter is that lacking a long history and the attention being in a population center draws, not much is written about law enforcement. Tons about crime....very little about law enforcement. Unless there is some innovative technique originating with them (see Kalamazoo Department of Public Safety) or a long history of corruption, police be kinda like streetlights. We only care if they don't work. This does not represent a anti police bias on my part, just a true observation born out by what has been written. Like the old lady said on the Wendy's commercial--where's the meat? John from Idegon (talk) 04:06, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:30, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:30, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:31, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A large enough agency for its own article. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:19, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:02, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Hernando County, Florida. This county has about 173,000 people, which is pretty darned small in comparison to actual urban counties. There is no in-depth coverage of this law enforcement agency in reliable sources, except in passing mentions or routine local contexts. There is an appropriate place to discuss this agency, briefly, and that is in the article about the county it serves. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:19, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't see the point of redirection: it starts with the county name, and anyone looking for it would find the county as easily without the redirect. If we do redirect, it should be a delete and redirect, for there is only directory information in the article. DGG ( talk ) 04:27, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Hernando County, Florida. Sources do not point to an independently notable agency; it may be large and important to the citizens of the county, but that's not criteria for inclusion in an encyclopedia (the same info can be gleaned from the agency's web site, where I assume the content largely comes from). K.e.coffman (talk) 04:39, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:52, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Too much data for the article on the county. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:11, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Respectfully, Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ), that is an argument not to merge, something that is not on the table here (unless you are putting there and arguing against it, which seems nonsensical). It is not an argument to keep. Others have proposed redirecting, which does not involve merging. The vast majority of the content in the article in question is primarily sourced directly to the subject of the article. It would be predominantly unencyclopedic in the county's article. The arguments here are primarily (except one, which doesn't rise far above ILIKEIT IMO) whether to delete the article or redirect it to the county. Please consider your vote in light of this. Thanks. - John from Idegon (talk) 04:49, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the county, where it can be covered appropriately briefly; I don't see the in-depth coverage required for a separate article. Sandstein 20:23, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Oddly, there are no good precedents either way. We kept at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Genesee_County,_New_York_Sheriff's_Office after it was improved, and Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Lee_County_Sheriff's_Office_(Florida) based on the size of the department. However we redirected after discussing at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Leon_County_Sheriff's_Office_(Florida) and Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Fayette_County_Sheriff's_Office_(Tennessee). On the other hand, we deleted after discussions at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sevier_County_Sheriff's_Office, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sullivan_County_Tennessee_Sheriff's_Office, and Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Roanoke_County_Sheriff's_Office. My inclination is to keep the larger sheriff's offices and police departments. What our standards should be is still open. Bearian (talk) 17:22, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 22:48, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Miranda Cheng[edit]

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

Not notable by criteria in WP:PROF. Seems to be based on a single recent magazine article in the Quanta magazine. Merrybrit (talk) 03:27, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Merrybrit (talk) 03:36, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Merrybrit (talk) 07:03, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:Too soon. Assistant professors usually aren't notable, and this one has still a little way to go. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:46, 6 August 2016 (UTC).[reply]

The citation count in this field (theoretical particle physics/string theory) is usually higher than in other fields. This citation count is normal (not outstanding) for an assistant professor. Furthermore, I believe GS may be over-counting citations - for example, on her GS page (https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=Ac5xBvAAAAAJ&hl=en&oi=ao) it lists several papers from 1970's by a different MC Cheng. The standard bibliographical resource in the high energy physics is INSPIRE, it lists only 857 citations (https://inspirehep.net/author/profile/M.C.N.Cheng.1</ref>).Merrybrit (talk) 04:35, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

She has her own GS page [58]. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:00, 8 August 2016 (UTC).[reply]

There are indeed wrong-authored papers on her Scholar profile, but only on the second page, well past the top-cited papers that we would look at to determine notability. You can tell that the ones on the first page are all hers because they use the author initials "MCN Cheng", an unusual combination not present in the other ones. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:56, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for identifying these wrongly attributed papers. These GS lists are constructed by its subjects, so I am puzzled about how these errors crept in. I have changed my vote. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:16, 9 August 2016 (UTC).[reply]

They're constructed more or less automatically by Google when a subject creates a profile, and then users who pay attention can manually correct any mistakes that crept in (such as wrong papers, missing papers, or papers that are incorrectly listed multiple times). And this needs to be done on an ongoing basis because Google will automatically update your profile and possibly introduce more mistakes. But many users don't seem to take much effort to curate their profiles once created. (Set to small because this is off-topic.) —David Eppstein (talk) 03:39, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as article creator. I don't think this is a slam-dunk case by any means but I would not have created the article unless I were convinced that she passes WP:PROF. She has notable accomplishments (note for instance the existence of a separate article for umbral moonshine), well cited papers (three with over 100 cites each in Google scholar), and significant in-depth popular press (the Quanta article, not enough by itself for WP:GNG because there's only one of it and the Scientific American one isn't in-depth enough about the subject, but also a significant indicator of notability). Also, may I add that (although I am not using this as an argument for keeping the article, nor am I accusing the nominator of conscious sexism) this is part of a disturbing pattern, where articles on borderline-notable female scientists are nominated for deletion at what seems to be a much greater likelihood than male ones. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:49, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As I mentioned above, the citation count is not outstanding for this field of theoretical physics (string theory). The umbral moonshine hypothesis was developed by a number of people so if we consider this to be a significant enough accomplishment per WP:PROF#C1 then all the contributors should have their own WP article (e.g. Tohru Eguchi who has >7000 cites). A couple of interviews in pop-sci magazines do not establish the notability of someone as an academic (unless it rises to the level of WP:PROF#C7, which it doesn't in this case). I would not dignify by a response the implication that subconscious sexism is behind this nomination. Merrybrit (talk) 04:35, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So create the articles for the other contributors, if you think they should have articles; that argument falls under WP:WAX. And I'm not attempting to psychoanalyze or shame you — I do have good faith that you are trying to improve the project — but merely bringing attention to a broader pattern as have others before me (see response by SusunW to my comment at WT:N). —David Eppstein (talk) 05:20, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK, but I still do not see notability. An interview with the Quanta does not make one notable for an encyclopedia. I don't know which article in the Scientific American you are referring to, the one I found (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/mathematicians-chase-moonshine-s-shadow/) is actually just a reprint of another article in the Quanta from last year which mentions the subject in passing. The fact that the Quanta published two articles in 18 months on this topic doesn't rise to the level of significance required by WP:PROF#C1. Pointing to the existence of the umbral moonshine article is not an argument, see WP:INN.Merrybrit (talk) 07:03, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

PS she's also mentioned in Le Monde [59] but not in-depth enough to add much more to notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:16, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Importance of work and novelty of career path combine to make this someone readers might be interested in looking up in an encyclopedia. The fact that the subject is a woman advancing in a male-dominated field is an additional factor pointing towards notability. bd2412 T 14:31, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Merrybrit (talk) 20:54, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Are there any reliable non-primary sources for the biographical claims in the article per WP:RS? I don't know how WP:BLP is applied - and so would defer to more experienced editors - but it seems to me that the evidence comes only from an interview with the subject published in the Quanta. I am not convinced that the Quanta fact-checks biographical claims made by its interviewees therefore calling into question the verifiability of such claims advanced in the article. The dearth of secondary sources attesting to the subject's biography is just another indicator of the subject not having passed WP:GNG.Merrybrit (talk) 21:09, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- The Quanta source is both more reliable and more secondary than what we have for most articles on academics, in that it is a published magazine article whose author and editor are independent of the subject. Usually we have to rely on the accuracy of a subject's own cv. That said, the parts about her masters and doctoral work are also easily verified by searching Utrecht's web site (e.g. [60] for the master's, [61] for the doctorate). —David Eppstein (talk) 21:12, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks for clarifying this and I agree that the details of an academic's career path can always be evidenced using secondary sources. But I meant some more outstanding claims attesting to the novelty of career path since it seems to be one of the justifications for inclusion in WP. For example, the claim that the subject dropped out of high school and played in a punk rock band. Again I am not an expert on WP policy but wouldn't more reliable (than the subject's interview) evidence be required for such claims? Testimony of band mates? Reviews from Taiwanese music sites referring to the composition of the band? Merrybrit (talk) 22:51, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - I personally think that the "novelty of career path" adds a bit of color and interestingness to the article but is only relevant for notability to the extent that it gave Quanta an excuse to write an article (whose existence is more relevant). And I have no evidence that the band itself has any notability or even what its name is. So I guess this should be a question for BD2412, who advanced that argument. BD2412? —David Eppstein (talk) 23:53, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - I have no insight into the identity of the band, but BLP objections are for controversial statements, not autobiographical declarations. bd2412 T 00:11, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        The claim that the subject played in a rock band and then was admitted to university through a science program for gifted students can be considered controversial and "unduly self-serving" per WP:BLPSELFPUB unless backed up by reliable sources not connected with the subject. Merrybrit (talk) 11:39, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep has good citation record and passes WP:PROF which is proved by rs, more rs would of course be helpful Atlantic306 (talk) 17:03, 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 03:46, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes GNG. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 21:41, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Eppstein and Megalibrarygirl and bd2412.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:47, 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. MBisanz ^talk 01:09, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Many Arellano[edit]

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

It is apparently just some random Youtuber looking to promote himself on Wikipedia. His only reference links to a site that any social media member can join and only displays the statistics of his Youtube profile -which are far from notable anyway, while the external links provided lead to his personal blog. Lancini87 (talk) 03:41, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable musician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:17, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:38, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:38, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and I myself had PRODed but it was immediately removed, a COI user as it is removed the AfD template....none of this is substantial and all it hints is entirely PR. SwisterTwister talk 07:39, 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. MBisanz ^talk 01:09, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wonpil[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG & WP:BLPNOTE. Also poorly written and formatted. Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 17:06, 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) 18:50, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:50, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I see that copypasting the Korean characters "김원필" and doing a Google search only seems to yield results for an unrelated politician? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:53, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MUSBIO. Wonpil does not appear to be independently notable. He has no solo releases, acting career, etc. Random86 (talk) 19:47, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Random86 (talk) 19:48, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have also nominated band member Young K for deletion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Young K. —Random86 (talk) 04:53, 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 03:34, 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. Michig (talk) 07:11, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Trenten Beram[edit]

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

This article lacks notability. The subject is not known worldwide, he is only an American university student. He does not warrant his own article. It should be noted that a draft was created after the article was created. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 03:26, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable sprinter.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:29, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only references found are stats and meet descriptions. Cotton2 (talk) 15:33, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:38, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:38, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:ATHLETE--Savonneux (talk) 04:54, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Consensus is that coverage that exists satisfies WP:NF. Michig (talk) 07:06, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The 13th Alley[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Notability: significant RS coverage cannot be found. Result of previous AfD was "sources are available", but they are insufficient to meet GNG. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:15, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:57, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Bobb_Hopkins#Selected_filmography. The last AfD claims that there was a NYT review, but I can't find evidence of this having existed. (Note to others, this is why you need to add these sources to articles or link to them at the AfD because there's no guarantee that they will be visible in the future because newspapers and websites like to archive content!) I'd argue for a redirect since there's enough here to where there could be a decent, albeit weak, argument for notability if 1-2 more sources (specifically reviews) were added. Since it's possible that the NYT review does exist and redirects are cheap, redirecting with history would make it possible to easily recreate this in the future if/when the sources become available. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:33, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Changing to keep, since there's another review now. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:06, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Solid Keep per snow keep and notability established per consensus at last AFD. Sorry nominator, I understand your perhaps frustration that it was not done, but (agree with it or not) our notability guide WP:NEXIST tells us that notability is established by sources being available,[63][64][65][66][67] and not upon their ever being used. That a New York Times review is not brought forward does not make the others magically vanish. While it would be delightful if this 2008 independent film had the coverage of some major studio's highly touted blockbuster, that is not a policy nor guideline requirement. Again, sorry. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 10:36, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The first two links are probably the most relevant, as they are reviews. But does coverage in Mountain Express and DreadCentral amount to "significant coverage" making the subject worthy of note for an encyclopedia? Both sources have niche audiences. I don't think this satisfies WP:NFP. K.e.coffman (talk) 10:54, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dread Central is a pretty major horror website. It's one of the top ones on the Internet, along with Bloody Disgusting and Fangoria. Shock Till You Drop is as well, although the site doesn't look like it used to now that it goes to ComingSoon.net as its main page. Basically, it's a pretty well thought of horror website (it won a Rondo Hatton Classic Horror Award, among other recognition) and is very well known in the horror community. The Mountain Xpress is a smaller newspaper, but the thing here is not whether or not the paper is niche but whether or not it'd be seen as a RS on here - which it looks like it should be, given that the paper has an editorial staff and the review is by a staff member. It's enough to where I'm changing to a keep. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:06, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't see that one review makes a movie notable, i.e. worthy of note. Has this been established by precedent perhaps? The coverage needs to be substantial, and I think it's not found in this case. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:40, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but you are incorrect to demand substantial, as it is neither a guideline nor policy mandate. What IS per guideline is that coverage, even if only through reviews, deal with the topic directly and in detail. It does. WP:NF is met. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 09:32, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect perhaps for now although I may add Delete with it later, I'll gone with this for now since there's still not enough. SwisterTwister talk 03:03, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

? Are you somehow suggesting that WP:NF be rewritten? Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 09:32, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:26, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the coverage identified above is sufficient for a close pass of WP:NFILM Atlantic306 (talk) 15:15, 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 delete. The consensus after 2 relistings appears to be that he isnot yet notable. DGG ( talk ) 21:09, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Dixon (musician)[edit]

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

I still confirm my removed PROD as there's still no convincing substance. SwisterTwister talk 17:42, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What did you find from your searches? --Michig (talk) 18:05, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:47, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:47, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have added content and references. Subject has won national awards, his singles have been given national radio airplay and he is notable per WP:MUSICBIO#1, 9, 10. The article itself does require wikification and reduction of POV tone but this is not sufficient reason for its deletion.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 02:13, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

shaidar cuebiyar Hi. Can you please point to evidence of him meeting 1, 9 or 10? I don't see the evidence that he meets #1 at all - the references broadly point to Yamaha, who are his sponsor, so hardly a reliable source, and the others aren't substantial or exactly prominent in any way. Also, I fail to see a major music competition he has placed in the top three of for point #9. If you're referring to the awards, then yes, the ASA songwriting one sounds important until you look into it and release it's hardly a major level award in any sense at the senior level, let alone the youth level. I don't see even an argument for point #10 because unless I am missing something there isn't even a claim that he's performed music for a notable television show, film or similar. I actually feel that this article is a COI case of WP:BOMBARD, where every little thing this clearly very active young person has done has been referenced to try to create a sum far larger than its parts. Sorry to challenge your views like this, but I can't see where your rationale is coming from on any of these counts. @Athomeinkobe: and @David Gerard: You may both be interested in revisiting this debate to look further into this. KaisaL (talk) 21:26, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MUSICBIO#1: see current article, refs [7], [8]. Additionally see A and B.

#9: I see both nationally recognised awards in ASA song writer and in My Song. Both wins are referenced.

#10: His song "Gold" was chosen as the theme for the Australian Teenage Expo in 2014. This is in the article and referenced by [4].shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 22:55, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, well, I have to say that I disagree on these claims. The awards might have impressive sounding names, but looking into them, they really don't seem to be that important at all. And the Australian Teenage Expo doesn't even have a Wikipedia article, and if that was an important event in Australia it surely would on the English Wikipedia by now. It actually seems to just be a vehicle for broadly unknown young musicians and the like, hardly a national event. It's all thin and I still feel this has just been heavily padded by a COI and doesn't come close to meeting the criteria. KaisaL (talk) 03:11, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm leaning towards keep per shaidar cuebiyar. Some of the awards are questionable, but overall there appears to be enough to satisfy WP:MUSICBIO. The article is in desperate need of a pruning, but it is not so bad that it needs to be blown up altogether. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 05:33, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete I can't see the case to include this at all. The article is packed with clichéd promotional copy and there surely has to be a conflict of interest somewhere for this article to have been produced in this way. Cutting through all of that, he just appears above all else to be somebody that was entered for a lot of dubious and often non-notable awards, winning at a young age. Winner of Mooroolbark's Got Talent and Highpoint Search for a Star and support act for an X Factor finalist don't come close to asserting any level of notability, and there's scarcely a single reliable source in the references. The only achievement that you could even argue is noteworthy is winning in the Australian Songwriter of the Year Award: Youth Category, but this alone cannot assert notability. His alleged national radio airplay isn't widespread enough to be considered rotation, either, because spot plays aren't really relevant. Overall, I see nothing worthy of a keep. KaisaL (talk) 03:55, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not disagreeing with what you say KaisaL, but how did you judge how widespread the airplay is? AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 07:16, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

From the current contents of the article and the lack of evidence of Frank being prominently playlisted or put into rotation. In-store playlists don't count for that point, and touring radio stations to do interview spots isn't evidence of that either. If he'd been playlisted on a national radio network then not only would he qualify, but we wouldn't be having this debate, because realistically if that had happened there'd be tons more coverage in favour than a swathe of not-notable awards. KaisaL (talk) 21:19, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, rewrite - Shaidar notes he passes notability, but the article is so press-releasey that (per KaisaL) WP:TNT would be a fair verdict. Rewrite from the good refs up - David Gerard (talk) 11:49, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:47, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm with User:KaisaL on this one. The references are pretty unimpressive, the only one I might rate would be the one from the Dubbo Photo News, but that's basically just a local community newspaper. A bit of a search found a lot of astroturf but not a whole lot of independent coverage. I'm not seeing what part of WP:MUSIC he meets to be honest. Probably on the right track for stardom in a few years, but not there yet. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:26, 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 03:24, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:09, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

International Academy of Social Sciences[edit]

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

This seems to be a non-notable organisation which publishes two non-notable journals (one of which is currently being considered for deletion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Journal of Alternative Perspectives in the Social Sciences). Bjerrebæk (talk) 03:13, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep : No particular reason for deletion. This is the public structure awarded by US state, with peer-reviewed publications present worldwide (what can be seen in numerous catalogs in both print and electronical form), and taking in account that it has been founded only in 2008 and runned by volunteers the achievement is even greater (almost phenomena). All names included (active or previosly active) and involved (awards recipients) are academics from different corners of the globe with easily verifiable education and work track from different state or national high learning academic institutions. When it comes to one of the founders / editor in chief there is 1410 results just for his work in various instituions worlwide in Google Scholar https://scholar.google.com/scholar?start=110&q=otto+von+feigenblatt&hl=hr&as_sdt=0,5 there are also 2 results for IASS itself 2 results https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22International+Academy+of+Social+Sciences%22&hl=hr&as_sdt=0%2C5&as_ylo=2008&as_yhi=2016 ( Fajjtus (talk) 06:45, 14 August 2016 (UTC) ) — Fajjtus (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

- Notability isn't measured by the number of search results, and most of them aren't about him anyway. His most highly cited publication is cited 14 times. Also, when I google this Otto F. von Feigenblatt guy, who seems to be quite young, it seems that he claims various noble titles which appear to be self-assumed ("Count of Kobryn and Hereditary Baron von Feigenblatt-Miller"), along with a huge list of other titles, which makes me even more suspicious. --Bjerrebæk (talk) 08:12, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable organisation. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:21, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No independent RS establishing notability. Article is borderline G11. --Randykitty (talk) 09:31, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I do not have any sort of conflict of interest. I have simply choose this topic as I was interested into it. Furthermore, I must confess that others - some involved in this debate showed actions and attitudes of persons with desire to impose their own private opinion misusing wikipedia policies. I can be wrong, but it certainly looks like that. I do not have much experience in this, but I have never put in the article my feeling, opinion, evaluation or something of purely subjective value. All included are pure facts gathered from publicly available informations supported with factual citations and links. Nothing from my part. That includes my participation in the debate. As for the person of Otto von Feigenblatt user Bjerrebæk should look further before making such unfounded comments as they could mislead those wishing to vote. The person in question holds double doctorate degree (Phd and EdD), he is corresponding academician of the Real Academia of Doctores, which the most distinguished institution: The Spanish Royal Academy of Doctors has established an award to honour doctoral dissertations of outstanding quality. Candidates must have submitted a thesis graded "Sobresaliente Cum Laude" according to the Spanish grading system for PhD theses. Sources: http://www.european-funding-guide.eu/awardprize/6423-royal-academy-doctors-research-award, http://www.radoctores.es/academico.php?item=280. When it comes to his titles of nobility it is obvious that they are recognized as valid by the Montenegro Royal House/House of Petrović-Njegoš, Chronicler of Arms of Castille and Leon (Spanish heraldic authority), HM King Kigeli V of Rwanda etc. About the books of this former Oxford University Press reviewer: https://www.amazon.com/Otto-F.-von-Feigenblatt/e/B002BTJ3PQ. Only thing that I agree with my oponnents in this matter is that he is rather young. But the therefore achievement is even greater. Again, everything should be factual, and I am giving my best effort in that direction. In invite you to rewrite/edit it if you consider it overstating or promotional.( Fajjtus (talk) 09:58, 14 August 2016 (UTC) )[reply]

Before accusing others of misusing Wikipedia's policies, I suggest that you familiarise yourself with Wikipedia:Notability, Fajjtus, because your comments show that you don't understand how notability is judged on Wikipedia. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:08, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:35, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:35, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:35, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:36, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:36, 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. MBisanz ^talk 01:16, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

KMFE-LP[edit]

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

Delete. WP:TOOSOON article about a planned radio station which has an active construction permit and is streaming on the web, but is still fundraising to acquire an actual transmitter. WP:NMEDIA, however, requires a station to actually be transmitting before it gains a presumption of notability, precisely because things can happen (e.g. the fundraising goes poorly?) that cause the station to never launch at all and have its CP expire unbuilt -- and there's no automatic presumption of notability for internet stations, in the absence of a demonstrable WP:GNG pass, either. No prejudice against recreation if and when the station does launch, but it's not a suitable or properly sourceable article topic yet as of today. Bearcat (talk) 02:44, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 02:45, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:57, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; unlaunched stations do not enjoy the presumption of notability assumed for established/operating stations, and it's too soon to determine if the station has, or ever will, launch as an over-the-air station (they have until July 17, 2017 to do so). There's nothing verifiable out there to indicate KMFE-LP is broadcasting yet. There's also nothing to indicate that KMFE is notable enough as an Internet radio station (since right now, that's what it practically is) for an article. --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:09, 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. MBisanz ^talk 01:15, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WVDJ-LP[edit]

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

Delete. WP:TOOSOON (and entirely unsourced) article about a radio station which "expects to be on the air by 2016", but hasn't verifiably gotten there yet as of August 2016. WP:NMEDIA requires a radio station to be in operation before it gets an article, and does not hand a planned station an automatic inclusion freebie just for holding a construction permit -- radio stations fail to launch and have their CPs expire far more often than one might expect, so we have to wait until a station has actually started broadcasting. Bearcat (talk) 02:16, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 02:18, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Yep, agree fully. This one's jumped the gun. Mlaffs (talk) 02:44, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:33, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; unlaunched stations do not enjoy the presumption of notability assumed for established/operating stations, and it's too soon to determine if the station has, or ever will, launch (they have until December 1, 2016 to do so). There's nothing verifiable out there to indicate WVDJ-LP is broadcasting yet. --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:51, 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 merge to WMVQ. MBisanz ^talk 01:15, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WSPJ-LP[edit]

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

Delete. WP:TOOSOON article about a radio station which, despite the claims herein that the station "intends to sign on sometime in 2015", is still not verifiably in operation as of today. WP:NMEDIA does not, however, grant notability to radio stations until they're actually broadcasting. No prejudice against recreation if and when this does launch, but it hasn't met the necessary criteria yet. Bearcat (talk) 02:11, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 02:12, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per TOOSOON and Bearcat and EmjayMiller. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:14 on August 14, 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:33, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unlaunched stations do not enjoy the presumption of notability assumed for established/operating stations, and it's too soon to determine if WSPJ-LP has, or ever will, launch (they have until October 10, 2017 to do so). There's nothing verifiable out there to indicate WSPJ-LP is broadcasting yet, nor a source for the planned 2015 launch; the station's website now claims it will go on the air in 2016 and that they are an Internet radio station for now, but Internet-only stations aren't presumed to be automatically notable either. Having said all that, the permittee, Syracuse Community Radio, is the former owner of WXXE in Fenner (now WMVQ), and apparently the planned programming is similar to what WXXE provided before it was divested to comply with FCC ownership rules that forbade the common ownership of WXXE and WSPJ-LP. In addition, much of this article's content seems to have been split off from the WXXE/WMVQ article. As a result, it may be best to just merge to WMVQ for now; I do agree with the nominator that there should be no prejudice toward recreation/restoration of a separate article once WSPJ-LP actually verifiably begins broadcasting. --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:45, 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. MBisanz ^talk 01:16, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WEAD-LP[edit]

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

Delete. WP:TOOSOON article about a planned radio station that was still in the "construction permit" phase as of 2014, but for which WP:WPRS has been unable to locate any verifiable evidence that its status has moved toward "actually broadcasting" as of today. No prejudice against recreation in the future if and when it can actually be properly verified as launching, but radio stations should not have Wikipedia articles until they've gone from "planned" to "actually in operation". Bearcat (talk) 02:03, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 02:04, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per TOOSOON and Bearcat. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:13 on August 14, 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:33, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; unlaunched stations do not enjoy the presumption of notability assumed for established/operating stations, and it's too soon to determine if the station has, or ever will, launch (they have until January 30, 2017 to do so). There's nothing verifiable out there to indicate WEAD-LP is broadcasting yet. --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:31, 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. MBisanz ^talk 01:16, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

W263CL[edit]

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

Low-power radio station whose construction permit has apparently expired unbuilt, or at least has no verifiable evidence to indicate otherwise. Per WP:NMEDIA, a radio station should not get a Wikipedia article until it's actually broadcasting, precisely because this happens more often than one might think — but WP:WPRS has been unable to find any firm evidence that this one is actually operating. Bearcat (talk) 01:57, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 01:57, 14 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 • 02:12 on August 14, 2016 (UTC)
Delete, as iHeartMedia's plans to build this facility as an "HD2-on-translator" station in Youngstown seem to have been discarded. (The article says that it was "expected to sign on in 2014" and that Clear Channel Communications is still its owner — but it's now 2016, the owner changed its name to iHeartMedia, and nothing suggests W263CL ever came on.) The station still has a valid construction permit, but it is now W295CA and the permit has been moved to Mansfield, Ohio, where it will be an "AM-on-FM" translator for WMAN. The notability of W263CL might have been on the questionable side, since it technically would have been a translator even if the HD2 of WNCD would have largely been used as the means to program W263CL, but the presumption of notability for broadcast stations is primarily for existing, operating stations, and W263CL will never operate. Even if W295CA does sign on, there's no chance it will ever be independently notable of WMAN, so there's no need for this probably too soon article anymore. --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:11, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:32, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 22:49, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

James Lee (basketball)[edit]

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

No indication of meeting GNG, WP:NCOLLATH. Never played in the pros. John from Idegon (talk) 01:53, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets WP:NBASKETBALL bullet #2 as a second-round NBA draft pick. Rikster2 (talk) 02:05, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Second round picks are generally presumed to be notable. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 02:43, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Perhaps I'm being dense here, but why should the notability standards for professional basketball apply to someone who never played in the bigs? I could see the draft pick criteria for a player who hasn't got there yet, but this guy obviously isn't gonna. Also, why is the notability threshold for basketball so much lower than other sports? The only other sport he would reach notability in if he was playing that sport is hockey, due to his impressive record in the Continental League. Baseball, football, soccer, tennis, even auto racing....no. Seems silly. John from Idegon (talk) 02:52, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - You have to be kidding me. Go look at the notability for other sports - including soccer which ONLY requires playing one game in a "fully professional league." (Which the CBA was, btw). Don't get salty because you forgot to read the guidelines before AfDing. Rikster2 (talk) 03:06, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:33, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:33, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NBASKETBALL as an NBA second round draft pick. Also played in the original Continental Basketball Association, which was a top tier professional league at the time Lee was in it. Jrcla2 (talk) 20:06, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Rikster2 and Jrcla2 as he appears to meet the WP:NBASKETBALL requirements. Ejgreen77 (talk) 10:41, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:31, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Pro career in the CBA and a member of a collegiate national championship team. Carrite (talk) 15:29, 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. MBisanz ^talk 01:16, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

VF8027[edit]

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

Delete. Article about a radio station, "proposed" as of 2013 but still unverifiable as to whether it's actually launched. In actuality, WP:BCASTOUTCOMES specifically deprecates the notability of VF# stations in Canada, as these are ultra-low-power stations with little prominence, quite commonly operated by smalltown churches solely to broadcast a mass for elderly shut-ins and then remaining silent the rest of the time — and virtually always every bit as unRSable as that kind of thing sounds like it would be. Even the Canadian Communications Foundation link under external links is for a different VF# station than this one (although it does at least help to verify the truth of what I just said these stations are typically used for.) So there's no automatic presumption of notability here just for existing, and no particularly solid sourcing. Bearcat (talk) 01:45, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 01:48, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 01:48, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This is the correct Canadian Communications Foundation page for this low-power station, and it does seem to indicate that the station may in fact have signed on (though no date was given). But it also establishes that this is indeed a station that simply exists to broadcast religious celebrations, which doesn't seem like the type of station that is presumed to be notable. Indeed, that same CCF page also says that eight months after the station was licensed, the CRTC decided that these types of church stations were exempt from its licensing requirements — and while they still need to be authorized by Industry Canada, the CRTC's stance on these stations only affirms the lack of inferred notability for stations such as VF8027. --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:58, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:16, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WJQY-LP[edit]

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

Delete. WP:TOOSOON article about a radio station, which despite the claim that it "will begin broadcasting in the fall of 2015" is apparently still not actually in operation. WP:NMEDIA does not confer notability on a radio station until it's actually broadcasting a signal, precisely because stations sometimes entirely fail to launch at all before their "construction permits" expire. No prejudice against recreation if and when the station can actually be sourced as having launched, but it's not a suitable article topic yet if we can't verify that. Bearcat (talk) 01:13, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 01:16, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per TOOSOON and Bearcat. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:17 on August 14, 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:30, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; there's no source to back the claim of plans to go on the air in 2015, and nothing to indicate if that even happened. The only sources in this article are FCCdata.org (which simply presents data that can also be found on the FCC's own website, and simply affirms the paper existence of the construction permit) and an aircheck on YouTube of a station in Fort Lauderdale, Florida that used to be WJQY, which is virtually off-topic for a station in Wilson, North Carolina (to say nothing about linking to such a YouTube video). Unlaunched stations do not enjoy the presumption of notability assumed for established/operating stations; it's too soon to determine if the station has, or ever will, launch (they have until March 28, 2017 to do so). --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:26, 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. MBisanz ^talk 01:12, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Manfred Büttner[edit]

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

Notability: significant coverage in RS cannot be found; fails WP:Soldier as the award is in dispute and no records of it can be found in the German Federal Archives. The subject does not have a de.wiki article. The subject is mentioned in a book by non-RS Franz Kurowski and appears to receive trivial mentions in similar works, such as German paratroops 1942-1945: On the battlefields in the East and West.

This article is one of over 1500 similar stub articles created by editor DocYako who had stated at a prior related AfD: "When I first created the article I thought that it met the basic guidelines of notability as he was a Knight's Cross recipient (...). I you want to delete it then be prepared to delete other entries about American and British servicemen who were also awarded decorations with less cites/references."

The topic of the notability of Knight's Cross winners has been extensively discussed here: Notability in Knight's Cross Holder Articles; the summary in this subsection (Part 3). This article does not meet the low bar of WP:Soldier for WWII Germany, as the award is questionable, however, PROD has been declined on the grounds that this needs AfD. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:02, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:54, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:38, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:39, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:39, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The good news is, we can get refunded should Wikpedians become able to track down citations to back up the Knight's Cross claims once this de-Nazification effort has ended. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:33, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- With 7321 awards and the majority of holders being a redlink, I do not think we should allow these articles. UK was (is) much more sparing in its awards of Victoria Cross, which may be the basis of this one. Certainly we cannot keep such articles unless they have details of the citation. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:29, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to WGOG. MBisanz ^talk 01:15, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WESL[edit]

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

Delete. Article about a radio station, "proposed" since 2009 but still with no verifiable indication that it has ever actually launched. No confirmation is locatable on an FCC query; there's only one station licensed to either of the communities named in this article, and it's the already preexisting WTOB rather than this. I can't tell if this is a construction permit that expired, a license application that never even got approved in the first place, or just a total WP:HOAX from the get-go -- but what I can determine is that it's not radio station that ever actually existed. Bearcat (talk) 00:57, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 01:01, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I won't go so far as to it's a HOAX, but I will say the station does not exist so I'm guessing it only existed "on paper". Doesn't meet NMEDIA or GNG. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:02 on August 14, 2016 (UTC)

I looked at an archived version of the lone source, and have come to the conclusion that this appears to reflect unrealized plans. It appears that WESL in Powdersville, South Carolina was going to be a relocation of the license associated with WGOG in Walhalla. Those plans were abandoned in 2013; in addition, a 95.9 facility in Pendleton that was supposed to be relocated to serve as the new WGOG ultimately signed on from Pendleton as WLTE (a simulcast of WRTH, as reflected by its status as a redirect). WESL is clearly not a hoax, but it isn't going to launch either, so the presumption of notability for broadcast stations probably isn't going to apply. I suppose we could merge the minimal content here to WGOG (since its present license is what would have been used by the stillborn WESL), but would not object to deletion either. --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:47, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar for figuring that out! I'd be perfectly okay with merging and redirecting this to WGOG as well, given what we now know. Bearcat (talk) 03:07, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:29, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:12, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Friedrich Blond[edit]

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

Subject fails GNG as significant RS coverage cannot be found; fails WP:Soldier as the award cannot be substantiated. The subject does not have a de.wiki article. The subject is mentioned in a book by Florian Berger; however, this is a WP:QS source, being self-published. Here's a sample of his hagiographic work, The Face of Courage.

This article is one of roughly 500 similar stub articles created by editor Jim Sweeney in the span of about three months in late 2008 to early 2009.

The topic of the notability of Knight's Cross winners has been extensively discussed here: Notability in Knight's Cross Holder Articles; the summary in this subsection (Part 3). This article does not meet the low bar of WP:Soldier for WWII Germany, as the award is questionable, however, PROD has been declined on the grounds that this needs AfD. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:47, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:26, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:28, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:28, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:28, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The good news is, we can get refunded should Wikpedians become able to track down citations to back up the Knight's Cross claims once this de-Nazification effort has ended. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:34, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – there is a significant interest in Knights Cross recipients. If it later conclusively proven that there is an error with regard to his award, then the page can be renominated.Engleham (talk) 22:18, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Noting he was a very minor officer at most, and 28 April 1945 was not a time for major awarding of medals. In fact, it was basically at the end of the war. Lacking any solid evidence of his notability, regardless of any unissued medals, the article fails. Collect (talk) 23:41, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- With 7321 awards and the majority of holders being a redlink, I do not think we should allow these articles. UK was (is) much more sparing in its awards of Victoria Cross, which may be the basis of this one. Certainly we cannot keep such articles unless they have details of the citation. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:28, 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 redirect to CINW. MBisanz ^talk 01:12, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

600 AM Montreal[edit]

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

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

Delete. Articles about two proposed radio stations which received license approval in 2013 but have still not launched as of today; WP:NMEDIA, however, requires a station to have an established broadcast history (i.e. actually be operating) before it qualifies for an article. The added issue here is that the actual launch of these stations is now very unlikely; their approvals expire in November, but just over a week ago the Montreal Gazette's media-beat journalist wrote on his personal blog that he could find no indication of the kind of business activity that would actually have to be happening right now to get the stations launched by November. (I'll spare y'all the gory details for brevity's sake, but you can go here if you really need to know. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/850 AM Montreal, the other license the same company got in 2013 for which they've already blown the expiry date.) Situations like this are why NMEDIA doesn't confer notability on as yet unlaunched stations; it's actually not as rare as one might think for a licensed new station to never launch and have its license expire. In the increasingly unlikely event that the company actually pulls it off, we can restore and update these articles when that time comes -- but as long as they remain unlaunched, it's WP:TOOSOON. Bearcat (talk) 00:38, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 00:42, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 00:42, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Yes, Fagstein (that is indeed his blog name, aka Steve Faguy) is pretty clear on the non-notability/non-existence, at this time. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:52, 14 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 • 01:03 on August 14, 2016 (UTC)
Delete; these stations have not gone on the air, and all indications thus far indicate that the authorizations will expire before they ever do. (They still haven't even been assigned call letters…) Even in a large market such as Montreal, stations that have never broadcast anything don't enjoy the presumption of notability that is assumed for a station that has operated. If somehow the stations do get built and sign on, we can have articles on them… but I'm not holding my breath. --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:07, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(Oh, my favourite part of it all is how they still don't even own the transmitter site yet...good luck getting that in order, and all the other stuff that would still have to happen at the transmitter site to make it ready for reuse given that it's been dormant for six years, in just three months!) Bearcat (talk) 04:23, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, someone may want to redirect to CINW. For 66 years, that was CFCF-AM radio, and it was widely known as "AM 60," as one can see in this old TV spot for a typical Montreal preoccupation. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:47, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:11, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Uzoma Michael[edit]

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

non-notable person who fails WP:GNG —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 09:32, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 09:39, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 09:39, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The subject fails WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR. A Google search of the subject doesn't show him being discussed in reliable sources. Moreover, the sources in the article are self-published blog sources. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 16:22, 14 August 2016 (UTC) Comment This article was already deleted at Michael Uzoma-Michael. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 18:30, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:AUTHOR and WP:GNG. Nothing noteworthy found in google searches. Some sites make the claim that uzomedia is the most visited news site in Nigeria which seems unlikely for a wordpress.com blog and is not backed up with anything.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Noq (talk • contribs)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:25, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete -- unreliably sourced BLP. Should this perhaps been PRODed instead? Considering the deleted Michael Uzoma-Michael article, this also possibly qualifies as a Speedy delete. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:05, 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.

[1] ttp://regionsandfaces.com/

[2] ttp://milcservice.com/

[3] ttp://www.gqindia.com/get-smart/personalities/these-rich-arab-kids-instagram-make-ambani-look-hermit-gq-india/#sultan-z-ghani

[4] ttps://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0,5&sciodt=0,5&cites=13219624178901164014&scipsc=

[5] ttp://ffp14.cpt.univ-mrs.fr/DOCUMENTS/PREPRINTS/WILLIAMSON_John_preprint.pdf

[6] ttps://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=%22A+new+theory+of+light+and+matter%22&btnG=&as_sdt=1%2C5&as_sdtp=

[7] ttp://eprints.gla.ac.uk/110952/1/110952.pdf

[8] "Technology Fast 500 2013 ranking" (PDF). Deloitte. Retrieved 2 July 2014.

[9] "Inner City 100, 2013". Fortune. Retrieved 2 July 2014.

[10] Ferree, Michelle (12 February 2013). "2013 LEADER Awards Announced". Leads Council. Retrieved 2 July 2014.

[11] ttp://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3303936/Husband-arrested-1981-cold-case-reality-TV-credited.html. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)

[12] ttp://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/mum-arrested-child-abuse-after-5219524. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)

[13] ttp://www.13wmaz.com/news/crime/police-florida-dad-on-meth-drags-children-into-the-woods/280029696. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[1]

[2]

[3]