Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 February 17

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 16 February	18 February >

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 keep. Article's been sourced & improved since nomination & Nom doesn't appear to have an issue so closing as Keep (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:26, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur Wallis (Bible teacher)[edit]

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

This article lacks any reliable independent sources. Guy (Help!) 23:27, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Wallis has attracted academic attention as an important early charistmatic leader in Britain[1][2][3][4] and theological attention as a 20th century evangelical proponent of fasting as a spiritual practice[5][6]. This looks like a failure of WP:BEFORE. Further, "article lacks any reliable independent sources" is not a valid deletion reason, a deletion reason based on lack of reliable independent sources would have to be that they don't exist, not that they're not already present in the article.--Jahaza (talk) 16:30, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. --Jahaza (talk) 17:12, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep. Notability has clearly been established, most clearly in the biography. This was written (I presume) by his son, but published by an independent publisher (Kingsway). St Anselm (talk) 18:42, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Certainly a very notable figure. Even if the biography is by his son, its publication by Kingsway indicates that its veracity will have been checked by an editor there. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:36, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly notable. Article could use improvement (what else is new?), but the lede, which mentions his widely cited book, The Radical Christian, is solid.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:31, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The article's subject is found to lack notability. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 02:08, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Club Liberté[edit]

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

Lacks context, no references, just one external link as of now. Qpalzmmzlapq | talk | contribs 22:09, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:00, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Riventree (talk) 23:20, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:06, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:06, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as my searches found nothing better at all and this is currently not better convincing for notability. SwisterTwister talk 07:19, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is a proposed new gambling club at a resort in the Seychelles scheduled to open later in 2016 featuring 12 tables and 30 slot machines. Ther're promtiong it up the wazoo on social media, maybe it's going to be great looking - I didn't click. certainly didn't find any news coverage.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:31, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The article's subject is found to lack notability. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 02:19, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Romail Gulzar[edit]

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

Gulzar (who appears to have written this article about himself) does not seem to meet our notability requirements. Some of the references cited in the article discuss the magazine he edits rather than him, and as we know, notability is not inherited. The remainder do not add up to significant coverage. A Google search reveals some routine local coverage of him, but nothing substantial. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:42, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Self promotion with insufficient coverage in reliable sources. Philafrenzy (talk) 23:19, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete What Philafrenzy said. Also poorly written and sourced. --Hybris1984 (talk) 13:09, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:45, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. What an example of a boomerang effect, too. If this is indeed an autobio, writing about oneself in such an amateurish way rubbishes one's own claims of excellence -- though he does admit that suffers from the "disability" of "very little English." Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:48, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:49, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Where did you read that, Shawn in Montreal? The article states that he speaks English to a professional level, which I presumed to be true given that he edits a magazine. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:41, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

His last sentence in his Achievements section, Cordless Larry. Just before the table. So yes on top of everything else, a bizarre rather clownish contradiction. Perhaps not all the SPAs are Romail. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:49, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strangely, both statements about his English ability were added by the same editor, Romg10. Perhaps the account is being shared? Cordless Larry (talk) 19:25, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No I think we're dealing with someone who'll say or do anything to keep his vanity article. No doubt someone had corrected him on his poor English and he modified his article without the basic competence to realize he's contradicted himself. There's also probably sockpuppetry here. If this is a notable Pakistani journalist, god help that beleagured nation. I've opened an SPI. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:00, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

i am not to be in favour for delation this artical /bio etc, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kawasaki92 (talk • contribs) 19:20, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

When expressing opinions in deletion discussions, Kawasaki92, you will have more success if you explain your rationale - preferably by making reference to Wikipedia's policies. See Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions on this. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:46, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

as per my reading the artical, successful as achiever too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kawasaki92 (talk • contribs) 20:02, 18 February 2016 (UTC) — Kawasaki92 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Do not delete, he is a notable person heard him so many time at radio leicester — Preceding unsigned comment added by PagePK48 (talk • contribs) 19:44, 19 February 2016 (UTC) — PagePK48 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

That is not what "notable" means in Wikipedia policy terms though, PagePK48. Please see WP:NOTABILITY. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:07, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Romg10, where PagePK48 is confirmed as a sockpuppet of the article creator. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:07, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete None of the above exactly adds to a notability claim. This discussion can be wrapped up soon. KDS4444^Talk 09:51, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

HikingSam48 (talk) 11:46, 22 February 2016 (UTC)I have read the article a few times and do not see an issue with it. None of it is opinion based all seems to be based on facts. I do agree that maybe there could be a few more references sited, but it all seems legit after checking the sources. I have found another few source that helps back up some of what is said in the article. ^[1] ^[2] On the website at itv central it does mention his name under some of the pictures crediting his name and his media agency. So he does do some work for them it seems. ^[3]— HikingSam48 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

References

^ http://rotary-leicesternovus.org/news-2/from-asylum-seeker-to-media-mogul
^ http://www.theprofessionalawards.com/nominees/romail-gulzar/
^ http://www.itv.com/news/central/topic/sikhism/

The concern is with the subject's notability, HikingSam48, not whether the information is "legit". Cordless Larry (talk) 14:01, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

nor remove /del, artical owner legible right.well know personality of national international in his field, his journey efforts does not ignorable — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mahimunda70 (talk • contribs) 14:20, 22 February 2016‎ (UTC)— Mahimunda70 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Romg10 on recent SPA comments here. A note to the editor(s) behind these sockpuppets: your actions are fairly transparent and you're not fooling anyone! Cordless Larry (talk) 17:12, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The article's subject is found to lack notability. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 02:19, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Quester[edit]

(Find video game sources: "Quester" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk)

I cannot find any sources that prove the game is notable. The page itself is also unsourced, too. DrDevilFX (talk) 21:34, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. At first I thought the article was just missing references, but the reliable sources custom Google search engine shows little results. It fails WP:GNG. --Soetermans. T / C 10:15, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a non-notable Breakout clone failing WP:GNG with no reliable independent in-depth sources, such as WP:VG/RS. Cannot find any mention about arcade version in print magazines of the time either. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 13:14, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:07, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:07, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as searches simply found nothing better. SwisterTwister talk 07:56, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The article's subject is found to lack notability. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 02:37, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Purplle.com[edit]

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

Non-notable company, fails WP:CORP - raising finance is not notable. ukexpat (talk) 20:38, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, also article created by WP:SPA, but no declaration of WP:COI Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:39, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable, extremely poor references. This one comes from "a platform where you can tell the story of your brands"[7] and is written in the first person: "Attend our online workshops on beauty", "At Purplle we strongly believe", etc. IMO it's clear that the creator Ubercontent has a conflict of interest — look at this promotional interview "Purplle.com: A Beautiful Partnership in Beauty Products and Services", (offered as a reference), written by in fact the byline "Uber Content". The user has asked a question on the Village Pump and has edited their talkpage, but has not edited after being advised in both places about our sourcing and COI principles. Note: Twinkle sent the AfD alert to User:Usamshab, the creator of the original article which was deleted in October 2015, so I have copied it to Ubercontent's page. I hope they'll see it and weigh in here. Bishonen | talk 09:53, 18 February 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Delete Clearly fails WP:GNG and WP:CORP Theroadislong (talk) 13:43, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails all tests of notability. --Orange Mike | Talk 04:23, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Nomination withdrawn; notability established. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 02:41, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Saint Sava Serbian Orthodox Church (Merrillville, Indiana)[edit]

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

Not notable, 1 source that is very iffy Happy_Attack_Dog (Throw Me a Bone) 19:02, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:26, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:26, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:26, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

More sources and other details with links to other wikipedia articles have been added.--Chriskosovich (talk) 23:16, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- It sounds like a rather typical local church. I doubt that being 100 years old is enough to make it WP-notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:34, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- What makes St. Sava Church different from typical a typical local church is the unique connection it has with St. Varnava who is the first American-born Serbian Orthodox Saint, canonized in 2005. He is known as Saint Varnava (Nastić), also Barnabas the New Confessor, and was born with the name Vojislav Nastić in Gary, Indiana, on January 31, 1914 where he was then baptized, served as a young altar boy, and participated in the cultural experiences available through this particular St. Sava Church-School community. The St. Sava Church also served as an important cultural institution during a period in time that saw a great Serbian migration where people sought work in what was a cultural center of steel production in the United States. There are numerous references in independent sources going back as far as the 1970s that cite St. Varnava when he was a Bishop in the Serbian Orthodox Church and the connections he had in his life with St. Sava Church when he was alive. There are really no other churches in the United States that have any cited connections with this first American-born Serbian Orthodox Saint. This is why it is important for people seeking to learn the about the life of the modern day saint, Saint Varnava, to be able to track his life and developmental history back to his origin and find information about an organization that played a role in the shaping of his life path. Most importantly, it is important for such an entry in wikipedia so that the public researching the life history of St. Varnava will be able to tie in his early life and family references to his cultural development in the Northwest Indiana/Chicagoland area within an independent source such as Wikipedia.Chriskosovich (talk) 13:50, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, with thanks to User:Chriskosovich for improving the article to a point where notability is clear. User:Happy Attack Dog Please WP:DONTBITE the newbies. A more productive response to coning on this poorly sourced stub, and assuming that you did not want to invest the time in expanding the article (for which I don't blame you), would have been to tag it for notability. A great many immigrant churches do pass notability, a glance at the website of the church linked from the page when you found it would have persuaded me that this one deserved a close look before being brought to AFD. Very glad that the article is now sufficiently well sourced to stay around and be improved.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:41, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you E.M.Gregory for your support and understanding. I have to admit when I saw User:Happy Attack Dog mark the article for deletion, I was wondering if I should bother continuing on and writing anymore, but when I honestly looked at the very little writing I created initially with the single source item at that time, I could see where someone reading the article would believe it should be marked for deletion. That is why I took efforts to continue adding the information I had ready to make it more substantial as it is today. So I have a question, should new articles only be created when there are a certain number of sources that are external? I give User:Happy Attack Dog credit for being so on top of things. I think User:Happy Attack Dog marked the article for deletion not long after I posted the article! I thought, "wow" these wikipedia editors quick! I am appreciative the article is getting more "keep" notations now. There is so much history around these immigrant churches and unfortunately, the populations today still often lack the ability to properly articulate the the significance they often have in our culture. I hope to create more articles about the notable churches and begin to link them together to help show a better picture of the migration patterns these institutions helped to facilitate. Thank you for the constructive criticism. This is one of my first wikipedia articles and the first one I have created in years. I would suggest, when marking an article for deletion, and if sources are lacking as this one was when first published, it could be helpful to suggest how it could be improved, which is a suggestion I believe was lacking when it was first marked for deletion. I am learning and appreciate all the help you are all doing to make this space valuable and fair. Thank you again!Chriskosovich (talk) 13:57, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Now that more sources are added, we can be sure that this article is OK for Wikipedia. However, next time, should I take articles like this to Proposed deletion? Happy_Attack_Dog (Throw Me a Bone) 18:48, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For my part, I only Prod articles if I have taken the time to search for notability and persuade myself that it's not out there. When I see an article that looks like it lacks notability, but I don't want to invest very much time, I put up a notability template. If it already has a template, and I don't want to invest time in it, I add my 2 cents either on the talk page or by flagging points in the article that need sourcing, and leave it for someone who works on the topic. Others editors take much hastier/more aggressive approaches to deletion. I do take especial care with newbies, Wikipedia suffers so badly from a shortage of editors, that I hate to discourage new ones.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:17, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:56, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Speedily deleted by RHaworth (A7: Article about a website, blog, web forum, webcomic, podcast, browser game, or similar web content, which does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject) (non-admin closure) JMHamo (talk) 19:44, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Website Freelancer[edit]

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

Not notable, no sources Happy_Attack_Dog (Throw Me a Bone) 18:59, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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:CorbieVreccan under criterion G12. (Non-admin closure) "Pepper" @ 05:12, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Calums va[edit]

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

propaganda page saying nothing but good things about the topic Happy_Attack_Dog (Throw Me a Bone) 18:52, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:24, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dr Wolfgang J Lutz[edit]

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

No sources, Unknown if subject meets notability guidelines, may just need intense cleanup. Happy_Attack_Dog (Throw Me a Bone) 18:46, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Clean up the format, and source it. Here's an article on him from The Guardian. WorldCat does show one book he authored. Amazon has yet another book he authored. I think his books are generally not published in the United States, but I'm leaning towards Keep but reformat and source. — Maile (talk) 22:00, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

German Wikipedia article on him is: Wolfgang Lutz (Arzt). I ran it through Google Translate:

Wolfgang Lutz studied medicine in Vienna and Innsbruck, and in 1943 habilitation at the University of Vienna. After the Second World War he worked as an internist in Salzburg. As he reports in his book Life Without Bread, he retired with the years a number of health problems, u. A. A hip osteoarthritis, rheumatoid arthritis and fatigue syndromes. According to him he could cure these ailments just by switching to a low carbohydrate diet with 6 bread units per day (about 72 grams of carbohydrates) or bring their progression to a halt. Lutz then developed a general theory which he published in various publications and in his book Life Without Bread 1967. Lutz received for his work awards from the Royal Society of Medicine, and in 2007 the freedom of the city of London Award and was honorary professor at the Metropolitan University of Dublin, Ireland [1]. He had five children and lived during the past decades with his 3rd wife Helen Paula in London and Graz. Wolfgang Lutz claimed that during his 40 years of practice time treated more than 10,000 patients with his diet and to have many chronic diseases cured it, among other Crohn's disease, ulcerative colitis, gastric disorders, gout, metabolic syndrome, epilepsy and multiple sclerosis.

The German article also lists 5 published books. — Maile (talk) 22:10, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - I have cleaned up some format of the article and also added some references the notability criteria should not be a problem as there are lots of references of Dr Wolfgang J Lutz's books and as — Maile said there's an article on him from The Guardian too so I believe the article should be kept. Dinnypaul (talk) 15:42, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:23, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The article's subject is found to lack notability. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 02:45, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vernon Harwood[edit]

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

Article of radio presenter has been tagged as possibly non-notable since April 2009. No assertion of notability, just a CV of his career. Only link is to BBC, his employer. My own searches turned up just a handful of only trivial mentions, mostly on BBC websites. FuriouslySerene (talk) 14:40, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - just a career history of a random midlevel radio presenter. Nothing exceptional or notable and no secondary source mention. JesseRafe (talk) 17:01, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 20:41, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 20:41, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 20:42, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:44, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Subject lacks notability and coverage in reliable sources. Mentioned mostly in just BBC. Meatsgains (talk) 18:42, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:N. --OpenFuture (talk) 16:52, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This individual fails WP:N and WP:BIO. My searches returned same as nominator. Chrisw80 (talk) 05:24, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:43, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:43, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Bishonen | talk 16:06, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cruise (film)[edit]

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

The film in question has not been released yet, it is written in a promotional manner and lacks serious notability. Catlemur (talk) 13:54, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:17, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As an example of WP:CRYSTAL. It's being filmed, however that doesn't say much. Agreed it reads promotionally as well. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:41, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 20:42, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not only per WP:CRYSTAL but also per Wikipedia:Notability (films) which it comprehensively fails. It's still being filmed—not even in post-production according to IMDB. It also fails WP:GNG. Although masquerading as multiple "articles", six of the eight references are virtually identical announcements in industry trade papers and websites that the film was being planned. They all appeared on September 14/15, 2015 and are all based on this press release of September 14, 2015 from AG Capital (the film's financers), which, unsurprisingly, is repeated in whole or in part in all the "articles". Of the remaining two, one is yet another trade website "announcing" another bit of the casting in October 2015. The other one, also from October 2015, is in a British tabloid with 12 large publicity photos of the female lead "showcasing her taut tummy in a tiny crop top." and minimal text, mostly about her other activities with four sentences about the film (taken from the original press release). I've searched for anything better, but there just isn't. Cruise (film) is simply a product announcement for product that hasn't even been made yet. It does not belong in an encyclopedia, even one like Wikipedia. How on earth this article made it to the main page as a Did you know? three days ago is beyond me. Voceditenore (talk) 08:45, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Per Wikipedia:Notability (films) , If all that existed was the press release this would not be a notable subject. However, in this case numerous independent WP:RS have deemed the subject of the press release to be notable enough to publish related content. At WP, as a tertiary resource, our responsibility is to summarize such RS regardless of their similarity. Examining Wikipedia:Notability (films) (especially the subsection WP:NFSOURCES), if the press release is the source for our article it should not be kept. However, looking at the second part of that section, the proper consideration is whether sources with reliable publication processes and authoritarian authors have deemed the subject matter to be notable. In this case as Voceditenore has noted, numerous independent sources that have reliable publication processes and authoritarian authors have published content on the film, albeit similar content echoing a press release. Nothing about NFSOURCES says anything about a requirement that the RS have to have a wide variety of opinions. If several independent RS all have the exact same opinions it is no more or less satisfactory than if there is disparity. Clearly, the editors of each publication has independently determined the subject to be notable enough for its audience's attention. The other element of Wikipedia:Notability (films) that is relevant is consideration of its progress per WP:NFF. Clearly principal photography has commenced, making WP:CRYSTAL irrelevant.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:06, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
P.S., although the IMDB.com page indicates that it is filming, I believe that filming has completed. I believe that this was filmed over a five week period in the fall and that the stars are no longer on set. Ratajkowski has not spent time in NY since before the holidays (based on following her social media).--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:14, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Re the "multiple sources", I am following footnote 3 of WP:GNG:

Several journals simultaneously publishing different articles does not always constitute multiple works, especially when the authors are relying on the same sources, and merely restating the same information.

This is clearly the case with six of the eight references. The other two are trivial in terms of their coverage, and what they do say about the film is again from the press release. To me this is analogous to a press release from Nissan stating that they're planning to make a new door-locking system. The press release with minor modifications and the addition of a byline is duly published in several trade publications (and that's precisely what Variety, Wrap, EW, etc. are, albeit for a more glamorous trade). Perhaps some would consider that sufficient for writing a stand-alone article about a door-locking system which has yet to roll off the production line or be fitted in any cars. I don't, although I recognize opinions do differ on this. As for the filming, there are zero reliable sources to it having been completed or gone any further than the street scene in New York City publicized in the Daily Mail in October. There are numerous other reasons why Ratajkowski hasn't been in NY since the holidays. At best because the indoor scenes may be filmed or about to be filmed in the studio in Los Angeles. At worst because there has been a delay/hiatus in the filming. In any case, it's pure speculation. Voceditenore (talk) 07:56, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

- I had never seen that footnote before. It does give me pause.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:39, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The guide suggests that we evaluate whether principal photography has commenced. It make no mention of considering when it has concluded or when the film has gone to post-production.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:42, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Daily Mail is hardly a reliable source, it is mostly a source of unconfirmed rumors and news about people who are Famous for being famous. There is also absolutely no way for someone to know if Ratajkowski has or has not been in New York, unless someone works for her or stalks her.I believe that the article still falls under WP:CRYSTAL as it is/reads like a product announcement.--Catlemur (talk) 12:46, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The only additional content that I could think of adding to the article is a statement such as "During production, the oncamera romance between Ratajkowski and Boldman garnered the pair publicity" with citations such as this, this and this. I am not sure whether that is appropriate content however.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:54, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's totally inappropriate. "Garner" is pure PR-speak and doesn't belong in an encyclopedia in the first place. More importantly, the film didn't "garner" publicity. It gets mentions in some of the numerous PR plants and provided by Ms. Ratajkowski's obviously hyperactive publicist and dutifully published by the Daily Mail and the Daily Express tabloids. Observe [8] and [9]. The "article" titles alone say it all. The Newsgrio link is simply a reprint from the Daily Mail article "What would Homer think? Emily Ratajkowski dresses up as a very sexy Marge Simpson at Heidi Klum's Halloween bash" which you linked to. The Marge Simpson article tacks on at the end that Boardman and Ratajkowski "were spotted kissing passionately beside a car in a park" while filming Cruise and supplies one of the numerous publicity shots taken of the event in October and already published by the Mail the previous week. The same picture is tacked on to the end of the Daily Express article you linked to: "Emily Ratajkowski spills out of her leopard print bikini in sizzling holiday snap". Neither of these attest to the notability of the film, and don't even verify that the filming has significantly progressed beyond those early publicity photo shoots in October. Voceditenore (talk) 16:42, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:44, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Notability not established. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 03:07, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Harshwardhan Zala[edit]

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

14-year-old whiz kid. The only sources I find are social media. —teb728 t c 11:11, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 13:10, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 13:10, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:PROMO article, and likely WP:AUTOBIO. I'm not turning up reliable sources. FuriouslySerene (talk) 14:44, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:44, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no sources and weak notability claim, anybody can dream to create a company. In veritas (talk) 19:07, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I could not find any coverage of this individual in reliable sources. Additionally, it looks like this article was written by Harshwardhan Zala's father. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 09:03, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The article's subject is found to lack notability. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 02:47, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Olin/Winchester Salvo Rifle[edit]

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

Non-notable firearm; no reliable sources found. Possibly redirect to Special Purpose Individual Weapon (SPIW), where Project SALVO redirects, but that article seems to cover both a program and an individual prototype which was the result of the program. ansh 666 09:11, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. ansh 666 09:11, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. ansh 666 09:11, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ansh 666 09:11, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE...Dead end, one of a kind experimental weapons, with limited or no supporting references to establish notability do not meet guidelines.--RAF910 (talk) 17:09, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:44, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Only applied source is self published. While verifiable, not sufficiently covered in found reliable sources to meet GNG. Might be some offline stuff. BusterD (talk) 17:00, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. As no sources to meet the requirements of WP:GNG have been presented, the article's subject is found to lack notability. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 05:43, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Basketball League[edit]

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

Non-notable basketball league. There is no real information about this league other than a webpage and a facebook page. Might be a pay-to-play league instead of a semi-pro or professional league. LionMans Account (talk) 19:59, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The league is NOT a pay-to-play league - and there is more than "a webpage and facebook page" as stated. I work with many of these teams (several who also compete in the ABA). If this league is not "notable" then several other minor basketball league (ABA, EBA, UBL, etc.) should be deleted as well... TheScottDL (talk) 20:40, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:IKNOWIT and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS are not reasons for keeping. LibStar (talk) 11:54, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. LionMans Account (talk) 20:03, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. LionMans Account (talk) 20:06, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep see above.TheScottDL (talk) 20:40, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacking sources, not a notable league. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 13:49, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:43, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The only two sources provided are this, is not a reliable source since it is a blog, and this, which doesn't even load (at least not for me; it also is a news announcement, not definitive article about the league unto itself). I'm not finding any non-Facebook, non-blog articles in a Google search either. Jrcla2 (talk) 23:10, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The 'league's' website is largely devoid of information. No players listed at all. MiracleMat (talk) 04:38, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
delete lacking in depth third party coverage. LibStar (talk) 11:54, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:08, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, due to the lack of significant, reliable coverage, as required in WP:GNG. -- Tavix ^(talk) 16:45, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Insufficient evidence of notability, and no particularly strong arguments or new light shed during the debate. Please note also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kpboyak which indicates the sockpuppetry present in this AfD discussion. -- Euryalus (talk) 11:00, 21 February 2016 (UTC) Euryalus (talk) 11:00, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Wallentine[edit]

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

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

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

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

Fails WP:POLITICIAN (local businessman running for city council; not yet elected), WP:BIO (local businessman with no indications of any particular notability). Claim that he created a "new way for families to save for education" are exaggerated: he created a Coverdell Education Savings Account program -- an establish mechanism. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 21:30, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

He is notable for constructing the largest campaign sign that can be seen from the busiest intersection in Laguna Niguel. City officials have yet to be able to come up with grounds to have the sign removed because it is technically considered private property.

Keep The Coverdell ESA is simply a tax type which is not what the AMCO Education Fund is. It is a way for children to learn how to invest via a mobile app with reoccurring deposits. Kpboyak (talk) 21:53, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability is not inherited, and being local businessman doesn't pass WP:GNG. Also fails WP:NPOLITICIAN. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:56, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He is NOT a local businessman. He is the CEO of a prominent financial company. Also, he is running against the establishment government using nontraditional tactics such as constructing the largest illuminated campaign sign. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1012:B12C:4ED4:DAC:8072:C785:F409 (talk)

~~Keep~~I wouldn't necessarily consider him a "local businessman" considering the fact that he is the CEO of a firm that manages tens of millions of dollars. See reference 4 (http://www.adviserinfo.sec.gov/IAPD/IAPDIndvlSummary.aspx?INDVL_PK=6089259). Kpboyak (talk) 19:12, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment He's the CEO of a company. There's no indication the company is prominent. (The SEC registration report does not indicate the size of the portfolio that Wallenstein's firm manages, but "tens of millions" is actually not that large, and might represent the college savings of only a few hundred clients. As for his political career, since he has not yet been elected, and is notable solely for the fact that he appears to have angered the locals with his signage (not a great way to win the hearts of your electorate, I should think), he doesn't pass WP:POLITICIAN. Even if elected, a city council member from a small community would not pass WP:POLITICIAN unless they had accomplished something extraordinary in their role as council person. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 19:02, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment Actually, if you do your due diligence, you would find that if you search "Actuarial Management Company Llc" in the referenced link, the firm's actual dollar amount that is managed can be identified in the Form ADV because the firm is required to file this number with the Security and Exchange Commission of the United States. Kpboyak (talk) 19:15, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He created the modern way for families to save for education by using an app as well as built a program off the existing coverdell education savings account so that all families, regardless of income, could afford to save for their child's future. Jcandelario (talk) 19:09, 16 February 2016 (UTC) — Jcandelario (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Striking sock !vote[reply]
- Comment He didn't create the modern way for families to save for education, he created a way for families to save for education. Is it clever to use an app to help families invest in their Coverdell Education Accounts? Maybe. Has anyone written about this cleverness in any significant fashion? Not that I can see. (I discount the OC Register piece, as it pretty much admits that the piece was written to help the Wallentines promote their new product.) The bottom line is, there is no significant independent coverage of Mr Wallentine. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 20:35, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:37, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I added a book that was recently published to the Career section of the page. After reading over these comments, I did some independent research and came to find out he authored a book called "Cloning Wall Street", which I would deem notable. I would imagine that the book will be widely read, given he is an industry expert based on his background. Zzhou1 (talk) 18:03, 17 February 2016 (UTC) — Zzhou1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Striking sock !vote[reply]
- Comment I imagine that the book will not be widely read, considering that none of the major book indexing databases have a listing for ISBN 9780578178042, which is very clearly listed as the ISBN of this book at Wallentine's website. I question whether the book exists at all, but even if it does, if readers can't find it, they're unlikely to read it. This apparently self-published book does nothing to bolster Wallentine's notability. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 19:06, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment I stand corrected: Cloning Wall Street is apparently available through Lulu.com (I cannot post the URL because Lulu is blacklisted at Wikipedia). The actual existence does not alter the conclusion of my comment: this self-published book does nothing to bolster Wallentine's notability. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 19:20, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There simply isn't enough independent reliable sources to show how he meets WP:BIO. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:05, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete I'm always against vanity articles and more so for self-promotion. Not to mention that almost everyone who has commented positively here is either Wallentine (presumably the article's creator) or one of his sock puppet friends (who all have never edited a single article save this one). Let's see if Wallentine responds to this to prove me right. MiracleMat (talk) 04:54, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The article's subject is found to lack notability. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 05:50, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

AAI XM70[edit]

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

Non-notable firearm. Search failed to produce reliable sources. ansh 666 09:05, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also including the following related weapon:

ansh 666 09:05, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. ansh 666 09:06, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. ansh 666 09:06, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ansh 666 09:06, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE...Dead end, one of a kind experimental weapons, with limited or no supporting references to establish notability do not meet guidelines.--RAF910 (talk) 17:09, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:30, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Only one prototype was produced? Failed in testing after six shots? I don't think these two are even worth mentioning even simply by name in the AAI Corporation article. And yes, they aren't mentioned there. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 16:48, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:41, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Franchi LF-59[edit]

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

Non-notable firearm; an English-language search turned up no reliable sources. Italian-speaker may be able to assist. Created by User:Ctway sock. Redirect to manufacturer Franchi (firearms) reverted by User:BilCat. ansh 666 09:02, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. ansh 666 09:03, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. ansh 666 09:03, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. ansh 666 09:03, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE...Dead end, one of a kind experimental weapons, with limited or no supporting references to establish notability do not meet guidelines.--RAF910 (talk) 17:10, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:30, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Highly obscure, probably just a prototype. Franchi LF-57 is the more notable model. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 18:20, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:41, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ZB-530[edit]

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

Non-notable firearm. No English-language reliable sources, but Czech or Slovak language search may find something. Created by User:Ctway sock. Redirect to manufacturer Zbrojovka Brno reverted by User:BilCat. ansh 666 09:01, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. ansh 666 09:01, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. ansh 666 09:01, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. ansh 666 09:01, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Slovakia-related deletion discussions. ansh 666 09:01, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE...Dead end, one of a kind experimental weapons, with limited or no supporting references to establish notability do not meet guidelines.--RAF910 (talk) 17:10, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:30, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Highly obscure, probably just a prototype. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 18:20, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:41, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

FAMAE FD-200[edit]

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

Non-notable firearm; no Spanish or English language reliable sources found. Created by a possible (but not likely IMO) User:Ctway sock. Redirect to manufacturer FAMAE reverted by User:BilCat. ansh 666 08:58, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. ansh 666 08:59, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. ansh 666 08:59, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. ansh 666 08:59, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE...Dead end, one of a kind experimental weapons, with limited or no supporting references to establish notability do not meet guidelines.--RAF910 (talk) 17:11, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:30, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Highly obscure, production probably stopped shortly after introduction. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 18:20, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:41, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

FAMAE CT-30[edit]

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

Non-notable firearm. Search in Spanish and English found no reliable sources, though a Portuguese speaker may be able to help. Created by a User:Ctway sock. Redirect to manufacturer FAMAE reverted by User:BilCat. ansh 666 08:56, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. ansh 666 08:56, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. ansh 666 08:56, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. ansh 666 08:56, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. ansh 666 08:56, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE...Dead end, one of a kind experimental weapons, with limited or no supporting references to establish notability do not meet guidelines.--RAF910 (talk) 17:12, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:30, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Highly obscure, some blog post about being defective and being returned. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 18:20, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:42, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Special Operations Weapon[edit]

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

Non-notable firearm. Patents do not provide notability; no reliable sources were found. Created by User:Ctway sock. ansh 666 08:54, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. ansh 666 08:54, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. ansh 666 08:54, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ansh 666 08:54, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE...Dead end, one of a kind experimental weapons, with limited or no supporting references to establish notability do not meet guidelines.--RAF910 (talk) 17:12, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:30, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Just a prototype. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 18:21, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:42, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dual Cycle Rifle[edit]

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

Non-notable firearm. Patents do not provide notability; no reliable sources found. Created by User:Ctway sock. ansh 666 08:53, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. ansh 666 08:54, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. ansh 666 08:54, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ansh 666 08:54, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE...Dead end, one of a kind experimental weapons, with limited or no supporting references to establish notability do not meet guidelines.--RAF910 (talk) 17:13, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:29, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Just a prototype. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 18:46, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 14:19, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hogue Avenger[edit]

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

Non-notable weapon. No reliable sources found in English. Possible that a German speaker could help. Created by User:Ctway sock. ansh 666 08:51, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. ansh 666 08:51, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. ansh 666 08:51, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. ansh 666 08:51, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE...Dead end, one of a kind experimental weapons, with limited or no supporting references to establish notability do not meet guidelines.--RAF910 (talk) 17:13, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:29, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fairly obscure, unnotable. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 18:23, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:42, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gerasimenko VAG-73[edit]

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

Non-notable weapon. No reliable sources found in English, possible that a Russian speaker could help. Created by User:Ctway sock. ansh 666 08:50, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. ansh 666 08:51, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. ansh 666 08:51, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. ansh 666 08:51, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE...Dead end, one of a kind experimental weapons, with limited or no supporting references to establish notability do not meet guidelines.--RAF910 (talk) 17:14, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:29, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Just an obscure prototype. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 18:47, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:42, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Avenger submachine gun[edit]

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

Non-notable firearm. No reliable sources found. Created by User:Ctway sock. ansh 666 08:49, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. ansh 666 08:50, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. ansh 666 08:50, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. ansh 666 08:50, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE...Dead end, one of a kind experimental weapons, with limited or no supporting references to establish notability do not meet guidelines.--RAF910 (talk) 17:14, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: no reliable sources found, so it's not notable enough for an article. ww2censor (talk) 11:30, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:29, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Highly obscure. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 18:48, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:43, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chiesanuova rifle[edit]

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

Non-notable weapon. No reliable sources found in either English or Spanish. Created by User:Ctway sock. ansh 666 08:48, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. ansh 666 08:49, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. ansh 666 08:49, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. ansh 666 08:49, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE...Dead end, one of a kind experimental weapons, with limited or no supporting references to establish notability do not meet guidelines.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:28, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Highly obscure. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 18:50, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:43, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GMC Pistol[edit]

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

Non-notable weapon. No reliable sources found in either English or Spanish. Created by User:Ctway sock. ansh 666 08:48, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. ansh 666 08:48, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. ansh 666 08:48, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. ansh 666 08:48, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE...Dead end, one of a kind experimental weapons, with limited or no supporting references to establish notability do not meet guidelines.--RAF910 (talk) 17:15, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:28, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Highly obscure. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 18:51, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:43, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Günther pistol[edit]

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

Non-notable weapon. No reliable sources found in either English or Spanish. Created by User:Ctway sock. ansh 666 08:47, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. ansh 666 08:48, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. ansh 666 08:48, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. ansh 666 08:48, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE...Dead end, one of a kind experimental weapons, with limited or no supporting references to establish notability do not meet guidelines.--RAF910 (talk) 17:15, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:28, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete You almost can't get more obscure than this. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 18:51, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:43, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Krieghoff MG39[edit]

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

Non-notable firearm. No English-language reliable sources found; perhaps a German speaker could help. Created by User:Ctway sock. ansh 666 08:46, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. ansh 666 08:46, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. ansh 666 08:46, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. ansh 666 08:46, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE...Dead end, one of a kind experimental weapons, with limited or no supporting references to establish notability do not meet guidelines.--RAF910 (talk) 17:16, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:28, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Highly obscure. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 18:53, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:43, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ČZ 522[edit]

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

Non-notable firearm. English-language search turned up no reliable sources, possibly Czech or Slovak speaker could help. Created by User:Ctway sock. ansh 666 08:37, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. ansh 666 08:38, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. ansh 666 08:38, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. ansh 666 08:38, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Slovakia-related deletion discussions. ansh 666 08:38, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE...Dead end, one of a kind experimental weapons, with limited or no supporting references to establish notability do not meet guidelines.--RAF910 (talk) 17:19, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:27, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Highly obscure, probably just a prototype. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 18:55, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:35, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ganzstahl Sportpistole Wolf Ultramatic Mod. LV[edit]

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

Non-notable firearm, an English-language search came up with no reliable sources but a German-speaker may be able to assist. Created by a User:Ctway sock. ansh 666 08:33, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. ansh 666 08:33, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. ansh 666 08:33, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. ansh 666 08:33, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE...Dead end, one of a kind experimental weapons, with limited or no supporting references to establish notability do not meet guidelines.--RAF910 (talk) 17:20, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:27, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Highly obscure, probably only a handful were made. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 18:56, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:44, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wimmersperg maschinengewehr[edit]

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

Non-notable firearm; search in English found nothing - perhaps a German-speaker could help. Patents do not establish notability. Created by User:Ctway sock. ansh 666 06:35, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. ansh 666 06:35, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. ansh 666 06:35, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE...Dead end, one of a kind experimental weapons, with limited or no supporting references to establish notability do not meet guidelines.--RAF910 (talk) 06:55, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. ansh 666 07:22, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:21, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unnotable and I couldn't even find it at List of machine guns. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 16:30, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Redirect~~ I found Wimmersperg Spz which seems to have been a much more notable weapon designed by the same weaponsmith. That article already had a short biography of Wimmersperg. I added a short note of the Wimmersperg machinengewehr to that biography. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 16:40, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Probably still just best to delete since a redirect to an article of a similarly named weapon would be confusing. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 18:11, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 14:20, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ludovici revolver[edit]

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

Non-notable firearm; search in English found nothing - perhaps an Italian-speaker could help. Patents do not establish notability, and the other source is a dead link. Created by probable User:Ctway sock. ansh 666 06:33, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. ansh 666 06:33, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. ansh 666 06:33, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE...Dead end, one of a kind experimental weapons, with limited or no supporting references to establish notability do not meet guidelines.--RAF910 (talk) 06:55, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. ansh 666 07:21, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:21, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Redirect~~ I added a mention of the fact that this is a derivative to Henrion, Dassy & Heuschen double-barrel revolvers. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 16:29, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete On the other hand probably just better delete since it's just a derivative. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 18:00, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The article is completely unreferenced, which makes me give less weight to the views asserting that relevant sources exist. Sandstein 09:45, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mekanika Uirapuru[edit]

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

~~Non-notable firearm; search in English found no reliable sources. A Portuguese-speaker may be able to help. Created by a User:Ctway sock. ansh 666 08:29, 10 February 2016 (UTC)~~[reply]

Per Ymblanter's sources (see this version in history), should now pass WP:GNG. ansh 666 23:48, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. ansh 666 08:29, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. ansh 666 08:29, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. ansh 666 08:29, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE...Dead end, one of a kind experimental weapons, with limited or no supporting references to establish notability do not meet guidelines.--RAF910 (talk) 17:21, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Improve (or Delete) There should be some reliable sources among those listed at General-purpose machine gun, but if no one is going to add any sources at all, the article should go. giso6150 (talk) 21:38, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:20, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, I added two books which apparently cover the subject (I do not have access to any of them). It is very difficult to distinguish between cruft and real sources, but when I tried to locate sources, it looks like the gun has got some attention. Not at all my field though.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:56, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment...Are you joking? You added two references to the article that you don't have and have never read? You can't do that. As a Wiki editor you must do you due diligence. You must at the very least know what the references say, so they can be properly cited. I have removed the references from the article.--RAF910 (talk) 17:32, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  Yes, I know what they say. But I am not going to edit-war for getting them back into the article.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:45, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. The complete lack of a Reference List is never a good thing. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 05:11, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 14:20, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hamilton mod. 1901[edit]

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

Non-notable firearm; search in English found no reliable sources. A Swedish-speaker may be able to help. Created by a User:Ctway sock (whose talk page must be flooded by deletion notices by now...). ansh 666 08:26, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. ansh 666 08:27, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. ansh 666 08:27, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. ansh 666 08:27, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE...Dead end, one of a kind experimental weapons, with limited or no supporting references to establish notability do not meet guidelines.--RAF910 (talk) 17:22, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:20, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The article is a complete mess, possibly mixes two guns (but I'm not sure) and doesn't provide any evidence of notability. --OpenFuture (talk) 19:51, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
~~Redirect~~ Delete Since this was a copy of Bergmann 1896, I added a short mention of this there. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 17:03, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Except that it *isn't* a copy, although the article claims it is. I dug some more, and found the source of the claim on a Swedish discussion forum, it's likely a misunderstandning (perhaps because Google translate). --OpenFuture (talk) 17:25, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks for the help. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 18:02, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 14:21, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

CEV M9M1[edit]

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

Non-notable firearm. Search in English found no reliable sources. A Portuguese-speaker may be able to help. Created by a User:Ctway sock. ansh 666 08:24, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. ansh 666 08:24, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. ansh 666 08:24, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. ansh 666 08:24, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE...Dead end, one of a kind experimental weapons, with limited or no supporting references to establish notability do not meet guidelines.--RAF910 (talk) 17:22, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:20, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Highly obscure, probably just a prototype. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 18:59, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:32, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

BSM/9 M1[edit]

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

Non-notable firearm; search in English found no reliable sources. A Portuguese-speaker may be able to help. Created by a User:Ctway sock. ansh 666 08:23, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. ansh 666 08:23, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. ansh 666 08:23, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. ansh 666 08:23, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE...Dead end, one of a kind experimental weapons, with limited or no supporting references to establish notability do not meet guidelines.--RAF910 (talk) 17:23, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:20, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Highly obscure, probably just a prototype. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 18:59, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, almost no reliable sources found. -Liance^{talk/contribs} 02:11, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Here's a source: Enciclopédia De Submetralhadoras. pp. 138–140. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:54, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- The references have to establish "notably" not just that they were made. In other words...What is it about these guns that merit inclusion on Wikipedia? The answer is nothing. This gun is a dead end. At best a handful of prototypes or production samples were made. The reference that you provided is nothing more than the manufactures advertising brochure, and is more or less a copy of the reference provided in the article. There is nothing to suggest that this gun was ever mass produced or used by anyone.--RAF910 (talk) 17:57, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 14:28, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Small Arms Weapons Effects Simulator[edit]

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

~~Non-notable military training system; a search turned up no reliable sources. Created by User:Ctway sock. ansh 666 08:22, 10 February 2016 (UTC)~~[reply]

I'll accept Andrew's judgment on this one. Thanks, ansh 666 23:23, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. ansh 666 08:23, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. ansh 666 08:23, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. ansh 666 08:23, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A very notable system when it was in use. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:59, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That is pure WP:ITSNOTABLE, and moreover, WP:NTEMP. Tigraan (talk) 15:51, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think you need to reread WP:NTEMP. It doesn't say what you obviously think it does! -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:23, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The system may have been "very notable when it was in use" but having sunk into oblivion since then, in which case it is not notable by the Wikipedia meaning of the word. I am not saying it happened so, but "notable when in use" is a weak argument precisely because of NTEMP. Tigraan (talk) 10:48, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - almost all of the few sources that turn up at a search for "Small Arms Weapons Effect Simulator" (with the quotes) are people selling that thing (ebay listings, among others) with no discussion whatsoever. I litteraly could read them all, except one in Polish. While the subject is ancient, getting zero relevant results (not even a few shady sources) is a good indication of non-notability. Tigraan (talk) 15:51, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'm puzzled as to how the main small arms blank-firing effects simulation system for the entire British Armed Forces could possibly be non-notable. Try searching for SAWES instead of the full name; you'll find plenty of sources.[10] And doubtless there'll be far more print sources. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:22, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @Necrothesp: all I'm seeing are Wikipedia mirrors/other wikis, sales catalogs, forums, and blogs. Nothing reliable. (Also, Sawes is a semi-common British name and, as I just discovered, an archaic spelling of "saws"!) ansh666 01:13, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Maybe you should follow the link I gave you which cuts out the other meanings of sawes quite effectively! Note that we are here to evaluate the notability of the subject, not the quality of the article. I think the online sources clearly indicate the notability of the subject and suggest that there will be plenty of offline sources out there. Note what it says in WP:NEXIST. We can presume that sources exist if the subject is clearly a notable one. And I fail to see how anyone could seriously say that a major system in use by a major world army for a number of years could possibly not be notable and not assume that there were plenty of sources out there. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:04, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - ...well, I found all those other meanings of "sawes" from the search you linked. ansh 666 10:04, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that shaky online sources may be sufficient to presume notability. Say for instance that plenty of blogs and fan sites (unreliable sources) point to some book devoted to the subject that alledgedly sold a million copies. Even if the book itself cannot be checked online, if claims of existence and success are established, the book can be presumed to be significant coverage etc.

The problem here is that I see no such reason to presume notability. Necrothesp, it may be obviously notable to you and rightfully so because you know the subject better than other contributors, but so far I have seen no evidence that it was a major system in use by a major world army for a number of years (emphasis on the first "major").

Google search results differ from user to user, because Google ~~spies on you to sell advertising data~~ tailors results to your former searches and web hits. That may explain why ansh or myself (I use another search engine by default) did not find sources. Could you point to one or two of them that in your opinion are quite reliable and somewhat significant coverage of the subject? Tigraan (talk) 10:48, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how else you would describe the system used to simulate combat used by the British Army on exercises. Of course it was a major system. If MILES is worthy of an article then surely so is this. I agree that there is not great online coverage (unsurprising given its age), but there is certainly enough to confirm that it was a widely-used system that was important to a major army. That is sufficient to establish that the subject is notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:04, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You keep saying notability is obvious, and it might be to an expert in the topic, but please consider that you none else than you sees it in this discussion. Having being used (even on a large scale) by the UK army does not in itself make something notable. Please provide the best online sources, even if they fall a bit short of establishing notability, or offline sources (which are perfectly fine, just harder to find and check). The WP:BURDEN is on you... Tigraan (talk) 10:20, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging Necrothesp for sources... Tigraan (talk) 17:24, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

MERGE...It is basically the British version of Multiple Integrated Laser Engagement System and should be merged with that page. The Brits simply have their own idiocentric naming systems.--RAF910 (talk) 17:39, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Found a video of it on You Tube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rpV3Ua3QEMI the Kiwi's call it the Infantry Weapons Effects Simulation Systems (IWESS) it's made by Cubic Defence New Zealand https://www.cubic.com/News/Press-Releases/ID/152/Cubic-Defence-New-Zealend-Supplies-Simulation-Systems-to-Denmark . They also refer to it as MILES https://www.cubic.com/Global-Defense/Training-Systems-and-Solutions/Ground-Combat-Training/Multiple-Integrated-Laser-Engagement-System . As I stated above, I think it should be Merged or Redirected to the Multiple Integrated Laser Engagement System page--RAF910 (talk) 06:59, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- What an odd comment. So it performs the same function as the American system so it should be merged into the article on the American system? Maybe we should merge all our articles on individual assault rifles into the M16 rifle article too? What do you reckon? After all, they all do the same thing so they must all actually be versions of the American one! Seriously, it's not a British version of MILES; it's a completely different system that performs the same function as MILES and was developed at about the same time. Other countries can develop technology too you know! -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:04, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - A better analogy is Assault Rifle. There is only one true assault rifle, the German Sturmgewehr 44. The first of its kind. Then the Russians made the the AK-47 and the Americans made the M16, and so on. Today we call all of these weapons Assault Rifles because they share common traits. There are countless references to support the American MILES system. There are few reference to support the British SAWES. And, as I stated above, the Kiwi's not only call it the IWESS they also call it MILES. The term MILES has become the common name for this type of technology. Therefore, I see no reason why we shouldn't merge or redirect to the MILES page.--RAF910 (talk) 17:19, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming the British system is not worth a standalone article (see discussion above), I disagree with a merge on the MILES page. If significant content from the SAWES page is to be kept, I think the best would be a general page for those systems (say, Laser simulation of small arms fighting - that title is not great, but you get the idea; is there an established technical name?), with specific sections for the local variants if there is enough content or a list of them, to which all their titles redirect. On the other hand, if no content is to be merged, I would agree with a short mention on the MILES page and possibly a redirect (but that is different from a merge).

In any case, this is subordinate on the notability status of the SAWES system, and it would be good not to start in a US vs UK feud. Tigraan (talk) 10:48, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:20, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The topic is notable, being covered in sources such as Jane's Military Training and Simulation Systems; New Scientist; Armed Forces Journal International; &c. Andrew D. (talk) 22:27, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Necrothesp and Andrew Davidson. Satisfies GNG. James500 (talk) 00:20, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If it's in Jane's (it is) and is a significant reimplementation of MILES (it seems to be) then it's notable.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 MAC-10#Enarm SMG. (non-admin closure) Ya sh ! 10:50, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ENARM SMG[edit]

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

Non-notable firearm. An English-language search found no reliable sources; possibly Portuguese-speaker may be able to help. Created by User:Ctway sock. ansh 666 08:19, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. ansh 666 08:20, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. ansh 666 08:20, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. ansh 666 08:20, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE...Dead end, one of a kind experimental weapons, with limited or no supporting references to establish notability do not meet guidelines.--RAF910 (talk) 17:23, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:19, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Already mentioned at MAC-10#Enarm SMG with the same text... --Mr. Magoo (talk) 17:51, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to MAC-10 § Enarm SMG. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:59, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 MAC-10#Patria submachine gun. (non-admin closure) Ya sh ! 10:49, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

MPA submachine gun[edit]

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

Non-notable firearm; search in English and Spanish turned up no reliable sources. Created by User:Ctway sock. ansh 666 08:18, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. ansh 666 08:18, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. ansh 666 08:18, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. ansh 666 08:18, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE...Dead end, one of a kind experimental weapons, with limited or no supporting references to establish notability do not meet guidelines.--RAF910 (talk) 17:24, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:19, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to MAC-10#Patria submachine gun. Added a mention of this there. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 17:35, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to MAC-10 § Patria submachine gun. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:01, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. If anyone would like to work on it in their namespace I would be happy to userfy it. J04n(talk page) 20:45, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

John J. Grady[edit]

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

I couldn't establish that this meets WP:BIO or WP:GNG Boleyn (talk) 08:00, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete fails WP:BIO. Google books comes up with a namesake that did something in 1886. LibStar (talk) 11:56, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:18, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment this is not an isolated WP event. User:CD972 created a number of articles for people from January to March, 2009, seemingly based on the existence of their papers at the Eisenhower presidential library. Among these are: Karl G. Harr, Jr., *Edward Hazlett, *Rowland R. Hughes, *Leland Hobbs, *Paul A. Hodgson, Edwin B. Howard, *John Wesley Hanes III, *Katherine G. Howard, *Gabriel Hauge, *Harvey V. Higley, *Laurence J. Hansen, Sam R. Heller,Julius C. Holmes, Henry W. Hoagland, Ben Hibbs, Laurin L. Henry, Robert Cunningham Humphreys, Wayne J. Hood, Mattie Pinnette, Carl McCardle, Henry R. McPhee, Jr., L. Arthur Minnich, Robert E. Merriam, I. Jack Martin, *Edward A. McCabe, Charles F. Masterson, John A. Moaney, Christian O. Musser, *Fred M. Manning, *Malcolm A. MacIntyre, Robert J. McDuff, Gerald D. Morgan, Stanley M. Rumbough, Jr., *William M. Rountree, Maxwell M. Rabb, Ann C. Whitman, Clyde A. Wheeler, *John E. Wilkes, *C. Langhorne Washburn, Samuel C. Waugh, Charles F. Willis , William Merrill Whitman, John Stewart Bragdon, Charles L. Brainard , *Ruth M. Briggs, Harold R. Bull, Edward A. Bacon, *Harry C. Butcher, *Robert P. Burroughs -- and there are some more from December 2008. Some meet GNG, others do not. (Note: I have added an asterisk before the names that have some modicum of referencing -- I included in that ones with few references but a major newspaper obit. The remainder usually have only one reference, generally a single government document that is probably a directory. I have tagged all others with either "oneref" or "refimprove".) Most are deceased, but death dates aren't always present. What I don't recall is what the policy is regarding articles created before the current policies regarding notability and sourcing -- are they automatically grandfathered in, or should we be applying current sourcing requirements? If the latter, many of these should be deleted. What is the best approach for a block of articles like this? LaMona (talk) 22:51, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

With a little more checking, some of these appear to have text copied directly from the finding aids produced by the Eisenhower Presidential Library. Those finding aids are probably in the public domain (".gov"), but it's still a copy-paste, with only one reference, the finding aid. LaMona (talk) 23:09, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 10:21, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now at best and draft & userfy instead as the material is imaginably an article but this is still questionable. SwisterTwister talk 20:53, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:38, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:38, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Uncontested. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:29, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alpha GPI[edit]

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

Non-notable firearm. Search in English found no reliable sources; Portuguese-speaker may be able to help. Created by User:Ctway sock. ansh 666 07:39, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. ansh 666 07:39, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. ansh 666 07:39, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. ansh 666 07:39, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE...Dead end, one of a kind experimental weapons, with limited or no supporting references to establish notability do not meet guidelines.--RAF910 (talk) 17:25, 10 February 2016 (UTC)–[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:18, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Highly obscure, probably just a prototype. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 18:59, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Uncontested. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:25, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nikonov NA-2 and NA-4[edit]

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

Non-notable firearms. Search in English turned up no reliable sources, perhaps a Russian-speaker could help. Created by User:Ctway socks. ansh 666 07:32, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. ansh 666 07:33, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. ansh 666 07:33, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. ansh 666 07:33, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE...Dead end, one of a kind experimental weapons, with limited or no supporting references to establish notability do not meet guidelines.--RAF910 (talk) 17:25, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:18, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Obscure prototypes. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 19:00, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Vz. 58#Variants. (non-admin closure) Ya sh ! 10:49, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rung Paisarn RPS-001[edit]

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

Non-notable firearm; a search in English turned up no reliable sources. Possible that a Thai-speaker could help. Created by User:Ctway sock. ansh 666 07:29, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. ansh 666 07:29, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. ansh 666 07:29, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. ansh 666 07:29, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE...Dead end, one of a kind experimental weapons, with limited or no supporting references to establish notability do not meet guidelines.--RAF910 (talk) 17:27, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:17, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Added a mention of it to Vz. 58#Variants. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 17:24, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Vz. 58 § Variants. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:03, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Uncontested. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:22, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Maschinenpistole IX. Parteitag[edit]

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

Non-notable firearm; search in English turned up no reliable sources. Possibly a German-speaker could help. Created by User:Ctway sock. ansh 666 07:24, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. ansh 666 07:25, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. ansh 666 07:25, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. ansh 666 07:25, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE...Dead end, one of a kind experimental weapons, with limited or no supporting references to establish notability do not meet guidelines.--RAF910 (talk) 17:28, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:16, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Highly obscure, probably just a prototype. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 18:34, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 4th Parachute Brigade (Argentina). Sandstein 19:52, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yarará Parachute Knife[edit]

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

Non-notable weapon; search in Spanish and English turned up no reliable sources. Created by User:Ctway sock. ansh 666 07:18, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. ansh 666 07:19, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. ansh 666 07:19, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:16, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect There was a link to 4th Parachute Brigade (Argentina). I added a short mention of this parachute knife there. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 17:07, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. J04n(talk page) 20:46, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Patria Mod 2[edit]

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

Non-notable firearm; search in English and Spanish turned up nothing. Created by User:Ctway sock. ansh 666 07:17, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also adding the following related weapon:

ansh 666 08:17, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. ansh 666 07:17, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. ansh 666 07:17, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. ansh 666 07:22, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE...Dead end, one of a kind experimental weapons, with limited or no supporting references to establish notability do not meet guidelines.--RAF910 (talk) 17:28, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:15, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Mod 2 but Redirect the submachine gun There already existed MAC-10#Patria submachine gun with the exact same information. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 17:10, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Uncontested. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:17, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Volley Firing Infantry Weapon[edit]

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

Non-notable firearm; search in English found nothing - perhaps an French-speaker could help. Patents do not establish notability. Created by probable User:Ctway sock. ansh 666 06:11, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. ansh 666 06:12, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. ansh 666 06:12, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE...Dead end, one of a kind experimental weapons, with limited or no supporting references to establish notability do not meet guidelines. Also, enough is enough. I recommend that every page created by User:Ctway and socks be automatically deleted. It would save us the trouble of doing it one by one.--RAF910 (talk) 06:24, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. ansh 666 07:21, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:EVASION, creations by blocked editors can be marked for speedy deletion. If you can confirm creator is a sock....? GraemeLeggett (talk) 10:41, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@GraemeLeggett: The article was created before the editor was identified as a sock and blocked (he had already created 30+ overlapping sock accounts before). However, I do want each of his articles to stand on their own merits since some are about notable subjects. ansh 666 01:04, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:13, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Just a prototype. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 18:37, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:14, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gordon Close-Support Weapon System[edit]

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

Non-notable firearm; searches turned up no reliable sources. Created by User:Ctway sock. ansh 666 06:03, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. ansh 666 06:04, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. ansh 666 06:04, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE...Dead end, one of a kind experimental weapons, with limited or no supporting references to establish notability do not meet guidelines. Also, enough is enough. I recommend that every page created by User:Ctway and socks be automatically deleted. It would save us the trouble of doing it one by one.--RAF910 (talk) 06:24, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. ansh 666 07:21, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:13, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Highly obscure, probably just a prototype. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 18:40, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:52, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ITM Model 3[edit]

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

Non-notable firearm; search found nothing. Only source is blog. Created by User:Ctway sock. ansh 666 05:59, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. ansh 666 06:00, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominating the other weapons by the same company, whose only sources are patents (which don't establish notability):

ansh 666 06:01, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE...Dead end, one of a kind experimental weapons, with limited or no supporting references to establish notability do not meet guidelines. Also, enough is enough. I recommend that every page created by User:Ctway and socks be automatically deleted. It would save us the trouble of doing it one by one.--RAF910 (talk) 06:23, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. ansh 666 07:21, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ansh 666 07:22, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Should we considering merging the ITM firearm related articles into a single "ITM Tool and Die" article, since the company was apparently still extant back in 2009? By the way, the deletion page links for the ITM Model 4 & ITM Model 5 articles are pointing to this page for some reason (ignore this if deliberate). Ceannlann gorm (talk) 18:04, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, it's deliberate, I bundled the nomination per WP:MULTIAFD. And yes, if there is enough in terms of WP:RS for the company, information can be merged there - but I'm not seeing it. ansh 666 01:08, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:13, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Highly obscure, probably all just prototypes. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 18:40, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Uncontested. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:57, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Steinkamp SW1[edit]

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

Non-notable firearm; search in English found nothing - perhaps an German-speaker could help. Sole sources are a blog and the company website. Created by User:Ctway sock. ansh 666 05:57, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. ansh 666 05:57, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. ansh 666 05:57, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE...Dead end, one of a kind experimental weapons, with limited or no supporting references to establish notability do not meet guidelines. Also, enough is enough. I recommend that every page created by User:Ctway and socks be automatically deleted. It would save us the trouble of doing it one by one.--RAF910 (talk) 06:23, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. ansh 666 07:21, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:12, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Less obscure than pretty much all the others listed due to the manufacture date, but still not notable enough. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 18:44, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Uncontested. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:51, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Saturn machine pistol[edit]

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

Non-notable firearm; search in English and Spanish found nothing, including on the website of the single source. Created by probable User:Ctway sock. ansh 666 05:51, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. ansh 666 05:52, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. ansh 666 05:52, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE...Dead end, one of a kind experimental weapons, with limited or no supporting references to establish notability do not meet guidelines. Also, enough is enough. I recommend that every page created by User:Ctway and socks be automatically deleted. It would save us the trouble of doing it one by one.--RAF910 (talk) 06:22, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. ansh 666 07:20, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:12, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Highly obscure, rare pistol. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 18:43, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete per nominator. (non-admin closure) Nordic Dragon 14:25, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Satvet Lütfi Tozan[edit]

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

A PROD was removed without comment or improvement. The article fails WP:BIO for referencing and notability, and appears to be a promotional piece of WP:Original research. A search found only mentions of the name but no significant coverage. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 16:50, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn -- see my statement below. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 19:18, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. 16:59, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. 16:59, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Keep The article is a translation of [11]. In addition there are two biographies of him: [12], [13] and the name has appeared in the news recently: [14], [15]. So he meets WP:BASIC. It would take someone fluent in Turkish and English to fix up the translation, ensure no original research has crept in, and add information from the other sources so that we're not presenting just one point of view. Worldbruce (talk) 06:38, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for finding those sources. I agree that your referencing has clearly established his notability. Unfortunately, the main source also shows that the entire article was created as a foundational copy-paste and the direct translation is a derivative copyright violation. (I should have gone with my gut instinct when I saw language like "When deceased, he was rich like croesus.") The photo is also a derivative copyright violation -- cropped from the book cover. The article and image require speedy deletion per WP:G12 and WP:F9. However, I have no objection to a recreation of a page about this person using original language based upon the sources. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 19:18, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:47, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nglish[edit]

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

Posibly a promotional article created by a single purpose account. It was previously deleted under WP:G13 and recreated by its creator Matangor who was asked by Jimfbleak to stop creating articles from the company and to disclose if he had any conflict of interest. The article does not meet WP:WEB or WP:NSOFT as it is also an app. It also does not have the needed independent in-depth coverage from reliable sources to meet our general notability guidelines. Searching in internet I could find two reviews for the app. One disclosed that it was sponsored (not independent), and I suspect that the other one I found (in Spanish) probably is as well. Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 16:24, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I was given pause in this due to the app having won an Appy Award from MediaPost. However, that award is of questionable value; it's generated by an organization that seems focused on awards as a direct money-making base (as suggested by their varying price structure with discounts and deals), and given the lack of notability suggested by there being no Wikipedia page for it (the page Appy Awards is for a different award of the same name... and not even the only different award by that name.) Note: I was the person that deleted the PROD, but that was for technical reasons. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:44, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 16:54, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 16:54, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as my searches simply found no better convincing sources. SwisterTwister talk 23:53, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 14:08, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

M.G.Nagamani[edit]

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

No notability asserted, sources aren't very good. Prod declined without comment Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 15:47, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Delete - it's a biography that fails the notability criteria for WP:POLITICIAN and the referencing required for WP:BLP. There is no evidence of significant coverage. Individual appears to have failed to be voted into any significant elected office. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 16:19, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I did some cleanup on non-contraversial issues (Wrap Social media links into our preferred templates, remove personal blog, remove flag prohibited by WP:MOSFLAG). This page still smacks of vanity-biography with the flowery language and no appearant claims of politician notability. Hasteur (talk) 16:29, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not notable.--DThomsen8 (talk) 19:07, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A person does not get a Wikipedia inclusion freebie just for being an unelected candidate for office — if you cannot make a credible and properly sourced claim that they get over a Wikipedia inclusion rule for some other reason independently of the candidacy, then they have to win the seat, not just run for it, to become notable enough. But this claims nothing else that would make him more notable than the norm for non-winning political candidates, the sourcing is entirely to raw tables of election results which cannot support notability in and of themselves, and the creator's username suggests a potential conflict of interest. I also have some issues with Republican Party of India (Tamil Nadu) itself, which I'm going to explain when I list that for AFD in about two minutes. Bearcat (talk) 22:33, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 14:09, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Celestial Patrol[edit]

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

Previous AfD nomination was: Looks like a promotional article, so I considered speedying, but the foreign language sources gave me pause for thought. However, they seem only to be evidencing elements that don't build notability claims for this website. Previous AfD received no contributions so was closed as "no consensus". Some opinions please! Dweller (talk) 15:01, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability, this would need citations to peer-reviewed scientific literature to show this - if it's being ignored by other seismologists, it's unlikely to have much going for it. Mikenorton (talk) 16:06, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:17, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:17, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as my searches found nothing better and the current article is still questionable for the software notability guidelines. SwisterTwister talk 23:54, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Ditto above SwisterTwister. Riventree (talk) 20:58, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:30, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:30, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Userfy. (non-admin closure) —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:07, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Violett Beane[edit]

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

WP:TOOSOON. Recurring roles on two TV series does not satisfy WP:NACTOR. Can be moved to Draftspace to incubate in the meantime. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:23, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:24, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:24, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Move to my userspace same as User:Captain Assassin!/Karen Fukuhara. --Captain Assassin! ^{«T ♦ C ♦ G»} 16:45, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Userfy is certainly acceptable. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:13, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy per the initial author's request above. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:54, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 14:10, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rightjust[edit]

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

Might be a very talented artist, but I can't find any reliable sources (as defined at WP:RS)) which cover the subject in depth (WP:MUSBIO). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:02, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:03, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom. WP:USUAL applies, of course - if this artist makes it big and gets noted, then an article might end up being appropriate. We're not there yet, though. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 14:26, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Everytime a hiphop artist from South Carolina receives an entry it is adversely noted we have a whole state worth of artist that we love and support. A lot of legendary art is produced tho it may not get national coverage. I'm beginning to believe this is genre dicrimination and or racism 2607:FB90:6031:D9AC:0:4C:7FEC:8601 (talk) 18:16, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry you've had that experience. The key to this one (and maybe others you've seen) is Wikipedia's guideline called "notability". Basically, the only subjects (people, albums, songs, ideas, movies, places) that should have their own Wikipedia article are those which have received "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". This page exists so that people can argue one way of the other, but those arguments can only really be based on sourcing. So if you've seen reliable sources (defined at this page: WP:RS) which give Rightjust significant coverage, link to them here and nobody will want to delete it. "Reliable" is a complicated, context-dependent term here, but in general it means magazines, newspapers, journals, books, or websites with a reputation for accuracy and/or editorial oversight. User-generated content, social media, press releases, blogs, and other self-published work typically is not considered reliable. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:26, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you feel like some particularly notable SC artists have had their articles deleted, I'd recommend creating articles for them in the "Drafts" space. That way you can add to them and solicit feedback from people before moving them to be a regular article (and avoids being taken to deletion shortly after creating the article). I'd be happy to give feedback on any draft articles if you want. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:29, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the current coverage is not convincing enough for the applicable entertainers notability. SwisterTwister talk 23:47, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP I am a fan of southern hip hop and i am very familiar with this artist. i've checked the references and there is enough for notability. seems like the page is a work in progress, so maybe more information may be noted. 2601:5C2:4100:C650:F004:E940:808D:EA1E (talk) 23:39, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Promotional. Doesn't yet meet GNG or criteria for entertainers. Source are very low quality. Philafrenzy (talk) 10:47, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 14:11, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Everett Martin[edit]

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

Non-notable boxer - does not meet WP:NBOX or WP:GNG. Being defeated by a series of notable boxers does not confer notability (WP:NOTINHERITED) Peter Rehse (talk) 11:56, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 11:56, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 20:43, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 20:43, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 20:43, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 20:43, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet either WP:GNG or WP:NBOX. No significant independent coverage and the WBF is not a major boxing organization. How does a guy with only 20 wins in 60 fights and with 11 straight losses even get a world title fight, even for a minor organization? Papaursa (talk) 00:34, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:36, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NBOX and WP:GNG. No significant boxing accomplishments and no significant independent coverage.Mdtemp (talk) 15:55, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:32, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Olimar The Wondercat[edit]

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

I'm not sure that this could qualify for a speedy deletion as web content or not, so I'm bringing this to AfD. G4 doesn't apply here since it's written as an article about the hoax.

Ultimately I don't see where this hoax has received the type of coverage that we'd require in order to warrant an article. Only two of the sources are places that would be considered a reliable source and both of them only mention the hoax in passing. The other two sources appear to be self-published and neither would be an exception to the WP:SPS rule in this case. The other sources are all linked to Wikipedia, making them WP:PRIMARY at best.

A search brought up very little that would establish notability and the best I could find was this article in the Journal Dunet.

We already have this archived at Wikipedia:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia, which is available as a hatnote at the top of the article that covers hoaxes on Wikipedia, Reliability of Wikipedia. I don't know that we particularly need an article on specific Wikipedia hoaxes. I suppose we could discuss whether or not to have a page that lists the hoaxes in the mainspace as opposed to the wikispace, but I would personally be against that since it could potentially be seen as an encouragement to create hoaxes. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:22, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 13:53, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If we're writing a Wikipedia article about a Wikipedia article, then people really have not much to do. Anyway, it does not meet WP:GNG nor does it pass WP:SPS, and this is chronicled in the list of Wikipedia hoaxes. epicgenius (talk) 21:44, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Wikipedia controversies, where it is more than sufficiently covered. I was sort of hoping this new version of the article -- about the hoax -- was created by same the author. To give keep the dream alive, that is. Oh well. Yeah, I'm not seeing sufficient sources to satisfy WP:GNG either. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:29, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see it was just removed from list of Wikipedia controversies. Alright then, I guess I'd still support a redirect to Wikipedia:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia. Seems like an acceptable use of a cross-namespace redirect. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:36, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't think that we could do that with things like this. If that's doable, I don't have a particular problem with that. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:23, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know that that's any bright line on the matter. Certainly cross-namespace redirects are discouraged, but we do have plenty of them. In this case, the page we're redirecting to is more directly connected to article content than most projectspace pages. Maybe it would wind up at RfD, but it seems like a fine outcome for this discussion anyway :) — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:58, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:33, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete Handing out trophy redirects to go along with the trophy entries on the list of hoaxes seems like a bad path to go down. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 21:57, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
~~Redirect to Wikipedia:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:34, 17 February 2016 (UTC)~~[reply]

Changing to delete. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:21, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not a notable hoax, not enough that could be appropriately sourced. Don't redirect - cross-namespace redirects for specific deleted pages shouldn't exist, even those for Wikipedia's policies and processes are often deleted. Peter James (talk) 23:10, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - After reviewing the references and looking for additional sources, I agree that notability with this hoax doesn't exist enough for it to be merged or redirected. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:21, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was SNOW keep and I'm not certain if the next few days closer to a week would make any considerable differences (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 06:59, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Buckner Fanning[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a memorial. Obituaries are not reliable sources - that is to say, they aren't fact checked like a typical article. This person apparently had no notability before his death. This article didn't appear until after his death. Most significantly: notability appears to be local with no expanded coverage. Rklawton (talk) 12:49, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Of the six sources on the page, only one is an obit. Texas Monthly is not local; did you need national sources? Here's a link to a reprint of a Newsweek article. This is a person who was mainly notable nationally in the 50/60's during the televangelist craze. I'm sure other sources can be found, but this easily meets the basic criteria for notability. Kuru (talk)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:12, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:12, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There are more than enough sources here to show notability. Yes, this person died. Were they notable before then? Maybe not at least according to our standards. But they are certainly notable now, and that isn't temporary. Keep, since WP:BIO, WP:GNG are all met. The article is well sourced, not an advertisement, and etc... - No reason this should be deleted just because he happened to die. --allthefoxes ^(Talk) 17:08, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A variety of sources and it seems likely that more can be found. Comment: "Obituaries are not reliable sources - that is to say, they aren't fact checked like a typical article." There are different kinds of obituaries. Paid newspaper obituaries are advertisements and generally not reliable sources or indicative of notability, but editorial obituaries (in newspapers and in other media) are excellent evidence of notability. In fact, many articles have been kept on the basis of national newspaper obituaries alone.--Jahaza (talk) 02:32, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes WP:GNG. Plenty of articles don't get started here until someone dies. Edwardx (talk) 09:08, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Nomination is wrong-headed. The nominator should familiarise themselves with our policies. Subject meets GNG. Philafrenzy (talk) 11:07, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 that the sourcing is insufficient to show that this is a notable (or, indeed, serious) field of study. Opinions by very new accounts were given less weight. Sandstein 19:51, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Quantum anthropology[edit]

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

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

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

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

The content is sourced exclusively from fringe journals and hasn't received independent notice as an actual subject. jps (talk) 12:49, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Neuroquantology is apparently a peer-reviewed journal (to my surprise), as are Social Science Computer Review and Theological Studies. The subject is certainly fringe, but seems like it may be notable. Several sources are pay-walled, so I'm not certain they actually discuss the article subject. - Mr X 13:31, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: At least Annual Review of Anthropology, Social Science Computer Review, NeuroQuantology and Theological Studies (journal) are peer-reviewed; Anthropology News is the official newspaper of the American Anthropological Association and Ethos published by its subdivision; Social Analysis is published by Berghahn Books; Systems, Man, and Cybernetics is by IEEE Systems, Man, and Cybernetics Society (part of IEEE); Journal of Aerospace Engineering is by the Institution of Mechanical Engineers (and a Committee on Publication Ethics member). Notwithstanding the nomination, not all sources are journals. Non-journal sources are by the Duke University Press and Blackwell Publishing, which are considered reliable.

The only ones that I find a bit dodgy are: Physics of Particles and Nuclei is by Joint Institute for Nuclear Research (whether they are reliable or not, I can't tell); Syntropy is an open-access journal by International Academy of Consciousness - probably not reliable; and Atlantic Journal of Communication (whom I don't know, but I do note they are published by Taylor & Francis).

While most of these sources are probably not houshold names to someone with a background in natural science - and we are dealing with a social science topic here - the overwhelming majority of them look very reliable. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:48, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I removed a number of sources which contained no mention whatsoever of "quantum anthropology" and therefore were violations of WP:SYNTH. Note taht only true believers in this fringe proposal seem to be commenting on it. Otherwise, the idea is ignored. jps (talk) 14:37, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc: did you check in the sources themselves or just whether or not the title includes the words "quantum anthropology"? It was quite a few sources that you removed, in a short time, and raises doubts whether you actually studied them or not. Please note that significant coverage does not mean "the main topic of the source" (WP:SIGCOV), so in order to determine if sources support notability, it's generally required to actually study them closely rather than just glance at the title. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:07, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I actually went through and read all the sources and did careful search in each for the term "quantum anthropology". Most of the sources were being used to promote ideas that were found in the article text (e.g. "embodiment") rather than framing the subject of quantum anthropology per se. The ones that actually use the term I kept in the article. jps (talk) 15:11, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:13, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTABILITY. I understand the argument above, but I respectfully counter that if a fringe topic (even a reputable one) were notable enough for inclusion here, it would be something those of us with an interest in fringe topics would have at least heard about.

In addition, the article does next to nothing to explain the subject. Indeed, it merely defines it as something about quantum mechanics and anthropology, cites where the term began, and then proceeds to wave its hands about wavefunction collapse and wave particle duality in a way that (frankly) makes little sense. It's enough info for me to think up a mystic-woo explanation, but nothing that even approaches the actual purpose of an article. In searching scholarly articles for the term, I find that it's usually used as an analogy for dualism, in which the particle is considered to be the body, and the wavefunction the soul. In some of these, it is explicitly defined as an analogy. Thus, from what I can find in scholarly sources, this is not a field of study, but a common analogy used by dualists in theology and religious contexts. One of the examples which explictly states this to be an analogy is the first reference used on the page.

Now, there might be a legitimate fringe area of science which can be identified by this term. I can imagine technologies using principles of quantum mechanics that are useful for anthropological research (in the most general sense, the computer is the most obvious one, followed by carbon dating). However, I cannot for the life of me imagine (or find on the internet) a legitimate field of science in which the principles of quantum mechanics have a direct bearing upon any anthropological research. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 14:58, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think that part of the problem is that in certain areas of practical theology, what is proposed to be an allegory or metaphor and what is proposed to be the actual fact of reality get confused. It is unclear from reading the sources which actually propose that something like "quantum anthropology" exists whether the authors intend on quantum mechanics being directly relevant to human existence or whether it's just serving as a useful metaphor. Part of the problem seems to be that the authors who are using the term admit that they themselves only have a qualitative understanding of the subject and are not capable of determining whether the topics that quantum mechanics actually describe are relevant to discussions they are trying to encourage. The ongoing cacophony associated with various quantum mind proposals don't seem to help much in this.

All that said, it's not up to us as Wikipedia editors to critique the idea, but if the idea does not have the requisite notice that would allow for a coherent article to be written on the subject (and so far I haven't seen any evidence that such sources exist), I think that the typical argument for deletion is that it fails on either the WP:NFRINGE or WP:NOR fronts.

If people can find coherent sources that explain what precisely "quantum anthropology" actually is (the current sources use the term as a placeholder for the author's particular ideas without so much as bothering to frame it), that would be greatly appreciated.

jps (talk) 15:10, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:20, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:20, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacks independent coverage. Alexbrn (talk) 17:14, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Independent of what? The article is not about an organization or a person. Are you suggesting that the peer-reviewed journals are not independent of each other, or the subject?- MrX 17:43, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Independent of its fringe milieu (i.e. WP:FRIND). Peer review guarantees little. What I'd be expecting to find is serious/analytical (and coherent) secondary treatment that defines this as a topic of mainstream interest. Alexbrn (talk) 18:04, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - Either the journals are controlled/influenced/edited by a person or organization affiliated with the subject, or not. If you are claiming the former, I think you have the burden of providing some evidence. Does anyone else think that "Fringe milieu" sounds like an appetizer in French restaurant?- MrX 18:47, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - I want (to repeat) "serious/analytical (and coherent) secondary treatment that defines this as a topic of mainstream interest". Show me the beef (the main course, not an appetizer). Or do you think we have sources that meet my criteria? Alexbrn (talk) 18:56, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        Being mainstream has no bearing on whether something meets our notability guildelines. In fact, we are supposed to be facilitating access to the sum of all human knowledge. I'm sorry, but I'm not especially interested in your personal criteria.- Mr X 19:49, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        Quite right too. But you should know that I merely want what our guidance requires, that this topic be "referenced extensively, and in a serious and reliable manner, by major publications that are independent of their promulgators and popularizers". Alexbrn (talk) 19:57, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete: This is indeed a fringe topic within anthropology, which seems to be promulgated by scholars who have no idea what quantum mechanics is. The notion of quantum anthropology is at best a poorly defined metaphor, which is actually best usurped by well-developed theories of cultural and sociology, such as agency, practice theory, or structuration theory. Delta13C (talk) 18:55, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: The theme is mentioned in peer reviewed magazines and in others as well. I think that the goal of Wikipedia is sum of all human knowledge. For this reason there is a need to cover also new emerging fields, otherwise Wikipedia be a dictionary of old terms and theories. I am convinced that creation is better than deletion. I think that there is better to work on this article than find reasons for deletionWikiditor (talk) 20:45, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
— Note to closing admin: Wikiditor (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:06, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Seems to be a synthesis of some examples of the term being thrown around in different ways, followed by a mention of Russell (2013). That one paper isn't enough to justify founding a discipline, nor is it enough to meet the notability requirements. Russell's abstract is available online [16], though (1) it seems unclear how this is quantum mechanics and (2) it seems unclear how this is anthropology. As an essay in religious studies, it's probably fine...though still not notable. Geogene (talk) 20:55, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The last place that needs to get infected by the New Age/quantum mechanics hybrid abomination is Wikipedia. Perfect Orange Sphere (talk) 22:38, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Quantum delete this quantum flapdoodle. Guy (Help!) 23:39, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps some of the content should be put into Quantum mysticism with a redirect? Delta13C (talk) 13:24, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: For reasons stated above. If I mentioned how this is synthesis, OR, non-notable, and so on, it would violate the Pauli exclusion principle, so there's no need to duplicate arguments already stated. Roches (talk) 06:41, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
After I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc's careful work of going through the used sources, we are down to 5 (and a handful of further reading and external links). I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc above says he has eliminated OR and SYNTH problems by narrowing content and sources to these ones. Anyone claiming those or WP:FRINGE should look at the discussion above; the nominator thinks these 5 sources are directly relevant to establishing notability and are not fringe sources. I think if we accept that, we also have to accept that the present sources are enough to meet WP:GNG. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:02, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- The sources are not fringe sources, the topic is fringe and really makes no sense. This is not a topic that is well-known within anthropology. Delta13C (talk) 17:39, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Three of the five remaining sources are misused as original research to demonstrate that various authors have used the term "quantum anthropology" before, apparently in different ways. Geogene (talk) 20:15, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have now removed that part, in order to show how little there really is to work with here. Geogene (talk) 20:18, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nowhere near convinced that the remaining sources are actually being used properly. I only didn't remove them because they actually use the term. However, it is not at all clear to me that their use of the term justifies the article. Very suspicious. jps (talk) 04:24, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I am senior researcher in anthropology and I know works of Wendt, Kirby, Barad, and Russell well. These sources share the coherent interpretative framework and their content is not fringe in cultural anthropology. The deletion of this article may elicit the danger of discrimination of one of fields of cultural anthropology. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MaterialistX (talk • contribs) 07:28, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I am also an anthropologist, but our statuses has no bearing on this discussion. Having a "coherent interpretive framework" does not convey notability. That statement is original research. I'd actually be really interested in understanding how you came to this notion, because the framework I see with quantum anthropology is absolutely quantum flapdoodle. Where are the multiple, reliable sources that demonstrate otherwise. Since being conjured up in the mid-nineties, very few scholars in or related to anthropology have written about it. Contrast this fact with another topic like Complexity theory or Actor-network theory, which came to anthro at more or less similar times and have proliferated in the field. Feel free to discuss this with me on my talk page. Delta13C (talk) 07:52, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I would be interested to see a source that identifies these four authors as sharing a coherent interpretative framework. Such a source would go a LONG way toward establishing notability. Right now, it looks like this is just the beliefs of various Wikipedia editors which is basically original research. jps (talk) 15:15, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I find several sources using this phrase, but all of them discuss different ideas and it's apparent there's no coherent topic here that passes GNG. The first source in the article refers to concepts in Christian theology, equating wave/particle with body/spirit, and falls neatly into quantum mysticism; another source from 1996[17] advocates incorporating "quantum" ideas into cultural anthropology, without clearly explaining what this entails, and calls this "quantum anthropology". There are a few other examples, but they again seem to refer to unconnected, vague, and probably incoherent ideas. --Sammy1339 (talk) 16:16, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- "Equating wave/particle with body/spirit" is not included in the content of the current version of Wikipedia article Quantum Anthropology. Further, Pownell´s article from 1996 (mentioned as "source from 1996[2]") that only introduced the term "quantum anthropology", is not referenced for the support of main ideas of quantum anthropology in the current version of the article. So, these arguments are irrelevant. MaterialistX (talk) 13:35, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No coherent theme. Non-notable junk science and junk anthropology. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:48, 19 February 2016 (UTC).[reply]
- I would like to provide a more detailed explanation of coherence between works of Wendt, Kirby, Barad, and Russell for all discussants who have not read these works. 1) All of these anthropological studies have integrated the observer effect into anthropological theory with various important implications. 2) Wendt (2006+2015), Kirby (2011), and Barad (2007) extensively included the interconnection between agency and the observer effect. 3) Wendt (2006+2015), Kirby (2011), and Barad (2007) developed the issue of the entanglement between the observer, observed, and the apparatus in the context of anthropology. 4) Kirby (2011) and Barad (2007) also covered the relation between material-discoursive practices and construction of human concepts.MaterialistX (talk) 13:35, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - There is absolutely no scholarship that shows the "observer effect" in quantum mechanics has any relevance whatsoever to macroscopic systems. As said above, this is at best a poorly constructed metaphor. I would be surprised if any of the people making the claim that the observer effect in quantum mechanics is relevant has ever dealt with the actual mathematics of how the effect works. This is fast spiraling into classic pseudoscience. jps (talk) 15:45, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Even though quantum anthropology is new field of anthropology, there is evidence of attention of this issue in peer-reviewed journals and books. Unfortunately these important references have been deleted from the article (by just one person?). Thanks to this censorship, no one can verify their relation to the content of the article discussed here. + The article is brief now, I reccomend to enlarge it rather than to delete it. The above discussion also seems to me as classical conflict between natural sciences and social sciences/humanities. Ideas of quantum anthropology may sound fringe to natural scientists, but as is mentioned in Notability versus acceptance guidelines, non-acceptance of the idea by some experts does not mean the article should be removed from Wikipedia.CulturAnt (talk) 20:54, 21 February 2016 (UTC) — CulturAnt (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
What worries me in terms of this AfD is that the article has undergone several drastic changes during it, so we're not talking about anything remotely similar than in the beginning. We began with 16 inline references that were cited only once each with somewhat disperse views. Then we had only 1 that was naturally coherent with itself, but lacking proof of significant coverage. Finally, we have 4 that are referenced extensively (23 instances of citation in total) and coherently. Participants who have voiced concerns regarding earlier versions should look at the current version. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:19, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Welcome to Wikipedia. The attempts to reform the article are legitimate parts of the AfD process as new eyes and ideas are incorporated. Removing problematic sources is something we should always do regardless as to whether there is an active AfD or not. jps (talk) 22:24, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I just created my account, because of this discussion. I am teaching cultural anthropology for 14 years, incl. writing and reviewing of journal (Q4) articles. I am noticing significant development in quantum biology in last couple of years. It means for me, that it was only a question of time, when this will be defined for the man – logically, as the quantum anthropology. Finally, I’ve found comprehensive (this is not about one sense or meaning of the term), well resourced (this is not only about quantity of relevant records) entry here on Wikipedia and I can’t believe, that quantum anthropology is considered for deletion from The Free Encyclopedia.Qbiol (talk) 23:30, 22 February 2016 (UTC) — Qbiol (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Your logic is no good. We should keep quantum anthropology because quantum biology is a thing? What about cultural or human behavior exhibits quantum properties? I don't think quantum means what you think it does. Delta13C (talk) 07:17, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I don’t know "no good" or good logic. But I use e.g. inductive or deductive logic. And I’m not reasoning nor saying anything about “cultural or human behavior”. The strong need to define quantum anthropology is evident, instead of guessing of (my) thoughts - or deleting the term. Qbiol (talk) 11:10, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original synthesis of rather dubious sources that discuss disparate topics. One source says quantum anthropology is a subset of Christian anthropology and deals with mind-body duality. Two seem to be feminist theories, with one of those two saying nothing about anthropology, quantum or not, except that "Bohr erred [...] by drawing analogies between physics and biology or physics and anthropology". The remaining two are by a political scientist who argues that the brain should be studied by using the methods of quantum physics but, at least in one of the cited works, does not use the term "quantum anthropology". So of five sources at most three use the term, and all three give different meanings. No evidence is given that any of those three meanings meets Wikipedia's standards of notability. Besides, the article is rather heavy on meaningless buzzwords. No sourced information on quantum anthropology itself is given. Who are the main proponents? When was this theory developed? Is it considered fringe or accepted by mainstream anthropologists/physicists/sociologists/theologists? The article doesn't tell, the sources do not tell. Huon (talk) 03:17, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No surprises. The article is drivel from beginning to end. Its inclusion would make Wikipedia into a fringe freak show. Because it was deleted less than two months before being brought back again, there is a case to Salt too. Xxanthippe (talk) 07:02, 23 February 2016 (UTC).[reply]

I wonder if this article is a new Sokal hoax. If so, it has fallen flat because Wikipedia editors are a bit smarter than the editors of the journal Social Text who fell for that hoax. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:31, 24 February 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Explanation of coherence: 1) Works of Wendt, Kirby, Barad, and Russell do not discuss disparate topics. Agency is one of main areas of interest in current social and cultural anthropology and all these sources include the interconnection between agency and the observer effect (and also relations with other quantum principles). So, the argument that some of these sources "is saying nothing about anthropology" indicates rather little familiarity with the contemporary anthropological discourse. Focus on agency and integration of the observer effect into anthropological theory are things that make all these 5 sources coherent. 2) Social and cultural anthropology has much more different discourse that natural sciences = for example, some of sources may have different labellings of the same thing. For example, Wendt (2006+2015) does not use the term "quantum anthropology", but use the expression "A quantum model of man" in both works including parts that are anthropological in nature (and including the issue of agency as well). In contrast, natural sciences have unified, strictly defined terms with almost absolutely exact meanings. So, the argument of "disparate topics" may stem from the evaluation of anthropological works by positivistic discussants. 3) Wikipedia is The Free Encyclopedia and should not present only articles which content corresponds well with the field of natural sciences.MaterialistX (talk) 09:05, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In my point view, there is no doubt that quantum anthropology is an issue (several authors write about it). I understand that maybe it is not a ,,mainstream theory and theme", maybe this article also is not so good, but I think that this is a typical example discussion on Deletionism and inclusionism. And I am convinced that Wikipedia should be open and inclusive (as - not only - Jimmy Wales want). And in term of notability I have to say that all - nowadays mainstream - theories was emerging in the past.Wikiditor (talk) 10:06, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Believe it or not, the article is now even worse than it was when I nominated it, containing outright false statements and many citations that do not support the sentences onto which they are tacked. WP:TNT is perhaps relevant. jps (talk) 15:35, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply: Some parts of the article have been accused from false statements and they have been labeled as "not in citation given". It is simply not true - below I offer the exact subparts of the sources where these information are included:
- "The observer, observed, and the apparatus are entangled" - [2] page 76 and also other parts of book of Kirby (2011) + [3] page 139 and also other parts of book of Barad (2007) + [4] page 36 and pages 66-69 in book of Wendt (2015)
- "They are not three different "entities", but they interact." - [2] page 76 in book of Kirby (2011)
- "Quantum anthropology understands humans and cultures as actualizations of potentiality in time and space" - [1] pages 937 and 946 and also other parts of paper of Russell (2013) [5] in the subsections "Toward a quantum model of man" and "Toward a quantum model of society" of Wendt (2006) MaterialistX (talk) 08:59, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG. Every field anthropologist knows and it trained to recognize the "observer effect" adding the word quantum to field discipline that has been practiced for close to a century is utter bollocks. As near as I can tell from the sources some are trying to use a popular understanding of QM as a metaphor (a strained one at that) but there is no indication of any mainstream acceptance. Jbh ^Talk 15:55, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Notification I have found Wikiditor to have been canvassing heavily over the last 24 hours. They did it here, here, here, here, here and here. I have reasons to suspect off-wiki canvassing as well. At least two users registered during this discussion with the sole purpose of commenting in this discussion in support of keeping it. Moreover based on behavioral evidence seen above, I suspect we might have some ducks with socks on here as well. All of this may have compromised the discussion. Tvx1 18:02, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I promote the discussion about this article but from NPV - I wrote there: ,,So if somebody has a time for quick view and discussion (keep or delete) the article will be glad"! I spent on this article so much time, for this reason I wanted ask others for their opinion on this theme. But I am not a duck and sock! I contribute to this article just from this account and I did not create others! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiditor (talk • contribs) 19:40, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply However in your calls for opinions in the discussion you also wrote: "...it is threaten by deletion (probably from people who are interested in another fields)." That is clearly not neutral. Moreover the choice of places where you posted, such as Wikipedia:WikiProject_Wikipedians_against_censorship, is also at odds with the canvassing guideline. T v x1 20:40, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agree there's an off-wiki canvass happening somewhere, this page averaged about 10 views a day before the AfD. Now this many new users? Closing admin will likely take that into account. Geogene (talk) 21:28, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Xxanthippe. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:26, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize if I canvassed on Wikipedia in inappropriate way, but I was really concerned that this article should view more people. Because I do not understand, why peer reviewed article and other titles from well known publishing houses are not good enough here, when many other articles use a really ,,fringe references". And phrase quantum anthropology is definitely used in english (if you say it is not a science/field, what it is - could we try to define another?). I understand that this article could be not good enough - but I think that it will be better to work on improve it, instead of working hard on arguments to discussion. Wikiditor (talk) 11:06, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's okay, we all make mistakes. In the future, the best way to avoid canvassing is to post to the WikiProjects rather than to talk pages of policy pages. As for this page, the biggest problem you have is that the favored sources for the article are all utterly disconnected from each other. There is no over-arching description of what exactly quantum anthropology is supposed to entail. If you want there to be an article in Wikipedia on this subject, the first thing to do is get better sources. That may mean encouraging people who can create such sources to create them, because right now the wide-ranging claims and differing ideas associated with this broad idea make it fairly incoherent and it is going to suffer from WP:REDFLAGs and WP:OR concerns until that time. jps (talk) 13:22, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Jbh. Wikipedia needs to aggressively defend itself against being used to promote crackpottery. Reyk _YO! 11:43, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:02, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nicholas Jordan[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Does not seem to meet WP:BIO standards; most of the sources provided are press releases it appears. Note that this appears to be a different Nicholas Jordan than the one in the first AFD. only (talk) 11:50, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:52, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as none of this suggests a better solidly notable independent article, still questionable overall. SwisterTwister talk 06:16, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No substantial sources - all are very brief, some are only name-checks. Nothing better turned up in the usual searches. LaMona (talk) 23:03, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. The article itself only claims that this is an upper-level business executive who has been doing his job, so it's not surprising that there are no substantive references out there. NewYorkActuary (talk) 23:40, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 14:13, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wey, Load[edit]

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

The title itself is incoherent: "Wey" and "Load" are different (see Wey (unit) and Load (unit)). This is copied verbatim from the table on page 37 of the ever-unreliable Cardarelli (see User:Imaginatorium/Cardarelli) Imaginatorium (talk) 10:23, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wey and Load are alternate titles and so what we have here is a garbling of the original source. Andrew D. (talk) 13:17, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The original editor (Shevonsilva) copied it verbatim (i.e. comma-separated) from Cardarelli, who copied it almost verbatim from Washburn (1926), but in Washburn's book the names are bracketed, and there is a footnote "Variable". (Washburn is also, evidently, the source from which Cardarelli copied the gibberish "Japanese units", also verbatim.) Imaginatorium (talk) 15:23, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The source claiming this unit was used is a not reliable as it has many examples to show that it is a jumbled compilation of claims rather than a study of units. Johnuniq (talk) 06:35, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I thought we'd got rid of this rubbish, sad to see some of it still around. PamD 15:39, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:16, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:16, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. General consensus to keep. (non-admin closure) sst✈^(conjugate) 08:56, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Abhinay Banker[edit]

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

This article has been rejected multiple times in AfC so it'd be better to get AfC approval before creating the article. Coderzombie (talk) 11:05, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:04, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:04, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Draftify~~ Weak Keep: I believe it should be moved to Draftspace for improvement, not deleted. Chrisw80 (talk) 18:06, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I think the content could use a lot of trimming to match the reliable sources, but I don't think the article is entire un-salvageable, as there are' some sources that talk about Abhinay Banker directly, and the discussion is comprehensive. Chrisw80 (talk) 05:59, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Now that this has reached AfD, a persisting answer to the question of notability should be sought, but it may also be worth noting the longer history of attempts to place this article prior to the thrice-rejected AfC, via another account, at User talk:Abhinay Banker. AllyD (talk) 07:55, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 16:51, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are now RS in the article, including The Indian Express, and The Times of India ( the second ref from The Times) , so I think this actor, director and writer passes WP:GNGAtlantic306 (talk) 23:50, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:15, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Atlantic306. Clearly meets WP:GNG per the Times of India references; he's a notable person within Indian cinema. Clearly the article does have some WP:NPOV issues at the moment though. "...is the sensational personality, who has shaped and inspired a lot of young actors and theater enthusiasts. An ardent actor, a sharp director, a passionate writer and a proficient casting director, he has touched the audiences with his team of fresh and nifty students and the very original ideas that he believes in." clearly not an encyclopedic tone! — Amakuru (talk) 11:07, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. No consensus for deletion, but consensus that something should be done editorially to fix the overlap with related articles. It's not clear from this discussion how to best proceed, though. Further discussion may be needed. Sandstein 19:46, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Avoiding dangerous climate change[edit]

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

The article title is WP:SYNTH, as "Avoiding dangerous climate change" isn't inherently an encyclopedic subject. Duplicates existing articles, including Politics of global warming, Action on climate change, Climate change mitigation, and quite possibly others. J^♯m (talk | contribs) 21:11, 9 February 2016 (UTC) Note: The article aforementioned as Action on climate change is actually under Climate action. Also, after this AfD was started, the Climate action article was itself nominated for deletion by Shritwod. J^♯m (talk | contribs) 20:29, 15 February 2016 (UTC) [reply]

keep unless you can come up with something more convincing. The title is definitely a thing in itself, its not SYNTH, and there was definitely a conference about it William M. Connolley (talk) 22:59, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:05, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

keep. I agree entirely with Connolley. Please see WP:What SYNTH is not. On its talk page the article has previously been proposed for merger or deletion, with the conclusions being that the article stands, and with the outcome that the article has been improved as a result of the discussions. The first merger discussion concluded in January 2012. In the talk section "Title" both merger and deletion were discussed from February 2012 into July 2013. A formal merger proposal was active from May to June 2014, with the outcomes of all respondents opposed the merger, the merger flag being removed, and another person later affirming that outcome in January 2016. I ask that the AfD flag be summarily removed. Coastwise (talk) 00:37, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You can't just "summarily remove" an AfD tag unless there's a reason to SNOW it closed, or if it's a speedy keep. J^♯m (talk | contribs) 04:51, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

keep The concise, well-written, well-referenced article provides a means of accessing core information on a current hot topic. I also ask that the AfD flag be summarily removed. MaynardClark (talk) 12:11, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You can't just "summarily remove" an AfD tag unless there's a reason to SNOW it closed, or if it's a speedy keep. J^♯m (talk | contribs) 04:51, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ - content is mostly duplicated elsewhere, and anything that isn't can be merged. The article does have some value in explaining key aspects, but this is an encyclopaedia and not a magazine. Shritwod (talk) 03:11, 12 February 2016 (UTC). Added: In light of the discussion below I would like to amend my vote slightly to Delete or revert back to before October 2011 and any useful content removed should be merged with other articles. Shritwod (talk) 10:57, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Shritwod merely states a belief ("is mostly duplicated elsewhere") and provides no supporting evidence for that claim. In parallel to his/her delete vote he/she also suggests merger as another option, without saying with what article or for what reason. Seeing no substance to his/her vote, my vote remains: Keep. Coastwise (talk) 07:59, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is significant duplication between this and Climate change mitigation, for example. I believe that these subject areas are identical. I can only assume that the article has been created for SEO purposes and not encyclopaedic ones. Furthermore, requesting that the AfD flag be removed without a sufficient debate does not (in my opinion) seem to be an attempt to dodge the concerns raised by Jsharpminor. Shritwod (talk) 08:17, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I can only assume that the article has been created for SEO purposes - WTF? Why did you make up that drivel? William M. Connolley (talk)

I always enjoy a debate when the other parties have to resort to abuse. Can you explain a valid reason why there are two articles with substantially the same content? Shritwod (talk) 12:46, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It does seem like the Climate change mitigation mentioned above is pretty much the same thing. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 13:17, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean the same as an article, or as a concept? Because as articles they are clearly different to my eye William M. Connolley (talk) 17:29, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Subject, concept. This article was originally only about a conference and not the concept itself: original. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 18:15, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would actually support keeping the article while reforming it to be about the conference on "Avoiding Dangerous Climate Change." However, I continue to object strongly to the notion that "avoiding dangerous climate change" is a thing. Climate change is a thing. Dangerous climate change is a thing to be avoided, but it is not itself an article subject. "Avoiding dangerous climate change" isn't a thing, and I would challenge anyone who says otherwise to prove it with Google search results, etc. J^♯m (talk | contribs) 04:47, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I wish to discuss some points raised since my last post.

(1) In claiming that this article and Climate change mitigation (CCM) "are identical" subject areas, User:Shritwod has once again stated a belief but provided no specifics or reasoning for his claim. The articles are distinct. The ADCC one covers the imperative of science and society to address climate change that would be dangers. The CCM article covers how to reduce those harms; however, it is uncertain whether mitigation will avoid dangerous change entirely, and arguably it will not. That leaves two other topics related to ADCC that the CCM article does not cover - the impacts of a failure to mitigate adequately (e.g. 4 Degrees and Beyond International Climate Conference and adaptation to climate change (to make the dangers less bad). Therefore, the ADCC and CCM articles are not identical on their face, and equally importantly the ADCC topic spans more than just mitigation. This also answers Mr. Magoo's first post.

(2) Mr. Magoo points to a nine-year-old version of the article, saying the article was "originally only about a conference and not the concept itself." I see no merit to his point, because the article has been expanded and improved, which is how WP functions.

(3) J#M offered a post is internally inconsistent. First, "[d]angerous climate change is a thing to be avoided," but then in the next sentence, 'Avoiding dangerous climate change' isn't a thing." He has admitted it is a "thing" but then claims that it isn't. He then challenges "anyone who says [it is a thing] to prove it with Google search results, etc." There is book with the same title, "Avoiding Dangerous Climate Change," by several scientists.^[1] That and many articles and scientific papers with the ADCC topic (or equivalent wording) in the title can be found with a Google search. I would also point out the WP article Peace. Peace is some"thing" society values, dangerous climate change is some"thing" society wishes to avoid. Both are valid "topics" for books and encyclopedia articles, even if someone wishes to split hairs on whether they are things.

(4) Finally I would like to point out that there are 335 WP articles that link to the ADCC article (paring down from 453 entries by eliminating links from portals, lists, redirects, user:talk pages, etc.). The ADCC page has had 11,600 hits over the last 90 days. I believe this demonstrates that the ADCC article has merit. Keep. Coastwise (talk) 10:46, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Schellenhuber, H.J. et al. (2006). Avoiding dangerous climate change. Cambridge Univ. Press.

Comment Looking back at the edit history, it was about that conference until 30th October 2011 when it was rewritten in a way that took it off track (some might call it hijacking, but I am assuming that the edits were made in good faith). I am surprised that it wasn't reverted straight away. I would support a reversion to the topic it was about before that point, with any meaningful additions merged into one of the other near-duplicate topics. I will amend my vote accordingly Shritwod (talk) 10:57, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Shritwod, with all due respect, the only arguments for deletion that are presented on this page amount to I don't like it. The subjective reasons given have become a moving target; when one doesn't stand up to scrutiny, another is being offered. Most recently it is that the original article has been "hijacked;" however, that claim is off topic from the WP:hijack policy. To the contrary, WP:Editing policy is: "Please boldly add information to Wikipedia, either by creating new articles or adding to existing articles, and exercise particular caution when considering removing information." The arguments presented thus far on this page to support deletion are contrary to the WP policy on "Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions". Also, the reasons given for deletion are not among those listed in the WP:Deletion policy.

Your other stated position (that the article should be reverted to its 2011 content by removing all newer content) does not meet WP's standard for problems that may justify removal.

Lastly, my call for summary dismissal of this deletion request was criticized. The reason I called for summary dismissal is that no reasoning based on established WP policy has been presented for doing the deletion, and I don't like it is insufficient grounds to support a deletion request. That dual problem still persists in this discussion. Coastwise (talk) 20:37, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are multiple problems with the article, primarily that the ground it currently covers is largely duplicated elsewhere, and also that the article was created to be about a particular concept in climate change but has been altered completely. I still think that the submitter's argument is entirely valid and that the article as it stands is superfluous, but it might have value if it was reverted to its original topic. Shritwod (talk) 02:06, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rename Dangerous climate change and turn this revision into the article Avoiding dangerous climate change (2005 conference); else delete or redirect. TL;DR: Mix up of subjects, reorg desirable.

"Avoiding dangerous climate change", as a title, can refer to three topics: (a) the particular 2005 conference, (b) a very specific wording that was used in multiple occasions (see "international policy), and (c) the aim of prevention and mitigation of huge adverse effects of CC in a broad sense. Up to some point in 2011 the topic was the first one, then it shifted to something between the latter two, which makes for some confusion. Whether the edits that shifted the subject were made in accordance to policy is irrelevant to the current merits of the article and its prospects; what matters is (1) which of the topics, if any, should be dealt with and (2) what is the best organization of content for this.

I think the 2005 conference (a) was notable and the linked revision was IMO a fair treatment of the subject, hence my suggestion for a new article (and redirect from the current title if nothing else gets in the way).

(b) is in my view notable enough to warrant an article, describing what is "dangerous" CC and how the sentence was used; however, the place for that is Dangerous climate change. Take the current article, rewrite the lead, scrap the last section "Some expressions of dangerous climate change" and we have a good starting point for that.

(c) is better treated in other articles listed in nominator's comment. Not only are there specific articles, but "dangerous" CC outside of a specific context (the various treaties etc.) is highly POV (who gets to decide what is "dangerous"?).

Tigraan (talk) 10:37, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, User:Tigraan, for thoughtful research and remarks that can be discussed. Concerning your latter a, b, c sequence:

(a) I agree that the 2005 conference was notable. I looking at the history, I see that it continued to have its own substantial section until Janurary 24, when the section was edited down to being little more than a stub. On January 25 that remainder was moved, and was integrated into the section "How much global temperature rise is dangerous?" References in the two sentences on the conference include links to the conference's webpage and a report on the outcome of the conference. (It appears that the report link is incorrect and should be the one on the Outcomes page accessible from the first link.) I think it would be fine to have a longer description of the conference, in its own section, but the article's history shows that how much emphasis to give the conference had been controversial for some time. I think that is a matter for the editors to reconsider if the article is kept.

(b) I disagree that the topic of the article should be "dangerous CC," as opposed to the present title concerning the globally recognized imperative to avoid that. A perceived need for avoidance was the impetus for not only the forementioned 2005 conference, but also for example the IPCC's conferences of parties (COPs) leading to the Kyoto accord and the December 2015 Paris accord. Those COPs arrived at globally recognized thresholds of climate change that should be avoided to relieve danger. However, it is fitting, as is done at the end of the present article, to at least briefly describe what kinds of dangers are of concern. So I advocate keeping both the present article and its title. Changes to the title can continue to be disussed in the article's Talk page, as has already been done.

(c) The stated belief seems to be that the title or topic is POV because "who" gets to decide what is dangerous is an open question. To the contrary, as noted in the article, it was decided by consensus of the official representatives all national governments globally, at the 2015 Paris COP, that a temperature rise of 1.5 oC is dangerous and should be avoided, and is that proves impossible to hold the change to under 2 oC to avoid as much dangerous change as possible. Similarly, 2 oC had been established by most governments as the danger threshold at the earlier Kyoto COP. Global governments have stepped in to be the "who." Therefore I believe this topic is NPOV, and that it is best addressed in this article (as the discrete topic which it is). My view remains Keep Coastwise (talk) 15:58, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment/proposal to move forward. Given the edit-history involves a wholesale change of the actual topic it covers (nobody has disputed that), should this article be hist-split now so that the discussion here can actually focus on each separate subject? At a minimum, the conference is a formal name, so the current sentence-case would require renaming even if the deletion discussion here were to have "revert to the conference meaning" as its consensus. DMacks (talk) 10:46, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the solution here would be to restore the section concerning the 2005 conference, as it existed on December 29, 2015. With that re-inclusion the article would still be concise, so I see no need for a split. In fact, Talk page discussion was whether the conference is adequately notable to, a decade later, even be included in the article. The conference presently has a two sentence mention in the article, and reinstating the section seems a better solution than a split. If the decision in this AfD is to make a split, the present title should become the title of a disambiguation page, with links to "Avoiding dangerous climate change (policy)" and "Avoiding Dangerous Climate Change (2005 conference)". However, I continue to believe that the two together are best as one concise article. My view remains keep. Coastwise (talk) 15:58, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody is suggesting that we should split the article as you say. "Avoiding dangerous climate change (policy)" is already covered by Climate change mitigation. This article is about the conference, and the growing consensus seems to support that conclusion.

Also, you might want to re-read WP:CONSENSUS, WP:DEFINECONSENSUS, Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, and WP:DEM. Fifty editors screaming about why the Strings McPickens article should be kept will carry less weight than one or two editors pointing out that Strings McPickens is fictional and not noteworthy. Stating "my view remains 'keep'" at the end of every discussion only gives the regrettable impression that you are trying only to vote and "throw your weight" behind a discussion, rather than explain why you believe your views are correct. J^♯m (talk | contribs) 17:44, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The Google newspapers search, linked in the "Find sources" section above, produces 9 results. The first eight are all dated either 2006 (or, in one case, 2007). Here's what they talk about:

A British conference on "avoiding dangerous climate change" last year ...
In a report published last year called Avoiding Dangerous Climate Change, ...
Last year the British govern ment sponsored a scientific symposium on avoiding Dangerous Climate Change," ...
...thresholds were outlined last year in avoiding Dangerous Climate Change," a summary of tipping points for which British Prime ...

The 9th link, the lone outlier, states

...pledge appeared to be by far the largest individual commitment of money, donated or invested, aimed at avoiding dangerous climate change. ...

So it seems pretty clear to me that the articles I'm finding are all about the conference, and the paper it produced. J^♯m (talk | contribs) 17:49, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the research, but think it is too limited. There are equivalent phrases that need to be searched (as suggested in the article's introduction), such as "preventing dangerous anthropogenic interference," "preventing dangerous climate change," such phrases and the one you used with the "-ing" dropped, and perhaps other phrases as well that express the topic. Also, I believe that a news search is too narrow, regarding what information sources may lead people to search for such terms and find this article. Searches for "all" sources on google.com and on scholar.google.com lead to a plethora of contemporary content that mentions the topic (often with the precise term in the title) that the article is about. This is what an encylopedia (and this article) are for. It is also significant that such phrases regarding the topic appear many places in WP. Coastwise (talk) 18:31, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. Also, in the interest of full disclosure, I did add a note under the nomination which is simply stating that another article which was cited as a possible duplicate is itself going the AfD process. This is just in fairness; if we had articles A, B, C, A-B-C, and First three letters of the alphabet, and independently nominated each of them for deletion as duplicates of existing articles, we shouldn't delete all of them as duplicates of articles which now no longer exist because they were all judged to be duplicates of each other. We would then be deleting our entire coverage of the subject because we had more than one article about it, which would be idiotic. J^♯m (talk | contribs) 20:36, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Draft and userfy (in case this can actually be better improved) at best because the article still somewhat looks like a journal report instead of a better encyclopedia article. SwisterTwister talk 20:58, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I don't see this heading for outright deletion based on this discussion, but it seems that there are several articles in this topic area that overlap, and perhaps this discussion can be a basis for consensus on how to editorially consolidate them. Sandstein 09:13, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:13, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone please restore the References section to the bottom of this page? The two above comments are below that, but I can't find a way to correct the problem. The heading for it no longer appears, and I am unable to re-add it. Coastwise (talk) 16:09, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It had been placed somewhere else specifically for no obvious reason, so I moved it so that it appears directly after the comment that uses the ref. DMacks (talk) 19:58, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

merge duplicates subject of other articles, with title that reads like that of an essay rather than an encyclopedia article. Reference to the conference/content, if notable, can go in one of the existing articles about climate change.SatansFeminist (talk) 03:18, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rename and Revert years back The article was originally about Avoiding dangerous climate change (2005 conference). We have Climate change mitigation about the main matter. The confusion-causing edits over the years happened because the original name did not have the (2005 conference). This addition will fix the problem and a revert will return the article to its original subject matter. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 09:56, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In addition I noticed the editor who originally changed it is the only one arguing against the revert here? Wikipedia isn't a dictionary... --Mr. Magoo (talk) 10:09, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Revert years back to the diff cited by Mr. Magoo, and possibly Rename. One of the most egregious hijackings of a mundane article for non-neutral ends I have yet seen on Wikipedia. How on earth did this article go from being a fairly neutral, concise, clear article about a conference, to a meticulously referenced advocacy essay about the desirability of "avoiding dangerous climate change" - with the conference reduced to two sentences? Either way, the conference article is better. AnotherNewAccount (talk) 20:10, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Don't merge. Here I categorize and summarize the above comments, and for each I give my views against merger:

Responding to arguments for merger:

Admin's suggestion: It seems that there are several articles in this topic area that overlap, so consider consolidation. (Sandstein). Content can go into an existing article about climate change. (SatansFeminist). The main matter is climate change mitigation. (Mr. Magoo).

I believe if a Venn diagram were drawn of the 15 significant articles I quickly listed here, they all overlap with this one as a center. (Some of them may also have Venn relationships centering on other topics as well.) Effects of global warming, Adaptation to global warming, Reasons for concern, UNFCCC, IPCC, Climate change mitigation, IPCC First Assessment Report (AR1), AR2, AR3, AR4, AR5, Kyoto protocol, COP 15, COP 21, Politics of global warming, and likely others. That is, there is no "main matter" this fits into, it has strong relationships to many articles. I believe cross-references to this article allows a quick, concise look-up of the concept with minimal distractions (as well as being accessible through a direct search), a good encyclopedia function. Links to some of the above articles already occur within the article, and others can be added as editors of the article deem worthwhile. I don't see any downside to having this as a standalone article.

Responding to arguments for reverting the article, by deleting non-conference content:

Claim: Original article was about the 2005 conference, which is now reduced to two sentences in the article. (Mr. Magoo).

This concern can be addressed by reverting not to a 2011 version but to in version 701511859 of Janurary 24, 2016, as the basis for continuing edits. At that point the article contained 7 paragraphs about the conference, and had just been brought up-to-date regarding the December 2015 Paris COP 21 climate conference. On January 24 and 25, user User:Prokaryotes (who has since quit Wikipedia) made 32 edits to the article. Some of these changes I believe were good, but others could profit from editing due to awkward wording or other reasons. Using that version as a new edit starting point (while considering his points from his edit history) would be a good way forward regarding Mr. Magoo's claim, I think.

Claim: Confusion is caused by years of edits that broadened the topic beyond just the conference. (Mr. Magoo).

I fail to see any confusion in article, and none has been described by Mr. Magoo.

Claim: Wikipedia isn't a dictionary. (Mr. Magoo).

Under WP policy, the article qualifies as encyclopedic, and is not a dictonary-type entry because, although "both dictionaries and encyclopedias contain definitions ... encyclopedia articles should begin with a good definition and description of one topic ..., and the article should provide other types of information about the topic as well." (Orig. emph.). The article fully satisfies this policy.

Claim: The conference article is better. (AnotherNewAccount).

Then the task here is for editors to improve the present article so that it is better than the original conference-only article. The conference was about the larger topic, and it is reasonable and efficient to discuss both the larger topic and the conference in this one article, rather than narrowly discussing only the conference.

Responding to other off-topic arguments:

The title reads like an essay rather than an encyclopedia article. (SatansFeminist).

I fail to see how 4 words can be considered an essay. According to WP policy on article titles: "The title may simply be the name (or a name) of the subject of the article, or it may be a description of the topic. ... Generally, article titles are based on what the subject is called in reliable sources. When this offers multiple possibilities, editors choose among them by considering several principles: the ideal article title ... identifies the subject, and is short, natural, distinguishable and recognizable." I believe the present title is a good choice because it meets those guidelines and other expressions for the topic that are often used (e.g. see example in article's lede) are less natural.

A fairly neutral, concise, clear article on a conference was egregiously hijacked for non-neutral ends into now a meticulously referenced advocacy essay. (AnotherNewAccount).

My response should be considered regarding the current and alternatively the Jan. 24, 2016 version 701511859 of the article. The claim has several points, so taking each in turn:

(1) The existing article is neutral in my view and if others disagree, that should be addressed by editing the article or on its Talk page. WP Neutral point of view (NPOV) includes that this "means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." " As a general rule, do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely on the grounds that it seems biased. Instead, try to rewrite the passage or section to achieve a more neutral tone. Biased information can usually be balanced with material cited to other sources to produce a more neutral perspective, so such problems should be fixed when possible through the normal editing process. Remove material only where you have a good reason to believe it misinforms or misleads readers in ways that cannot be addressed by rewriting the passage."

(2) I believe the article is concise and clear in either the current or | 701511859 version, or both. Note that in the AfD discussion above, user MaynardClark agreed with this. To the extent others disagree, the solution is to edit the article.

(3) The original article and the broadened article both satisfy WP's NPOV policy. The article currently addresses the notable topic that the 2005 conference was all about, and still discusses the conference briefly. A reference links to the conference's webpage (which still exists) where the programme and links to conference presentations, etc. In the alternative, the article could be reverted to January 24 version 701511859, which devotes 7 paragraphs to the conference and is also up-to-date on the December 2015 COP 21 conference. The article is Neutral POV because the article: presents the material "fairly" (using verified references, including secondary references); does so "proportionately" (195 nations have agreed to policy on this topic, and the topic is of widespread scientific concern); and does so "as a far as possible without editorial bias." To the extent there is a disagreement on this perception, the best avenue for that is edits or additions to the article as per usual on WP.

Claim: Editor who expanded the article is the only commenter. (Mr. Magoo).

With roughly 85 people having contributed edits to the article since its inception, and 85 having done so since the article was broadened in 2011 I think among those is a lot of support for the article. Two of them supported the article above in the earlier AfD section. Perhaps the others are not on WP regularly or don't check their WatchLists often. What differences of opinion there have been over the years were resolved on the articles talk page. Here, on this AfD/Merger page, none the few who are objecting to the article have ever edited it or commented on the Talk page. This article is to by about 355 other WP articles, and as of today it has had 16,011 hits over the past 90 days. I believe support for the article and its merit are ample.

Based on the above reasons I request a Keep for the article, and for it to be further developed through edits from either its current state or from a reversion to its state on in version 701511859 on January 24, with any needed discussion to occur in the article's talk page. Coastwise (talk) 11:49, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Coatwise: A procedural point here: per WP:DISCUSSAFD ("You can explain your earlier recommendation in response to others, but do not repeat your recommendation on a new bulleted line"), could you refrain from posting over and over again your "keep"? Additionnally, answering to other editors are better made just below the relevant comment, rather than with such a bloated enormous comment.

On substance, I have been thoroughly unimpressed by your arguments so far:

On the content organization: maybe you "don't see any downside to having this as a standalone article", but others have given their reasons on that very page. You have not proven that there needs to be a "central article" to rule them all and even if you did I fail to see how this one should be preferred to others (e.g. Climate change).
On the subject of the article: multiple editors have pointed out that this article could plausibly be about the 2005 conference at the exclusion of any other topic. I for one disagree with your opinion that "it is reasonable and efficient to discuss both the larger topic and the conference in this one article": it may be more "efficient" in the meaning that there are less total words to write, but it is certainly less "efficient" in respect to content organization. I hope you would agree that merging all articles in Category:Climate change mitigation in neither "efficient" nor "reasonable". It would certainly be incorrect to leave the decision of the scope of the article to standard editorial process; it basically caused this AfD to open, and matters to the very existence of the article.
On NPOV issues: you apparently fail to realize that many, including myself, feel that "avoiding dangerous climate change" is non-neutral wording for "climate change mitigation". "Dangerous" is not a neutral word (it is "value-laden", see WP:LABEL), and moreover it implies that there is "innocuous" climate change (there may be acceptable levels of CC where the damage is limited enough that the best public policy is to do nothing, but it is a threshold and you cannot selectively choose the respective levels of the "OK" and the "not OK" parts). It is irrelevant that the article itself is perfectly written: it cannot stay under that title, and if no adequate substitute title can be found, it has to go.
On editors, readers, etc.: this is really what prompted me to write my own enormous answer. While Mr Magoo's point was borderline ad hominem, your answer is full of irrelevant points. There may have been 85 (or 85,000) editors on the article but that does not mean they support its existence (one could even reverse the argument: if they felt the need to edit, clearly something was wrong). Whether past problems with the articles were peacefully resolved on the talk page is irrelevant to the current problems under discussion here; past AfD discussions are relevant only insofar that the same problems were discussed and a solid consensus reached (it is better to simply re-make the same arguments than claim legal precedent). And finally, never having edited the article does not preclude an editor from commenting on this AfD, nor does it make them somehow less competent or legitimate (see WP:OWN).

Tigraan (talk) 15:57, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:09, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ipsos Business Consulting[edit]

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

Having looked at Google, there doesn't seem to be the depth of coverage needed to pass WP:GNG. Also, this page is currently just an advert masquerading as an article IMO. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:01, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I see that all the "references" are from within the company, so no independent sources are given as evidence of notability. --David Biddulph (talk) 10:59, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Only mentions I can find are:

[18]- passing mention
[19]- mainly about new CEO
[20]- not In English, but think it's mainly about CEO

Also quite a few passing mentions of stats they do. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:05, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:15, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:15, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Appears to be run of the mill article spam. Citobun (talk) 14:20, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - very promotional sounding. In addition, one of the recent editors, Ipsosbc, has a username which suggests the user is associated with the company. LoudLizard (📞 | contribs | ✉) 19:33, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as none of this suggests better satisfying the companies notability, nearly even speedy and I would've tagged as such but the benefits of a closed AfD is G4. SwisterTwister talk 06:39, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:15, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 14:14, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gradology[edit]

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

Non-notable new company. Ought to be A7-speedied, but taking to AfD because speedy deletion tag was removed by a different user from the article creator, albeit probably a sock. --Finngall ^talk 06:50, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Already speedily deleted earlier today. No merit and no reliable independent refs. Just a promo piece probably by the creator of the software so probably strong COI as well. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 07:05, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Continued possible sockpuppetry around this article, please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Darkness91830. --Finngall ^talk 21:38, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:00, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:00, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:00, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:00, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Newly founded company, no signs of any better solid independent which is not surprising. SwisterTwister talk 07:15, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Per WP:NPASR (non-admin closure) —UY Scuti ^Talk 16:57, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Amanullah Nezami[edit]

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

Some notability is existing, but reference I've found are all based on one article "Afghan Bollywood fan spent millions to have largest collection of Hindi movies". Not sure if this is enough for inclusion. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 19:22, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

More than 5 various news sources have been added showcasing enough validity - plus one coming from Google News itself. Also, there was an the Hour-long documentary produced and distributed about his life on the prestigious Sahara TV, the trailer of which has been linked. Unknown Master (talk)Unknown Master —Preceding undated comment added 00:50, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:48, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:48, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:49, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per being a WP:BLP1E, and having coverage for his accomplishment of spending lots of money to collect lots of movies. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 13:26, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Several newspaper articles commenting on this person. Also, there is a documentary made on him. Ample references to establish notability. I do not think WP:BLP1E applies here, since this is not exactly one event, rather a trait/characteristic of the person. --Dwaipayan (talk) 15:14, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:57, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:31, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 08:42, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Karen Deal[edit]

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

Notoriety cannot be established via inheritance (who was married to whom) nor via a series of obituaries (which only count as routine mentions). This individual does not appear to have received the level of attention required to qualify for a standalone article. Death does not equal notability. KDS4444^Talk 13:04, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, Inheritance doesn't even come into it. The mention of Arch Deal and Marty Balin is only additional to what is already there. Karen Deal has played a prominent part in the development of Rock Music in the Tampa area. During her time in the early days, bands such as the Latino rock group Sweet Smoke and no doubt The Mod Squad, artists such as Emerson, Lake & Palmer, Mike Pinera, Greg Allman, and Joe Walsh would come to see them. She is certainly much more than a footnote in the Florida rock scene. She has quite likely been a part of it's development. Yes she was married to Marty Balin, and she has co-produced at least two of his albums as well as playing on recordings by the reformed latter day Jefferson Airplane. There's more but I haven't got time to go through it all now. Karl Twist (talk) 13:06, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I believe she is notable as a part of the rock scene in Florida. She has been part of the development of the rock scene by her participation. Founding member of Sweet Smoke which included White Witch's Beau Fisher and The Mod Squad. Karl Twist (talk) 13:28, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:40, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am not certain that I am convinced that being prominent in a local music scene qualifies a person for a standalone Wikipedia article. She would need to have risen to the level of at least regional if not national attention as evidenced by publications with that level of distribution and reader interest. Links to mentions of her hospice care, her discographies, and her obituaries don't seem to meet the notability requirements of Wikipedia. She does not appear to have won any national awards for her work, which would also have been an indicator of notability. Being "more than a footnote" does not translate into "notable." (If anything, to me, it suggests the opposite.) The references, at least as given here, don't seem to support a notability argument. KDS4444^Talk 20:10, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The Florida rock scene in the early 1970's through to the 1980s was an important part in the historical avenues of rock in the United States. Many classic rock bands came from this area in the 1970s and even the 1980s. Karen Deal was real part of it and she was in bands with members that went on to be come nationally known Yes. she wasn't internationally known or even known across the greater USA. She was however known in her state for her contributions. As I mentioned before, the obituaries are only additional to her history that is evidenced in various articles. When I mentioned "being more than a footnote, I meant her value or contribution to the rock scene in Florida worth noting and she was more than a cog. She also can be looked upon as a directional gear in the machine. She was also a producer. Sure she co produced her husband's albums plus some work for other artists. When you look at the big picture, there's a lot more in the picture to note. Sometimes you have to take a step or two back. Then you can see how and where it fits in. Karl Twist (talk) 15:07, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, I'd also like to add that Karen Deal would be in the minority being a female rock keyboardist from Florida but that in itself could be a barrier breaker as well. Not sure that Pioneer would be the most suitable term for her but her efforts would have been pioneering none the less and quite likely an inspiration to aspiring young female musicians, especially keyboardists. And she was prominent in the rock scene of her state. She was recognized for that in her lifetime. Karl Twist (talk) 10:21, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:43, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:30, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's fairly common for women to receive more coverage from their obits than they do during their lives. This doesn't take away from her contribution to the local scene in Tampa. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 00:39, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:31, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are 26 References cited in the Article. At least some of them should be Reliable and establish Notability. Then again, some of you might have looked at the RefList more thoroughly than I have. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 05:19, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Deserter's Songs. (non-admin closure) sst✈^(conjugate) 08:54, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Opus 40 (song)[edit]

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

No references, no claim of notability, fails WP:NSONG and WP:GNG. Prodded and prod removed. Richhoncho (talk) 12:47, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:49, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete perhaps as this is questionable for the notability and there are no convincing signs of a better independent article. SwisterTwister talk 03:07, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:40, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:29, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to album article if such notability problems are the case. edtiorEهեইдအ😎 02:05, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:18, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. SOFTDELETE per low participation herein. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:10, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sivanka Dhanapala[edit]

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

Being a UNHRC representative is not necessarily grounds for being notable. Requires further referenced sources to establish notability. Dan arndt (talk) 08:52, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 09:31, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 09:31, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as no signs of better satisfying the applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 05:41, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:39, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:29, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Per WP:NPASR. (non-admin closure) —UY Scuti ^Talk 16:56, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Bauer-Walsh[edit]

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

Don't believe that this person meets WP:CREATIVE or GNG. Can't find may articles about him besides Broadway World, most are blogs. The NYT article only mentions that he was in the play Gbawden (talk) 07:34, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 09:38, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 09:38, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 09:38, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Has had prominent roles in notable productions such as the lead in the touring version of Zorro, the lead in Homo, role in Billy Elliot and so on .The sources are enough to sustain a small article.Atlantic306 (talk) 14:17, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete instead as this is somewhat of an article but still questionably solid for the applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 03:10, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:38, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:28, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The references in this article are quite good, there is a biography from the RS Broadway World [21], there's also one from all artists which I corrected, and a call me adam piece which has 3 paragraphs of prose before the interview.Atlantic306 (talk) 00:46, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:17, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) sst✈^(conjugate) 08:52, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Olamide David[edit]

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

Delete: as non-notable actor. I originally intended to nominate several weeks ago, but out of respect for this young man's tragic death I waited. However, there is no way this article meets WP:NACTOR, so we may as well get it over with. Quis separabit? 03:37, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —OluwaCurtis »» (talk to me) 08:33, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —OluwaCurtis »» (talk to me) 08:33, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. —OluwaCurtis »» (talk to me) 08:33, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Has won a notable award, having its own article,had a lead role in a film , his sad passing received national coverage, I think WP:GNG is passed Atlantic306 (talk) 14:25, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as winner of a notable film award who was also nominated for similar award consecutively. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 19:05, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep perhaps simply because of the award and if not for that, I would've suggested simply deleting. SwisterTwister talk 05:50, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I don't mean this in a nasty way (and I sincerely apologize if this comes across bad) ... but it seems he's more notable for his death than for any films he's done ... Other than his death I can't find anything at all on him..., Even the 3 sources listed in the article are simply about his death and nothing else ....., If someone can find anything outside of his death then I'd be more than happy to change but as it stands as I said I cant't find anything... –Davey2010^Talk 23:46, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Davey2010, the subject of the article appears to meet WP:ANYBIO#1 as winner of Best of Nollywood Awards, a notable film award in Nigeria. I will like to mention that WP:GNG is independent of the events that generated news coverage. The significance of an event or individual is indicated by how persistent the coverage is in reliable sources. It doesn't matter if the coverages were generated as a result of the subject's death. What matters is the reliability of the sources. Although, there are exceptional cases where GNG is unlikely to count. for example if the subject is notable for one event and that's not the case here. In fact there are instances where we still "keep" article in spite of being notable for one event. Although this usually occur in rare cases. See for example Patrick Sawyer and the associated deletion discussion here. Cheers. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 17:25, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I get where you're coming from but for me this is a BLP1E case - Prior to his death there wasn't much (if any) sources on him and so I personally believe he does fail BLP1E and GNG, –Davey2010^Talk 18:13, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Davey2010, WP:BLP1E only applies to living person. I don't see how WP:BLP1E applies here. This article is a WP:BDP and not WP:BLP. BLP1E should be applied only to biographies of living people and to biographies of low-profile individuals. Let me know, if you need further clarification. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 22:11, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not asking for clarification ... I'm simply !voting on how I see it, Okay "1E" whatever, Look point is I don't believe they're a notable individual and that's it.... –Davey2010^Talk 22:25, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Davey2010, I understand that you're simply voting but remember that while WP:AfD may look like a voting process, it does not operate like one. Please, accept my apology if you think I bug you in anyway. Warm regards. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 22:40, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I know how AFDs work I've been dealing with 'em for the past 3 years (and counting!

), Anyway we all have our different opinions etc ect, No worries Happy editing. –Davey2010^Talk 23:10, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:35, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Apart from lots of posthumous RS; found some earlier bits and pieces here, here, here, here, and here Atlantic306 (talk) 23:13, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:28, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Irrespective of whether many of the sources highlighted in this AFD were published before his death or posthumously, this teenage male actor was well known in Yoruba language films. In actual fact, media coverage on his works is impressive for a child actor compared to many others in Nollywood. Eruditescholar (talk) 21:17, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Uncontested. Sandstein 19:46, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rappervil[edit]

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

I did put up a BLP prod, but seems like refs were added-this is a rapper with questionable notability Wgolf (talk) 02:58, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

BTW-I only can find Twitter and Youtube links for this guy. Wgolf (talk) 02:59, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:48, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:49, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:49, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete at best as still questionably solidly notable. SwisterTwister talk 07:15, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:27, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) —UY Scuti ^Talk 16:54, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Álvaro Moerzinger[edit]

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

fails WP:BIO. no inherent notability in any of his positions. a mere 3 gnews hits which just confirmed he held an ambassador position. LibStar (talk) 02:19, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Uruguay-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 02:24, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete at best because although he had an ambassador position, the Spanish Wiki also has no signs of better improvements. Draft and userfy at best if needed, SwisterTwister talk 23:02, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:47, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:26, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:38, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:15, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:15, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. One of only two Vice-Presidents of the Assembly of States Parties of the International Criminal Court, who serve for three-year terms. Easily a significant enough post for notability under WP:POLITICIAN. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:10, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 14:18, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

StartupValley[edit]

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

No sources for notability I see nothing substantial since 2012 in Google News. DGG ( talk ) 06:09, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as none of this better satisfies the companies notability guidelines, unlikely notable newly founded local company. SwisterTwister talk 07:04, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:04, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:04, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:04, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:04, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:40, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree that there has been nothing substantial written about this stub since I wrote it back in 2012. Jeremy112233 ^{(Lettuce-jibber-jabber?)} 15:23, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:54, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Chislenko[edit]

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

Nonnotable "transhumanist". Staszek Lem (talk) 04:41, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it stands - there's nothing here, no basis for a bio article, skimpy passing-mention references - David Gerard (talk) 10:47, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to lack of WP:RS. Guy (Help!) 10:42, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:13, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:13, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:13, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:13, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:13, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as my searches found nothing better than some links at News, Books and browsers. SwisterTwister talk 07:02, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it's clear from the many references to his work in Google books (from academic press books and frequently referring to his being a pioneer on a topic), that he's significant. For verifiability there's a short biography in Wiley's Transhumanist Reader [22] with year of birth and death and such. There's a number of available newspaper articles that fill out other biographical details, like that he worked at the MIT Media Lab.--Jahaza (talk) 16:34, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- The article says nothing about google books. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:22, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - His work is referenced in Google Books. He didn't work on Google Books. The point is that the citations needed to substantiate the article exist, they don't need to be in the article already.--Jahaza (talk) 18:32, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - Even worse. Hits in google search prove nothing. What we need is references to reliable sources. Google books hit lots of self-published garbage. "Transhumanists" produce floods of bullshit. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:35, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - I didn't say anything about "hits" I said references, because I looked at the results and found that they're not "self-published garbage".

As I already pointed out, his work is included as "classic" an anthology of texts on transhumanism from John Wiley & Sons [23].

A chapter in a book from Springer Science calls him "Among the earliest writers on the potential of collectives in education..."[24]

A book on the theory of humor from MIT Press says he "may have been the first to describe jokes in terms of super-normal stimuli."[25]

A book from SAGE Publications cites his "cyborgization theory of 'legacy systems'"[26]

He did early work on Semantic Web which is cited in a variety of places[27][28][29]

And we can go on and on about non-self published sources[30][31][][32][33][34][35]

It's not a vast record, but it's a substantive one and he's clearly had an impact in his field.--Jahaza (talk) 20:49, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are milllions of scientists cross-cited by other scientists.I question existence of substantial coverage in independent reliable publications. Fro your list, SAGE is well-known for lack of rigorous peer review. researchgate is selfpublishing portal. "classic" anthology ow Wiley gives a minuscule blurb about an author of the published assay, and so on. Therefore notability per wikipedia standards is not established. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:52, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK first, he doesn't have to get "substantial coverage in independent reliable publications" that's the WP:GNG, but he only needs to meet WP:NACADEMICS. I argue that he meets #1 based on pioneering work on concepts including the semantic web and the study of the internet in general. I present reliable sources attesting to his origination concepts in his field.

Your arguments are frustratingly tendentious and you repeatedly move the goal posts. You don't apply the proper notability guideline, you dismiss information about sources as self-published without actually looking at them, when presented with a variety of peer reviewed sources you complain that the publisher of some of them has a bad reputation (but ignore that it's only a portion of the sources), and you attack an article reproduced on researchgate as "self-published" despite its having been published in the Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology [36].--Jahaza (talk) 18:34, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am not moving goal posts. I am responding to new text you typed in. My goal post is one and single: lack of notablity per wikipedia rules: no significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. I superficially dismissed researchgate, my bad, because you provided this link. Now, looking into the text, I see a short blurb of what he suggested, but his impact is unclear. Now, about your argument per "pioneering work". It is one thing to write "Democritus suggested this-or-that long way before Einstein". It is complete another thing to write that a dont-know-who thought of iphones ways before Apple. Again, either significant coverage or write the decent bio, so that it can be judged on its merits, even if stitched from bits and pieces. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:57, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please read Wikipedia:Notability (academics). Your goal is based on a misunderstanding of "Wikipedia rules". It is not necessary for there to be "significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources" for an article on an academic, because as the guideline says, "if an academic is notable under this guideline, his or her failure to meet either the General Notability Guideline ... is irrelevant." Your second suggestion "or write the decent bio, so that it can be judged on its merits" is also irrelevant, since what we're looking for here is whether the sources exist to show that the article is verifiable and meets a relevant notability guideline, not whether the article is "decent" or well sourced already.--Jahaza (talk) 19:21, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think I replied to your #1 NACADEMIC as well. I was more focused on GNG because in my mind he was not even close to NACADEMIC. BTW you misinterpret #1 NACADEMIC; "pioneering" is not in the criterion. It says: "made significant impact ... as demonstrated by independent reliable sources". Which is basically the same as "significant coverage in independent reliable sources" from GNG (if a source simply says "he was the best" without reasonable argument, then I don't think it is sufficient evidence). - And I disagree that sources demonstrated the "significant impact" part. And that's why "write article" is relevant. "Sources exist" which simply mention is name or work is an irrelevant fact. Sources must "demonstrate the impact". If you can demonstrate the impact in this chat, then why don't you put this demonstration right into the article? Staszek Lem (talk) 20:17, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging DGG (talk · contribs) for help explaining WP:PROF to nominator Staszek Lem (talk · contribs), even though DGG may not agree with my assessment.--Jahaza (talk) 19:24, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Pinging DGG (talk · contribs) please help explaining to Jahaza that merely listing a bunch of weblinks cannot "demonstrate significant impact" if somebody contests your claim. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:17, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Both of you, I will gladly look at anything, but don't guide me to what to want me to say. I prefer to look at the article free from preconceptions and independently of any prior comments. DGG ( talk ) 22:08, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Mine was just stupid "tu qouque" thingy, you may forget it. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:09, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. The only thing that looks like a claim of academic notability is that he acquired a patent in 2000 on a concept (collaborative filtering) already patented by Hey in 1989. One can find reliable independent sources for this statement [37] but I don't think they provide enough in-depth coverage of the subject to confer notability. On the other hand there is in-depth coverage of his transhumanist work in "The Path to Posthumanity" (Academica Press 2006) but I'm not convinced that it's enough for general notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:42, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability by WP:PROF depends upon being recognized as an expert or having made a major contribution -- the other requirements in that section are essentially equivalents to these. In technology, this is normally evidenced by citations to a persons papers, or, in some cases, their patents. Here it depends upon the citations to the two very closely related patents US6041311 and US6092049. The citations are high, but so are other citations in the area. Chislenko is one of three co-inventors listed--the other two have substantial independent citation records--Chislenko does not. I see no evidence that he was the more significant of the three or the lede investigator. DGG ( talk ) 01:24, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 as G3 (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 17:22, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Elle Holland Sanders[edit]

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

Article is either a WP:HOAX or a severe case of WP:TOOSOON. Unable to find evidence this person appeared in the films listed, IMDb has one actor with a similar name with two minor roles (not of the ones listed in the article). CSD declined. ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 03:32, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:23, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:23, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged as G3 as searches obviously found nothing better. SwisterTwister talk 07:04, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 13:57, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Learndost[edit]

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

Nominating this article for discussion based on the fact that it meets criteria for WP:SPAM however, this is a legitimate application with significant presence in SEO and social media, indicating it could likely be improved to a much more encyclopedic article. Thoughts? - [Vague] 03:21, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Significant presence?" Not. Delete Staszek Lem (talk) 04:44, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps I should have been more clear, it looks like a published application on some third-party Android android package systems, and limited presence on social media. Maybe I've become a Bleeding Heart Inclusionist? If you feel strongly enough I'm happy to close the discussion and toss up a CSD. - [Vague] 23:18, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:19, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:19, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Nearly even speedy material, not even minimal signs of better applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 01:57, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) —UY Scuti ^Talk 16:45, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Steph Lecor[edit]

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

Well swelp me, apparently having released a single means you may be notable. Myself, I do not think it is a credible claim of notability and the article's sources do not melt my stony heart either. In a nutshell, NOTABILITY. Lack of. TheLongTone (talk) 15:44, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:10, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Not notable for you or Wikipedia? In any case, please spare us from your personal response. Lecor is signed to a major record label, released a single and has credible sources attached. Savvyjack23 (talk) 18:35, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Credible claim of significance, not notability. Significance term makes A7 even more specific. TheLongTone, can you please clarify why you don't think the sources demonstrate notability? And why it's unlikely that other sources exist that demonstrate notability of this singer? Based on a quick glance, it appears there's at least somewhat significant discussion of this singer in the media that warrants a stub, and I'd expect there's more in print as well (there usually is). Appable (talk) 19:36, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 02:08, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A single has been released but has done nthing. Sources focus on other individuals. A wannabe with notable pals.TheLongTone (talk) 13:20, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 16:55, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:19, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Released music is irrelevant. There are several independent sources with significant coverage; WP:GNG is met, so the more specific notability guidelines don't matter. KSFT ^C 03:00, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I don't think an argument that they publish books can be sufficient to overcome an evident lack of sources Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:22, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Colonial Radio Theatre[edit]

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

Radio production company of questionable notability, completely unsourced but for its own self-published website and blog about itself. Article was created in 2009, and has never had any sources added to it at all; notability was questioned on the talk page in 2012 by a user who noted the lack of sourceability, but this seems not to have been followed up on at the time (I'm not entirely sure anybody else ever actually saw the comment.) As always, a company does not become entitled to a Wikipedia article just because its own website verifies that it exists — a company must be the subject of reliable source coverage to get in here. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 07:08, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:21, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:21, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:22, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as questionable notable for the applicable notability guidelines. SwisterTwister talk 06:11, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:32, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 16:55, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Has received mentions in several books and industry sources AusLondonder (talk) 18:47, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:18, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete "Sources exist" is a good reason to keep it, but there's no evidence that's true. The two sources cited are clearly not independent; the article does not currently show notability, and unless someone does that, it should be deleted. KSFT ^C 03:04, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - WP:NEXIST Lack of sourcing in the article does not mean there are no sources. A search on WorldCat shows several pages of listings of radio audio books Colonial Radio Theatre has produced. The same thing if you do a search on Amazon. Barnes and Noble currently sells 29 of their tiles. The article could use sourcing and expansion, but WorldCat, Amazon and Barnes and Noble listings show this is notable company. Sort the searches by year, and you find that Colonial Radio Theatre is still producing in 2016.— Maile (talk) 14:43, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) sst✈^(conjugate) 08:45, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Storm[edit]

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

References consist of links to IMDb (fails independence), OC Weekly (which lacks broad circulation), and the subject's personal website (which also fails independence). While some of the subject's works may be notable, the subject himself does not appear to have received the attention of multiple reliable independent verifiable news sources to qualify for a stand-alone article. The awards mentioned in the article are either not notable or are awards for the film, not the subject himself. A search for sources turns up LinkedIn, Twitter, Vimeo, and some unrelated sites for snow goggles. This appears to be a mostly promotional article (could have gone under G11). KDS4444^Talk 15:43, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:37, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 20:31, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 20:31, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I disagree that the awards are not notable, as most of these film festivals have their own articles the awards conferred by them should be considered at least significant and the number awarded to the subject is notable IMO and passes WP:GNG. Atlantic306 (talk) 14:33, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now at best as Books immediately found a few passing mentions but this is still questionable. SwisterTwister talk 02:15, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 16:55, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:18, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 13:54, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth Watts-Legg[edit]

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

Non-notable person. (WP:NACTOR, WP:BIO) Appears to be only known for one role, where she was one of a very large number of presenters. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:17, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:51, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:51, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as none of this suggests a better WP:CREATIVE article. SwisterTwister talk 02:30, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:16, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unsourced BLP. Meatsgains (talk) 02:45, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete .... This article doesn't have a leg to stand on. (Oh I'm a genius! , FAILS NACTOR & GNG.) –Davey2010^Talk 00:31, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was deleted by User:Bongwarrior as part of a mass-deletion of pages by blocked user User:Kjm3.556. (Non-admin closure) "Pepper" @ 03:29, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hoon (God)[edit]

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

Unsourced and non-notable. ‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Health and Welfare ‖ 02:10, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was deleted by User:Bongwarrior as part of a mass-deletion of pages by blocked user User:Kjm3.556. (Non-admin closure) "Pepper" @ 03:30, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hoon (deity)[edit]

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

Unsourced and non-notable. ‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Health and Welfare ‖ 02:10, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, user blocked. --Bongwarrior (talk) 02:14, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hoon (Idol)[edit]

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

Unsourced and non-notable. ‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Welfare State ‖ 02:09, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Don't delete it,it's religious discrimination. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kjm3.556 (talk • contribs)

Prove it with reliable sources. --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Health and Welfare ‖ 02:12, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The article's subject is found to lack notability. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 14:32, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Doug Smith (bassist)[edit]

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

Delete -WP:MUSIC notability seems very, very localized. (Which might be a pity, but WP reports notability, it should not create it.) See article talk page. Anmccaff (talk) 02:03, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If anything, the most recent edit reinforces and strengthens the case for deletion. It's a call for borrowed notability. Anmccaff (talk) 05:45, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - Subject is covered in reliable sources however, these sources are "localized". Meatsgains (talk) 02:48, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm going with Delete on this one. I PRODded it a couple weeks ago, and the article's creator removed it, with his reasons on the article's talk page. I wasn't sufficiently motivated to bring it to AFD, but I support the deletion. The subject's fame seems to be local at best; and to the extent it's not, it's only for being associated with other musicians who are notable -- there's a long laundry list in the article. But notability is not inherited, and I'm not convinced that playing with notable musicians makes one notable. TJRC (talk) 00:03, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:21, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do not Delete The article meets the requirements of a notable musician because it meets Wikipedia standards as follows:

“ * Has been featured in multiple non-trivial published works in reliable and reputable media (excludes school newspapers, personal blogs, etc.).”

I don’t see how this article fails to be notable, since it meets the above criteria. Citations from major newspapers and recordings from a TV station that serves nearly a third of Pennsylvania are not trivial. Multiple entries from both are cited. The news articles, written nearly twenty years apart, feature Smith and detail his (fifty plus year) career and contributions to jazz and music as a bandleader, a bassist, and avant-garde improvisational musician. His TV station appearances are part of coverage of the Pocono jazz scene—of which Smith is part.

Doug Smith belongs to what is called the Pocono jazz scene: NYC, northern New Jersey and northeastern Pennsylvania (Stroudsburg, Scranton) where many notable jazz musicians have lived or now live and work including –Bob Dorough,Dave Liebman, Eric Doney (https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Doney), John Coates (http://articles.mcall.com/2000-05-26/features/), Keith Jarrett (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/At_the_Deer_Head_Inn), Phil Woods, Urbie Green, Charlie Parker's stepdaughter, Kim Parker (http://www.jazz.com/encyclopedia/parker-kimto), to name a few). Bob Dorough, Dave Liebman, John Coates, Eric and Vicki Doney, are some other Pocono jazz scene musicians featured on the same TV program as Smith. Links provided document two of Smith’s performances on the same program with his own trio, and again with Bob Dorough.

The Deer Head Inn, a respected jazz venue where the highest caliber jazz and creative collaborations have taken place for over 60 years, regularly hosts notable jazz musicians. Documentation of one of Smith’s appearances with his band at the Deer Head is also provided.

The articles and links given also detail Smith's experience, musicianship and mentoring of a new generation in employing and performing with younger improvisational jazz and modern musicians like Marko Marcinko and Ron Stabinsky, among others--for whom links were provided (some of which were deleted by another editor). Other references are to musicians and artists Smith collaborates with in composing and creating avant-garde, experimental, improvisational, works such as Thollem McDonas.

Because most of his music is live--that is unrecorded --other references are included to the music itself to document it. That, along with news and TV coverage, cover a part (I'm sure there's much more since most of his career is pre-digital) the various roles Smith has played not only as as bandleader, bassist, and modern interpreter of classic jazz, but as a composer and performer on the modern avant-garde music scene. According to Wiki criteria as I read it, Smith is a notable musician himself who often works with other notable musicians. In any case, the references in print and media provided are from respectable, non-trivial, established sources and attributing "localizing" to Pocono jazz scene venues and coverage of its musicians is not germane here. St o'hara (talk) 05:44, 19 February 2016 (UTC)St o'hara[reply]

Delete and Draft and Userfy as searches are not easy because of the common names but, because there are no serious needs for deletion, this can be drafted and userfied. SwisterTwister talk 07:01, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

First, I'm not sure of the convention for responding to another's input here, so, it it belongs instead in my section, feel free to drop it back there. The problem I have with switching this back to the user's space is that it'll pop right back in mainspace, sure as there's coal in Hell, the first time he thinks it's good enough...and you can see that he thinks it's good enough already. Anmccaff (talk) 18:54, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the musician seems to have only very local notability. Hama Dryad (talk · contribs · email) 18:11, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:44, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) —UY Scuti ^Talk 16:44, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pulse foundation[edit]

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

This article is written like an an advertisement but I'm not sure if this qualifies for CSD under G11. Zyc1174 (talk) 10:48, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:07, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:07, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reading the article, this seems to be a local chapter of bg:Асоциация Анимус that forked of. Only source in english found [38]. They are listed as NGO that works with the European Comission [39]. Slight keep, but needs serious work Arved (talk) 21:59, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 16:51, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:55, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - Subject appears to be notable and covered in reliable sources but needs references. The page reads like a puff piece and needs to be trimmed way down. Meatsgains (talk) 02:52, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The article's subject is found to lack notability. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 14:31, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Home Is[edit]

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

This is another completely non-notable solo release from the singer of Bon Iver to the add to the list. See also: Self Record and Hazeltons edtiorEهեইдအီးËეεઈדוארई電子ಇអ៊ី전자ഇī😎😎😎😎😎😎😎😎😎😎😎😎 10:41, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:18, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:18, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 16:50, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I suppose because I would've also suggested redirecting but this may simply be best deleted as there are no likely signs of a better notable article. SwisterTwister talk 21:02, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:55, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:42, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:13, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wirehive[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP. No coverage by reliable and independent secondary sources. Brycehughes (talk) 10:20, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:00, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No signs of any better applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 06:50, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:50, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:50, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 16:50, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:48, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Multiple searches (Highbeam, Guardian, Google) turn up nothing to indicate this firm is notable. The best found was a case study by a firm with whom they have a commercial relationship. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 08:10, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The article's subject is found to lack notability. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 14:31, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rupesh D. Gohil[edit]

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

Autobiography of film and TV producer, not yet notable per WP:CREATIVE. Most of the references cited fail to mention him; a few mention him in passing. I can find no substantial coverage online in English from WP:RS, just more passing mentions of him as producer on Bollywood movie blogs. NeemNarduni2 (talk) 09:48, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. NeemNarduni2 (talk) 09:49, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. NeemNarduni2 (talk) 09:49, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as none of this better convinces for WP:CREATIVE. SwisterTwister talk 19:23, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 16:50, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:47, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Meets WP:NONPROFIT. The issue of the article being promotional can certainly be fixed. (non-admin closure) Ya sh ! 10:46, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WellChild[edit]

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

borderline notable at best and promotional. Lack of notability is not the only reason for deletion. Borderline notability combined with clear promotionalism is an equally good reason. Once we become a vehicle for promotion, we're useless as an encycopedia DGG ( talk ) 06:31, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 16:11, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 16:11, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 16:11, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 16:11, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as this is also questionably notable for the applicable notability, with no better convincing signs. SwisterTwister talk 16:12, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - If this article is deleted then so must the majority of articles listed under 'Children's charities based in the United kingdom' category. There are charities far less notable listed here and whose pages are far more promotional in content. There are thousands more like this for every country and charity type. Deletion would therefore betray a clear inconsistency in standards. WellChild is an established and important non-profit organisation in the UK with Royal Patronage, which I believe gives it genuine notability. JAM2010 (talk) 22:09, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 16:49, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:46, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The charity and it's award ceremony has received national press coverage in a range of newspapers and television outlets, has royal patronage, and is known and operates nationally. Therefore, complies with WP:NONPROFIT. I would disagree that the article is clearly promotional - though admittedly could probably do with a clean up and better sources, at most. Olly^{say hi} 12:14, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:15, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Trisha Torrey[edit]

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

Advertising for her books, a which are published by her own company. DGG ( talk ) 06:07, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete perhaps as this questionably solidly notable and it may only be happenstance coverage. SwisterTwister talk 16:13, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article can be edited to be less promotional but clicking-through to "news" there are a multitude of reliable sources available.TeeVeeed (talk) 04:22, 6 February 2016 (UTC) edit to add :COI editing with this and related/linked topics noticed.Still a keeper imo but with understanding that COI and article probs will be addressed.TeeVeeed (talk) 16:18, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 16:14, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 16:14, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 16:14, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 16:14, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 16:49, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the references referred to above are links to things she wrote, not articles about her. DGG ( talk ) 06:48, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:45, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, have been unable to find any reliably sourced reviews of her books. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:39, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable subject but article is badly done; I'll try to revamp it.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:10, 23 February 2016 (UTC) Update: it was this and now it is this, as per WP:HEYMANN. Needs photo.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:48, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete.~~ Rewriting the article doesn't sure the underlying lack of notability., Her principal book is in only 33 libraries, and there is no other indication of notability . DGG ( talk ) 00:50, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Struck duplicate !vote from nominator; the nomination is considered as your !vote. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:14, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The article's subject is found to lack notability. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 13:45, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Zuber Mohsan[edit]

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

Fails to meet Wikipedia's notability criteria. Very little coverage of this businessman in reliable sources, and the closest he appears to come to WP:NPEOPLE is having once been nominated for an award. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:41, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:07, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as none of this suggests better applicable notability and my searches found nothing better. SwisterTwister talk 05:20, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:42, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:42, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: An article sourced to one story about the subject's brother's businesses (where the subject is mentioned as "Zubhair") and an award nomination where the subject had been co-nominated with his brother. Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED and I am seeing nothing (under either forename spelling) to indicate that this person meets biographical notability criteria. AllyD (talk) 08:28, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:38, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The article's subject is found to lack notability. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 13:46, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Karam Abbas Khan[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG as per WP:MUSICBIO. his only notability seems to be from participating in a single episode of a Tv series. Independently he does not seem to have done anything notable. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 05:02, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:12, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:12, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as still questionably solidly notable. SwisterTwister talk 07:16, 10 February 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, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not yet notable in his own right. Philafrenzy (talk) 12:52, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 07:54, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad Shoaib (singer)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG as per WP:MUSICBIO, relevant quote is

Singers and musicians who are only notable for participating in a reality television series may be redirected to an article about the series, until they have demonstrated that they are independently notable.

FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 04:39, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 19:46, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 19:46, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as questionable for solid independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 04:47, 11 February 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, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not yet separately notable. Philafrenzy (talk) 12:25, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The article's subject is found to lack notability. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 13:47, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rose Mary (singer)[edit]

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

One of a series of articles that fails WP:GNG as per WP:MUSICBIO. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 04:36, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 19:47, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 19:47, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as currently questionable for independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 04:43, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:38, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A minor figure that is not yet notable. Philafrenzy (talk) 23:20, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 5th's place in a 2014 "Idol" contest, can't find that she's been in the press recently.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:45, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:16, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:19, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Healthjump[edit]

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

Not seeing enough to satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH. A few low quality sources, tons of press releases, some minor funding news, etc. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:38, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:39, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:39, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:39, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Notability not clearly established. [40] is the only reliable source and is local so doesn't satisy WP:CORPDEPTH. Other refs are directory listing or not independent/reliable. The only other thing I found was this which is nichy and technical and again doesn't really help with WP:CORPDEPTH. ~Kvng (talk) 22:19, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:17, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:17, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:17, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as this is also a somewhat newly founded company with only press releases and mentions as their sources, no solid signs of notability. SwisterTwister talk 07:15, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, small start-up with modest ($1.8 million) funding and some press (my news search [41] , just not enough . E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:42, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 07:47, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Syed Ali Asad Zaidi[edit]

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

There appears to be a huge amount of unsourced WP:BLP violations. However the main concern is that this fails WP:GNG as per WP:MUSICBIO FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 04:29, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 19:50, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 19:50, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unlikely solid for applicable independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 04:38, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:38, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete just another singer who won a 2004 "Idol" competition and now hopes for a career. We can wish him luck, but he cannot have an article until he gets more than 1 [42] hit on google news. E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:35, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 LGBT rights in Canada. (non-admin closure) sst✈^(conjugate) 00:53, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

LGBT rights by Canadian province[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Unnecessary content forks of LGBT rights in Canada. As nearly all meaningful aspects of LGBT rights in Canada are governed by uniform federal law rather than provincial or territorial laws, there are no significant variations in LGBT rights from one Canadian province or territory to another — meaning that almost the entire content of every one of these articles is pure boilerplate text with no substantive variation present, or even really possible, from one article to another. And the one place where there is an actual province-by-province distinction, the matter of the varying provincial-court precedents which left same-sex marriage in different states of legal recognition between 2003 and 2005, is already covered in much more detail by the articles in Category:Same-sex marriage in Canada by province or territory — so even the one part where there is actually something province-specific to say is just duplicating other articles that already exist. And for added bonus, all of the sourcing here, right across the board in all of the articles, is exclusively to government-published primary sources with the exception of one single news article.
The nationwide overview, and the existing articles about SSM by province, are fully adequate to cover this topic — we do not need a separate "LGBT rights in..." spinout for each individual Canadian province and territory in addition to the articles that already exist. This makes some sense in the US context, where there were some massive differences from state to state before Lawrence and Obergefell equalized everything — but in Canada it's nearly all boilerplate "the same stuff happened the same way everywhere because the feds were in control of it", and existing articles already cover off the few things that ever actually varied by province. So there's just no real need for these as standalone topics in their own right, separately from the nationwide overview. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 00:52, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 03:35, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 03:36, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect - As per Bearcat, considering the minimal change from province to province, and the dominance of federal law, there really isn't much point in having separate articles, with slight variations on the same thing. In fact, this makes the topic difficult to read about, and could be much better served in one article or a table inside LGBT rights in Canada. Consider the example of LGBT rights in the United Kingdom, specifically LGBT rights in the United Kingdom#Summary by legal jurisdiction and territory - the four individual nations have slight variations on national law, and e.g. LGBT rights in England redirects to the main article Olly^{say hi} 10:19, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:20, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect - unnecessary forks, as noted above. PK T(alk) 16:20, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Bearcat is certainly my go-to expert in this area and right now there doesn't look like much differentiation. But provinces -- especially Quebec -- have their own bills of rights and Quebec has legislated in this area, as outlined in fr:LGBT au Québec#Droit. These articles were just created yesterday. So I guess my question is to @Fuerwissenschaft: does he plan to expand them? Quebec, for one, could merit its own article, perhaps. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:59, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Expanding and rewording the articles is my plan, but I can see why these articles would be unnecessary. I won't object to their deletion if you guys really want them gone. Fuerwissenschaft (talk) 02:54, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Fuerwissenscaft: What is your take on the nomination rationale? I.e. do you know of major differences between the provinces that aren't already listed that could themselves justify stand-alone articles? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 12:23, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - There really aren't any major differences between provinces and the reasons for considering the articles for deletion are fair. I guess I agree that it would be best to delete the articles. Fuerwissenschaft (talk) 16:23, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support per article creator's comments. Could even be speedied, I guess. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:27, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect as suggested above. No need to delete the history. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:30, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect - The Canadian experience with LGBT rights is much more national than other places (including our dear neighbours to the south). As such, it makes sense to have a single article for the country, which can still deal with case-by-case examples as necessary (such as the relatively-unique experiences in Alberta or Quebec). Ajraddatz (Talk) 08:55, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:22, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Oppong[edit]

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

Has not made an appearance in a fully professional league. JTtheOG (talk) 00:36, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:24, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:24, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:24, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. The assertion in the article that he has played in the Belgian Pro League is not supported by reliable sources. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:38, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 11:42, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY Spiderone 11:43, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both - Fail NFOOTY as have not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subjects have garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 12:17, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 21:54, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:23, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kiam Marcelo Junio[edit]

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

WP:BLP of an artist, making no substantive claim of notability under WP:CREATIVE for anything more than existing, and citing no reliable source coverage -- the sourcing here is entirely to the subject's own self-published content about themself. As always, an artist does not get an automatic entitlement to have a Wikipedia article just because they exist -- they must be the subject of substantive coverage in independent sources, verifying a reason why an encyclopedia should be taking note of their existence, to earn one. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 00:20, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. See also much the same issue at Aram Sifuentes, created by the same author. There appear to be more such drafts in waiting. 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 01:15, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable yet. Insufficient coverage in RSs. Philafrenzy (talk) 18:40, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:51, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:51, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:13, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:13, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

weak Delete sources I can find are not quite enough to support notability. Like the link on page to the Q&A about a visit by a non-bluelinked kitchen blog "Inside the Artist's Kitchen. His distinctive name shows up on social media. He does get a handful of hits on a google news search. this [43] is real, many of the others are mere mentions . The 2nd hit on the list [44] NPR, but he has the photo credit, not the interview. Overall, I'd say it's still WP:TOOSOON. E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:15, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The article's subject is found to lack notability. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 13:49, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tocharge[edit]

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

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

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

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

This article is an advertisement and was made by the same company as the article's name. A previous speedy deletion tag was removed. MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 00:13, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I would argue that the article isn't particularly promotional in tone, just states facts which are backed up by sources (albeit with some questionable relevance) so it doesn't really violate WP:PROMO. That being said, firstly considering the username of the article creator, there is a WP:COI. Secondly, the company is listed at #388 on Inc 500, with absolutely nothing else notable about it - doesn't comply with WP:NORG. With the Inc 500 in mind, could be a case of WP:TOOSOON? Not sure, but definitely not now Olly^{say hi} 11:51, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:19, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:19, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article is not an advertisement, and while it was made by User: tocharge that username was only chosen due to the fact that my first article was written about this organization.

−

Keep - User:MrLinkinPark333 agrees that this article isn't promotional. I would strongly argue that a client base of 20,000+ users in addition to a ranking of #388 on the Inc 500 list is entirely notable and credible. The CEO was featured by Cox_Communications. Credible sources include Cox_Communications, Visa_Inc., Inc._(magazine), and the Business Journals. Certainly Now - the company has 20,000 clients, processes $5 billion annually in transactions, has been the topic of national publications, etc., etc. These facts certainly pass and exceed the Wikipedia tests for inclusion. Again, examples of lesser publicized companies that have met Wikipedia's test and have long standing in the encyclopedia community: Pollard's Chicken Shareasale — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tocharge (talk • contribs) 14:38, 17 February 2016 (UTC) — Tocharge (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Just because other firms have articles doesn't mean that your firm aught to have one. schetm (talk) 16:42, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- As Schetm states, other articles don't have bearing on assessing notability on this article - I can't say whether these other articles are notable or not, that's not for this discussion - it's solely about this article - but if you feel they are not notable, you are free to submit them to the same process Olly^{say hi} 21:49, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No significant coverage exists. The references listed include a press release put out by the firm, a mention of the CEO sponsoring a non-notable contest, and the Inc. 500 entry which, at 388th place, is hardly a credible claim of significance. schetm (talk) 16:42, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - "Get Started" is sponsored by Cox Communications, which has held 12 events in nine markets and awarded more than $100,000 to local start-ups in these markets (see https://twitter.com/k2atlanta or https://www.cox.com/aboutus/cox-in-the-community/get-started.html). After researching, I was able to see that the CEO was a panelist, not a sponsor - as the above comment suggested. Also, I am somewhat familiar with the Inc 500/5000 and #388 means that this firm was #388 out of 5000 businesses (the top 500 get more recognition). Again, a quick search on inc.com also revealed that they were #2 in their market and #29 in the country for financial service firms. Their 3 year growth rate was also over 1,000%. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Early911s (talk • contribs) 20:56, 17 February 2016 (UTC) — Early911s (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- This still doesn't suggest notability - I'm sure many companies have associations with Cox Communications, but this is not enough to be notable - also I'm not sure what the significance of "12 events in nine markets and awarded more than $100,000 to local start ups in these markets" is. Please remember that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a directory of businesses (WP:NOTDIR). Also, because the CEO appeared as a panelist - this does not make the article notable (please see WP:NOTINHERITED}. As this is also your first edit, assuming good faith, could I ask if you have any association with the company or the contributor? If not, then this is absolutely fine, but I just wanted to check Olly^{say hi} 21:49, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, I still fail to see how Pollard's Chicken meets the criteria for notability and credibility while tocharge does not? Inclusion in Cox Communications supports credibility. I live in the city where the company has its corporate offices and have seen a surge in businesses using its services (in fact, their name and website is on the receipt footers of just about every restaurant in town - which prompted me to explore this company). No connection other than that. I must say though, if its this difficult to contribute to Wikipedia...this will be my first and last contribution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tocharge (talk • contribs) 13:08, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as this is not yet better satisfying the companies notability. SwisterTwister talk 06:42, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:12, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:12, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:12, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The only argument presented against deletion is that it makes Putin stronger, but that's not an argument in Wikipedia policy yet, for better or for worse. Reliable sourcing is lacking, and apparently the subject does not meet the relevant guidelines. If reliable sourcing is lacking because of how Russia deals with gay porn, that's sad and unjust, but it is not something that we can fix. Drmies (talk) 05:20, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dato Foland[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a porn actor, with no significant claim of notability under WP:PORNBIO and no substantive reliable source coverage. The only other thing here is that he placed Top 12 in a gay male beauty pageant in 2009, but that pageant is one where we don't even have articles about any of its winners, let alone conferring notability on anybody just for competing in it and not winning -- and the only source for that claim is a blurb, not substantive coverage. Nothing here is enough to justify an encyclopedia article at this time, and the sourcing isn't even close to getting him over WP:GNG instead. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 00:10, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The LGBT world is rather small, and in Russia its even smaller. Just because an average Joe here may not have heard of Foland does not make him insignificant. When Foland represented Russia in the 2009 contest, he received coverage from mainstream news publications and television (i.e. Interfax, NTV), which continued in the LGBT realm well after the 2009 Mr Gay Europe and 2010 Mr Gay World contests ended (i.e featuring on the cover of Kvir in 2014). Are these equivalents of the New York Times and Miss World? Certainly not, but they are significant in the smaller LGBT and regional context.
Given Russia's draconian state-sponsored repression of everything gay, it is difficult for such information to make its way out and then stay in circulation. If this article is given enough time, additional sources can be found, just as I did a few minutes ago. Foland meets at least WP:GNG. Every time an LGBT article is deleted on procedural IMMEDIATISM and DELETIONISM grounds, Vladimir Putin wins.--Damianmx (talk) 01:30, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Er, I'm an openly gay editor who does everything I can to augment our coverage of LGBT topics, within the bounds of what and who can be properly sourced as meeting our inclusion standards — I actually maintain several lists of potential future article topics under WP:LGBT. Nice try with that "Vladimir Putin wins" hyperbole, but it's not a convincing argument if the proper sourcing isn't there to get the guy over WP:PORNBIO. Bearcat (talk) 02:03, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is more than adequate sourcing to get him over WP:GNG and WP:PORNBIO. Whether a Canadian user finds Russian Interfax, NTV, and Kvir significant and reliable enough is a matter of POV. It must be noted that NTV is a nationally-broadcast television in Russia with an audience of over 100 million people.--Damianmx (talk) 03:06, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Interfax citation is a 75-word blurb, which cannot help get him over GNG as it isn't substantive. The Kvir citation is to an article that he wrote, which cannot help get him over GNG as he's writing about himself. The Moscow Times citation is to the caption on a single photograph, which does not aid GNG. And broadcast content only counts toward GNG if that content is publicly archived somewhere that a Wikipedia reader can verify what it says — anybody can claim that anything was broadcast somewhere by somebody even if it really wasn't, so broadcast content only counts toward GNG if it's possible for us to verify what was broadcast when. But you haven't provided any link that enables us to verify what NTV aired, and even for a date you've just provided "2010" without specifying a day. This is not how you source a person properly — no matter how good the sources may be in theory, the content they published about him is entirely unsubstantive, self-written or unverifiable. Bearcat (talk) 05:27, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I dug up the "archived" version of the TV program in question and included the link, at the end of which you can see the video. But what good will that do, do you speak Russian? Or should we convene a panel of experts and Russian linguists to attest that I'm not a liar?! You know what Doubting Thomas...ahem Bearcat, its amazing that you are so adept at throwing wikipedia jargon and rules left and right, but for some reason you never even attempted to WP:ASSUMEGOODFAITH. You've been fighting this article at conception, even though there are countless other articles about less significant gay personalities that have remained. You didn't even want to wait and see what else was out there, just to delete. This leads me to believe that this AfD is not about rules of notability, its about WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT. --Damianmx (talk) 05:51, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing about this represents any failure on my part to assume good faith, and what I like or don't like has nothing to do with anything either: lots of people I dislike qualify for Wikipedia articles, and lots of people I do like don't. There is, however, a real reason why our content and sourcing rules have to be strict: because we're an encyclopedia that anybody can edit, we're extremely vulnerable to misuse of one kind or another. People of no notability whatsoever try to create Wikipedia articles about themselves all the time because they erroneously think it's a free publicity platform, and bad-faith editors fill articles with attack content that's unduly biased against our article topics all the time — and the existence of a credible claim of notability, and even more importantly adequate reliable sourcing to properly support that claim of notability, are the only defense that we have against either of those things. Especially in a biography of a living person, whose life and reputation can be harmed if we get stuff wrong. The rules exist for real, important and critical reasons, and I'm not throwing them around just to be difficult or tendentious — I'm quoting the rules because Wikipedia's entire value as a project depends on their being followed properly.

And the Kvir article is written by him: the whole thing is a personal reminiscence, written in the first person, about his own experiences on porn shoots. Some sample quotes, from the body of the article: "Why Dato Foland? Dato - that's my real name"; "In the first film we shot the scene in the pool, and I drowned my new iPhone"; "I did not count how many movies filmed with me or how many scenes"; "It goes without saying that I am repelled by the body, and then look at what's in the heart, the head". Published by and written by are two different things: and Foland himself is the author of the piece. Bearcat (talk) 06:14, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like I've included the wrong link for Kvir, since Foland was definitely on the cover and that was not the same article. Not surprising, considering that I've wasted more time on this discussion than actually building an encyclopedia.--Damianmx (talk) 06:20, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:13, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:14, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:14, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Interviews are primary not secondary sources so do not count towards notability. If if it did count its not enough on its own and everything else is not RS or not significant coverage. Damianmx please stick to discussing sources as that is what counts here. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:29, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Only one of the sources, a Kvir article, is an interview. The NTV report contains excerpts of an interview with him but the feature overall falls well under Secondary sources, as it "contains an author's interpretation, analysis, or evaluation of the facts". He's a porn actor for god's sake, what kind of sources do you expect, some Harvard professor's dispassionate analysis of Foland's sex techniques and angles?! I'm afraid you're just looking for an excuse to support another deletionist admin. Meanwhile, thousands of comparable article with non-existent sourcing will remain because they are someone's pet project or because they were not created on the "wrong day" by the "wrong user"...--Damianmx (talk) 08:46, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails PORNBIO and the GNG; Bearcat's analysis is solid. I don't even see any reliable source stating that the pageant contestant and the porn performer are the same person; even the IAFD listing doesn't make any connection. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 13:59, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] ttp://rotary-leicesternovus.org/news-2/from-asylum-seeker-to-media-mogul

[2] ttp://www.theprofessionalawards.com/nominees/romail-gulzar/

[3] ttp://www.itv.com/news/central/topic/sikhism/

[4] Schellenhuber, H.J. et al. (2006). Avoiding dangerous climate change. Cambridge Univ. Press.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[1]