Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 December 5

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 4 December	6 December >

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 Procedural close. The page was ultimately deleted, undeleted, revdelled, and redirected to N.I.O.C. school of Accounting and Finance. This happened quite some time after the AfD was submitted (as it was malformed and never linked to from a daily logpage). (non-admin closure) jp×g 21:50, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Petroleum School of Accounting and Financial Sciences

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

Can't we just move this page instead of deleting it? smileguy91^{talk - contribs} 15:23, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of Dungeons & Dragons deities#Dungeons & Dragons 4th edition. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:05, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Avandra

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

This does not establish notability. TTN (talk) 23:47, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 23:48, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 23:48, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to List of Dungeons & Dragons deities#Dungeons & Dragons 4th edition. BOZ (talk) 04:15, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Dungeons & Dragons deities#Dungeons & Dragons 4th edition. Very minor fictional deity with no third party sources. She's already present on the current list, and as there really isn't too much worth adding there that isn't already present, a redirect would suffice. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 19:55, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or merge as above. Josh Milburn (talk) 01:08, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Dungeons & Dragons deities#Dungeons & Dragons 4th edition. Article says she's part of the core pantheon, which is good enough for me. If the person performing the merge finds nothing worth merging, a redirect is alright. There are some hits on Google Books but nothing that looks like it would satisfy the GNG. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:39, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Dungeons & Dragons deities#Dungeons & Dragons 4th edition per above comments. Aoba47 (talk) 15:30, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Per BOZ. Jclemens (talk) 19:51, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or Merge to List of Dungeons & Dragons deities#Dungeons & Dragons 4th edition as the most appropriate location for this. -- Dane ^talk 19:44, 8 December 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 Geoff (Greyhawk)#Military Organizations . (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:06, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Longbowmen of Geoff

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

This fails to establish notability. TTN (talk) 23:44, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 23:44, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable "organization". Meatsgains (talk) 00:08, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - what of the hell? Bearian (talk) 01:08, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge to Geoff (Greyhawk). BOZ (talk) 04:15, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Extremely minor fictional organization that has very little importance, even within the fictional Greyhawk universe. Unlike the various other D&D related articles that have come up on AFD, this one barely even has any primary sources, let alone any third party sources. One, single article mentioning them (which is the only thing that even exists on the topic, as far as I can find) means that the information on the group is not worth even merging anywhere. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 20:03, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Geoff (Greyhawk); it's not like the title is needed for anything else. That said, the target article may well have to go in the long run. Josh Milburn (talk) 01:10, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Geoff (Greyhawk)#Military Organizations per J Milburn. Jclemens (talk) 19:54, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable fictional organization. -- Dane ^talk 19:48, 8 December 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. Joyous! | Talk 00:48, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Brian D. Evans

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

Non-notable individual lacking non-trivial coverage. Has a couple of valid references, but a little thin for inclusion into Wikipedia. reddogsix (talk) 23:09, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Brian D. Evans has been recognized by Forbes, Inc 500, Entrepreneur and Huffington as an entrepreneur. Forbes named him as Top 7 people to look out for in 2017. He is popularly known on social media and his twitter account is verified. Please reconsider this page. Historywiki11 (talk) 23:30, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please indicate how this meets the criteria for inclusion in WP:N or WP:BIO. reddogsix (talk) 23:37, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Many of these claims that are WP:RS on their face seems to predate the previous AfD, meaning they together were deemed insufficient to prove notability. Twitter verification seems to mean merely based on self-claims; I cannot find any evidence that it requires anything resembling our notability standard, or actually anything about exactly what standards they use. DMacks (talk) 23:40, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps this should be a G4 instead. reddogsix (talk) 23:46, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It has already been deleted G4 twice since that AFD (this is now the third recreation since original deletion). Lots of SEO/PR red-flags in that history (even beyond the sheer number of such events in such a short time). DMacks (talk) 23:57, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and protect against continued creation. This is a run of the mill business person, and obviously has been an advertisement created at least twice by an SPA. We are not a resume builder or LinkedIn. We are not a web host. We are a private charity that builds an encyclopedia. My name is Brian, and I have over 1,157 friends on Facebook and 259 followers on Twitter - big whoop! Bearian (talk) 01:16, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Salt as 2 G4s in the last year and the 1st AfD was last year exactly, Blatant advertising and that alone, so myself clearly remember the 1st AfD. SwisterTwister talk 01:47, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Lacks teh coverage in independent reliable sources to establish notability with an emphasis on reliable. The article does include coverage from Forbes, but these are all articles from Forbes contributors as opposed to Forbes staff. These are essentially unpaid writers using Forbes as a blogging platform and over which Forbes provides little to no editorial oversight as demanded by our policy on reliable sources. See this article for a description of the Forbes contributors. -- Whpq (talk) 14:43, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:18, 10 December 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 DGG ( talk ) 00:54, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK to userify, if desired. He might conceivably get elected to the legislature DGG ( talk ) 01:19, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mose Jones Jr.

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

Non-notable political lacking non-trivial coverage. Fails WP:BIO, WP:N, and WP:POLITICIAN. reddogsix (talk) 23:08, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Page Mose Jones Jr should not be deleted but considered. I have provided all need references from GNEWS GNEWSPAPER and others. Mose Jones Jr is a notable politicians. Several books have been written about him Historywiki11 (talk) 23:22, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The references are not even close to being non-trivial. I see no evidence that there have been multiple non-trivial books written about him. reddogsix (talk) 23:40, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:POLITICIAN. Highest office held appears to be a county commissioner, and no other notable achievements. And the article itself is almost bad enough on WP:NPOV grounds (purple prose, emotional wording, descriptions of his motivations and personal struggle, etc.) to merit WP:TNT. DMacks (talk) 23:46, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable politician with only passing mentions in reliable sources. Meatsgains (talk) 00:11, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I think it should be deleted. Will try again when i have more proof of significance Historywiki11 (talk) 00:13, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Historywiki11: You may be able to ask an admin to move the contents of the article to a draft or your user sandbox, so you don't lose all your progress. Also, if you work on it as a draft, you can use the Articles for Creation process and reviewers can make sure that the article fits Wikipedia article requirements before publishing. Appable (talk) 00:45, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that it doesn't meet notability or neutrality policy at this time. However, this appears to be a perfect use case for the incubation deletion alternative. Draftify — main contributor appears willing to continue working on the article and fix the issues raised in this discussion. .Appable (talk) 00:45, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Given it looks as if notability is in question, I would suggest not drafting this, but rather sandboxing it. reddogsix (talk) 01:49, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's another good alternative, assuming User:Historywiki11 still intends to continuing finding sources to prove the notability of the subject. Appable (talk) 18:59, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Yes i intend to find more sources Historywiki11 (talk) 19:41, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The content can be updated to show more neutral writing of information and the picture updated. I believe the page should remain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mssjnsapril (talk • contribs) 18:17, 7 December 2016 (UTC) — Mssjnsapril (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment - The issues you cite are not the problem. Please re-read the comment at the top of the page. reddogsix (talk) 18:22, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable politician. -- Dane ^talk 19:59, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable local politician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:49, 10 December 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. Speedily deleted by Nyttend. (non-admin closure) -- Dane ^talk 19:52, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Eli Eli

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

The request for a speedy deletion was swatted off this article, so I am taking this profile of a 16-year-old unsigned Trinidadian singer to this forum for consideration. I see a major WP:BIO failure. And Adoil Descended (talk) 22:33, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deleted. Obviously nowhere near to notable. FYI, the creator of an article is not allowed to remove most speedy deletion templates (minor exceptions exist, e.g. you can remove {{db-g7}} of course), and especially with an A7 candidate like this you should feel free to put it back and use the {{uw-speedy1}} series of talk page messages. Nyttend (talk) 00:00, 7 December 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 under CSD A7 by CambridgeBayWeather (procedural close). (non-admin closure) —MRD2014 (talk • contribs) 03:27, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vegas nights

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

Lacking in useful content. Unreferenced Rathfelder (talk) 22:04, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —MRD2014 (talk • contribs) 23:29, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. —MRD2014 (talk • contribs) 23:29, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I think this fails WP:NMUSIC. I probably would've PROD-ed this. —MRD2014 (talk • contribs) 23:29, 5 December 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. Joyous! | Talk 01:07, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pigeon Impossible

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

No evidence that principal filming has started; thus appears to fail WP:NFF. CapitalSasha ~ talk 21:54, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — Sam Sailor 00:37, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails NFF. — Sam Sailor 00:38, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TOOSOON. A one sentence mention is not significant coverage needed for an article at this time. If it does go into production then a new article can be created. MarnetteD|Talk 00:53, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:NFF and no reliable sources beyond the one mention above found. -- Dane ^talk 20:02, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:NFF - Fails WP:NFF as the animated film is not out of the pre-production process. -- Taketa (talk) 09:47, 11 December 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 White House Office of the Press Secretary. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:07, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

White House Deputy Press Secretary

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

Not notable Rathfelder (talk) 21:44, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 13:22, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 13:22, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 13:22, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to White House Office of the Press Secretary. The office isn't notable in itself, but as a part of the larger office. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:07, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree Rathfelder (talk) 14:57, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect tp White House Office of the Press Secretary per above. -- Dane ^talk 20:00, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is plenty of coverage of this position. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 08:02, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sure there is - but is it notable in its own right? Coverage is not the only criterion. Rathfelder (talk) 09:29, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Coverage is pretty much the only factor in determining notability. By virtue of being a White House Deputy Press Secretary, many individuals receive coverage. I would say that means the position brings coverage, not the individual. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 09:36, 12 December 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. Joyous! | Talk 01:08, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Self-Managing Property

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

Trite. Unlikely to be expanded into a useful article. Unreferenced. Rathfelder (talk) 21:34, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete unreferenced, unverified term. LibStar (talk) 05:41, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the term is real, but Wikipedia is not a dictionary and this is essentially just a dictionary definition with a bit of info about Australia. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:10, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia is not a dictionary -- Dane ^talk 20:03, 8 December 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. Joyous! | Talk 01:08, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Basta, Inc.

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

Not notable organisation Arthistorian1977 (talk) 21:12, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — Sam Sailor 23:07, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. — Sam Sailor 23:07, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable organization. -- Dane ^talk 20:07, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. as advocacy. It's essentially an advertisement. A proper article might be able to show n1notability , but it would be necessary to start over . DGG ( talk ) 01:06, 13 December 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. Joyous! | Talk 01:09, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Able2extract

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

Fails WP:NSOFTWARE. Page is almost all promotional, written as an advertisement. Main editor is a WP:SPA who clearly represents the company and is promoting their product. Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 20:41, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:10, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - sadly. I use this and I LOVE it. 😢😢😢 But I don't think it meets GNG... Is there a notability standard for software/apps? If someone can convince me, I'll reconsider. —Мандичка^YO 😜 18:31, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Promotional and non-encyclopedic. -- Dane ^talk 20:08, 8 December 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 Robert Lanza. The opinions are irreconcilable, and further discussion will not clarify anything. In such a case, the compromise solution has advantages: Merge to the principal author. DGG ( talk ) 01:32, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Biocentric universe

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

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

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

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

Seems to me to violate WP:FRIND in the sense that the proposal claims a level of seriousness (a radical rethinking of all of physics), but has not received the serious independent evaluation required to establish the proposal is at all notable beyond the News-of-the-Weird (forbidden by WP:NFRINGE) promotions or the attempts by the idea's proponents to push this idea here on Wikipedia. Additionally, note that we have an article on the main author of the subject Robert Lanza which can accommodate a modicum of space this particular idea -- which has not been noticed enough to deserve its own article. I would have merged the article myself, but contentious discussions like this are supposed to be had at AfD. jps (talk) 19:50, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - Support merger of necessary material into biography of its author at this point. Spinout might be justified again later, if the subject has demonstrably received sufficient independent attention to merit it, but it seems to me that there is likely insufficient independent reliable source discussion of this idea to merit a standalone article. John Carter (talk) 19:55, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your claim is false. You state that the subject has demonstrably received insufficient independent attention to merit it.

let's look at the actual facts:

Here is just a small cross-section of articles about biocentrism written by completely independent sources

SCIENCE CHANNEL [Through the Wormhole], [6], one of the top American science documentary TV series narrated by Morgan Freeman.
USA Today, [7], which was written by Dan Vergano, who was one of their veteran science reporters.
MSNBC [Cosmic Log], [8], which was written by Alan Boyle, long-time MSNBC Science Editor
FORBES, [9], written by Matthew Herper, their Senior Editor who covers science and medicine for Forbes magazine.
HOUSTON CHRONICAL, [10], written by Eric Berger, who was the long-time Science Editor at the Houston Chronical.
THE INDEPENDENT The Independent, written by John Hall, Senior Online Reporter at The Independent
THE DAILY MAIL, The Daily Mail, written by Victororia Woollaston, Science and Technology Editor at MailOnline.
CANADIAN BROADCAST CORPORATION Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, and hour-long special by Paul Kennedy, Host of Ideas, one of the most respected radio programs in the world.Josophie (talk) 21:14, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All of these refs have already been discussed. None of them are the kind of courses that this would get if it were a mainstream approach to philosophy. This is pop-culture woo and has been covered in the media as such. There is zero serious discussion of this in serious sources and that makes it impossible to write a NPOV article about it. You can't have it both ways and say "this is a serious, real topic" and yet keep bringing only poor quality popular media sources about it. Jytdog (talk) 22:08, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And it is hilarious that you are so emphatically asserting the Daily Mail as showing that something is important in the RW. Oy. Jytdog (talk) 02:00, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What? I understand you have your own personal feelings (you’ve already made your views perfectly clear over and over). But “Through the Wormhole with Morgan Freeman,” MSNBC, Forbes, CBC etc are hardly “pop-culture woo” and not “serious sources”Josophie (talk) 02:03, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

BTW I was just trying to show a variety of sources - TV, radio, and yes even one source "Daily Mail" that isn't high-browJosophie (talk) 02:06, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Daily Mail is not not-highbrow; it has been rejected by the community as unreliable, time after time, as I have already linked to below. Your citing it and now even defending it shows how little you understand or even care about Wikipedia and its standards for quality content. Jytdog (talk) 02:10, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge content to Robert Lanza without the unsourced content or duplicate content. QuackGuru (talk) 20:15, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge. If Lanza is himself notable, about which I express here no opinion, then this can be merged. The theory itself is certainly not notable as unfalsifiable pseudoscience, despite the protestations to the contrary in the article. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:45, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Lanza has his own article at this point, and he seems to be the primary topic in at least a few of them, based on an extremely quick look-see over at that page. John Carter (talk) 21:48, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I was being lazy by not looking into Lanza's notability, but I have done so since you replied and seen that he is very obviously notable, so my opinion about this article becomes merge. I think it's rather sad when someone so obviously expert in his own field of expertise gets into pseudoscience outside of that field. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 22:09, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This was already extensively debated and the result was “keep.” The conclusion stated “A majority of editors have argued to keep the article, and their arguments have been convincing with regards to coverage of the topic. Arguments against keeping focused on the theory's scientific merits, which is beyond the scope of this discussion, or made mistaken claims about the article's sourcing.”

Absolutely nothing has changed that would substantially impact this conclusion, other than the fact that handful of people personally don’t like the idea.

The suggestion to merge this page is a bad one. In fact, that’s how it actually started out, but it quickly blew out of control and the editors moved it to its own page. Dragging this topic over to a living persons page would be a mistake. The cycle would occur all over again. More importantly, the book "Biocentrism" (as well as the follow-up book “Beyond Biocentrism”) was co-authored by Professor Bob Berman who has been listed as the most widely read astronomer in the world (it’s not just Lanza).

It should also be pointed out that this page (at last count) receives a daily average of 401 pageviews, and has received 114,422 pageviews in the last two years alone.

As justification for a 2nd nomination to delete page, the author states “the proposal is at all notable beyond the News-of-the-Weird (forbidden by WP:NFRING) promotions or the attempts by the idea's proponents to push the idea here on Wikipedia).” This is false and inaccurate. I would not call coverage by USA Today, MSNBC, NBCNews Forbes, Discover Magazine, Wired, Huffington Post, The Scientist, The Guardian, The American Scholar, among others, “News-of-the-Weird.” In fact, the Science Channel (Through the Wormhole with Morgan Freeman) devoted an entire segment to biocentrism. Just a few weeks ago the Canadian Broadcast Corporation (CBC's) Ideas, one of the oldest and most respected radio programs in the world, devoted an entire hour to biocentrism. Wired magazine also ran a related article a few weeks ago, which was the most popular article on the site for several days (gathering over 63,000 shares).

Nobel laureate Thomas said “The work is a scholarly consideration of science and philosophy that brings biology into the central role in unifying the whole.” NASA Astrophysicist David Thompson said it “is a wake-up call.” Physicist Scott Tyson said "Dr. Lanza’s writings provided me with the pieces of perspective that I had been desperately seeking [when it came to particle physics]” Dr. Henry, Professor of Physics and Astronomy at Johns Hopkins University, said “True, yes; politically correct, hell no.” R. Stephen Berry, Franck Distinguished Service Professor Emeritus, University of Chicago; past Home Secretary, National Academy of Sciences said “I like to see books published that challenge my own ideas and thoughts in ways that make me think, but not ones that simply throw dogma at me.” NASA Geophysicist Gunther Kletetschka said “Lanza has come up with an innovative approach to investigate reality from the viewpoint of biology.” I would hardly call this fring promotion.Josophie (talk) 22:17, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

- Bob Berman is not a professor, as far as I know. I also do not think he has a degree in astronomy. He appears to be a rather accomplished popular science author, amateur astronomer, and radio programmer. If this isn't a WP:FRINGE promotion, where are the peer-reviewed articles on the subject? jps (talk) 02:41, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Bob Berman was an Adjunct Professor of Astronomy at Marymount Manhattan College (please see his Wikipedia page)Josophie (talk) 21:26, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

merge There is an obvious lack of independent sources that discuss this; the advocates who sit on this article have reverted almost all discussion from independent sources by calling their quality into question (See for example this talk section; still also this kind of blatantly POV editing, removing an EL critical of the theory and replacing it with a link to another Lanza website, with a fraudulent edit note.) Just to make that clear -- the advocates' consistent removal of content critical of the notion on the basis that the sources are not reliable sources, just shows how FRINGE this is (there is little to no independent discussion of it in high quality sources), as well as demonstrating that the topic lacks basic notability. Just look at it - the article is overwhelmingly sourced to refs by Lanza and Berman; there are few solid, independent sources with significant discussion. Jytdog (talk) 23:13, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merging is not appropriate (Wikipedia: Merging).

First, it does not satisfy any of the major reasons to merge pages:

1. Not DUPLICATE

2. Not OVERLAP

3. TEXT not short and is likely to be expanded within a reasonable amount of time.

In fact, Berman and Lanza just co-authored a second bestselling book (Beyond Biocentrism) this year that has not even been mentioned on the page yet.

Just a few weeks ago, one of the authors published a peer-reviewed article addressing one of the core ideas of biocentrism in the same scientific journal that published both of Albert Einstein’s theories of relativity. Indeed, this paper was the cover story of this renowned physics journal.

4. CONTEXT does not require more background material or context for readers to understand.

Second, it should be noted that you cannot merge a topic into one person’s page when clearly two separate individuals (a well-known astronomer and a well-known biologist) co-authored “Biocentrism” together. They have both written (and spoken) extensively on the topic, even though they seem to come at it from different scientific disciplines and perspectives.Josophie (talk) 03:54, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There is no significant difference between the posted reason for deletion above, and the previous reason for deletion that was not successful in 2013. Since the time of that April 2013 close, additional substantial coverage has occurred. This is just a handful of the major coverage:
The Daily Press
The Big Think
Morning News USA
The Independent
The Daily Mail
GeekWire
The Albany Times-Union
The Epoch Times
El Confidential
Guardian Liberty News
Canadian Broadcasting Corporation

This would expand the number of significant third-party sources from the four currently on the entry to fourteen, more than a three-fold increase. Would that alter your opinion on its current notability? It appears no one has touched the page really since the last keep vote, so the number of sources on the page is very much out of date.

In addition, a second book has been published by Lanza and Berman on the subject published by a major trade publisher entitled “Beyond Biocentrism: Rethinking Time, Space, Consciousness”, which does not even appear in the entry yet. That book received reviews from The Scientist, among others. It appears to me that the only argument for the deletion nom or to merge is WP:IDONTLIKEIT, or a misreading of the available sources, which was a critique of the deletionist rationale last time around. If there is only increasing public attention to the topic, why would it now be the time to delete? Open to other points of view.Grump International (talk) 23:51, 5 December 2016 (UTC) — Grump International (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Jeremy112233 (talk • contribs). [reply]

Having not looked over all the links provided above, other than the article titles embedded in the links, I have to very seriously question whether they all discuss the idea independently, or whether they simply repeat what the author said. That problem exists with a large number of fringey topics. I tend to think that if there is little if any serious analysis of the idea, or little discussion other than basically repeating what is said in the book, there might still be very serious questions as to whether there is sufficient independent coverage of the work to support an independent article. John Carter (talk) 00:37, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Most seemed analytical to me after reading them, not sure how much one can glean about their quality from solely reviewing the titles of articles :) Either way, the problem may be that this should be about the book rather than the concept in the book. Given that the subsection on the Lanza page would indeed have all fourteen instances of major coverage supporting it (assuming someone executes the merge proper), how much more major coverage would be required? It seems that to require 20 or 30 major sources would disqualify most of the entire encyclopeadia’s articles from existing. I’m more curious than anything in asking. Grump International (talk) 01:04, 6 December 2016 (UTC) — Grump International (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Jeremy112233 (talk • contribs). [reply]

Just for clarity : the articles are the ten above, in addition to the Houston Chronicle, Forbes, MSNBC (Boyle article, not Lanza’s), USA Today, Journal of Consciousness, and Smithsonian articles already used in the entry. That actually makes 16. Grump International (talk) 01:19, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you're asking for a hard rule, I don't think there is one, other than, maybe, that an article of less than "start" class or very weak start class probably isn't considered notable enough for a separate article. Articles on books and concepts in books so far as I remember actually have different standards of notability, and there might be grounds to say that what meets one standard might not necessarily as obviously meet another. John Carter (talk) 01:22, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. I still think the 16 sources available is enough, they're both significant and international in scope. Just my two cents. Grump International (talk) 01:25, 6 December 2016 (UTC) — Grump International (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Jeremy112233 (talk • contribs). [reply]

let's look at the sources provided above:

kind of OK for popular media

Martin, Sean (29 November 2016). "Is death just an ILLUSION? Consciousness CONTINUES in alternate universe, scientist claims". Express.co.uk.
Hall, John (15 November 2013). "Is there an afterlife? The science of biocentrism can prove there is,". The Independent.
Kennedy, Paul (October 4, 2016). "Biocentrism: Rethinking Time, Space, Consciousness, and the Illusion of Death". CBC Radio.

crappy or blog

Parihar, Ashish (November 29, 2016). "Life After Death: Consciousness Continues In Alternate Universe After Dying, Scientist Claims - Morning News USA". www.morningnewsusa.com. (entirely derivative from 2 other sources)
Berman, Robby (May 2, 2016). "Biocentrism Explains Why There's No Time and No Death". Big Think.
Boyle, Alan (25 September 2016). "Quantum study sparks questions about why time runs forward and not backward". GeekWire.

crappy or blog with only passing mention (so even worse)

Manesiotis, Cayce (17 November 2013). "Quantum Mechanics: Experiments on Universal Consciousness and the Afterlife · Guardian Liberty Voice". Guardian Liberty Voice.

garbage

Woollaston, Victoria (14 November 2013). "Quantum physics proves that there IS an afterlife, claims scientist". Daily Mail.
MacIsaac, Tara (27 July 2015). "Prominent Scientist Says Consciousness Is Key to a 'Theory of Everything'". The Epoch Times.

not independent

Berman, Bob (October 14, 2016). "Voices of Faith: Does death even exist?". Times Union.

no idea, not in English

Gil, Ivan (January 13, 2014). "Hay vida después de la muerte, pero nuestra mente no lo ve. Noticias de Alma, Corazón, Vida". El Confidencial.

Bottom line here is that a) this is supposed to be something serious, a "new philosophy", b) that is science based (Quoting him from the CBC radio show: "Biocentrism is a new view of everything. In this view, life and consciousness are central to any new understanding of the universe. ... This new worldview is completely based on science, and is better supported by the scientific evidence, than traditional explanations" (from about 1 minutes to 2 minutes in). So... where are the serious sources from the fields of philosophy or science discussing this supposedly very important and very "science-based" notion?

I'll note Steven Novella has written about this which is a sign that we are definitely in FRINGE land, science-wise

Novella, Steven (November 25, 2013). "Biocentrism". NeuroLogica Blog.

-- Jytdog (talk) 01:47, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So you are saying that only 3, in your mind, are notable. Plus the 6 on the page, which makes 9. The Spanish article is one of the most respected papers in the Spanish media. That would make 10. I disagree that sources like GeekWire, Epoch Times, and Daily Mail are “garbage”. It doesn’t matter that we have differing views on the sources though, as I also differ on your view of some of the others. It is still more than were on the entry originally by quite a bit, even if being very picky. Also, since when did I say this isn’t Fringe? Fringe is not an argument for deletion either way, but I never said it wasn’t Fringe. On that we agree. Grump International (talk) 02:03, 6 December 2016 (UTC) — Grump International (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Jeremy112233 (talk • contribs). [reply]

No that is not what I am saying. I am saying only three are kind of OK for a notability discussion, but there is a huge gaping hole where there should be sources from the field of philisosophy or science (journal articles, other books, etc) discussing this. If other experts in the field don't consider this even worth discussing it is a sign that we are in FRINGE territory. The fact that Novella wrote about it means we are there too.

the fact that you are unaware how the community views Daily Mail shows that you don't really understand how the community views sources and their reliability (look through these search results and you will see it is universally disdained for the tabloid rag it is). I am not going to continue responding to you, and please be aware of WP:BLUDGEON. Jytdog (talk) 02:10, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The fact that the biocentrism books have two authors, both notable scientists with their own WP articles, is reason alone keep the article without merging. The authors are notable for work outside of biocentrism, so a merge is inappropriate. It doesn't matter how many editors stamp their feet and cry "pseudoscience" based on their personal opinion as skeptics. While biocentrism is a long way from reaching the status of a mature theory, you don't see pseudoscience claims reported in a dozen-plus RS's; that should be a clue that it is a few clicks beyond mere pseudoscience. -Jordgette [talk] 01:59, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- The notability of the proponents is not what makes an idea mainstream. Indeed, this is firmly fringe territory. Whether it is pseudoscience or not is immaterial. There needs to be independent sources written about the subject before it is included in Wikipedia. See WP:FRINGE. It hasn't been reported in any major journals. Why is that? jps (talk) 02:39, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I actually don't think biocentrism is fringe under the WP definition. It doesn't differ from mainstream scientific opinion at all in the instrumental sense, i.e., in terms of the results of experiments that have been performed to date. Instead, it's more of an alternative philosophy-of-science framework which seeks to better explain the results of those experiments (although as I mentioned, that work has a long way to go). As for why it hasn't appeared in academic journals, good question. American Scholar comes kind of close. -Jordgette [talk] 03:12, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Facepalm philosophy and religion are not science-based. Proclaiming a new world view and claiming it is "'completely based on science, and is better supported by the scientific evidence, than traditional explanations" is the worst kind of sloppy, huckster, pseudoscience possible. At least people selling dietary supplements on the internet are abusing science to sell something that can actually be tested. And people in the field of philosophy know bullshit when they see it and people in the field of science know they aren't philosophers and don't waste time it. Really - where is there serious engagement with this by people in the relevant fields? Jytdog (talk) 03:16, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A comments war unrelated to WP is not what we're here for. But some of you seem naive on the topic. The search for what you call "a new world view" is actually mainstream science in 2016. I recommend that you read Lee Smolin's The Trouble With Physics, or Google "Problems in Foundational Physics," or read this article[11]. Please be aware that in the 1400s, no contemporary experiment could distinguish between heliocentrism and geocentrism, either. -Jordgette [talk] 03:57, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jordgette - can you bring any discussion of biocentrism from serious philosophy or science sources or not? Jytdog (talk) 04:07, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The American Scholar considered it worthy of publishing, before it was ever picked up by more mainstream sources. I just don't see that happening in cases of "sloppy, huckster, pseudoscience" as you put it. Frankly that's good enough for me. -Jordgette [talk] 04:14, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Right, that is all you have. OK then. The field of philosophy thanks you for the disrespect. Jytdog (talk) 04:29, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, there is also Discover magazine, Wired, MSNBC, and Forbes. Your continued attacking demeanor here is not helping this discussion. -Jordgette [talk] 08:23, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

None of those are peer-reviewed journals. That is the currency of academic discussion, and the academic world of physics and philosophy is where this idea needs to be evaluated for it to not be WP:FRINGE because academy is the epistemic home of such ideas. Everything else is fringe speculation. jps (talk) 09:43, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I thought you were trying to offer American Scholar as a scholarly serious, but even you consider it just popular media. So there are no scholarly sources that discuss this. Right. Pseudoscience based pseudophilosophy it is then. Jytdog (talk) 11:02, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – The only independent source that seems to discuss this is the Novella blog post, which says it's nonsensical. All of the other references mentioned here seemed to simply be reporting Lanza's claims, without attempting any sort of actual analysis. If it should happen that the notion gains adherents and gets discussed more seriously (like Hollow Earth, perhaps?) – at that point it might be worth an article. —jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:43, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (or briefly merge) - from the sparse sourcing this appears to be a barely notable fringe concept. Dressing it up as a topic worthy of an standalone article is hardly worthy of a serious encyclopedia. Alexbrn (talk) 08:26, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fringy as anything, does not even appear to have mainstream notoriety as a fringe concept - David Gerard (talk) 10:49, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There appears to be little or no actual academic engagement with the topic. The limited sources that exist just report that an otherwise-notable person said the thing, which doesn't mean the thing itself is encyclopedically appropriate. I would ordinarily be OK with a merge, but a substantial merge might lead to the problem repeating itself in the future. (It's probably still worthy of a sentence or two on the Lanza page.) Layzner (Talk) 14:32, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wow and wow again. I cannot believe the series of things said above.

Question: Are you seriously trying to say Albert Einstein and Max Planck can publish their famous papers on special relativity, mass-energy equivalence, and blackbody radiation in AdP, but when Lanza publishes a core idea of biocentrism in the same scientific journal (yes, the EXACT SAME physics journal) it’s fring and doesn’t count as science? It’s amazing what is being said to try to eliminate an idea that challenge the beliefs of a few individuals. Wiki editors are not supposed to be thought police (a point someone else here also made).

Clearly a lot of very smart people (including Nobel laureates, members of the National Academy of Science, etc) disagree and have said they like what biocentrism says. Of course, what would they know about “woo” and “pseudoscience”? Of course, I overlooked the fact that a blog by Novella (an “assistant” professor and clinician) is “the only independent source" and he says its “nonsensical.” The archive of this page may become one for the history books.Josophie (talk) 16:25, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If the theory of special relativity had been published in Annalen der Physik but then received as little response from other academics as this so-called theory then it would likewise not be a suitable subject for a Wikipedia article. It is not the publication of such a theory that determines notability, but the response to it, which in this case is non-existent. When this theory gets recognised as the greatest scientific breakthrough of all time then history books will look back on this discussion as a good defence of the principle that an encyclopedia follows science rather than leading it. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 22:36, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OR refers to, and I quote, "material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist." All of the facts in the article are well sourced (please be specific if you disagree), and the ideas represented by those facts have been reported on by numerous reliable sources, as has been endlessly pointed out here, as well as published in AdP, which does not publish useless pseudoscience conjectures (please be specific if you disagree). Also please cite a WP guideline to support your assertion that "it is not the publication of such a theory that determines notability, but the response to it," and let us know how much response to a three-month-old paper you believe is necessary to determine notability. To cite WP:OR in this case is disingenuous at best. No, if the theory gets recognized as the greatest scientific breakthrough of all time, history books will look back on this discussion as certain gatekeeper editors attempting to censor the material for no other reason than they just don't like it. -Jordgette [talk] 00:21, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think we get it that academics are appreciated on Wikipedia and that as a group they bring with them a bias to make Wikipedia the encyclopedia of scientific truth. Other people view this as the religious concept called scientism, where scientism is being used with the definition "faith in science as truth". I believe that our readers want whatever reliable information is available on a broad range of topics, and don't need Wikipedia truth-masters telling them what they should and should not want to know about.
I further append my comments from the first AfD. We see there the repetition of "fringe fringe fringe" examined as the fallacy of argument by assertion and POV pushing. We see there that the use of terms for excrement is not new in this context. Unscintillating (talk) 19:47, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- It would be very silly indeed if Wikipedia were to ignore its own WP:RS, WP:V, and WP:FRINGE rules in favor of an accept-all-comers approach. Fringe is fringe, a Bayesian approach to fringe ideas is that they will typically be excrement, but it is undoubtably true that sometimes fringe is correct. Such stories are heartening, but what is forgotten is that such stories are also rare and WP:CBALL is Wikipedia. The problem is, when an idea is fringe and the normal "powers that be" haven't noticed, we cannot write a neutral article on the subject because we will be left only with laudatory proclamations of the proponents. Wikipedia would then, if we accept such comes, be a vehicle for naked WP:POVPUSHing. We've seen this in the past before our guidelines and polices were as codified as they are today with so-called "creation scientists" and even "modern geocentrists" coming in here and adding obscure content that was wrong (or not even wrong) to little WP:Walled gardens that we've only just begun to dig ourselves out of. The idea that we need WP:FRIND sources is a powerful one. It inoculates Wikipedia against becoming a webhost without any need for fact checking. jps (talk) 20:05, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - You know what is silly, citing the first Wikilink as WP:RS, which shows that this response is not aware of what I've written. So I'll repeat, "I believe that our readers want whatever reliable information is available on a broad range of topics..." Unscintillating (talk) 22:58, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - You know what is silly? Thinking that this article has reliable information in it. jps (talk) 23:31, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - I'm honestly curious as to what information in the article you dispute. Is it that Lanza makes these claims? That Lanza and Berman have written two books? That there has been criticism? Please indulge me as to the factual inaccuracies and we'll work on fixing those inaccuracies. If it isn't just a case of I don't like it, I'm sure you can quote a sentence from the article that you feel is factually inaccurate. -Jordgette [talk] 02:43, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"In his papers on relativity, Einstein showed that time was relative to the observer. The paper by Podolskiy and Lanza takes this one step further, arguing that the observer actually creates it." Podolskiy and Lanza do no such thing and the connection between temporal relativity and the claims of Podolskiy and Lanza is pure original research and painfully incorrect in fact. jps (talk) 11:31, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're saying that Podolskiy and Lanza don't make that argument? Or is it just your opinion that the argument is wrong? -Jordgette [talk] 19:55, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is no justification for the claim that Podolskiy and Lanza took time being relative to the observer "one step further". It's not in their paper nor is it true. jps (talk) 22:10, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll buy that. The "one step further" sentence apparently came from a Lanza quote in the Wired article so it's inappropriate as it was stated. I changed some things and reorganized the paragraph; I think it can still be improved, but see if it meets your satisfaction with regard to factual accuracy. Also if you spot any other inaccuracies, let us know so that we can continue to improve the article. -Jordgette [talk] 23:20, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Given that there have been no other suggestions of factual inaccuracies, I'm going to go ahead and remove the "factual accuracy disputed" tag from the article. Feel free to add suggestions and we'll continue to improve the article. -Jordgette [talk] 00:08, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not only is it textbook, cringeworthy fringe material (absence of scholarly sources engaging it), it does not even seem particularly successful as fringe. Wikipedia really does not need an article to enshrine every time an otherwise well-adjusted person plunges into religious ecstasy from not understanding quantum mechanics. The brief mention on Lanza's page is more than enough. — Gamall Wednesday Ida (t · c) 23:47, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Can someone who asserts that the article is WP:FRINGE, by the definition on that page, please explain why Wikipedia has articles on the following topics?

As far as I can tell, none of these has been discussed as plausible in the academic literature. Should those articles be deleted as well? This is a serious question, if academic/peer-reviewed publication is to be the qualifying baseline for inclusion in Wikipedia. There is nuance to this question, and I think many of the editors are missing it: WP:FRINGE makes clear that merely being absent from the academic literature does not necessarily disqualify a topic's notability by other RS's. -Jordgette [talk] 03:01, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's not about whether a topic has been discussed as plausible in academic literature, but whether it has received significant coverage at all in academic literature, whether as plausible, as implausible or neutral. As regards the topics that you list above there is loads of coverage in academic literature found by these searches: [12], [13], [14], [15], [16]. In the last case you need to page down a bit to get past the quack journals. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 08:06, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Easily meets the GNG, and from independent reliable sources treating it seriously. That the theory is fringe, or that scholarly publications have ignored it has no bearing on whether it should be in WP. The Steve 08:16, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The examples just above (Moon landing conspiracy theories, etc.) are so obviously mad conspiracy theories (except 9/11 which is too serious to drag into this discussion), or crackpot fringe theories, that they pose no danger to the sensibilities of anyone who is still on this planet. So they can stay. The Biocentric Universe on the other hand appears to have some plausibility (that is just my summary of all the views expressed here, not my personal opinion), so the thought police will try to remove it in case anyone is seduced by it. Should Wikipedia be censored because the material is thought to be dangerous to established views? It clearly meets the notability criteria (by including mainstream news media) and also, although not a requirement for stuff to be included, from the page view stats it actually seems to be answering questions which Wikipedia readers are asking. Perhaps they are looking at the article for a reasonably balanced opinion and then go away satisfied they can ignore it. Trust our readers! Aarghdvaark (talk) 08:36, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Selective merge to Lanza as the pragmatic option.

While there are no academic sources, there is enough garbage in the mainstream press to pass WP:GNG, so a pure delete is not an option (unless WP:IAR). However, the theory itself should be discussed only briefly since anything too long would run against WP:DUEWEIGHT, because of the lack of academic sources. So if kept this should be a permastub. Merging to the main (and lone) proponent is enough. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 12:49, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep – I was almost convinced by the Fringe arguments, so I read it. And while I was leaning to vote merge, the rules there changed my mind. The notability standard for Fringe, WP:NFRINGE, includes the subsection “Notability versus Acceptance”, which very clearly states that being fringe is not a sufficient reason for deletion or merger. It cites general notability guidelines specifically as what should be applied, and as has been described above, the article very clearly meets WP:GNG. It states further that “a lack of peer-reviewed sources does not automatically mean that the subject should be excluded from Wikipedia,” which contradicts all arguments above claiming that peer-review is needed. Furthermore, I fear that a push to merge, especially if GNG is met, may be an effort to and in danger of violating WP:FRINGEBLP. The Lanza page already mentions the theory, and so should there be a vote to merge or delete, no real changes would need to be made … so the merger argument seems highly redundant to me. It would not be needed to permit content on the idea on the Lanza page. Really, this is about keeping or deleting for me, black and white.2605:8D80:6C0:775D:E830:4605:AB87:7879 (talk) 00:18, 10 December 2016 (UTC) — 2605:8D80:6C0:775D:E830:4605:AB87:7879 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep due to coverage in independent notable sources, e.g. Wired ("Will Biology Solve the Universe?"), Forbes ("A Biotech Provocateur Takes On Physics"), The Independent ("Is there an afterlife? The science of biocentrism can prove there is, claims Professor Robert Lanza").

Coverage in academic journals is not required for coverage in Wikipedia. Additionally, the amount of coverage focused on the theory itself, rather than on the author, argues against a merge. Tim Smith (talk) 22:10, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The kind of coverage needed for a particular topic depends on what kind of topic it is. In this case the claim is that this is a scientific theory, so scientific sources should be expected. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 22:33, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can you cite a WP notability guideline that states what specific kinds of sources are necessary for certain topics? -Jordgette [talk] 22:58, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:N mentions "suitable" sources, and it also says "We require multiple sources so that we can write a reasonably balanced article that complies with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view". If we have no discussion of X in sources in the field of X, we cannot write an article that complies with NPOV. See also WP:RSCONTEXT and Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources#Scholarship in RS. Again, either "biocentric universe" is a significant contribution to philosophy and we look for sources appropriate to that context, or it is pop-culture pseudo-philosophy. You cannot have it both ways. The consensus of this discussion so far is that it is FRINGE nonsense that mainstream discussion in the field doesn't even bother discussing and so deserves little WEIGHT in WP - just a mention in the Lanza article. Jytdog (talk) 23:13, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, so things that should be obvious to anyone with two brain cells to rub together, such as that supposedly scientific topics should have scientific sources, don't need to be spelt out in written guidelines. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 23:34, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I honestly don't see the difference between the article discussed and articles on e.g. Simulation Hypothesis, Religion, Cogito Ergo Sum, to name a few. It is just a very interesting hypothesis Padanga (talk) 11:00, 11 December 2016 (UTC) — Padanga (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment I did a rough count here, and it looks to me like we have a roughly equivalent number of keeps, deletes, and merge !votes so far. Best of luck to whoever tries to close this, if that is in fact what they choose to do. John Carter (talk) 00:33, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

With the deletes and merges, and taking out the SPAs (we have already had socks blocked on this article) the policy-based consensus is very clear that this article should not exist. Jytdog (talk) 00:42, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

One option, which hasn't apparently been considered much, is to maybe consider whether an article on the book as a book might meet our standards. John Carter (talk) 00:51, 13 December 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. Joyous! | Talk 01:10, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ishwar Singh Director

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

I am nominating this article as it does not meet WP:GNG. The subject has not had significant coverage in independent secondary sources. The article was also created by a known sockpuppet who has previously promoted non notable biographies. Cowlibob (talk) 18:55, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:47, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:47, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG; Youtube and Hotstar are not reliable sources Spiderone 19:33, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable. -- Dane ^talk 20:15, 8 December 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 speedily deleted by User:Samtar under criterion G7. (Non-admin closure) "Pepper" @ 03:21, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Justice tourism as development

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

There seems to be very little difference between the concepts of Justice tourism and Sustainable tourism. The works of Scheyvens are cited in both. Maybe create a new section for the specifics of Justice tourism and Merge and redirect. Domdeparis (talk) 18:42, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:SNOW. It appears to be red-linked already. Bearian (talk) 01:17, 6 December 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. Joyous! | Talk 01:10, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sterling Pictures

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

Notability not established. Gamebuster19901 (Talk | Contributions) 18:35, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:49, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:49, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable. Couldn't turn up anything in a search. -- Dane ^talk 20:17, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 07:55, 12 December 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. A10, while I understand the nominator's point here, on deeper investigation, the creation date is for an unrelated sandbox article. This sandbox version was created less than six weeks ago and moved to varying titles until it hit mainspace three weeks back and is therefore eligible for A10 as it is also largely duplicative of the existing older page. —SpacemanSpiff 05:48, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

LImran Ratap

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

This is clearly a duplicate of Mohammad Imran Pratapgarhi but NOT Recently Created (as required by CSD-A10). Should be deleted. No redirect is needed as the title is totaly absurd. SM7^--talk-- 18:20, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:49, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:49, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:49, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:49, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - blatant hoax Spiderone 19:32, 8 December 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. Joyous! | Talk 01:11, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bascism

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

Subject lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. PROD removed by page's creator. Meatsgains (talk) 17:35, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The political positions of Haydar Baş should be covered neutrally in his article, which at present consists of a single sentence, rather than in a non-neutrally named separate article. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 17:53, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. — Sam Sailor 00:25, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. — Sam Sailor 00:25, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't find good sources that support this -ism is in use in English; could Turkish sources be out there somewhere? If yes, maybe a redirect to Haydar Baş could be valid, but most of the current material belongs there anyway. — Sam Sailor 00:29, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete concur with editors above that Haydar Baş article needs expansion with neutral, RS info.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:23, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I would source/expand Haydar Baş, but found so little (this Party has never held a seat in Parliament) that prodded it instead (after copying the sources to Independent Turkey Party as per WP:PRESERVE.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:56, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unable to find any useful sources. -- Dane ^talk 20:20, 8 December 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. Joyous! | Talk 01:12, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Clash of the Claws

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

This isn't a real rivalry. The name came from the homecoming theme that year; the two teams aren't rivals. I know the woman who wrote the AL.com article and have talked with her personally about it. TheReluctantHipster (talk) 16:37, 5 December 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 December 5. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:51, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:23, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:23, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:23, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:23, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:NRIVALRY/WP:GNG with a lack of sources discussing the series and calling it a rivalry, by the title or otherwise. Note that neither of the sources seems to call it a rivalry, and the title also seems to only have been used in 2014. ansh 666 06:09, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as none of this amounts to actual genuine substance for its own article, not at all. SwisterTwister talk 20:51, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have to agree with nominator and others, it does not seem to pass the notability standard required for rivalries here. It may in the future.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:45, 11 December 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. Already covered , and covered much more fully, in the articles on the separate entities. DGG ( talk ) 01:35, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Temporarily occupied territories of Ukraine

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

Unsourced POV article by a POV editor. Two of the three territories are not occupied by Russia. Ymblanter (talk) 16:38, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Just an observation by someone about a political situation. Fails WP:NOPAGE...Rameshnta909 (talk) 16:49, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep well, this article needs further development but it is not a POV it is a fact that those territories are occupied by Russia and Russian supported green men. That's why when parts talk to each other in Belarus, on the other side is Russia not DNR or LNR.--g. balaxaZe★ 16:52, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We have articles about the Luhansk People's Republic and the Donetsk People's Republic, none of them is called an occupied territory.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:54, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
How do you want to see that those territories are occupied, after Russia's official statement? It is a fact that those territories are under Russian control we live in 21th century and politicians do things that can't be always described in scientific manner but in reality it is the finest case of modern occupation methods. --g. balaxaZe★ 17:01, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, in Wikipedia we require independent (read not Russian, not Ukrainian) reliable sources. Everything else is original research. And if these sources exist, they should be added to the LPR and DPR articles first.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:05, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to mention this article Russian military intervention in Ukraine (2014–present) where it is clearly shown and sourced that those territories are under Russian military control (occupation). There are also some external sources that say the same: forbes.com, trenchantobserver.com, understandingwar.org, foreignpolicy.com (if it's needed I will find more).--g. balaxaZe★ 17:26, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am afraid the article you mention says quite the opposite to what you are saying - it says both territories are under the control of pro-Russian groups and at some point Russian troops entered them. This is not the same as Russian occupation (of which Crimea is an example).--Ymblanter (talk) 17:35, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nope

Forbes:"On November 14, the International Criminal Court (ICC) issued its preliminary findings that “there exists a sensible or reasonable justification for a belief that a crime [my italics] falling within the jurisdiction of the Court ‘has been or is being committed’” within the Crimean and Donbas territories of Ukraine. On release of the ICC report, Russia announced that it would withdraw from the organization because it "failed to meet the expectations to become a truly independent, authoritative international tribunal.""

Trenchant Observer: "As official Russian troops withdraw from border, Putin continues stealth invasion and occupation of Donetsk and Luhansk region by irregular forces"

ISW: "Russia and its proxies have escalated operations involving re-deployed heavy weapons in eastern Ukraine in February and March in order to set conditions for future operations and to test the levels of escalation the international community is willing to overlook."

Foreign Policy "Ukraine’s occupied Donbass region is a pointless burden. It’s time for Kiev to accept that it’s better off without it. Although the Russo-Ukrainian war appears to have been largely forgotten in the West, it’s still claiming lives every day. Indeed, the last two months have seen a major escalation by Russia and its proxies, leading some analysts to expect a full-blown war."

Also do not judge Russian occupation of Donbass only by those sites, I've mentioned Wikipedia article as well, these few sites just are additional prove that say territories are Russian occupied (by proxies, green men, separatists do not matter).--g. balaxaZe★ 17:54, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Fact is clear Russia occupies these territories using various methods and one can't ignore that Russia funds, Russia serves it by military vehicles, sends there its soldiers and trainers and many other things... This is what we call a military occupation.--g. balaxaZe★ 18:00, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, absolutely wrong. "Occupation" means the martial control of a territory. There is no evidence that Russia administers the martial control of a territory, quite the opposite. Even a suggestion calling these entities "puppet states" was rejected by consensus.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:20, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@g. balaxaZe★ your arguments appear too weak for what you are trying to establish. You haven't provide anything to even contest the fact that it is not occupied and besides you cannot just push your political opinions in Wikipedia. Here things work only when there is a consensus among editors...Rameshnta909 (talk) 18:25, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a WP:POVFORK of Russian military intervention in Ukraine (2014–present). 86.17.222.157 (talk) 17:56, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per 86.17.222.157. WP:POV content from a WP:POVPUSHING editor, and the title violates WP:CRYSTALBALL. --80.63.3.167 (talk) 21:06, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per policies already invoked by other editors. "Temporarily occupied areas" is a term used by the Ukrainian government, not third party WP:RS, therefore the title is a WP:POVFORK... and any assumptions about the nature and length of "occupation" contravenes WP:CRYSTAL. This is subject matter covered by the DPR and LPR articles where any WP:DUE, WP:NPOV content belongs. Trying to stay on top of WP:COATRACK articles has been difficult enough without letting more seep in through the cracks. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:57, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. If the phrase "temporarily occupied territories" carries any legal connotation within Ukraine, the article could be kept with extensive editing to remove POV bias.See Free area of the Republic of China for a possible analogous case. Absent this, however, the article should be deleted. --Delta1989 (talk) (contributions) 20:59, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete indeed per the already mentioned policies. - LouisAragon (talk) 01:45, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTALBALL - no indication this is temporary. We shouldn't be playing political games in WP titles or we'll have to rename Turkey to Temporarily Occupied Territories of the Byzantine Empire. LavaBaron (talk) 13:46, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. With no prejudice against recreation of an article w/o advertising and with claims of significance, seeing as SWAloha's claim has not been refuted. Much of the deletion argument pertains to the current version of the page. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:10, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mecca (Cosmetics)

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

No external references or evidence of notability Rathfelder (talk) 16:24, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:COMPANY and WP:NOTADVERTISEMENT...Rameshnta909 (talk) 16:33, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notableSassmouth (talk) 21:26, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as clear A7 material. SwisterTwister talk 01:44, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - Clearly has enough available reliable sources which have simply not been used yet. The article is a stub but that shouldn't be the basis of people's opinions on the article's notability IMO. Go research Jo Horgan, the owner of the company. SWAloha ⚜ 08:03, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is not citing how the article is not violating policy WP:NOT. SwisterTwister talk 18:35, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

* Keep, but needs work: In my jaded understanding of RS. this , this and maybe this , seem to hit what we're looking for. However Ramesh's point above about WP:NOTADVERTISEMENT compels me to agree somewhat there. If we keep it, we need eyes to bring it together better. MM (WhatIDo WHATIDO?) ^{(Now THIS... I did.)} 13:01, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

While they're known news publications, the comment themselves are simply PR interviews and quotes, take "The company founder's vision for the company is", "The company said today", "The company's business plans are", "The company wants this and that", "The company is saying", etc. None of that is independent because it was all from the company itself and therefore is unacceptable. Becsuse of this, the article's removal is accepted by policy WP:NOT. SwisterTwister talk 18:35, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops! Okay, struck above, thanks Swister! MM (WhatIDo WHATIDO?) ^{(Now THIS... I did.)} 22:47, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Forward looking statements in passing do not constitute notability. -- Dane ^talk 20:22, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: See above bit between myself and SwisterTwister. MM (WhatIDo WHATIDO?) ^{(Now THIS... I did.)} 22:47, 8 December 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 move to draft space. Cerebellum (talk) 21:57, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Khasokhas Weekly

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

PROD Was contested by an IP and it's not exactly got much better since the PROD was removed from what I see. The sources it includes point to its own website which, correct me if I'm mistaken, fail WP:RS, and Facebook, which fails WP:V , I checked it against Google when I PRODded it and I couldn't find anything that fit the two guidelines above.

There is a post from The Huffington here , but it's about the editor in chief, and not the paper itself, and the New York post website's link in the results (this) brings up Error 404, meaning it's no longer there, if it ever was anyway. MM (WhatIDo WHATIDO?) ^{(Now THIS... I did.)} 16:20, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete. They just created a page citing their own website and FB page. Its worrying that a random IP with no good intention could challenge a clear case for PROd like that. Fails WP:NMAGAZINE and WP:OR bigtime...Rameshnta909 (talk) 16:29, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Subject lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Only sources I could find cover Kishor Panthi, the paper's editor in chief. Meatsgains (talk) 16:41, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. — Sam Sailor 00:18, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. — Sam Sailor 00:18, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. — Sam Sailor 00:18, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a clearly minor publication and WP:NOT applies. SwisterTwister talk 00:26, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable. Recently created promotionalism in appearance. -- Dane ^talk 20:26, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: so it seems that HariKrishna123 has decided to move the article to draft userspace. Thoughts? Should I withdraw this AFD? I've never come across an article at AFD being moved to Draft during the AFD before... MM (WhatIDo WHATIDO?) ^{(Now THIS... I did.)} 22:53, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Procedurally here, you can withdraw your !vote to delete as the nominator. See WP:Speedy keep for the requirements to withdraw the entire AfD, which won't be met here unless the other delete !votes change. You can also state your support to Incubate (or draftify) if you support the move to draftspace. If you still want the article deleted, draftspace or not, I suggest ignoring the move to draftspace, as the closer will know where to find it. Unscintillating (talk) 23:33, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have undone the move to Draft space; I consider that to be in bad faith and against the flow of AfD to do it—especially for the creator of the article to do it. That said, I would not object if the closing admin, in the event of a delete result, moved the article to Draft to preserve the history and allow incubation. —C.Fred (talk) 13:55, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have seen it on occasion usually to do an end-run around an AfD going against it. Might or might not be the case here but I think the AfD should continue especially since there is an accumulation of comments.Peter Rehse (talk) 23:47, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Very well then, it stays open. I appreciate the guidance, peeps. MM (WhatIDo WHATIDO?) ^{(Now THIS... I did.)} 23:49, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural note. The AfD was just briefly moved to Draft:Articles for deletion/Khasokhas Weekly. I have moved it back and will move-protect if necessary. —C.Fred (talk) 13:57, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Move to draft space as has apparently been attempted. DGG ( talk ) 04:28, 13 December 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. Joyous! | Talk 01:13, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Katunku Edith Mary

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

Worthy person, local councillor, but I do not think she passes WP:GNG. --Tagishsimon (talk) 16:20, 5 December 2016 (UTC) Tagishsimon (talk) 16:20, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I agree that the article should be deleted as i think she doesn't pass WP:GNG, as i Googled her and i didn't find many result of her, and i searched on Google News and no results were found. Also as this article is WP:BLP it doesn't have one of the reliable source and the article was created after March 10, 2010, per WP:BLPPROD policy. I've once proposed this article to be deleted, but the creator removed it without resolving this issue. Stylez995 (talk) 10:56, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG. -- Dane ^talk 20:27, 8 December 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 Premiership of Fidel Castro. MBisanz ^talk 12:16, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Presidency of Fidel Castro

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

Repeats information from main Fidel Castro article without adding anything substantive. Scaleshombre (talk) 16:14, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Looks like it fails WP:NOPAGE...Rameshnta909 (talk) 16:20, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Too much overlap with Fidel Castro. Possible redirect to Fidel Castro. Meatsgains (talk) 16:44, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. — Sam Sailor 23:10, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cuba-related deletion discussions. — Sam Sailor 23:10, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment there's also a related AfD nomination for Premiership of Fidel Castro at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Premiership of Fidel Castro -- 65.94.171.217 (talk) 05:45, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment there's a merge proposal to combine Presidency of Fidel Castro and Premiership of Fidel Castro into one article -- 65.94.171.217 (talk) 05:45, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (or redirect). We have a long article Fidel Castro. We do not need a set of duplicates on different parts of his life. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:07, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Presidency of Fidel Castro and Premiership of Fidel Castro, I don't have an opinion at the moment as to which title should host the content. As Fidel Castro is under heavy development in pursuit of FA and is already nearing 200kB (nearly 14,000 words of prose, excluding captions, infoboxes, quotes, etc) it will make sense (per WP:ARTICLESIZE and eventually per WP:CHOKING) for some sections to be summarized in the main article and split into subtopic articles. Fine details about his leadership are likely to be trimmed to one of these titles. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:00, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:53, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:53, 12 December 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.

NOTE this was directly renominated on December 24 at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cuba under Fidel Castro -- 65.94.168.229 (talk) 03:52, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy deleted. Removed by CambridgeBayWeather under A7. (non-admin closure) -- Dane ^talk 20:19, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Floyd (South Africa)

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

Non-notable businessman. Floyd is mentioned in passing in the citations provided, but there is no evidence of any in-depth coverage of him. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:00, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:30, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:30, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mr Floyd is the Chairman of our company and employer of over 1200 people. Please leave his name on Wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.113.112.141 (talk) 15:36, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:BASIC and WP:SELFPROMOTE, just see the above comment...Rameshnta909 (talk) 16:16, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yes a Gnews search for "Richard Floyd" + Stratocorp yields nothing at all. Not sure how you employ over 1200 people in a company based in a mainly English speaking country and net no coverage at all, but he's managed it. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:49, 5 December 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 nomination withdrawn by nominator after page improvement. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:52, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Women in the funeral industry

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

This article purports to be about "Women in the funeral industry" but is largely about the funeral industry in general, with a few mentions of women's role in the industry, and serves largely as a WP:COATRACK for a WP:Content fork of the article about Caitlin Doughty. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:17, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:32, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:32, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:40, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:43, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, that's one of the most egregious examples of WP:COATRACK I've seen in some time. Question is, if we just cut all the Caitlin Doughty crap out of the article, do we have a bona fide main article on women in the death care trade? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:43, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @Shawn in Montreal: If I had thought so, I would have made that edit, but I just don't think there's enough there there. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:12, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - I've gone ahead and cut the three big passages that were promoting Doughty in one way or another, or simply off topic. Also, the 20th century section was meant to be 19th. Have a look and see if this is a passable if brief history article. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:20, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn After some careful pruning and reorganization, I think we have a usable article here. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:35, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Me too. But we'll need to be careful about article creator User:Pinkpanda21 -- possibly Doughty herself -- trying to restore material on her/herself. As she has done even during this latest series of edits. I daresay we may need to start issuing more warnings and keep a watch for sockpuppet edits, too. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:38, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Also, @Joe Roe: has rightly placed a globalize tag on it. How about we move the page to History of women in death care in the United States? It would address Joe's concern, better define that this is a history article and reflect that, for better or worse, Death care industry is the main article and category. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:41, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - Okay, we have a problem, here. She has just created Women in the North America Funeral Industry as a way to restore the photo and its Doughty-related caption, I think. I'm going to redirect and issue a 2nd level warning. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:44, 5 December 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. Joyous! | Talk 01:19, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nooshafarin

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

No indication how she meets the criteria under WP:MUSIC, lack of reliable sources. Upon searching Discogs.com all I can find is a number of compilations. Performances are local in the Southern Californian area. Does not pass WP:GNG. Karst (talk) 14:10, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Subject lacks notability and coverage in reliable sources. Search results for Nooshafarin pull up articles on different individuals with the same name. Meatsgains (talk) 16:49, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:58, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:58, 7 December 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. Joyous! | Talk 01:20, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Clkim

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

Not a notable company. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:25, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:25, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:25, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This page should not be deleted please. Clkim is a company like Bit.ly but unlike bit.ly, clkim is a startup and so far is doing well, it's widely known and used by Israel and some other countries Historywiki11 (talk) 13:32, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning towards Delete here but, does this pass RS/V/GNG? I say Delete if it doesn't. MM (WhatIDo WHATIDO?) ^{(Now THIS... I did.)} 16:31, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion it is not a reliable source.Shearonink (talk) 19:58, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG. User has a lengthy history of creating unencyclopedic and WP:PROMO pages. --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 20:33, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I cannot read Hebrew to know if those other articles are worthy. The CNBC is barely a mention, not enough to say it is noteworthy Ferrari250 (talk) 17:49, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect No useful results from Google News or Bing News searches. Probably replace with a redirect to Ran Poliakine#Clkim, although Poliakine is not listed as chairman on their website. Verbcatcher (talk) 20:23, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Most of the sources in terms of depth for the subject are somewhat problematic. I did find a mention on Poliakine's LinkedIn that he was Chairman of Clkim's Board but was unable to find corroboration in an independent/reliable source. I am unsure that his being the Chairman of their Board makes Clkim notable... Shearonink (talk) 19:58, 9 December 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 12:14, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vikky Varun

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

Renominate, as still don't meet WP:ENTERTAINER. Google news don't show anything satisfactory. Marvellous Spider-Man 13:16, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:24, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:24, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable person. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:25, 11 December 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. Joyous! | Talk 01:20, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Glanville Peiris

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

Fails WP:BIO. Ambassadors are not inherently notable. Unable to find any indepth coverage, the only independent reliable sources merely confirm that he was an ambassador. Dan arndt (talk) 12:21, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 12:25, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 12:25, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Myanmar-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 12:25, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 12:25, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete fails WP:BIO. as his time was decades ago, gbooks is better for search but all it reveals is one line mentions. Watch as the keep !voters recycle the "ambassador to a major country is inherently notable " argument. LibStar (talk) 13:49, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ambassadors are not default notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:55, 10 December 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. Joyous! | Talk 01:21, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Quise Casino

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

Fails WP:NMUSIC with no secondary sources, chart placings or major label signings. McGeddon (talk) 12:12, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:25, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable musician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:58, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per source searches, the subject does not meet WP:BASIC or WP:MUSICBIO to qualify for an article at this time. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:05, 12 December 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. Joyous! | Talk 01:24, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmed Aflal Jawad

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

Fails WP:BIO. Ambassadors are not inherently notable. Unable to find any indepth coverage, the only independent reliable sources merely confirm that he was an ambassador. Dan arndt (talk) 12:11, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 12:15, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 12:15, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 12:15, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 12:15, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete no coverage in gnews for full name, remove the middle name and you get Pakistanis. Watch as the keep !voters argue there is inherent notability in being ambassador because Norway and saudi arabia are "major". LibStar (talk) 13:54, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ambassadors are not default notable. We lack coverage here to pass the general notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:38, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nominator withdrew in a later comment in the discussion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:57, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Asma el bakry

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

Does not pass WP:GNG Non-Notable director. FITINDIA (talk) 11:45, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - did the nominator read the article or search for the name before nominating this article? Hack (talk) 12:29, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I did read the article, have not been able to find an independent reliable source or any newsworthy article from a noted publication.FITINDIA (talk) 13:06, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - you nominated a dead person for BLPprod, then nominated them as a non-notable actor, when they are clearly a director. Hack (talk) 13:26, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment When I nominated the article for AFD it was not mentioned she is deceased, that was added after my nomination.[17].FITINDIA (talk) 13:47, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I also feel the article was made in small letters as it was Speedly deleted [18].FITINDIA (talk) 13:51, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Her works have won prizes and she has articles in more than one specialist encyclopedia. Note, several renditions of her name are given in the French article. Espresso Addict (talk) 18:01, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Espresso Addict (talk) 18:01, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Espresso Addict (talk) 18:01, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- I would like to withdraw the AfD, as the article is notable enough have also found an authority control and VIAF [19]which I have added to the article.FITINDIA (talk) 06:06, 7 December 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. Joyous! | Talk 01:25, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gamini Seneviratne

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

Being an ambassador is not significant enough to establish notability. Unable to find any other sources that support WP:ANYBIO. Dan arndt (talk) 11:39, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 11:51, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 11:51, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 11:51, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 11:51, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete article includes many unverifiable or dead sources and gbooks shows a scientist of the same name. LibStar (talk) 13:51, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete being an ambassador is not alone enough for notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:51, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am unable to find sources to meet WP:GNG.--CaroleHenson (talk) 03:02, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Anarchyte (work | talk) 11:16, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sabila Nur

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

Does not pass WP:GNG Non-Notable actor FITINDIA (talk) 10:39, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 10:41, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 10:41, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- Easily meets notability guidelines, TV show host, lead in multiple TV dramas. Added new citations, that show independent coverage.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 15:00, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Agree She does not have any notable work. --Masum-al-hasan Rocky 10:40, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
Keep- Passed WP:GNG, absolutely notable. Brishti Akter (talk) 08:12, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, easily pass WP:BASIC and WP:GNG, simple google search will prove this.

Aparna-Mishu-Sabila in Pyach Foron, 1 MINUTE PLEASE!, “My mother helps me choose scripts”… Sabila in Daily Star (Bangladesh),

Wanted to play Kadambini first: Sabila, in Prothom Alo Ibrahim Husain Meraj (talk) 06:49, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sandstein 14:03, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Democratic Underground

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

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

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

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails notability. Virtually all of the sourcing is to the site itself. What little sourcing that is considered a RS, discusses DU with respect to a lawsuit brought by a copyright troll, of which they were a defendant.
More specifically, this subject fails WP:WEBCRIT in that it has not ... been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself. nor has the site won any awards (well known or not) from independent organizations. That man from Nantucket (talk) 11:14, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree with deletion. The website is a significant political website in the USA, and the lawsuit they successfully defended was against a major newspaper publishing company, with significant precedent for what counts as fair use quotes on the internet. Peace Makes Plenty (talk) 18:09, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The lawsuit is already covered by Righthaven LLC v. Democratic Underground LLC. What sources say DU is a "significant political website" as you ascertain? The article has none, and I haven't found any in my searches.That man from Nantucket (talk) 08:02, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a ranking showing it as the 11th most popular liberal website (and that's including things like 'Time' and 'CNN', which are clearly not liberal political websites): http://rightwingnews.com/top-news/the-50-most-popular-liberal-websites/ Peace Makes Plenty (talk) 14:20, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Even if we were to assume rightwingnews.com is a RS (I posit it's not), a mere entry on a list does NOT make it notable. This is less than a trivial mention. The source provides nothing but an Alexa ranking.That man from Nantucket (talk) 07:18, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alexa is a major tool for determining the popularity of websites. To dismiss its results as 'nothing but an Alexa ranking' is ridiculous - there is probably nothing more objective available to determine what is a "significant political website". You appear unwilling to consider any argument. Peace Makes Plenty (talk) 14:21, 24 November 2016

Are you willing to listen to other arguments? You don't understand the ins and outs of how conflict resolution works on the English Wikipedia. We use policy (community sanctioned "laws" of Wikipedia) and guidelines (best practices). Those are all of those WP links people show you. Please read them. But I can save you some time. Notability (what determines if an article should exist) is a very well hashed out subject and it is codified by policy and guideline. What those say, in a nutshell is "Only notable subjects gets an article. Notability is determined by third party, independent, reliable sources." Reliable sources is a subject of its own, but think of newspapers and books and has some sort of oversight. These RS now need to establish notability, which is done when they discuss a subject with some depth. "List" type articles, that have a name and number and not much else don't meet the bar. How much is needed? We know it when we see it. Now if this list discussed the DU and gave us some details that were interesting, or they demonstrated the DU was influential, now we would have some evidence of notability. The burden for determining notability is on those who wish to keep the article. But that's Wikipedia for you. Every article and evey word must be verifiable, and when challenged the burden of that falls on those who wish to include something. That man from Nantucket (talk) 05:31, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Alexa notes popularity, not notability. Notability is the guideline used to determine whether a website should have a Wikipedia article; see WP:WEB which says: '"Notability" is not synonymous with "fame" or "importance," and even web content that editors personally believe is "important" or "famous" is only accepted as notable if it can be shown to have attracted notice.' We need sources that prove that DU is notable; the only possible exception I've seen from the ones listed above is Newsbusters but that article is actually a blog entry by (presumably) a Trump supporter using DU as a source of schadenfreude, I'm not sure if that really is what we mean by coverage. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 15:29, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Correct. Alexa rank is irrelevant. If DU were truly "popular" then one would expect RS would exist to assert this statement. If RS could be found that mention DU in a non-trivial manner then I will withdraw my nomination. I'm still miffed that someone dared accused me of making this deletion discussion as a result of personal politics, when in fact I hold personal opinions that are in line with many of DU users. But personal politics have nothing to do with building an encyclopedia.That man from Nantucket (talk) 17:35, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A poplar website is, by definition, notable among many people. Popularity is the most objective test of notability. You may be able to make cases for other sites being 'notable' using other metrics, but popularity has to be one that is used, or the word becomes a subjective idea of how important the speaker thinks something is. Peace Makes Plenty (talk) 22:36, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I can assure you that popularity is not how notability is determined at the English Wikipedia. If something is popular, there is a very good chance that a RS takes notice and writes about it. But that is not always the case. We use official Wikipedia policies and guidelines to resolve pretty much every dispute. Please read WP:WEB if you haven't already, as it is the most applicable guideline. Just to let you know what to expect, at some point an admin will close this discussion and they will decide whether the consensus here is to delete or keep the article. However they will give stronger weight to arguments that follow policy and guidelines. IMO none of the arguments you or Steven have made are grounded in either. If 100 people came and !voted using the same rationale as you and Steven have, IMO the admin will not give those !votes any consideration. !vote literally means "not vote" because when determining consensus, we don't simply count heads. We look for quality arguments. I strongly suggest you read WP:CLOSE in its entirety and pay very close to the section labelled How to determine the outcome. If you want to keep this article, I suggest you find policy based justifications to support your position. N.B. admins can spot specious claims quite easily. One does not become an admin on Wikipedia without demonstrating a thorough understanding of policy and guidelines. I think your best shot of finding a policy based argument is to look for reliable sources that discuss DU in a non-trivial manner. I haven't found any, but I will doff my hat to you if you find something. But if you continue down this path of making unsupported arguments, that will be seen as WP: DISRUPTIVE behavior and an admin might take action against you, up to and including blocking your account.That man from Nantucket (talk) 02:18, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My arguments are not unsupported; I gave the link showing Democratic Underground is one of the most popular liberal websites. Your dismissal of that is, however, unsupported. You suggest reading WP:WEB; I already had, and the Alexa ranking is "verifiable information from reliable sources". The Righthaven lawsuit is also an example of a significant effect on culture. I don't appreciate threats, and your claim that if I continue arguing against you (by repeating the use of the objective Alexa ranking, which you dismiss in favour of your own subjective ideas of 'fame' or 'importance', against the WP:WEB guidelines) I may get banned comes across as a threat, which is highly inappropriate. Peace Makes Plenty (talk) 12:17, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Again WP:WEB says (and I quote) '"Notability" is not synonymous with "fame" or "importance," and even web content that editors personally believe is "important" or "famous" is only accepted as notable if it can be shown to have attracted notice.' Popularity is irrelevant when it comes to notability. And per WP:ALEXA, and I quote again, "Specifically, Alexa rankings are not part of the notability guidelines for web sites for several reasons..." - emphasis theirs, not mine. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 17:29, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And since it's been days without anything which meets notability guidelines, I'm now leaning Delete. Good sources will sway my opinion, "but it's popular" arguments will not, per Wikipedia guidelines. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 17:31, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As an example of the importance of Democratic Underground's counterclaim lawsuit (they were not just defendants) against Righthaven, it forms a significant part of the 'Copyright Trolls' section of "Major Principles of Media Law" (2013 ed.), published by Cengage. Calling Righthaven "one of the more notorious trolls", it quotes the EFF saying "In dismissing Righthaven's claim in its entirety, Chief Judge Hunt's ruling decisively rejected the Righthaven business model of conveying rights to sue, alone, as a means to enforce copyrights. The ruling speaks for itself." https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=dub0CAAAQBAJ&pg=PA293&lpg=PA293 Peace Makes Plenty (talk) 18:14, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We have an article on that case, Righthaven LLC v. Democratic Underground LLC. It's a notable court case. That doesn't make the participants in the court case inherently notable, see WP:NOTINHERITED. If DU's only claim to notability is due to that court case, then WP:NOPAGE should apply, which means we should keep the information in the court case article. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 18:32, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I also disagree with deletion. A simple Google News search on "Democratic Underground" results in 25000+ articles about DU from all kinds of news sources including major newspapers around the world. Let me know if anyone needs me to post specific links on that because there are many. Anyone saying DU fails on notability grounds has simply not done any research at all to determine if that is so. Steven Leser (talk) 18:17, 19 November 2016 (UTC) Steven Leser[reply]

I really think your time would be better spent looking for better sources. I'm assuming DU members are reading this. If they know of any, sharing them would help put this to bed. Popularity and quotes from users, doesn't determine notability. And I'm basing this opinion having witness how Wikipedia sausage is made. And I apologize if you felt I was threatening you. There are plenty of editors who would give you the barest of warnings while attempting to goad you, just to see you get blocked. Wikipedia can be a very nasty place. We have given you advice on what constitutes notability, as our experience has taught us. I don't think arguing about what policy and guidelines means counter to that experience is going to bear any fruit. Your best bet is to find sources.That man from Nantucket (talk) 22:37, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please, post some quality reliable sources. I'm getting vastly different results than you claim to have retrieved. Perhaps notability can be established. I don't see anything in the current state of the article indicating as such.That man from Nantucket (talk) 08:11, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, here are just a few:

Extended content

Washington Post "The 2016 first lady cookie contest is just as weird as the rest of the election" https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/food/the-2016-first-lady-cookie-contest-is-just-as-weird-as-the-rest-of-the-election/2016/08/17/2c0fb4fa-63c9-11e6-8b27-bb8ba39497a2_story.html On Democratic Underground, a post claims to reveal Trump’s “Family recipe, passed down through generations.” The picture below it is of the Toll House cookie recipe on the back of a bag of Nestle chocolate chips.

Investors Business Daily "Soros' $6 Million For Hillary Speak Volumes" How do they do this? A lefty website such as the Democratic Underground tells us, “they sit behind a computer generating nothing for society but are clever enough to devise financial scams to steal at will. And it’s all ‘legal’ because they use their fortunes to buy as many political prostitutes in Washington as they want or need to write loopholes into laws or to gut regulations.” http://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/soros-6-million-for-hillary-speaks-volumes/

Mediaite "Major Hillary Booster Says GOP Can’t Wait to Run Bernie Sanders ‘Hammer and Sickle’ Ads"

Democratic Underground calls McCaskill an “attack dog” and says she’s implying he’s a communist.

http://www.mediaite.com/online/major-hillary-booster-says-gop-cant-wait-to-run-bernie-sanders-hammer-and-sickle-ads-2/

Times of San Diego "Bernie Sanders Visiting San Diego Tuesday for First Time" Has a paste of this tweet:

Dawna @onecaliberal Bernie rally in San Diego already "to capacity". - Democratic Underground http://demu.gr/10027702896 via @demunderground 5:59 PM - 21 Mar 2016

 2 2 Retweets   likes

http://timesofsandiego.com/politics/2016/03/21/bernie-sanders-visiting-san-diego-tuesday-for-first-time/

Gawker "Which Progressive Website Editor Is Secretly Supporting Donald Trump?" We’ll table a discussion of this editor’s “transgressionary” voting logic for another time, but we’re curious: Who exactly is this person? “Editor,” “major,” “progressive,” and probably even “website” are not the most strictly defined terms. They could be used to describe an editor at Salon (or Counterpunch, or Raw Story, or Daily Kos), or a moderator at the Democratic Underground forum. Or Alex Pareene, editor-in-chief of Gawker! You never know. http://gawker.com/which-progressive-website-editor-is-secretly-supporting-1781550420

Huffington Post Friday Talking Points - Trump Nickname Contest Finalists From commenter “Me.” at Democratic Underground we got two very workable possibilities: Dirty Donnie and Dishonest Don. Both of these have the qualities that are needed — short, snappy, and designed to get under Trump’s skin in a major way. “ http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chris-weigant/friday-talking-points_b_10289486.html

Newsbusters "Democratic Underground Suffers Election Grief Shutdown" The Democratic Underground went into the election last week absolutely confident in Hillary Clinton's victory. As we shall see they were even openly gloating about her winning the presidency before the election even happened. https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/pj-gladnick/2016/11/18/democratic-underground-suffers-election-grief-shutdown — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steven Leser (talk • contribs) 17:37, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All of these are trivial references to DU. "A commenter at DU said X". If DU is notable, surely there is a source that discusses the DU in more than a few sentences, right? What you are suggesting as sources goes against how we define GNG.That man from Nantucket (talk) 18:44, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, those are not trivial as defined by the GNG. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability#General_notability_guideline

Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. What is also going against you is that any site that is mentioned in 20000+ articles in Google News is clearly not being mentioned because it is a non-notable website. <redacted> Steven Leser (talk) 01:13, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

'I would also like to point out that there is a user on DU with almost 30K posts that also shared your username. In light of this discovery, one might very well say your objection to deletion might be politically motivated and/or this is a classic case of WP:ILIKEIT. Regardless, on Wikipedia we use policy and guidelines to handle editorial decisions. So far, none of your arguments has a basis in either. That man from Nantucket (talk) 08:16, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

They are trivial. I'll go with the first, the Washington Post article. It's not about the Democratic Underground website. Someone found a funny post and quoted it. Which is nice, but that doesn't make the web site where they found something funny notable. If they found that post in the comments in someone's blog, we wouldn't be having this discussion at all about notability. Please re-read WP:WEB. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 01:19, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The GNG does not say the articles have to be about Democratic Underground. And once again 20,000+ mentions in different Google News articles completely flies in the face of your attempt to couch Democratic Underground as non-notable. Steven Leser (talk) 01:22, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Um, no? To quote WP:WEB: "The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself. This criterion includes reliable published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, magazine articles, books, television documentaries, websites, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations[4] except for media re-prints of press releases and advertising for the content or site[5] or trivial coverage, such as: a brief summary of the nature of the content or the publication of Internet addresses and site, newspaper articles that simply report the times at which such content is updated or made available, and content descriptions in directories or online stores." Having a one-line mention of a comment someone said is "trivial" by anyone's definition. I'm not saying delete because I think this site is pretty notable, but really if you used that kind of example in a new article you'd get a7'd so fast your head would spin. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 01:26, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Mr. Vernon: before I read the article, I too thought DU would have been notable per Wikipedia standards. The article was such an embarrassment that I went looking for better sources. I couldn't find a damn thing outside of the lawsuit. The fact of the matter is that DU, while it has a decent userbase, hasn't drawn the attention of reliable sources. Without sourcing, what are we to do? There's no there there.That man from Nantucket (talk) 07:40, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think DU meets all the criteria you just mentioned via the links I submitted. Steven Leser (talk) 02:14, 23 November 2016 (UTC) — Steven Leser (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

You have two experienced editors telling you these are trivial mentions. I have examined every one of the links you provided. All of them are one liners. Can you tell us why you think the mentions are non trivial? Perhaps quote something that you think is not trivial? Since your edit history is rather sparse, would you mind if I asked how you came upon this deletion discussion?That man from Nantucket (talk) 07:40, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Victor Pickard, of the Annenberg School for Communication, in his paper "Cooptation and Cooperation: Institutional Exemplars of Democratic Internet Technology" describes Democratic Underground as a 'prime example' of a 'partisan public sphere' (the other 3 websites he examines, Free Republic, Indymedia and Move On all also have Wikipedia entries). For her PhD thesis Agonistic democracy and the narrative of distempered elites: An analysis of citizen discourse on political message forums, Jennette Castillo wrote about Free Republic and Democratic Underground as exemplars of conservative and progressive political forums. These academic papers show the notability of Democratic Underground in internet political discussion. Peace Makes Plenty (talk) 10:52, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Analysis Dr. Pickard's paper, for the purposes of this discussion, is a survey of online political sites at the time. There is a section of three paragraphs specifically on DU, which is about average for the sites covered (Indy Media has 4, Free Republic has 3, MoveOn has 2.) Google Scholar indicates it has 56 cites. The link to Dr. Castillo's dissertation did not work for me but Googling the title of the thesis brought it up fairly easily, I think the ?s_= part of the URL is a session ID which would be invalid for more than one use. This thesis is more "about" DU and Free Republic - in fact it's dedicated to those two sites, and easily spends close to 20 pages on DU alone. Per Google Scholar, it has 7 cites. Both sources date from the same year, 2008. We should follow the guidelines in WP:SCHOLARSHIP which covers both these works - Dr. Castillo's dissertation may or may not be peer reviewed, but presumably it was reviewed by Robert Ivie (see this.) Dr. Pickard's paper was published in New Media & Society according to Google Scholar, which would make it peer reviewed. The reference in Dr. Pickard's paper is not exactly brief (I'm not sure where three paragraphs falls into the spectrum, perhaps other more experienced editors have views) but it is a summary of how DU was working at the time. I'd personally lean more towards Pickard's paper as counting as a reliable source but I don't think it's enough coverage to meet WP:WEBCRIT. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 16:49, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Looks the DU members are rallying folks to protest the deletion [[20]]. Some are represented in the above comments.Dman727 (talk) 01:50, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Can we please have some experienced contributors comment on the quality of the sources? Sandstein 12:24, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:24, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - OK I looked through pages and pages and pages of Google News searches... the sources required simply aren't there. It may be a popular community, but it only gets occasional brief mentions in WP:RS or else it gets attacked by right-wing clickbait sites that lack notability themselves. If it continues to grow in prominence then it could be reconsidered, but as of now the notability isn't there that we require. —Мандичка^YO 😜 14:27, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Borderline Keep, The subject does have "some" reliable sources speaking about them, however, I don't see much notability at all. If this article were to stay, I would definitely love to see most of the content written be deleted and give this article a significant makeover. Also, the lawsuit sources should NOT be added because it is publicity triggered by the subject. Scorpion293 (talk) 23:04, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain what you mean by "the lawsuit sources should NOT be added because it is publicity triggered by the subject"? The lawsuit was at first brought by Righthaven against Democratic Underground, who, with the Electronic Frontier Foundation, successfully defended that (Righthaven withdrew) and counterclaimed (that Righthaven was misusing the copyright laws). It was not about 'publicity'. Peace Makes Plenty (talk) 15:42, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I can't speak as to what Scorpion meant, but I'm fairly certain he is incorrect that sources can't be used if they are "triggered" by the subject. Sources are sources, and sources independent of the subject are preferred. I don't understand his "borderline keep" as he also indicates he doesn't see "much notability at all". The lack of notability should lead to a delete !vote. Regardless, the sources he is referring to pertains to the fair use lawsuit, which is notable, and is reflected in the article about the lawsuit. Peace, have you searched for other sources that might establish notability for the DU independent of the legal case?That man from Nantucket (talk) 01:46, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I did show the 2 academic papers classing Democratic Underground as a significant political online forum - see a few entries further above. Mr. Vernon replied, but you didn't, so I don't know if you saw that. Peace Makes Plenty (talk) 14:38, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I did, and his analysis is fairly well thought out.That man from Nantucket (talk) 06:28, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We still need more input by experienced contributors. Sandstein 08:48, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:48, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Not that it should matter, but the above discussion makes it clear that at least some commenters think that membership or participation in DU renders one's discussion somehow less valid: For the record, I am not involved in DU in any way. That said, the nomination here seems very driven, by what I will not guess. The previous nomination was a Speedy Keep, and I can see nothing that has changed which should overturn that decision. There has been substantive coverage in Huffington Post, Wired News, Newsbusters, and Daily Caller. Again, I feel I need to pre-emptively note that it is entirely unremarkable that a contributor to the new-media web-based news ecosystem primarily generates coverage in other parts of that same news ecosystem. Their new-media web-based nature does not mean they are not WP:RS. A full debate about the reliability of this type of source (oh no! not blogs!) is obviously beyond the bounds for a simple AfD discussion. That said, the above discussion is in itself evidence that this has grown beyond a simple AfD discussion. By the criteria advocated above, it is doubtful any web-based news media would qualify for notability, no matter how many people depended upon it for information. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:50, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The speedy keep result from first AfD was based solely on the consensus that the nomination was due to internal DU politics and rightly considered a bad faith nomination. There was no discussion of the content of the article or its sources. The first AfD has absolutely no merit with regards to this AfD. Regardless, per WP:NEXIST you fail to establish there is "substantive coverage" on DU that exists in the article, nor has any been presented at this discussion. As I've said before, I would withdraw this nomination or switch to "keep" if any were found. If you have read this entire discussion you should have seen multiple requests to provide sources with non-trivial mentions establishing notability. To claim there is substantive coverage, yet to provide any examples is poor form. What is in extremely poor form is your statement "That said, the nomination here seems very driven, by what I will not guess." That I and others have notified that this AfD has been canvassed off-Wiki is more than proper. Commenters and the closer should be aware of this fact, and making note of this is a Wikipedia norm. What is not normal is your unfounded speculation that this nomination is somehow "very driven" which is an open ended ad-hominmen attack. The purpose of which I can I can only surmise is an attempt to impugn the character of an editor instead of their arguments. Don't ever question someone's motivation without evidence, even with your "I will not guess" disclaimer. It only degrades the conversation. My only motivation in this AfD is to see that the article is subjected to the same standards as every other article.

As for the DU being classified as being a "web-based news media" organization, I don't think anyone has made this claim before. It is a message board. But that in of itself is not a factor in terms of establishing the existence of lack of notability. There are many examples of message boards that are notable, such as Stormfront (website) and 4chan. There are hundreds if not thousands of message boards that are notable because the sources establish their notability.

And let's bring this discussion back to what are the metrics that define notability: Offical Wikipedia policy and guidelines. Surely @Eggishorn: would agree it is/seems/should be notable are poor arguments to make in an AfD discussion? This AfD is challenging that claim that the DU meets the definition of notability as defined by Wikipedia. The burden falls enitrly on the shoulders of those who support the notion that the DU warrants an article because they are able to A) establish the DU either meets or exceeds the criteria defined by WP:GNG and/or B) identify and demonstrate that one or more of the Subject-specific guidelines is applicable.That man from Nantucket (talk) 23:04, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, AfD discussions are just that: discussions, with the goal of reaching consensus. Only a truly disputatious individual would risk edit blocks and other measures by making it personal. To conjure ad hominens out of the simple observation that "..the nomination here seems very driven" is debatable in that light. That said, if 2000+ words over 28 edits doesn't constitute "driven," then I don't know what would. Editors often feel a need to take ownership of AfD discussions, and in the past, I have felt the same way. FOr that reason, I feel no requirement to respond point-by-point to these statements except to point out the risk of WP:BOOMERANG when one chooses to toss around bad-faith accusations to a previously-uninvolved editor. I also note that I did mention a number of WP:RS that had substantial coverage of DU, but perhaps you are right that I should have include full links. Not a problem:

Newsbusters [21] (yes, I see it linked previously, no I don't agree with the characterization)
The Register [22]
The Daily Caller [23]
Wired News [24]
TechPresident [25]

Thanks Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 23:43, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not the one throwing out accusations. You chose to question my motivation, with no evidence. The implication is fairly clear. If you feel a boomerang is in order, well I'm sure you know this isn't the forum to address that. I'm fairly confident any boomerang won't come for my neck.. As to you providing sources, I thank you. However we both know The Daily Caller and their ilk are not considered reliable sources on Wikipedia. The Wired article is an excellent source, but it doesn't discuss the DU outside of the context of the "news troll" (for the lack of a better term). This lawsuit is notable, and indeed already has an article. But it and the rest of the sources you provided don't discuss the DU In terms to satisfy WP:WEBCRIT, specifically The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works. IMO this is the most authoritative guideline on Wikipedia that defines what websites pass muster for an article. I was surprised I was unable to find any sources that discussed the DU outside of the lawsuit. Being a very popular website usually attracts the attention of sources looking for a story. But popularity does not confer notability. Contrast DU with the Free Republic, similar in all respects to the DU except they are on the opposite side of the US political spectrum. A look at that articles sources shows many are trivial or comes from FR itself but there are also several articles from quality RS that discuss FR in enough detail that it meets WP:WEBCRIT. For reasons that elude me, DU has not received any significant coverage outside of the lawsuit. Once again, if anyone can find some I'd be happy to reconsider my position.That man from Nantucket (talk) 01:39, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Curious. Maybe you're not seeing the same thing I'm seeing. I see "...the nomination seems very driven..." I don't see "the nominator is very driven" or "...TMFN is very driven..." or even "...TMFN is making bad faith arguments...". I never said anything like "TMFN is doing something wrong and his argument should be distrusted." That is kind of the sine qua non of the phrase ad hominem. To be plain: You assumed I was meaning something that I was specifically avoiding implying. Your evident offense is misplaced. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 01:54, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing curious about it. You can parse words all you like, I doubt any rationale person will see the distinction. Unless you wish to discuss the merits of the AfD instead of motivations, I think you and I are done here.That man from Nantucket (talk) 02:14, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Article already has good mix of sources including both The New York Times and Fox News. Also discussed in multiple books including Beyond the Blogosphere: Information and Its Children by Aaron J. Barlow and Robert Leston, and Major Principles of Media Law by Genelle Belmas and ‎Wayne Overbeck. Sagecandor (talk) 07:43, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I hate to sound like a broken record, but I'm not sure if people are reading the prior discussions before adding their !vote, but both of those books are only mentioning DU with respect to the lawsuit covered in Righthaven LLC v. Democratic Underground LLC. I can't speak to exactly which FN and NYT articles Sagecandor speaks of, but so far no one has been able to produce an example from either organization that mentions the DU outside of s trivial mention.That man from Nantucket (talk) 08:51, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The re seem to be sufficient news stories, but about half of it, the copyright troll lawsuit, is covered elsewhere in WP. The GNG needs to be interpreted liberally for media organizations w which can be very notable, but still rarely written about. There of course has to be at least something to show more than mere existence, and there is here. DGG ( talk ) 04:26, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is DU considered a media organization, and by whom? They are internet-based forums and should be judged based on criteria for similar forums, so falling under WP:WEB. This is not making a judgment on them, but we should apply Wikipedia's criteria consistently. I would consider them as much a media organization as Free Republic. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 07:45, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Free Republic is a great example of why some web forums have articles, and others don't (or shouldn't). If you look at FR's lead, skipping over generic web forum description to the second paragraph:. Free Republic has been involved in several organized conservative campaigns including against CBS anchor Dan Rather and against the Dixie Chicks for their antiwar statements.[4] Freepers were instrumental in raising the question of a lack of authenticity in the so-called "Killian memos". This meets WP:WEB, as there are multiple RS that discuss FR in detail. At least two of the articles discuss nothing but the Free Republic. @DGG:, what is your definition of a media organization? Can you see any section in WP:NMEDIA that could classify DU as a media organization?That man from Nantucket (talk) 23:10, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is no clear distinction for many website, as NMEDIA makes clear, by saying it isn;'t discussing them. In a broader sense, sites devoted to advocacy and news about current events count as media organizations. In any case, I favor a broad interpretation for sites such as this, as I do for all political subjects. Otherwise there tends ot be sometimes a tendency to be influenced by what one supports personally. DGG ( talk ) 23:40, 13 December 2016 (UTC) .[reply]

Labeling DU a "Media organization" is just too far of a stretch. Such a broad interpretation would qualify just about every Disqus site. Indeed there are many Disqus sites which produce actual content and they wouldnt survive a speedy delete. Now being an "advocacy" site might have some merit, but we come full circle back to where are the sources? Both DU and FR are essentially news aggregation echo chambers and while they both unabashedly advocate, FR's advocacy attracts the attention of sources. Regardless, thanks for discussing. Perhaps when this is over would you help me starting a discussion at whatever venue would be the most appropriate to discuss criteria for advocacy organization's notability? If this article is kept, it would be more of an annoyance to me that it doesn't (IMO) meet any relevant guidelines vs it being kept. If that happens, perhaps the closer's rationale can provide more insight.

I haven't been idle on trying to find sources for DU. The current state is better than what I found it in, but it's still in very poor shape.That man from Nantucket (talk) 01:19, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- there's sufficient sourcing for a stand-alone article at this time. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:05, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- There are many independent sources linking to DU. A google search for "-site:democraticunderground.com "Democratic Underground"" finds 400,000 hits. A google search for "-site:democraticunderground.com link:democraticunderground.com" finds 350,000 hits. Are those hits substantive? On just the first few pages of results, I see many that are substantive, especially from opponents of DU.[26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34] COI Notice: I have a vague recollection that I may have contributed something to DU around a decade ago. I have no connection otherwise. RichardMathews (talk) 21:09, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

From what I recall, Wikipedia doesn't consider Conservapedia as a NPOV source. I checked some of the other sources you mentioned, which I had found with this Google search. The first few mostly quoted DU user posts as examples of "I can't even!" from more politically conservative websites, e.g. Michelle Malkin and Right Wing News. Many of the other articles are specifically in reference to the Righthaven lawsuit, which already has its own article. I *DO* believe you made a good point, that opponents of DU might provide more substantive material to support keeping the article. I will continue searching. I have another idea: Could we justify keeping the article (because of its history and consistent presence as a high traffic website) by changing the status from C-class to Stub, and including it as part of the Internet Culture Wikiproject?--FeralOink (talk) 21:56, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are websites, for which Wikipedia has articles, which reference Democratic Underground extensively. The best one that I found is Power Line which has been writing about content provided by DU for nearly two decades, see here Power Line stories discussing DU. I'm not sure if Snopes is an acceptable source for Wikipedia. There are a few Snopes articles that investigate content from DU, e.g. Sanders Marched with MLK at Selma?. Also, here is a TechPresident article whose content is focused specifically on DU: AP photo became viral Romney meme. This is the best I could find that hasn't already been listed earlier in this AfD discussion.--FeralOink (talk) 22:29, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You've identified the problem with citing Google hit counts. Analysis of the hits show the same thing: The lawsuit, and trivial mentions. Just saying "sources exist" really shouldn't fly without highlighting a few which might establish notability. Good luck in finding some. That man from Nantucket (talk) 01:13, 19 December 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 12:35, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bana Alabed

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

Literally none of this amounts to actual independent notability and substance and the listed links are simply news stories about her Tweets and simply nothing beyond it, as it is, the information itself is labeled as questionable because nothing is certainly sure and thus, let alone that, there's still nothing for a convincing article. Shall I say WP:NOT policy also applies here. SwisterTwister talk 07:44, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 10:43, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 10:43, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Clearly this made-up. Making tweets or receiving books do not add up to notability. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 10:44, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree. There is no objective evidence of her existence. Purely a Twitter account and some photos and videos which could easily have been faked (especially if the BBC were involved in the deception). There are no reliable sources to confirm that "Bana Alabed" and her "mother" are not actors being used in a propaganda project to smear the Syrian government and its allies and to sanitise the terrorists in east Aleppo.Silicondale (talk) 13:27, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP. News stories are about her, include some information about her past tweets. Her twitter account was deleted, so this is not a page about someone with a twitter account. She amounts to a journalist, and possibly killed in war- that is notoriety enough to warrant an entry, and probably inclusion in the List of journalists killed during the Syrian Civil War page under citizen journalists/media activists missing.Benitoite (talk) 12:51, 5 December 2016 (UTC) Even though her account is back up and appearing safe I'm against deletion.Benitoite (talk) 21:53, 5 December 2016 (UTC)˜˜˜˜[reply]
Do not delete. See this article from The Telegraph. She has been in the public eye since September and now her account deletion is getting major press coverage. Hang googles (talk) 15:35, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete. Referred over here from google news, heavily covered. Coattail effect (talk) 14:26, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – There is no evidence even for the objective existence of this girl in Aleppo. The photos are most likely those of a child actor, and the location of Aleppo cannot even be confirmed. The tweets are clearly NOT those of a 7-year-old Syrian child with limited grasp of the English language, and are couched in terms which are politically loaded way beyond the understanding of a child. https://barbaramckenzie.wordpress.com/2016/11/28/bana-of-aleppo-the-story-so-far-update/ Silicondale (talk) 17:00, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- BBC News said "In a patchy video call with the BBC, Bana glances off-camera to her mother, who helps her with the more difficult answers." and "Solar power and patchy internet signal make communication difficult, with small windows of reliable access"
  Her mother is an English teacher and some of the tweets may be translations. Many of the tweets are signed "- Bana" or "- Fatemah" (her mother) and some are not signed. Which tweets signed "- Bana" are politically loaded? Hang googles (talk) 01:22, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Politically loaded? The tweet from Bana which asks for World War 3 rather than Aleppo holocaust. How does a 7yr old with very limited knowledge of English and no experience of Twitter hashtags write a tweet like that? Since BBC are possibly implicated in the faking of this entire story, their news item cannot be taken as reliable. There is no objective evidence of the existence of either Bana or her mother Fatemah in east Aleppo. Since most of east Aleppo including the area where Bana and her mother supposedly lived has now been liberated, why have they not reappeared, alive and well, in west Aleppo, where many thousands of east Aleppo civilians have now found refuge and the medical and food aid that they so desperately need? Silicondale (talk) 12:34, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - It is clearly a hoax and as such should be speedily deleted before it brings Wikipedia into disrepute. This article is using Wikipedia for blatantly one-sided political propaganda purposes. An indication of its hoax nature is the mention of the tooth fairy debunked in the tweet from a Syrian - this concept is alien to Syrian culture and clearly included by a non-Syrian (European) hoaxer. Tooth_fairy Silicondale (talk) 17:44, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – I don't think this person/event has "enduring notability" per the WP:NOTNEWS section of the WP:What Wikipedia is not policy. I think in ten years time this will not be regarded as notable within the whole scope of the Syrian civil war. Note that WP:SIGCOV says "significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject should be included". Also I think "news coverage of an individual goes beyond the context of a single event, our coverage of that individual should be limited to the article about that event" of WP:NOTNEWS applies, so this should be covered within a general article about Syrian civil war media coverage, not an article about a person or individual twitter account. This article seems to me to be a negative example of WP:RECENTISM. Rwendland (talk) 10:09, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
~~Redirect~~ to a single, sourced sentence at List of hoaxes, or to a new article Internet hoaxes in the Syrian Civil War, which cal also include A Gay Girl In Damascus, because this now appears to be a HOAX intended enlist sympathy for the rebels in Aleppo. Today's New York Times compares this to A Gay Girl In Damascus and quotes many skeptical experts who sympathize with the rebels, the article is persuasive, while pointing out that it is at present not possible to absolutely establish that the whole thing is doesn't exist because Aleppo is being blown to smithereens. (who need all the help God can give them because Heaven knows the world isn't). Political and humanitarian sympathies notwithstanding, Wikipedia is letting itself be used here. While I do hear the Delete arguments, it has gotten so much coverage that I think moving both hoaxes to Internet hoaxes in the Syrian Civil War is a better solution. E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:46, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to a single, sourced sentence at List of hoaxes as above, although don't think there are enough hoaxes specific to this war that an article about them is needed. In the small chance this article is somehow kept, it needs to be fundamentally rewritten to cover this as a hoax, rather than the current version which mostly presents it as fact. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:26, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – The account run by multiple people is lacking in notability and does not as yet warrant its own article. Lilyfa (talk) 20:30, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Where in the New York Times article does it call the account a hoax? It's highlighting doubts but it does not confirm it as a hoax. I was always aware that there were doubts in it's authenticity. I started the page as "Bana Alabed is a Syrian girl who supposedly tweets from Aleppo with the help of her mother."
This is not just part of a recent news event. The account has gotten plenty of international press coverage before that New York Times article was published. This will be a notable hoax if that turns out to be the case. Please check out some of these articles and reconsider.
September - Already getting coverage in The Telegraph, after being created on September 24.

October - BBC, The Guardian, New York Times, NBC
November - Times of Israel, Washington Post, TIME, Sky News, National Post, Japan Times
December - Middle East Eye, International Business Times, Reuters, New Yorker, The Mercury, CNN
It should be edited to reflect current developments not deleted. Could more experienced editors help me fix the issues in the article? Thank you. Hang googles (talk) 20:45, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, and redirect this to media coverage of the Syrian Civil War. Editor abcdef (talk) 10:46, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse redirect to media coverage of the Syrian Civil War.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:13, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Me too If content constituted as hoax article, redirected is better. SA 13 Bro 13:25, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
- Endorse redirect. Regardless of if this is a hoax or not, per WP:BIO1E, and WP:NOTNEWS "Unless news coverage of an individual goes beyond the context of a single event, our coverage of that individual should be limited to the article about that event". Rwendland (talk) 15:42, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - BIO1E says "We should generally avoid having an article on a person when each of three conditions is met:" and condition #2 (If that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual.) isn't met since her account is still active. Also what is the "event"? Each of the sources I listed above are about her/her account. Hang googles (talk) 06:38, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, they say the truth is the first victim in war, surely true in this case. I don't know the truth behind this twitter handle; but if that is a 7 year old Syrian girl, then I was born yesterday (and I have a very nice bridge to sell you......) See Ibrahim Qashoush for another extremely questionable story (see Talk:Ibrahim Qashoush) Huldra (talk) 20:44, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- This is not a valid reason to delete, see WP:Verifiability. There's clearly an account on Twitter that is supposed to be for a girl named "Bana Alabed". The article already expresses doubt in its authenticity. Hang googles (talk) 06:38, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There is clearly a growing consensus for deletion. Who has the authority to do this - and when will it be done? Silicondale (talk) 11:24, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- User:Silicondale this discussion will be reviewed, and probably closed, 7 days after the date on which it began.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:14, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'd prefer a redirect without deletion. If not now it's very likely that this girl/account will warrant an article in the near future. Sources after December 8 include WBUR, ATTN, and CNN. Hang googles (talk) 05:23, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The tweets today in this Twitter thread, starting with a CNN "interview" make it crystal clear that the entire Bana Alabed story is a propaganda creation. It is forensically debunked by a number of people. In my opinion, deletion of this article is the only option.Silicondale (talk) 18:13, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the thing--or at least a thing. The NYT article linked above indeed reports on doubts, but that's what they are: reports on doubts. There is no proof that this is a hoax, and until it is proven that it is a hoax, this is a BLP of a seven-year old girl in Syria. Whether she was prepped by her mom is immaterial. Whether this article needs to stay or be redirected is also immaterial to me right now. But calling this article a hoax is, as far as I'm concerned, a BLP violation: when in doubt, err on the side of caution. I will also note that at least one of the editors here (Silicondale) has a blatant POV, as proven in this and other related edits. And for the record: it is entirely possible for a seven-year old child to speak a foreign language esp. if her mother is an English teacher. I got a seven-year old at home who would be just as capable of writing similar messages in her father's original language, so let's not start OR-ing here (Huldra, I'm looking at you). Of course, that seven-year old doesn't live in a war zone. Drmies (talk) 16:36, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- So is it a problem to have a POV? - especially if with every day that passes it is becoming more likely to be proved true? The NYT is not exactly a neutral source, now, is it? So if even the NYT admits to doubts, would you not accept that in reality Bana Alabed's veracity is subject to more than mere doubt? With the full liberation of Aleppo the truth should be established very soon. I am not saying that the article itself is a hoax - but that in my opinion all the evidence (necessarily circumstantial) points to the entire Bana Alabed story being a propaganda hoax, a stunt, in which Wikipedia risks being made an unwitting tool. And very similar arguments apply to the White Helmets. It is fact that they are NOT the Syrian Civil Defence, an entirely different organisation, internationally recognised, founded in 1972. It is also fact that with the liberation of Aleppo, when there is REAL work for them to do, they appear to have vanished without trace. They clearly never were a civil defence organisation, but purely a western-funded propaganda outfit closely allied with Al-Qaeda affiliated terrorists. Silicondale (talk) 20:30, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, the problem in your case is that your POV easily crept into your edits. You can have your opinion, that's fine, but that should not interfere with article construction based on reliable sources. Your persistent insertion of editorial commentary in Syrian Civil Defense is evidence of that as well. You don't like the title? Propose a different one--but you cannot insert such comments in article space in Wikipedia's tone. And while the NYT reports doubts, they do not say "hoax", and as long as sources like that don't, you shouldn't either. Drmies (talk) 23:59, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- User:Drmies: If you look at the videos accompanying the twitter account, it is clear the girl hardly speaks English at all. (Or she is very good at hiding her knowledge of English in those videos....). I have been following the Syria-conflict from the start, (I once took, e.g. the interior photos of Hammam Yalbugha, now sadly destroyed) and there have been a ton of hoaxes.....from all sides. (Do you recall all the fuzz about A Gay Girl In Damascus?) I've seen Western officials (including HRW) use pictures from Gaza....saying they are from Aleppo... Or this tweet, allegedly a girl in Syria...but actually from the Lebanese Hiba Tawaji's music video... here
  That Silicondale has a blatant POV; sure, but is it less than Hang googles? One smart guy said something like this w.r.t Syrian conflict: "Believe nothing of what you read online, a tiny fraction of what you read in the papers, and only half of what you see with your own eyes." Or something like that. And that sounds about right to me. Having said that, I'm not worried if this is kept, (no more than I'm worried about Ibrahim Qashoush or A Gay Girl In Damascus is kept. What is important is the content...) But that this girl is tweeting herself (oh, and got "spontaneously" hundreds of thousands of followers virtually overnight??) Sorry, I don't buy that. Call it WP:OR, if you like; I call it common sense. Huldra (talk) 20:44, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Huldra, I've not looked at Hang googles (yet). My concern is the BLP, and as long as reliable sources report on the tweets and as long as it is not at all certain that this is not real, I have to assume that it is real (and even if the mother does all the work, it's still a BLP as far as I'm concerned). You don't have to tell me that there's tons of misinformation around--I'm well aware of that, as I think you know. But we can discuss this civilly and with the use of reliable sources. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 23:59, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies, yeah, well, that is the problem. Ever since I came back from my first trip to the Middle East, (15 years ago), I have found that what Western WP:RS today writes about the Middle East is nowhere even close to how I have experienced it. Just an example: there are a couple of (Shia) Mosques in Damascus, which brings a lot of Iranian pilgrims, (e.g. Sayyidah Ruqayya Mosque). Now, the average Iranian females back then dress a lot different from the average Syrian female (Iranian: typically, in all black "Abayas". Syrian: much like Western female, but with a head scarf. Or with long, colourful dresses.) But absolutely whenever a Western WP:RS had an article about Syria, it would be accompanied with a picture, taken in front of one of those pilgrimage sites in Damascus. And all the women you would see would be ......Iranian...., illustrating "Syria".

So yeah, I know, I know, about Wikipedias WP:RS .... I just don't believe in it very much, when it comes to present day sources... (!). (Sorry, but I have hardly ever seen any even a half–truthful article about the ME in, say, The New York Times) ........which is why I nearly only deal with pre –1948 history......

And I agree that WP:BLP is extremely important, but I don't think it would be violated if this article is deleted, surely? Huldra (talk) 21:54, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't believe in RS anymore, you can't believe much. As far as I'm concerned things have to be 20 years in the past before they can be written up, but that's just me. The BLP here is a concern because calling this a "hoax" is a violation, and tantamount to slandering (until the opposite is proven)--deletion is not a violation, nor is calm and civil discussion. Thanks Huldra, Drmies (talk) 02:53, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, when it comes to the ME, I really don't. Seriously. I simply cannot understand, that papers like The New York Times, that writes with so much insights wrt the Western/US world, can write as much imbecile garbage as it does about the ME. I recall around 2003, an opinion poll among Egyptians showed that (IIRC) some 60-70 % of Egyptians believed that "The Jews" and "the US" were behind 9/11...horrible numbers, but then you don't really count Egypt as a country with a free press, do you......However, at the same time, opinion polls in the US showed the same number of Americans believing that Iraq was behind the 9/11!! <facepalm>

And I am absolutely outraged that the West, including almost all of the media, support the Syrian opposition no matter what, as long as they fight Assad. Assad is a brutal dictator, sure, but among this opposition are people who have sworn to kill anyone who isnt a Sunni...it is absolutely madness...

One of the few in the West who hasnt lost his mind, here, is actually Robert Fisk, read this, e.g..

Btw, the first follower on Twitter of #alabedbana was a journalist from the Al Jazeera (owned by a Qatari Royal; those famous fighters for freedom and democracy</sarcasm>) Yeah, right. ...looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, etc, Huldra (talk) 22:08, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete. We need reliable information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.238.99.2 (talk) 15:35, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep See this Bellingcat article for an analysis of her posts. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:06, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Covered by The Washington Post. Hang googles (talk) 08:51, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (changed fomr redirect above) ongoing coverage makes it appear that.although coached or staged by her mother with the possible help of others, this is a real child in aleppo. getting massive coverage. Should be possible to improve article for accuracy.E.M.Gregory (talk) 08:35, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Important piece of hoax propaganda, should be kept and expanded. We have a lot of sources about this hoax. --Ąnαșταη (ταlκ) 15:17, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per notability and existence given by bellingcat, NYT, and WaPo Dschslava^Δxparlez moi 20:02, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We keep articles about notable hoaxes,and this particular one is famous. There's enough commentary on it to justif an article. There is however a question about the article title, whether it should be Bana Alabed or Bana Alabed (internet character) or Bana Alabed hoax. DGG ( talk ) 00:03, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- DGG. Not "hoax", please. Drmies (talk) 02:54, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This may or may not be a hoax, but is notable nevertheless.—azuki (talk · contribs · email) 13:24, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Whether or not Bana is a staged propaganda campaign or "real," there can be no doubt this account has had a significant and notable effect on public opinion about the situation in Aleppo. —ForestMars
Keep Notable for her comments from Aleppo and for a hoax she has managed to get on a bus! BBC news.--Egghead06 (talk) 07:40, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Real & Notable (too many references available). I also think, regarding Rwendland's comment, "not notable in ten years time" isn't a real Wikipedia rule. Kavas (talk) 12:41, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The ten years view-back is my rule of thumb for the WP:NOTNEWS policy "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. ... most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion." I think this topic is best suited to a mention or section in Media coverage of the Syrian Civil War at the moment. We really have no idea yet if Bana Alabed at 7-years old will have any enduring notability. Rwendland (talk) 13:16, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this is not a hoax, she has been seen getting off the evacuation bus from eastern Aleppo and interviewed by journalists [35]. Yes the article needs to be cleaned up and sorted and she is notable as being a primacy source of information from a civilian and child point of view inside the besieged city. ThinkingTwice ^{contribs | talk} 13:41, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep its already part of the history of this war. --Midrashah (talk) 15:20, 19 December 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. Consensus is for deletion. Notions presented herein is that this is essentially a subjective and WP:INDISCRIMINATE list. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:50, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of Hindu soldiers

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

This makes no sense. The list has mythological characters who have been in some mythological wars and then lists other kings and nobles who have had been in war and were Hindu and then goes to list down majors/generals and other officials of post independent India. The list in no way states why the religious affiliation of these people had anything to do with their warrior skills or such. Nor is this list in anyway conveying that they fought for Hinduism or such. This seems like an intersection of random two things. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 07:17, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 07:18, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 07:19, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 07:19, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 07:19, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom: this is a list of semi-random people, and its scope if taken seriously would be totally unmanageable. Nick-D (talk) 09:40, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete--Per nom. A list of semi-random people whose profession has no/little connection with the religion. Article has simply unimaginable ambit and scope. The article lists at first Hindu mythological soldiers,then Hindu medieval rulers and finally soldiers who fought for the British Raj and the Indian army.A hell of an article!Aru@baska^{❯❯❯ Vanguard} 11:12, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, very subjective and a "list of semi-random people" as stated with the connection and meaning of their listings and not others being unclear at best. Uncited, as well. Kierzek (talk) 22:44, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There have been millions of Hindi soldiers. Pointless list. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:58, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - there are a few articles in Category:Lists of soldiers that have similar issues. I could understand articles by nationality better than by religion/culture. In this articles case, it would mean splitting into a number of articles, something like List of Indian soldiers, List of Indian solders during the British Raj, List of soldiers in Hindu mythology, etc. I'm not sure what is to be done about the ancient and middle age period, perhaps List of Indian soldiers from the middle ages and List of Indian soldiers from the ancient period. Smmurphy^(Talk) 20:01, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We are better without any of those WP:LISTCRUFTs. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 03:42, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the list assumes that the religion and the profession are somehow connected when there is no evidence to suggest this Spiderone 19:38, 8 December 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 12:13, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mini mouse

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

MOS:DABMENTION for the term is not mentioned at the computer mouse article, if there eventually is going to be this as an article it should be at this title, unsure if a redirect should remain in place. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 06:49, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, WP:NOTDIC: The first entry of the two just defines a mini mouse without support at the target, the second really is going to come up at the top of search results; we could turn it into a redirect to Minnie Mouse as {{R from misspelling}} and hatnote tocomputer mouse or the other way around, but that might be a bit WP:XY (for which our usual strategy is delete). Si Trew (talk) 06:58, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 07:12, 5 December 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. sufficient consensus DGG ( talk ) 03:16, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Anisha Singh

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

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (software) requirement, and I am not seeing anything better. Passing mentions and press release/PR-like coverage in minor niche zines and trade journals, mostly based on interviews which are usually not the most reliable sources (WP:INTERVIEW). I don't think she passes BIO. Thoughts? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:50, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I concur, this is a blatant sales listing for a person whose career involves it exactly, and the company, note, is also at AfD with advertising blatancy so they were clearly part of the same advertising campaign. WP:NOT applies and we use it. SwisterTwister talk 06:08, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 10:45, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 10:45, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-Even after removing all the utter promotion, the article cleanly fails the notability test.Almost all references are WP:INTERVIEW which are usually a bad source for demonstrating WP:NOTABILITY.Aru@baska^{❯❯❯ Vanguard} 11:32, 5 December 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 by User:RHaworth.

LINUX PAWUPA

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

Can't figure out what is going on with this article. Seems to be a mix of a copy/paste from the Linux article with some kind of how-to guide. PROD was removed. Brianga (talk) 05:26, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fork/how-to guide, so WP:NOT. Fails WP:N. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:51, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 06:01, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unsalvagable, unencyclopedic how-to content.Dialectric (talk) 06:47, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:11, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

BMP VSTOL UAV

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

Non-notable product. No third-party references are given; none are apparent in searching that I've done. Mikeblas (talk) 16:21, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DGG ( talk ) 04:57, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Despite what some think, not all cars, of vehicles in general, are notable. This fails WP:GNG as written. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:52, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 06:01, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 06:01, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I concur, this is simply a sales listing at this time, and there's certainly nothing to suggest its own article, hence deletion. SwisterTwister talk 06:06, 5 December 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 Australia Test cricket records. There's multiple articles here, and two different redirect targets suggested. I'm (somewhat arbitrarily) redirected them all to List of Australia Test cricket records. If anybody with more cricket experience than me wants to move any of the redirects to a better target, go for it. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:52, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of Australian ODI batsmen who have scored over 2500 ODI runs

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

Fails WP:NOTSTATS and also this information can be found on List of Australia One Day International cricket records and List of Australia Test cricket records, no need for separate articles. Ianblair23 (talk) 04:04, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Ianblair23 (talk) 04:07, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Ianblair23 (talk) 04:07, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Ianblair23 (talk) 04:07, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per WP:NOTSTATS and WP:NOTMIRROR (content copied from espnCricinfo). Also these pages act as somewhat of a content fork. Ajf773 (talk) 04:36, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 06:03, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all (or Redirect as Joseph2302 below) in some cases there's no logic as to their importance as milestones and there's little or no context. This is classic create a list because we can territory. Blue Square Thing (talk) 06:45, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per WP:NOTSTATS. Completely arbitrary milestones. IgnorantArmies (talk) 08:08, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per WP:NOTSTATS. Very good point made by Blue Square Thing about arbitrary list creation. Jack | ^{talk page} 12:02, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all as appropriate to either List of Australia One Day International cricket records and List of Australia Test cricket records. Per nominator, these fail WP:NOTSTATS, but a redirect to where this already exists seems sensible. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:32, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect makes a lot of sense actually - more effective Blue Square Thing (talk) 16:43, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect, and merge if required, all to parent statistics article/s. Aoziwe (talk) 13:59, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and close, as the original nominator I am happy with the arguments made for redirecting these articles. Cheers -- Ianblair23 (talk) 10:47, 17 December 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 12:13, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

John Beckham

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

Those AfD voters wont to decide based on 5-second superficial glances at article might say "Whoa, well sourced!" Actually review the sources, and they're a heap of blogposts and one-paragraph press release "reviews" of a band the subject was in (generally not mentioning the subject at all). Fails WP:MUSIC going away, no evidence the subject meets the GNG. Ravenswing 05:02, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:48, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:12, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable music producer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:11, 10 December 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 12:13, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gift to the Greedy

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

Sourced almost exclusively from unreliable sources and personal websites, this ephemeral NN band fails WP:MUSIC going away. Great, so they got a single review in the Washington Post, but that's not enough to meet the GNG. Ravenswing 05:06, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:48, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:12, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:13, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete: Insufficient coverage in RS. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I've been doing} 07:25, 5 December 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 12:16, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nishanth (actor)

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR, The actor has played some supporting roles but I can't see if he has played any major role in any film except Thoonga Nagaram which was released in 2011 and I failed to find significant coverage in independent secondary reliable sources for a stand-alone article at least not yet. GSS (talk) 10:54, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 10:54, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 10:54, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:45, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak Keep~~~~. I think it passes WP:GNG~~...Rameshnta909 (talk) 08:54, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Rameshnta909: I tried everywhere even accroding to WP:INDAFD but can't find a single independent reliable source to support WP:GNG which addresses the topic directly. GSS (talk) 09:10, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

He worked in 6 films and the part in one of them was notable. Anyway I am on the fence on this one...Rameshnta909 (talk) 11:27, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Rameshnta909: And that fails to satisfy WP:NACTOR and its WP:TOOSOON for stand alone article. GSS (talk) 11:39, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

K Let's wait for a third opinion...Rameshnta909 (talk) 11:43, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as this is quite simple, trivial and unconvincing career, and nothing amounting to substance hence delete. SwisterTwister talk 00:30, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
For a consensus I change my position to Delete...Rameshnta909 (talk) 08:04, 6 December 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. consensus DGG ( talk ) 04:32, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sky Gates Airlines

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

I think it's simply too soon for this airline to have an article. They don't become operational for another year; they only even have one aircraft at present. IagoQnsi (talk) 18:36, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retain - airline appears to be up and running. Ardfern (talk) 15:49, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:05, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:41, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:41, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:41, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:12, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 06:08, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep not WP:CRYSTAL and sourced, might need further checking in sources, though. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 06:53, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now. WP:TOOSOON...Rameshnta909 (talk) 08:51, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as clear trivial and unconvincing information with WP:NOT applying. SwisterTwister talk 00:29, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Anarchyte (work | talk) 11:14, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Eddie Chuculate

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

Notability is not established. Individual has only written one, extremely obscure book. The article's author User:Dellafrench has only written about him and his book, which suggests a conflict of interest or at least a desire to promote an unknown author. Yuchitown (talk) 06:24, 28 November 2016 (UTC)Yuchitown[reply]

Keep. Enough coverage of his work exists to warrant an article about him. High Country News [36] or [37]; American Indian Quarterly [38]; Star Tribune [39]; Publishers Weekly [40]; Kirkus Reviews [41] (this appears to be a legitimate Kirkus review and not the pay for play "Kirkus Indie" variety); Iowa Public Radio [42](audio); World Literature Today [43] (brief review by a distinguished reviewer, Joy Harjo); a discussion of one of his stories in an academic book published by University of Oklahoma Press [44]. --Arxiloxos (talk) 16:32, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:10, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 06:22, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per points made by Arxiloxos and the awards / fellowship/ and recognition he has received.--CaroleHenson (talk) 09:36, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if there is a "strong keep", but since the decision of the Cheyenne Madonna deletion discussion was to merge the book in with the author's article, I think that there's more reason to keep this article.--CaroleHenson (talk) 01:41, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sufficient notability established by winning the O. Henry Award. Joyous! | Talk 11:59, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Per a source review, the subject meets WP:BASIC and point #3 of WP:AUTHOR. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:05, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Anarchyte (work | talk) 11:14, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your papers, please

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

The article states '"Your papers, please" is an expression or trope ' but I have trouble finding sources which discuss this in detail. Yes, it is an expression that is used every now and then, but I couldn't find a source that would define it, not to mention discuss in depth. The sources cited use it in titles, usually, but just as an expression. They never seem to explain the cultural significance of this phrase. Then there is also the title - some sources just use "Papers, please", some commit the comma. I tried to find something in books or scholarly papers, but I couldn't find much. I added two books, but again, neither is an in-depth treatment, one has a title entitled Papers, please, and uses this phrase two or three times, but I don't think it is sufficient to make support a claim from the lead. Ditto for Kirstie Ball; Kevin Haggerty; David Lyon (27 April 2012). Routledge Handbook of Surveillance Studies. Taylor & Francis. pp. 20–. ISBN 978-1-136-71106-0. which I didn't even bother adding. I am afraid this article is too much of a WP:OR, and has issues with WP:GNG. Thoughts? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:50, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - "Papers, please" ("your" is optional) is a well-known expression and trope, at least in the United States, mocking Nazi Germany and communist countries, since people needed identity papers and weren't free to move around.[45][46] It's frequently in movies and is identified as such in this book - as a "stock line" used in movies about Nazis.[47][48] The video game Papers, Please came from this. The Arizona SB 1070 requiring people to carry identification was nicknamed the "Papers, Please" law.[49][50][51] There are so many hits for it, it's difficult to find one talking only about the phrase itself, but I am sure sources exist somewhere. —Мандичка^YO 😜 11:38, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Many reliable sources are noted in the article and most of them use the phrase exactly as it is described in the article and discuss issues related to government functionaries demanding identification from citizens. This is from the second source cited: "These lawsuits and others are winding their way through the courts and the Supreme Court will likely have the final say. These laws have already sparked a widespread cultural protest. Some have already controversially compared them to Nazi Germany, where Jews were required to carry papers. However overstated or inappropriate the comparison, and whatever the outcome of the legal challenges, passing a law that requires people to show their papers on demand does not seem to sit right with American culture. To understand the source of our cultural discomfort, all we need to do is watch Casablanca." This is from the seventh source cited: "The ACLU urged the Justices to not only strike down the Nevada law, but also to uphold the limitations on police stops imposed by the Court in Terry. "The alleged benefits of a requirement that a person subject to a Terry stop identify himself...is substantially outweighed by the individual's countervailing interest in privacy and security," the ACLU said in its brief." Ghostofnemo (talk) 12:16, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This quote from the second source cited explains the origins of the phrase: "Within the context of unrestrained police powers, "your papers, please" is wielded like a weapon. It serves its purpose well in Casablanca, one of the first World War II war propaganda films produced by Hollywood in cooperation with the US Office of War Information's Bureau of Motion Pictures. As a symbol of corrupt, unchecked unilateral power, the phrase embodies something worth fighting against. After Casablanca, many World War II films began incorporating "your papers, please" as a film trope. The phrase evolved into an enduring cultural metaphor that concisely and viscerally conveys what we are not about here in America. This message still resonates today." Ghostofnemo (talk) 12:37, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I was sure it was discussed somewhere. Why I recommended keep. —Мандичка^YO 😜 15:06, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but I am still concerned we are building an ORish arguments from reading between lines here. I don't think we see any source discussing this phrase in more than a single sentence at most. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:31, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:23, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:23, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:10, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In the absence of context this appears to be just a random phrase more suited for Wikitionary, but its now well-established use in political contexts as part of U.S. freedom of movement and immigration debates rises to the level of a standalone article. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:21, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable. Everyking (talk) 04:51, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Per WP:ITSNOTABLE, please be bothered to make an argument. This is not a vote. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:01, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - I agree with the other keep voters. I don't have an argument of my own to make. Everyking (talk) 00:54, 7 December 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 12:13, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Commercial Capital Training Group

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

Unremarkable company fails the criteria in WP:ORG the links provided especially Forbes are churnalisme. Rapid growth is not a criterion for notability. Domdeparis (talk) 09:05, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep : Articles from Forbes , Bloomberg News , Inc. (magazine) etc proves the notablity for companies and passed WP:ORG. The user is continuously tagging my pages unnecessarily Godisthebestone (talk) 13:40, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hi Godisthebestone I have tagged one other page Luca A Longobardi as not being notable and as your replies might suggest a WP:COI problem I had a look at the other pages that you have edited to see if you are a WP:SPA which does not seem to be the case but as this page didn't seem to meet the criteria of WP:GNG I tagged it. Just as a reminder the pages are not "your" pages please read WP:YDOW for more information. --Domdeparis (talk) 13:53, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:06, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 06:23, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as said sources are clear published and republished advertising, regardless of who put it, because that's what the intentions and actions still are, and WP:NOT in fact applies here because of the sheer blatancy. It's clear all of this is part of an advertising campaign and attempting to mistake it as otherwise is damaging ourselves. SwisterTwister talk 05:22, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have referred other similar articles and used similar style to create this article . So how this becomes an advertisment. I cant understand your mindset , Why you always wants to put pages down ? I am dropping myself from any further article writing in wiki just cause of you people. Godisthebestone (talk) 08:12, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hi @Godisthebestone: you're very welcome to stay on Wikipedia and create and edit pages but you seem to be overly attached to the pages that you have created which suggest that you may have a conflict of interest. Try editing and creating pages that you are interested in but you don't have a vested interest in. You will take the comments of others much less personally and will become a valued member of the Wikipedia community. Domdeparis (talk) 08:21, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- no indications of notability or significance; close to A7. The founder's article is also at AfD. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:04, 10 December 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 12:13, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pitchi.com

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

fails WP:CORP. created by a single purpose editor so suspect WP:ADVERT. gnews yields hardly anything. LibStar (talk) 01:42, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 06:25, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 06:25, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NCORP and written in a promotional tone. Ajf773 (talk) 07:00, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A WP:SPA article on a website that operated for 2 years until August 2016. The given references are a brief mention in a Business Spectator piece about the results of its parent (which does not have an article, so not a redirect target) and a couple of items of start-up publicity about its pitch. My searches are not finding better, not even coverage of its closure. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 08:42, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Depends If the claim of world’s first video selling platform can be referenced independently and reliably then the subject matter is intrinsically notable hence a definite keep. If not then a merge/write into parent article, hence delete. I suggest not to be deleted until before the claim world’s first video selling platform is properly tested. Aoziwe (talk) 13:56, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If the claim can be sourced, then an article can possibly be written, but there's no present evidence it's correct. DGG ( talk ) 04:32, 13 December 2016 (UTC) It seems unlkiely to me that nobody would have thought of the idea before 2014. DGG ( talk ) 04:32, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:12, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reneta Bello

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

Contestant of Miss Venezuela 2016 where she was placed fourth. I don't think that warrants a stand alone article at Wikipedia. I can find few coverage about the event in reliable sources where she has been mentioned but only cuz of being among the finalists. Hitro talk 19:18, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete like US state title holders, Venezuelan state title holders are not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:26, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:39, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 06:26, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 06:26, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Venezuela-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 06:26, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to no indication of separate notability; mentioned only in routine coverage of Miss Venezuela 2016. Linguist ^Moi? Moi. 16:50, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:12, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hundet

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

I couldn't verify the information in the article or establish its notabilit. Boleyn (talk) 19:20, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:37, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:38, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:38, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG Spiderone 19:38, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:V. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 07:53, 12 December 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 12:13, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kanti Sweets

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

Promotional article with very weak evidence for notability. No justification for an article on this small enterprise. DGG ( talk ) 22:37, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as both the advertising blatancy and the fact it was deleted once before (regardless of years ago), it's enough to show there's absolutely nothing here to suggest we'll be accepting it anytime soon at all; especially since these publications are damningly notorious for publishing advertising, hence not suitable at all. SwisterTwister talk 23:03, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable sweet manufacturer operating since 1957, making it one of India's oldest operating sweet makers. The Deccan Herald is a reliable source. I found a few other sources from a quick web search. I'm not an expert here, but I don't think the article seems like an advert. In any case, that can be fixed rather than deleting. I've seen a lot of articles on Wikipedia with an "advert" banner. Also, I don't see any link to the previous deletion discussion, so without that I can't determine why it was deleted earlier. As far as I know, there is no Wikipedia policy against creating an article that has been deleted previously. So that should not be a reason for deletion. Clear Skies (talk) 22:41, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:33, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:33, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:33, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NOTADVERTISEMENT big time. Source cited above also looks like an ad to me. Author of the article clearly have a dubious intention to promote the brand...Rameshnta909 (talk) 16:45, 5 December 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 12:13, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gustavo Rocha

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

"Known for shirtless dancing" the only links I could find were to social media sites Domdeparis (talk) 14:05, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep,Gustavo Rocha is notorious, he is successful as a singer and youtuber, now is investing in the career of actor and is acting in the series "Academia de Atores", one of the largest Brazilian TV channels.Katyyyy 5 —Preceding undated comment added 15:17, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hi Katyyyy 5 if the only links you can find are to social media sites this suggests that he is not notable. Notable doesn't mean famous. You can be famous but not notable and vice versa. Please check the WP:GNG for more information. If he wants to become an actor then he could have his page once he becomes notable as an actor. --Domdeparis (talk) 15:31, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hi Domdeparis I understood, in fact he can not be notable as an actor, he is notable for being a very popular youtuber, instagramer and singer in Brazil, he is often on television shows, and to become a notable actor as an actor, he is a bit short. But okay then Katyyyy 5 —Preceding undated comment added 17:35, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 23:54, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:19, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I am not seeing anything that indicates notability. Perhaps this is a WP:TOSOON situation.--CaroleHenson (talk) 05:25, 11 December 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 12:12, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Delivery

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

To state the obvious, the sources simply consist of trivial and unconvincing information, including noticeably from the company itself, which is clearly not an independent source, the history suggests itself it is in fact an advertisement, quite likely company-motivated, and my own searches unsurprisingly found nothing better. Next, it's unsurprising to see this was accepted in a time when no one would carefully examine and consider these controversial subjects and Drafts. Now we are, and with WP:SPAM and WP:NOT (policies), they can easily be removed, especially since we're not a random business listing and PR webhost, regardless of anything anyone could say otherwise. SwisterTwister talk 19:46, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – The book source below provides independent, significant coverage. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:41, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pitt, L.F.; Nel, D. (2001) South African Marketing Cases for Decision Makers. Juta. 978-0-7021-5552-9. pp. 101–109. (subscription required)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Joyous! | Talk 00:35, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The SA sources are advertorials, the US ones mere notices. Being used as one of the many instances in a casebook does not show notability DGG ( talk ) 04:26, 5 December 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 12:12, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Shafer's Wager

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

Subject lacks coverage in reliable sources for verification and notability Meatsgains (talk) 21:27, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:11, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have referenced the original blog post which contains Shafer's Wager. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcs37 (talk • contribs) 00:48, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Michael Shafer per WP:CHEAP. The concept is extremely important yet just not notable. Bearian (talk) 02:37, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: a suggestion to delete, and another to redirect. Still looking for consensus. Joyous! | Talk 00:25, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Joyous! | Talk 00:25, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

*~~Merge and redirect~~ into Michael Shafer as Berian suggests. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:14, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Michael Shafer is a college basketball coach, Michael Schäfer is a Danish soccer star and commentator, Michael Schaefer (producer) is a film producer, and Michael P. Schaefer was a Pennsylvania politician, now deceased. None of these appear to be the Michael Shafer who wrote the blog post. I can't find any information about the blogger at his website, so I can't be sure which of the many, many Michael Shafers on the internet might be this one, but I can find no indication that "Shafe's Blog" or this particular page have been the subject of coverage in independent reliable sources. If I have missed something I will certainly reconsider.--Arxiloxos (talk) 21:32, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, dang, I was badly mistaken. With no reasonable place to redirect, have to concur that the appropriate action is delete. Thanks for pointing that out. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:02, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'm the Michael Shafer who wrote it, and I'm not the basketball coach. I codified the concept of Shafer's Wager years ago and I wanted to preserve it in Wikipedia, but apparently it's impossible to store information in Wikipedia unless you have multiple outside references. Do I need to get the New York Times to mention it? What does it take to create multiple reliable sources for something I came up with?

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